Do I detect a bit of American bias in this American study? The Gulf of Mexico which is shallow, has experienced dead-zones, chronic overfishing and oil extraction appears to be no more affected than much of the rest of the world's seas. Conversely the North Sea, which despite the rumours still has some cod, has never had any dead-zones, has EU blue-flag beaches, some of the largest seabird colonies on earth, is made out to be the worst place on earth for marine conservation.

Granted it isn't in the best shape, but I am slightly suspicious that the same levels of polluting activity are not shown up on this map around some areas of the coast of the world's largest industrial polluter.

I hate to sound like a broken record on this theme, but ... this is just another manifestation of the effect of too many people on our small planet.

I see the effects everywhere I go.  The changes are visible in my short lifetime.  In the oceans, on the landscape, in the atmosphere.

Too many people.

The environmental world, the general public, and the bloggers on this Web site are now in a frenzy about global warming and its effect on the planet.  And appropriately so.  But ...

But how many people are in a frenzy about exponential population growth?  I would argue it is a greater threat than global warming.  To some extent we can adapt to the effects of the latter.  But we can never adapt to the effects of ongoing exponential population growth.  (Unless you call an inevitable mass die-off "adaptation".)

In the meantime, our planet suffers.  Wild habitat disappears, the oceans everywhere are become yet more tainted, agricultural soils are lost, fishing stocks are depleted, and the atmosphere fills with ever-increasing greenhouse gases.  

Sorry, but shopping at Whole Foods and installing compact flourescent bulbs ain't gonna solve the problem.  Only the stabilization and shrinking of the globabl human population might result in sustainable headway on these problems.  Eventually.

Per-capita gasoline consumption in the U.S. declined over the last 12 months.  But total gasoline consumption increased.  

Guess why?

Most all of the work that went into this report are subjective in the extreme and should have been rejected as junk science. Even the authors admitted that more work would be necessary to compile a better map of human encroachment on the oceans.

So what if ships and boats sailed over the oceans, that surely does not harm it. The entire study sends the wrong message that we really know what's happening in the ocean and that was a horrible thing to say. We know more about outer space than we know about out own freaking oceans.

I agree that some coastal areas have pollution problems, reef damage, and man-made construction but the study just plopped a bunch of "human activity" themes over a GIS program and let her rip:  gosh, 41% of the oceans are unfit and no good anymore.

That my friends is voodoo science of the worst sort. /sammie

These hideously monstrous commercial ships and cruise ships make so much noise that marine mammals like whales are unable to hear each other over long distances, as they were able to do before humans ruined the oceans with noise pollution.  It's not like these are sailing ships; they're powered by the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, emit massive air pollution, and are very loud.  And that doesn't even account for their constant oil spills, dumping sewage and other garbage, and consumption of oil, all of which harm our planet.

Sam's comments show extreme lack of information about the oceans, ocean ecology, and marine biology.  I wouldn't be calling out others for "junk science" if I were him.  Or maybe he's just another human who cares more about business and money than about life, or cares far more about humans than other species.  Either way, his comments are very anti-environmental.