15,023 days remain to save our oceans

New report cites impacts of biodiversity loss 7

For those of you that would rather get a root canal the read "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services," consider this your Cliff's Notes.

This new report in Science shows that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's ability to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. If these trends continue, pretty much all the fish will be gone by 2048. In fact, according to the report, a whopping 30% of the world's commercial fisheries are already collapsed.

I'm not the only one who thinks this is a big deal. So does the BBC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post.

But this story could still have a happy ending. The authors make it clear we have time (but not a lot!) to change course and avoid an irreversible collapse. Their prescription is straightforward -- we need to fish less and more carefully. We need to protect the habitat species on the ocean floor from destructive fishing methods like bottom trawls. We also need to make sure that fishermen fish more cleanly, so they don't kill and discard species they don't want to catch. And we really need to stop paying fishermen to chase down the last fish.

Someone should really advocate for this stuff.

Andrew Sharpless is the CEO of Oceana, the world’s largest international nonprofit dedicated to ocean conservation. Visit www.oceana.org.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 5:01 am
    03 Nov 2006

    Ate Salmon last nightbecause my wife cooked it, because my daugter loves it, and I did not want to take that away from either of them with a sermon.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  2. SMLowry's avatar

    SMLowry Posted 6:38 am
    03 Nov 2006

    It's more than fishersIt's pretty sobering to learn that in a few short years there will be no fish at the market. Current fishing practices, especially those of large-scale fishers must take responsibility for this, but the fact that we're polluting the oceans like never before has to have a rather large impact on fish populations as well. It always irks me when something like red tide, for example, that has been a serious issue on the coast of Maine, is noted on the news, along with the devastation to local fishers/clammers/ lobsterers, etc. and then the reporter says something like, "we have no idea why this is happening". Come on. You can't tell me that all the crap we put into the world's oceans doesn't have something to do with it, or the changing temperature of the water, or increased acidification due to increased uptake of CO2 or something in addition to overfishing - something that we're doing.

    That said, it's very disheartening and I had the same reaction as biodiv - I shouldn't ever eat fish again. And I had bought salmon for dinner, too, line caught from Alaska, before I heard the news. Sigh . . .

    Permalink

  3. caniscandida Posted 8:23 am
    03 Nov 2006

    lobsters, etc.To SMLowry: Well done to point out "increased acidification due to increased uptake of CO2," which it is not clear Boris Worm and his group considered.  That phenomenon is apparently increasing, the more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere.  That spells danger for mollusks and crustaceans with calcareous shells or exoskeletons.  The smaller members of those groups are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain; it will be a catastrophe if they are reduced to the point of extinction.
    And as you say, there are serious pollution problems too, which are just getting worse.
    Still, the powerful appeal to reform fishing practices is not itself wrongheaded, so long as it is understood that that is not the whole solution by any means.
    When I was in Maine last summer, I got the impression that the lobsterers were quite proud of themselves, regarding how reasonably and sustainably they were managing that fishery.  I have no reason to doubt them, but could not help suspecting that something else in the ecosystem was paying a price.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  4. SMLowry's avatar

    SMLowry Posted 9:48 am
    03 Nov 2006

    I think, as with anythingthat there are fishers and then there are fishers. What I'd like to see is a breakdown of small fishers compared to large and mega. Fishing as a way of life is a whole cultural thing in Maine and other states with coastlines, that goes way back and I hate to see that ruined when it's the big guys who are doing the harm. But I don't know if there's even enough to sustain the small guys. And of course some waters are being better managed than others. The whole thing just sucks.

    Permalink

  5. bookerly Posted 6:58 pm
    06 Nov 2006

    So, when people talk about whaling..
       They should read this information.  Especially those who think the practice is sustainable.
    patrick

    Permalink

  6. atreyger Posted 2:13 am
    07 Nov 2006

    bookerlyYour conclusion is erroneous, as the fisheries are not 'whaleries'. Clearly the populations of whales are rebounding, while fisheries (such as North Atlantic cod) are not. There is no direct link between the above article and whaling, outside of general habitat destruction that humans are causing.

    Permalink

  7. bookerly Posted 6:35 pm
    08 Nov 2006

    Hmmmm

       And if most of the fish die, do you think that the whales will be just fine?
       I wouldn't make book on it.
    patrick

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement