How do issues of ocean ecology and biological diversity become matters of justice?
click image to enlarge & see below for source
There are many reasons to care about the state of the world's oceans. An important contribution of much of the recent work in environmental ethics focuses on the intrinsic value of nature, by which is mean the value that nature is valuable for its own sake, and not merely valuable for the contribution its health, diversity, and beauty has for human well-being. The plea is to move beyond the exclusively anthropocentric conception of value - that which is valuable because it is good for humans - to embrace the existence of reasons to care about nature for its own sake.
G.E. Moore, a British moral philosopher writing at the turn of the 20th century provides one prominent theoretical framework that captures the point. From his "method of isolation" we have inherited a way of thinking about value that is exemplified in what has come to be known as Divided World cases. Moore asks us to imagine two worlds, World A in which something we take to be good exists - a pristine ocean teaming with aquatic life, for example - and World B in which oceans are polluted and inhospitable to the survival and flourishing of the various species of non-human life found there. Would we have a (moral) reason - perhaps a sufficient reason of any kind - to take steps to see to it that World A exists, even if there is no one for whom World A provides a benefit, or contribution to human well-being?
Critics of Moore's way of thinking argue that valuing is a distinctively human activity. While it may be possible to take the God's eye view and prefer World A to World B, we are not proper occupants of such a perspective. The right moral stance on value is inherently anthropocentric - what matters morally and thus what gives us distinctively moral reasons to care about the choice between World A and World B is its effect on human well-being. This is a view that Derek Parfit describes as the Person-Affecting Requirement. The person-affecting requirement, as it turns out, has lots of other curious implications that undermine its initial plausibility, but the point here is that is has for many an air of deep intuitive plausibility.
However we assess the issue of non-anthropocentric valuing, we do have many reasons to care about the state of the world's oceans insofar as we chave reasons to care about human well-being and the distribution or resources vital to its realization. And arguably we have special reason to worry about anthropocentric effects when we consider how much impact on human health and a sustainable human habitat is anthropogenic (human caused). Here are a few issues:
The Ocean Health Index
A recent effort to estimate the overall state of the world's oceans from the perspective of 10 policy goals is the Ocean Health Index. For each goal a number from 0 to 100 is assigned, with 100 being the highest sustainability score. The figure above assigns an overall score of 60, but there are variations in each category of goals, and the online site offers ocean-specific and country-specific estimates as well.
G.E. Moore, a British moral philosopher writing at the turn of the 20th century provides one prominent theoretical framework that captures the point. From his "method of isolation" we have inherited a way of thinking about value that is exemplified in what has come to be known as Divided World cases. Moore asks us to imagine two worlds, World A in which something we take to be good exists - a pristine ocean teaming with aquatic life, for example - and World B in which oceans are polluted and inhospitable to the survival and flourishing of the various species of non-human life found there. Would we have a (moral) reason - perhaps a sufficient reason of any kind - to take steps to see to it that World A exists, even if there is no one for whom World A provides a benefit, or contribution to human well-being?
Critics of Moore's way of thinking argue that valuing is a distinctively human activity. While it may be possible to take the God's eye view and prefer World A to World B, we are not proper occupants of such a perspective. The right moral stance on value is inherently anthropocentric - what matters morally and thus what gives us distinctively moral reasons to care about the choice between World A and World B is its effect on human well-being. This is a view that Derek Parfit describes as the Person-Affecting Requirement. The person-affecting requirement, as it turns out, has lots of other curious implications that undermine its initial plausibility, but the point here is that is has for many an air of deep intuitive plausibility.
However we assess the issue of non-anthropocentric valuing, we do have many reasons to care about the state of the world's oceans insofar as we chave reasons to care about human well-being and the distribution or resources vital to its realization. And arguably we have special reason to worry about anthropocentric effects when we consider how much impact on human health and a sustainable human habitat is anthropogenic (human caused). Here are a few issues:
- Overfishing by some may deprive others of the ability to secure the minimum levels of food on which their diets depend
- Overfishing may deprive everyone of what they need for an adequate diet, and so while it may be individually rational in the short term to catch as much as can be used, it may be in the long-term worse for everyone if each individual pursues an unrestrained self-interested fishing strategy
- The focus on the long term reflects the further point that what people do now to meet their needs or satisfy their tastes may deprive future generations of what they need to meet their needs
- Overfishing may result in further environmental degradation beyond loss of fish stocks used as food for humans; some of the more efficient methods - efficient in the sense of maximizing a catch - may ruin the ocean floor ecology and result in other fundamental changes in the environment that are harmful to humans in other ways
- Overfishing of some species might so fundamentally alter the species composition of the oceans that other side-effects such as changes in ocean chemistry and the ability of oceans to absorb greenhouse gases is lessened
- Depletion of ocean fish stocks may result in turning to other forms of fish production that are harmful in other ways, for example, environmentally harmful because of the "inputs of production" that are required by factory farming of fish, less healthy for human consumption, economically unsustainable because of the strain on other scarce resources, or pose a significant threat to the necessary level of biodiversity for establishing secure sources of protein
- Various alternatives for enclosed fish hatcheries located within ocean habitats may move from the small, mostly experimental stage to something commercially more robust, but with may come new environmental and human health issues
- Many of the threats to fish are more general threats to health arising from land-based activities and the use of the oceans as dumps for chemical and other wastes that are assumed to be too toxic, unstable, or long-lasting to store on land.
The Ocean Health Index
A recent effort to estimate the overall state of the world's oceans from the perspective of 10 policy goals is the Ocean Health Index. For each goal a number from 0 to 100 is assigned, with 100 being the highest sustainability score. The figure above assigns an overall score of 60, but there are variations in each category of goals, and the online site offers ocean-specific and country-specific estimates as well.
State of the Oceans Report
click image for link
The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) issued a report on the major threats to the world's oceans in 2011, and in 2012, the experts reconvened for a follow-up conference devoted to questions of how best to implement the report's recommendations and respond to the most immediate threats. You can read long and short pdf versions of the report, "State of the Oceans," on the IPSO website and further results of the 2012 conference are forthcoming.
The threats topping the IPSO's list are:
The report notes that a failure to attend to the health of the oceans has dire consequences. Their conclusion is that "there is little time left in which we can still act to prevent irreversible, catastrophic changes to marine ecosystems as we see them today. Failure to do so will cause such large-scale changes to the ocean, and to the overall planetary system it supports, that we may soon find ourselves without the natural capital and ecosystem services necessary to maintain sustainable economies and societies as we know them, even in affluent countries."
What exactly is at stake? Well, for one thing, there is a lot more at risk than the very real threat to the human food supply due to dwindling fish stocks. For example, the report notes the following kinds of issues: "The ocean creates more than half our oxygen; provides vital sources of protein, energy and minerals; drives weather systems and natural flows of energy and nutrients around the world; moderates the climate; modulates the chemical composition of the atmosphere; and transports water masses many times greater than all the rivers on land combined."
The threats topping the IPSO's list are:
- climate change
- habitat destruction
- fishing and other extraction
- water pollution (chemical and radionuclide)
- introduced species.
The report notes that a failure to attend to the health of the oceans has dire consequences. Their conclusion is that "there is little time left in which we can still act to prevent irreversible, catastrophic changes to marine ecosystems as we see them today. Failure to do so will cause such large-scale changes to the ocean, and to the overall planetary system it supports, that we may soon find ourselves without the natural capital and ecosystem services necessary to maintain sustainable economies and societies as we know them, even in affluent countries."
What exactly is at stake? Well, for one thing, there is a lot more at risk than the very real threat to the human food supply due to dwindling fish stocks. For example, the report notes the following kinds of issues: "The ocean creates more than half our oxygen; provides vital sources of protein, energy and minerals; drives weather systems and natural flows of energy and nutrients around the world; moderates the climate; modulates the chemical composition of the atmosphere; and transports water masses many times greater than all the rivers on land combined."
Ocean Acidification
click image for link
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide produced through fossil fuel burning is absorbed in the oceans. Absorption triggers a chemical reaction that produces hydrogen, thereby lowering the water’s pH. Best available estimates suggest that oceans overall are 30 percent more acidic than pre-industrial levels. Some regions are much worse. Alaskan coastal waters and the Pacific Northwest are more acidic because the colder water holds more carbon dioxide. Other contributing factors intensify the rate of acidification. For example, the pH in the lower part of the Chesapeake Bay is declining at three times the overall rate of the Pacific Ocean, and this is in part due to the massive amount of nutrient runoff from farming and industrial chicken production.
The effects on coral have received the most public attention, and effects on particular human food species such as halibut, oysters, crab, and salmon are under study. But what is perhaps most striking is the effect on the ocean's smallest and most vulnerable creatures, such as the pteropods, which are an essential part of the overall food chain.
Here are a few of the excellent resources for learning more about the science and the environmental threats.
The effects on coral have received the most public attention, and effects on particular human food species such as halibut, oysters, crab, and salmon are under study. But what is perhaps most striking is the effect on the ocean's smallest and most vulnerable creatures, such as the pteropods, which are an essential part of the overall food chain.
Here are a few of the excellent resources for learning more about the science and the environmental threats.
- The European Project on Ocean Acidification
- The National Academy of Science report on Ocean Acidification
- The UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme
A Basic Introduction to the Acidification ProblemThe film on the right is produced by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The problem of ocean acidification is often called the "other CO2 problem" or the "evil twin of climate change."
The NRDC site contains an extensive list of categorized citations to journal literature that substantiates key elements of the science behind the film's central claims. |
|
The End of the Line?
click image for the film's website
This 2009 National Geographic documentary is based on the book by Charles Clover. Much of the film's major claims is derived from the research conducted by Boris Worm and a handful of researchers who have attempted to determine whether there are declining fish stocks in the planet's oceans and if so, the extent of decline sone 1950. The choice of 1950 as the baseline for comparison was chosen because this was when big fleet fishing using long line techniques began. These large boats trawl the ocean floor with nets that pull along the seabed and not only result in massive fish catches but also destroys the delicate ecosystem.
The focus of research was on some of the largest predator fish such as the Blue Fin tuna thought to be the most endangered and most rapidly declining of major species. Worm estimates a 90% decline and further predicts a total species collapse for 1/3 of major predator species by 2048. Critics mostly take issue with whether the right percentage is 70%, 80%, or 90% and whether the collapse date is 2048 or some different endpoint.
Some things are for certain: large predator fish such as the cod in the Newfoundland region have declined radically in a very short span of time, the stocks have been slow to recover, and such declines are accompanied by a knock-on effect, for example, in which the loss of natural enemies has resulted in the increase of lobsters, shrimp, jellyfish, algae, and plankton.
The focus of research was on some of the largest predator fish such as the Blue Fin tuna thought to be the most endangered and most rapidly declining of major species. Worm estimates a 90% decline and further predicts a total species collapse for 1/3 of major predator species by 2048. Critics mostly take issue with whether the right percentage is 70%, 80%, or 90% and whether the collapse date is 2048 or some different endpoint.
Some things are for certain: large predator fish such as the cod in the Newfoundland region have declined radically in a very short span of time, the stocks have been slow to recover, and such declines are accompanied by a knock-on effect, for example, in which the loss of natural enemies has resulted in the increase of lobsters, shrimp, jellyfish, algae, and plankton.
Exaggerated Claims?
Image: FAO Washington
The 2006 article in Science, Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services, authored by Boris Worm et al, is one of the main papers that inspired the film, End of the Line - and its critics. One of the main critics appearing in the film, Ray Hilborn, penned this New York Times op-ed, Let Us Eat Fish, argues that a 2009 article in Science shows that the dire warnings of ocean fish extinction by 2048 were exaggerated.
Hilborn argues that there has been a remarkable recovery of some species, such as the bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish, and he attributes that recovery to successes of fishery conservation and management practices and the ban of foreign fishing within 200 miles of the United States shoreline. The gist of his argument is that we face a trade-off between letting some species decline, as long as some others rise to take their places, and a desire for what he calls a pristine ocean ecology.
In the late 1990s, nearly 8,500 square miles of New England's seafloor were declared off-limits to bottom trawling as a consequence of the massive loss of cod, haddock, and redfish. A provisional recommendation for new regulations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Program would reduce this area of protected ocean by a total of nearly 5,164 square miles. Critics, such as the Pew Environment Group, argue that the change is likely to result in a devastating loss of dwindling species and permanent destruction of sensitive breeding habitats.
Hilborn argues that there has been a remarkable recovery of some species, such as the bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish, and he attributes that recovery to successes of fishery conservation and management practices and the ban of foreign fishing within 200 miles of the United States shoreline. The gist of his argument is that we face a trade-off between letting some species decline, as long as some others rise to take their places, and a desire for what he calls a pristine ocean ecology.
In the late 1990s, nearly 8,500 square miles of New England's seafloor were declared off-limits to bottom trawling as a consequence of the massive loss of cod, haddock, and redfish. A provisional recommendation for new regulations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Program would reduce this area of protected ocean by a total of nearly 5,164 square miles. Critics, such as the Pew Environment Group, argue that the change is likely to result in a devastating loss of dwindling species and permanent destruction of sensitive breeding habitats.
The Seafood Print Study: Sustainable Fish Consumption Projections
click image for larger view
One of the main figures appearing in The End of The Line is Daniel Pauly, who along with colleague Enric Sala, conducted a well-known study known as the Seafood Print study. It serves as a warning that the world’s current fish consumption is unsustainable. It is not just the number of fish or number of pounds of fish extracted from the world's oceans that matter in terms of sustainable fish, it matters which fish are depleted. They classified the ocean fish into four levels: top predators, intermediate predators, first-order consumers, and primary producers. Top predators include tuna and salmon. Consumption of large quantities of these top predators has a far greater negative impact than consumption of the same amount of small fish such as anchovies. When the commercial fishing industry faces severe declines in top predator fish, they move further down the food chain and further down toward the ocean floor with bottom trawling nets that do great damage to the overall ocean ecology and remove marine life that only gets destroyed rather han eaten. Their chart at the right shows who consumes what from the sea.
You can read more about the Seafood Print Study from this National Geographic report.
You can read more about the Seafood Print Study from this National Geographic report.
Government Subsidies of Large-Scale, Wasteful Ocean Fishing Enterprises
click image for a larger view
In addition to the criticisms of deep bottom trawler fishing, the impact on top predators and the long-term unsustainability of those practices, a study by Pauly and Jacquet of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre shows (see their graphic at right) that a large aspect of what makes this practice economically viable is the government subsidization these companies enjoy. You can read more details about their study in this 2008 National Geographic news report. About 80% of all the subsidies go to the large corporate-sponsored boats.
The National Geographic story quotes the authors on their evaluation of the impact of consumer certification programs:
"“The U.S. conservation community alone invested $37 million between 1999 to 2004 to promote certification and “wallet cards” to encourage consumers to purchase seafood caught using sustainable practices... For the amount of resources invested, we haven’t seen significant decrease in demand for species for which the global stocks are on the edge of collapse... Market-based initiatives, while well-intentioned, unduly discriminate against small scale fishers for their lack of resources to provide data for certification.”
The National Geographic story quotes the authors on their evaluation of the impact of consumer certification programs:
"“The U.S. conservation community alone invested $37 million between 1999 to 2004 to promote certification and “wallet cards” to encourage consumers to purchase seafood caught using sustainable practices... For the amount of resources invested, we haven’t seen significant decrease in demand for species for which the global stocks are on the edge of collapse... Market-based initiatives, while well-intentioned, unduly discriminate against small scale fishers for their lack of resources to provide data for certification.”
Ocean Pollution
click image for link
More than 80% of marine pollution comes from land-based sources such as urban and agricultural runoff. The other 20% is attributed to ocean-based sources, such as, overboard discharges from ships and fishing vessels.
The largest component of land-based pollution is plastic that comes from food and other consumer packaging.
Source: U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006.
Plastic debris injures and kills fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Persistent organic pollutants in the marine environment attach to the surface of plastic debris. The pollutants are absorbed into the bodies of all forms of marine life and ultimately enter the human food chain.
Agricultural runoff is another significant and growing source of marine pollution in some areas. As the UNESCO's summary of global marine pollution observes, "excessive nutrients from sewage outfalls and agricultural runoff have contributed to the increasing incidence of low oxygen (hypoxic) areas known as dead zones, where most marine life cannot survive, resulting in the collapse of some ecosystems. There are now close to 500 dead zones with a total global surface area of over 245,000 km², roughly equivalent to that of the United Kingdom."
Some of the major forms of land-based pollution begin the journey to the sea as air borne pollutants. For example, mercury released into the air is deposited into oceans contaminates fish and other seafood. The Coastal and Marine Mercury Ecosystem Research Collaborative (C-MERC) team of scientists has examined the mercury sources and levels in various locations. The report surveys results of 11 academic studies produced in a two-year period ending in 2012, and it covers 6 oceans. Mercury is an important issue for study because it is a potent neurotoxin, and the main pathway to human absorption of mercury is principally through consumption of large ocean fish such as tuna.
The largest component of land-based pollution is plastic that comes from food and other consumer packaging.
Source: U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006.
Plastic debris injures and kills fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Persistent organic pollutants in the marine environment attach to the surface of plastic debris. The pollutants are absorbed into the bodies of all forms of marine life and ultimately enter the human food chain.
Agricultural runoff is another significant and growing source of marine pollution in some areas. As the UNESCO's summary of global marine pollution observes, "excessive nutrients from sewage outfalls and agricultural runoff have contributed to the increasing incidence of low oxygen (hypoxic) areas known as dead zones, where most marine life cannot survive, resulting in the collapse of some ecosystems. There are now close to 500 dead zones with a total global surface area of over 245,000 km², roughly equivalent to that of the United Kingdom."
Some of the major forms of land-based pollution begin the journey to the sea as air borne pollutants. For example, mercury released into the air is deposited into oceans contaminates fish and other seafood. The Coastal and Marine Mercury Ecosystem Research Collaborative (C-MERC) team of scientists has examined the mercury sources and levels in various locations. The report surveys results of 11 academic studies produced in a two-year period ending in 2012, and it covers 6 oceans. Mercury is an important issue for study because it is a potent neurotoxin, and the main pathway to human absorption of mercury is principally through consumption of large ocean fish such as tuna.
Aquaculture: The Beginning of a "Blue Revolution"?
click image for link
Aquaculture is among the most significant but least well-understood economic and environmental developments of the late 20th century. In Europe, aquaculture accounts for almost 20% of fish production.
The Clinton Foundation is promoting it as a tool for economic development and food security in Haiti. Fish farming is the fastest growing area of animal food production, increasing at a 6.6 percent annual rate from 1970 to 2008, according to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. And the same report estimates that aquaculture now makes up 46 percent of the volume of the world’s food-fish supply. The more recent State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 report estimates that by end of 2013 the percentage of the world's fish-food supply obtained from aquaculture will exceed 50%
If the familiar estimates of how much of the world's fish stocks are overexploited are accurate, then aquaculture is likely to become an even more significant source of protein in the human diet. Various organizations sympathetic to the expansion of aquaculture acknowledge a number of risks and groups such as World Fish Center and Conservation International are examining ways to manage the potential environmental challenges it poses.
The global distribution of aquaculture is striking. According to the World Fish Center, Asia accounts for 91% of aquacultural production, and about two-thirds of that is found in China, especially in ponds, rivers, and coastal estuaries. China is now the single largest exporter of seafood to the United States, and in particular, they represent a growing share of shrimp and catfish, which have historically been two of the 10 most consumed seafood products in the U.S.
Proponents of aquaculture often point to the comparative energy efficiency of fish production in contrast to livestock animals and poultry. Feed conversion ratios - the amount of feed needed to produce a comparable weight gain in the feed source - are often more favorable, with some fish requiring only 1 pound of feed to add 1 pound of weight. That is a 1:1 conversion ratio. By comparison, poultry and livestock often requires a much greater amount of feed to produce an extra pounds of weight gain. Feedlot cattle, for example, can have a 6:1 ratio, meaning that it takes 6 pounds of feed just to produce 1 pound of beef.
A summary of problems can be found on the website for World Watch. Problems include: the heavy dependence on overly taxed marine fisheries for inputs of production, making the case for reduced ocean depletion less plausible as a reason to shift to aquaculture; environmental concerns in the use of fishmeal and fish oil in aquaculture, including the concentration of the toxins found in the fish from rendering processes; energy inefficiency due to greater energy demands for production; water pollution, including nitrogen and excess nutrients that can create toxic blooms and dead zones in lakes, rivers and oceans; and the risks of the intense use of antibiotics, most of which end up in the water.
Offshore fish farming, also known as open ocean aquaculture, is growing as well as the traditional inland lake and river bed facilities. Open ocean aquaculture involves giant cages located about 30 feet under water anywhere from three to 200 miles off the coast. Critics cite a number of concerns ranging from escapement, unintentional species hybridization of genetically modified species, ocean pollution, human health problems, and habitat destruction. In addition, a report by Food and Water Watch documents the role of the US government as a major promoter but poor regulator of commercial ventures. You can find a great survey of US policy in a 2011 Grist article, Ocean of Trouble. A summary of US policy goals can be found here in the document archives of Grist.
The Clinton Foundation is promoting it as a tool for economic development and food security in Haiti. Fish farming is the fastest growing area of animal food production, increasing at a 6.6 percent annual rate from 1970 to 2008, according to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. And the same report estimates that aquaculture now makes up 46 percent of the volume of the world’s food-fish supply. The more recent State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 report estimates that by end of 2013 the percentage of the world's fish-food supply obtained from aquaculture will exceed 50%
If the familiar estimates of how much of the world's fish stocks are overexploited are accurate, then aquaculture is likely to become an even more significant source of protein in the human diet. Various organizations sympathetic to the expansion of aquaculture acknowledge a number of risks and groups such as World Fish Center and Conservation International are examining ways to manage the potential environmental challenges it poses.
The global distribution of aquaculture is striking. According to the World Fish Center, Asia accounts for 91% of aquacultural production, and about two-thirds of that is found in China, especially in ponds, rivers, and coastal estuaries. China is now the single largest exporter of seafood to the United States, and in particular, they represent a growing share of shrimp and catfish, which have historically been two of the 10 most consumed seafood products in the U.S.
Proponents of aquaculture often point to the comparative energy efficiency of fish production in contrast to livestock animals and poultry. Feed conversion ratios - the amount of feed needed to produce a comparable weight gain in the feed source - are often more favorable, with some fish requiring only 1 pound of feed to add 1 pound of weight. That is a 1:1 conversion ratio. By comparison, poultry and livestock often requires a much greater amount of feed to produce an extra pounds of weight gain. Feedlot cattle, for example, can have a 6:1 ratio, meaning that it takes 6 pounds of feed just to produce 1 pound of beef.
A summary of problems can be found on the website for World Watch. Problems include: the heavy dependence on overly taxed marine fisheries for inputs of production, making the case for reduced ocean depletion less plausible as a reason to shift to aquaculture; environmental concerns in the use of fishmeal and fish oil in aquaculture, including the concentration of the toxins found in the fish from rendering processes; energy inefficiency due to greater energy demands for production; water pollution, including nitrogen and excess nutrients that can create toxic blooms and dead zones in lakes, rivers and oceans; and the risks of the intense use of antibiotics, most of which end up in the water.
Offshore fish farming, also known as open ocean aquaculture, is growing as well as the traditional inland lake and river bed facilities. Open ocean aquaculture involves giant cages located about 30 feet under water anywhere from three to 200 miles off the coast. Critics cite a number of concerns ranging from escapement, unintentional species hybridization of genetically modified species, ocean pollution, human health problems, and habitat destruction. In addition, a report by Food and Water Watch documents the role of the US government as a major promoter but poor regulator of commercial ventures. You can find a great survey of US policy in a 2011 Grist article, Ocean of Trouble. A summary of US policy goals can be found here in the document archives of Grist.