[Coral-List] Diver Distance et al
Steve Mussman
sealab at earthlink.net
Wed Aug 14 15:38:28 EDT 2013
Dennis,
What I'm trying to grasp here is which aspects of the current coral reef
conditions are not the direct result of human impacts? What exactly didn't
we "break"? Is most of what I'm seeing simply contributable to natural
cyclical variations?
It seems to me that what you have hit on reflects the significant fissure
that exists between the perspectives of the organic sciences and geology as
they relate to how we view the threats associated with climate change. If I
am reading you correctly, you are suggesting that the use of our limited
monetary and intellectual capital to "fix" effects which some of us are
attributing to climate change are in fact wasteful because those efforts are
in actuality more accurately characterized as attempts to reshape natural
patterns that we just don't like . . . That exposes a fundamental difference
in how we view things and also clearly illustrates the insurmountable nature
of the divide.
I continue to view the dynamics differently and believe there would be
universal willingness to contribute limitless capital of all kinds if the
potential undesirable impacts did not involve powerful economic interests
with spirited political affiliations. It would not matter if the threat were
"natural" or "human-induced".
Take for instance a scenario whereby our planet is threatened by a
potentially cataclysmic meteorite. There would likely be an immediate,
internationally coordinated effort to disrupt its trajectory. All nations
would work tirelessly to share their collective expertise in a frantic
attempt to avert disaster. The US would be working hand in hand with China,
Russia, India and even Iran. All economic and political considerations would
be swept aside. But since climate change challenges the established economic
and political hierarchy of all involved no such effort is forthcoming.
That, and perhaps the fact that the impending impacts of climate change are
more insidious in that there isn't a date certain for their ultimate
consequences to take full effect.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dennis Hubbard
>Sent: Aug 14, 2013 8:23 AM
>To: Steve Mussman
>Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" , Dennis Hubbard
>Subject: Re: diver distance et al
>
>Steve
>
>Good points. My mention of major extinctions was just a segue to my
discussion of how we separate human vs natural impacts. In his bio, Gene
laments that our zeal for science is being usurped by our passion to manage.
My concern here is that we have limited capital (both fiscal and
intellectual) and we do not need to waste it "fixing" what we didn't
"break". We have negatively impacted way too much to need to spend time
trying to reshape natural patterns we just "don't like". The challenge is to
figure out how to separate the two and what to do until we get better at
that. I remember my first ISRS meeting vividly. I was like a kid in a candy
store. I could easily bounce from a geo session to a seagrass session to one
on ocean chemistry. What was missing were meaningful management sessions;
NPS had just shifted from exclusion to management and too many scientists
spurned management. The last meeting was dominated by a HUGE number of mgmt
talks - so much so that bio, geo, other science sessions were literally
blocks from each other. The result was too little interaction..... still a
great meeting but.... Neither extreme is a good thing and we need to move
the pendulum back to the middle.
>
>Dennis
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Steve Mussman wrote:
>
>> Dennis,
>> Your analysis is spot on and I donât think that anyone would argue with
your logic. The only point I would question is the assumption that some are
too focused on human-induced effects and that somehow makes them appear less
concerned about previous natural impacts that have occurred over geological
time. Major extinctions of long ago arenât necessarily regarded as âOKâ, it
is just that their causes were not associated with human activity and
therefore natural and unavoidable. We all question our omnipotence when
considering the precise causes and appropriate mitigation strategies for the
current coral reef crisis, but it appears certain that this time around we
are directly involved. I think everyone is in agreement that even if
present-day reef decline proves not to be a result of our âfavorite factorâ
- cleaner air, water and healthier reefs are acceptable collateral results.
Only problem is that it doesnât look like we are getting any closer to
implementing any meaningful mitigation strategies. We are too hung up
arguing about the economic and esoteric costs associated with regulating
carbon emissions and other harmful human-related behaviors. Perhaps it would
be better if we were being threatened by a cataclysmic meteorite strike
capable of initiating the planetâs sixth mass extinction. At least then we
could say in retrospect that it wasn't OK, but we really couldn't have done
much about it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list