[Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism vacillation

Wed Apr 16 18:29:18 EDT 2014

Good to read this discussion when talking about coral reef threats and moving at least for a moment the focus from the usual symptoms to identifying the causes and thus the real possible solutions.

As others have already pointed out please do not forget that 1 billion people today consume 50% of the extracted resources. Thus addressing lifestyles and the economic system is top priority or most people in the West will think they have done their part while they are very far from it.
Giving a "sustainable population number" makes not much sense or reference target unless desired lifestyles and related energy input are defined and described. It is the right balance between the two that needs to be identified and aimed for.

Producing food has such a huge negative impact today because it is done in the worst possible way (monoculture, high fossil fuel input, soil fertility destruction, pollution) and to satisfy demanding lifestyles more than to feed people (see feed for animal farming, biofuels, timber, out of season and perfect shape fruits and vegetables etc.). If done wisely, through regenerative small scale agro-ecology, to satisfy a "low-in-the-food-chain" diet with little waste, the impact could be greatly reduced and the trend even reversed (agriculture as a mean not only to produce food to feed people but as a way of recovering biodiversity, soil fertility, locking carbon etc).

At the same time we need to address all the remaining aspects of our wasteful throw-away  lifestyle and economic system and move to a social and economic paradigm based on frugality rather than consumerism.

As likely we can't progress that fast on the population front also for "mathematical reasons" (excluding a collapse forced on us by crises) it would be good and wise if in the meanwhile we also hurry up on the front of sustainable food production, lifestyles and a new economic system.

My usual 2 cents on the subject.

Francesca

________________________________
 From: "Szmant, Alina" <szmanta at uncw.edu>
To: Matt Oldach <mt880883 at dal.ca>; "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism vacillation

I have read that the Gates Foundation is ignoring the critical driver of human population size, and that is very, very sad (and quite unenlightened).  You state the Earth can produce enough food for 10 B people:  but at what cost?  At the cost of killing/plowing down all natural systems into agricultural plots, including the areas of land that are substandard for agriculture because of climate and soil type?  Wiping out all species that are inconvenient to our dominance of the land and seas?  Earth can sustain at most 3..5 B people and some calculate only 2 B people and still have fairly unpolluted natural areas, plenty of space for wildlife, not lead to the next great extinction etc.  Read "Life on the Brink". You need the information that is in there.  And the authors make the point that coercing people to limit reproduction will not work, and suggest ways to get women to voluntarily limit their birth rates.  But both men and women need to
 understand the gravity of the situ
ation and see that it is best for their children to have fewer of them. (or even none at all unless they really want them and have the means to give them a meaningful and healthy life).

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

"The time is always right to do what is right"  Martin Luther King

*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant
Professor of Marine Biology
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
5600 Marvin Moss Ln
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913
http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
*******************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Matt Oldach
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism vacillation

I somewhat agree with you Dr. Szmant,

Indeed, this is what the Gates foundation is trying to address.  Unfortunately this is a really complex topic.  You can't stabilize growth without violating human rights.  Second I think capitalism, and more to the point, our consumption patterns are probably more of a problem that net gain of people (we have enough food to serve 10 billion as it is today).

A lot of people still argue about population.  It all started with Al Bartlett's now famous lecture entitled "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" in 1969. Recent articles such as: http://steadystate.org/populations-problem/ as well as Gapminder's recent documentary http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ on BBC are saying its not all that bad or not primarily the issue.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa..gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Sent: April 15, 2014 11:26 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Coral-List Digest, Vol 68, Issue 14

Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
        coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at
        coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also, please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list.

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: The frustration of environmentalism vacillation. Vol  68,
      Issue 12 (Szmant, Alina)
   2. Re: What do coral reef scientists perceive are the major
      threats to Caribbean coral reefs? (Richard)
   3. Re: Thank you for the threats! (Szmant, Alina)
   4. Re: What do coral reef scientists perceive are the major
      threats to Caribbean coral reefs? (Szmant, Alina)
   5. The frustration of environmentalism vacillation (Eugene Shinn)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:52:57 -0400
From: "Szmant, Alina" <szmanta at uncw.edu>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism
        vacillation. Vol        68, Issue 12
To: "Durwood M. Dugger" <ddugger at biocepts.com>,
        "coral-list at coral..aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID:
        <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA9EC37FBB at uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Amen.  It is indeed frustrating every time I read in the newspaper an article about CO2 rising faster than predicted and in spite of supposed efforts to reduce emissions.  But without doing something about the 250,000 people born each minute (a new small city per minute) it is hopeless.

Mr. Dugger suggests that it would take centuries to reduce the size of the human population back to 2 billion.  But in the recent book "Life on the Brink", several chapters on solutions suggest measures that could do it in a few decades (which might be too late) if only action of certain types started right away.  (http://populationpress.org/2013/05/13/book-review-life-on-the-brink-environmentalists-confront-overpopulation/ is a link to a review of this book).  The reason I keep pushing this book is because it is made up of 24 short essays that even people with short attention spans and non-technical background can read in less than 30 minutes and get the point...over and over again.  Check it out.

Chapter 8 in this book titled "Beyond Futility" by Tim Palmer, gives an example of what Mr. Dugger writes about:  every time we think we have won a battle of sorts, saved a river, established a new MPA, human population growth overcomes the games and we are worse off that when we started.

I for one am thinking of withdrawing all of my financial support for the various environmental NGOs that I support with my monthly donations unless they add doing something about control of human population to the top of their agenda.  The new Showtime documentary about climate that is getting so much attention "Years of Living Dangerously" explores in inter-twinned story lines the droughts in the US southwest (affecting cattle ranchers and slaughter houses), the destruction of Indonesian rainforests for the development of more palm oil plantations, and the conflict in Syria that fundamentally is triggered by lack of resources with religious/ethnic differences the scape goat.  No time in the one hour documentary is human crowding and overpopulation mentioned by any of the famous actors or local protagonists.  Apparently, Climate change is just happening because of people, but the idea that too many people is the cause rather than just people didn't
 make the cut of the script.

If you care about coral reefs, as well as other wild things, this should become your number one priority.  All the other problems making headlines on Coral-List are down in the weeds.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

"The time is always right to do what is right"  Martin Luther King

*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant
Professor of Marine Biology
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina Wilmington
5600 Marvin Moss Ln
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
*******************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Durwood M. Dugger
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:46 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism vacillation. Vol 68, Issue 12

Gene's point of long term solutions and any potential results in preserving the planet as we found it as a species - are well taken. Not taking the long view in negative anthropogenic impact solutions almost certainly guarantees their failure. Equally, not facing the level and scale of negative anthropogenic impacts on the planet is also self defeating. The growing frustration at governments and environmentalists not dealing with the source of negative anthropogenic impacts is becoming more and more palpable.

The ultimate logic of any problem solving is to resolve the direct cause of the problem and generally before you address the symptoms it generates. Otherwise the costs of only addressing the symptoms risks depleting the resources necessary for a solution, or being overrun by the symptoms which can't be eliminated without eliminating their source. Perhaps like worrying about preserving the cargo in a ship before you stop the inflow from a major mid-ocean hull breach.

You can't intelligently approach a solution to - or realistically discuss climate change (including ocean acidification), loss of species diversity (including corals) and, or any kind of anthropogenic pollution related impacts without first implementing a plan to stop the cause. We need a plan for a solution that ultimately reduces the human population back to demonstrated, sustainable and minimal impact levels of under 2 B - while maintaining non-growth, but functional, civil and progressive economies - and that is admittedly a near impossible task.

Doing otherwise has even worse outcomes and is simply wasting the resources that should be implemented in reducing actual cause of the problem of grossly unsustainable global human populations. Having not addressed human overpopulation makes it hard to consider current collective anthropogenic environmental concerns (most environmental problems) - as anything more than piece meal, not intellectually serious and possibly being only slightly better outcome wise than those who would chose to ignore both overpopulation and its obvious environmental symptoms like climate change and loss of species diversity.

Like the lingering affects of rising CO2, humanely addressing human overpopulation and maintaining sustainable human populations is going to take centuries. This assuming current global NPK food production collapse predictions in the next 30 years - are highly inaccurate. Consequently, current discussions logically should consider plans and their economics to preserve species and habitat recovery in light of continued and long term uncontrolled and consequently unavoidable negative anthropogenic impacts, until and while population reduction solutions are implemented.

Scale wise and to be economically practical - very long term solutions necessarily need to be of a more of seed bank concept like approach. Compared to affecting major areas of the planet which will simply ineffectively exhaust the a little resources available.. The cost of even preserving the planets most remote areas are likely economically (fiscally and physically) unrealistic. Solutions have to be capable economic resource wise of surviving the longterm of continued and growing environmental impacts - including continued environmentalist and preservationist vacillation - not to mention the inevitability of growing critical resource conflicts and their impacts - which also limit environmental problem solution resource availability.

To have these discussions about trying to control negative anthropogenic impacts with zero population management plan(s) in place, implemented and functionally demonstrated - are realistically absurd and insulting to anyone who understands the scale and complexity of the problems at hand. Especially, when those discussions aren't difficult to be seen as self serving and profit motivated (whether you are the Heritage Foundation - or a leading NGO environmental activist organization whose existence and funding is dependent on the continuation of anthropogenic environmental problems) and or those who are well intended "do gooders" that are motivated by their inadequately based "good feelings" and the endorphins they might generate.

As unpleasant as it is unavoidable, we must discuss and implement human population reduction before critical resource limitations force it upon us and any environmental solutions or even considerations - are lost to the most basic survival priorities.

Durwood M. Dugger, Pres.
BioCepts International, Inc. (BCI, Inc.)

-----------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:04:45 +0100
From: Peter Raines <rainespeter at gmail.com>
Subject: [Coral-List] Coral Restoration
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID:
        <CABxk1uUrJQLAefVq=vyyQfro8pxovML+W6EuzJSYH2fE4xVEPQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I congratulate Sarah, Peter and countless other friends and colleagues who each and all are doing their valued bit to help understand, promote and protect coral reefs.

I recently attended a one-day workshop in London on Logical Frameworks.
Many will know that these are the arch-stone and requisite for many funders.... The context was LIFE+ funding from the European union, of which there are many hundreds of $millions on offer.

The far-right column of most 'logframes' is entitled 'Assumptions'. These are usually assumptions outside of the control of the project/programme but nonetheless need to be factored. Some of these assumptions are termed 'Killer Assumptions' - i.e. assumptions so severe that they will kill the project stone-dead in its tracks and thus either require a fundamental project/programme re-think or most likely, just give up, go home and not bother.

So, I asked of the workshop convener during a coffee-break this: "Assuming the predicted global trends are correct re. ocean acidification and the like, then these surely are the 'Killer Assumptions' that should be paramount and overarchingly declared in any Logframe. Should I pack my bags up and go home now?"  He politely smiled, nodded but of course could not answer.

So, the killer-question I ask myself is: "Should I give up any and all hope for coral reefs and just throw in the towel?" My glass always being half-full, my answer is a resounding "NO!".

I say good luck to Sarah, Peter and everyone in their mission, drive and energy to help protect and restore coral reefs. What we need is a coalition of the willing to kill assumptions!

All the best,

Pete

Peter Raines MBE
Director
Coral Restoration Foundation International

www.coralrestoration.org

Email: rainespeter at gmail.com
Mobile: +44 (0)7597 664987
Skype: peter.raines

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:24:40 -0400
From: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Subject: [Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are the
        major, threats to Caribbean coral reefs?
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <5349AF18.6050701 at mail.usf.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Alina, I agree that Caribbean Coral death continued into the late 1980s and 1990s however, the peak year of /Acropora/ death was 1983. That was the year both A. /palmata/ and /cervicornis/ died at San Salvador. Thats way out east of the Bahamas and surrounded by deep clear blue water.
Telephone pole reef at San Salvador, (almost entirely a staghorn
thicket) died in 1983  over a very short period (2 or 3 months). It was disease that was not preceded by bleaching. Death of that reef put the nearby resort devoted to underwater photographers out of business. This was all observed by the director and scientists at the nearby Finger Lakes lab at San Salvador. My 52-year serial photographs of the same sites in the Florida Keys confirm that coral death peaked in 1983. They were showing signs of sickness in the late 1970s but the peak time of demise was 1983. Summer water temperature in the Keys was no higher in
1983 than previous years and wide-spread bleaching in the Keys did not start until 1986. As you know the peak year for African dust flux into the Caribbean was 1983. I might add the second peak year was 1998 but by then disease and bleaching was rampant everywhere in the Caribbean. That world wide El Nino even killed corals in the Persian Gulf where corals had long been adapted to extreme temperature changes.  Before you mention "correlation is not causation" I remind you that correlation is causation when when people correlate sewage/people (the usual suspects) with coral death. It seems to depend on what is being correlated. If you really want to get stirred up read the coral section in the recently released Non Governmental Climate Change report. There you will find that acidification is not a problem. I certainly agree with you about over population but you have to be realistic. That ain't gonna change voluntarily. You may be interested to know that
 in the current IPCC ma
   ssive report on page 1106 chapter 12 there is a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)  12.3, "*What would happen to future climate if we stopped emissions today?*"  as part of a longer sentence the answer given is, "Much of the warming would persist for centuries after greenhouse gas emissions stopped." So if green house gasses are the ultimate cause none of us will ever see the reefs recover. Very depressing. Gene

--

No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:47:37 +0000
From: Clive Wilkinson <clive.wilkinson at rrrc.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are
        the major threats to Caribbean coral reefs?
To: Sarah Young <syoungresides at gmail.com>,
        "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"        <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa....gov>
Message-ID:
        <1DFBA9E7B710074E91192EAD2A4A388E017FBFA81E at MAIN-SERVER.rrrc.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Sarah (and those interested in lists)

There have been many recent efforts to list the most serious threats to coral reefs (usually excluding non-anthropogenic stressors). May I suggest you start with these.

The first in the literature was via Bernard Salvat in the early 80s and threats were the theme of the 4th International Coral Reef Symposium in Manila with Edgardo Gomez leading the charge.

Don Kinsey summarised the major threats in 1988 with a focus on organic pollution, overfishing and excess sedimentation (Kinsey, D. W. (1988). Coral reef response to some natural and anthropogenic stresses. Galaxea, 7, 113-28.....)

The two plenary addresses at the 7th International Coral Reef Symposium in Guam focused on the threats facing coral reefs, with

predictions and bringing in climate change as a major threat(Buddemeier, 1993 p. 1; Wilkinson, 1993, p. 11).

Barbara Best compiled a list of threats in 2001 (Best, B.A. and A. Bornbusch (eds). Global trade and consumer choices: Coral reefs in crisis. Proceeding of 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California, 19 February 2001)

In 2004, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network produced this 'Top Ten' list, based on input from more than 200 people:

Global Change Threats:
o    Coral bleaching - caused by elevated sea surface temperatures due to global climate change;
o    Rising levels of CO2 - increased concentrations of CO2 in seawater decrease calcification rates in coral reef organisms;
o    Diseases, Plagues and Invasives - increases in diseases and plagues of coral predators that are increasingly linked to human disturbances in the environment..

Direct Human Pressures:
o    Over-fishing (and global market pressures) - the harvesting of fishes and invertebrates beyond sustainable yields, including the use of damaging practices (bomb and cyanide fishing);
o    Sediments - from poor land use, deforestation, and dredging;
o    Nutrients and Chemical pollution - both organic and inorganic chemicals carried with sediments, in untreated sewage, waste from agriculture, animal husbandry and industry; includes complex organics and heavy metals;
o    Development of coastal areas - modification of coral reefs for urban, industrial, transport and tourism developments, including reclamation and the mining of coral reef rock and sand beyond sustainable limits.

The Human Dimension - Governance, Awareness and Political Will:
o    Rising poverty, increasing populations, alienation from the land - increasing human populations put increasing pressures on coral reef resources beyond sustainable limits;
o    Poor capacity for management and lack of resources - most coral reef countries lack trained personnel for coral reef management, raising awareness, enforcement and monitoring; also a lack of adequate funding and logistic resources to implement effective conservation; and
o    Lack of Political Will, and Oceans Governance - most problems facing coral reefs are tractable for solutions if there is political will and effective and non-corrupt governance of resources. Interventions by, and inertia in, global and regional organisations can impede national action to conserve coral reefs.
(Wilkinson, C.R., 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, p.557.)

This list was expanded a bit in a paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin (Wilkinson, C., Salvat, B. (2012). Coastal resource degradation in the tropics: does the tragedy of the commons apply for coral reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64: 1096-1105.) Thus you have many lists to start with. Not all threats will apply in all reef areas and the order of prominence will change radically. And it is important to note "that everything connects to everything else" which is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci around 1500 and Barry Commoner in 1971. So the comments by Alina Szmant that the combination of climate change and disease fits exactly into this connection for the Caribbean.
Best wishes
Clive Wilkinson

PS - Sorry Gene Shinn, we have not included dust from the Sahara in our lists.

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:57:07 -0400
From: Richard <richarp33 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are
        the major threats to Caribbean coral reefs?
To: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID:
        <CAEELCHp-OgVSVdvVFQrp1eBXqQWb5BUVm-hCXcwnGO2EcTS1jg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Gene,

You make an interesting point about the potential profits IPCC governmental supporters stand to make on cap and trade.  I must admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough about those connections to make a comment on them, but certainly, no parties are insusceptible to financial influences.  It's worth looking into those connections.

That said, I didn't read Doug's comment on the Heartland Institute as denouncing their freedom of speech.  (That seems to be what you imply with your reference to the Constitution.)  Rather, Doug seems to be questioning the credibility of Heartland Institute.  To do so purely on the basis of their conservative political leanings would be irresponsible.  Here are a few points that cause me not to take their findings seriously:

1. They recieved $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch foundation for their work on climate change.  Another $1,000,000 came from an anonymous donor.

2. The Heartland's Institute's other major cause (beyond climate change) is touting the lack of negative health impacts from sidestream smoke.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger.
Admittedly, I haven't studied the scientific reports on sidestream smoke, but the Heartland institute taking another stand contradicting the consensus of scientists in the field makes me skeptical of any of their claims.

3. Numerous claims made by the Heartland Institute regarding climate change do not stand up to analysis (e.g., solar activity is the key driver of climate change).

Do these reasons mean that everything the Heartland Institute claims is false? No.  But I think they do mean that we should be very careful regarding claims they make, particularly when those claims fly in the face of scientific consensus.

Here are a couple of other sources evaluating the Heartland Institute's
credibility:

1. Editotial in Nature: Nature Volume:475, Pages: 423?424. Date published:
(28 July 2011)

2. Sourcewatch.org's entry on the Heartland Institute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

I would welcome similar analysis on the IPCC.

(Here's Sourcewatch's entry on the IPCC:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/IPCC )

Cheers,
Richard
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>wrote:

> Doug I am well aware  who writers of the "Non Governmental" version of
> IPCC are. And, yes I understand the Heartland Inst. is a conservative
> group. However, I do not know who funds them and have never seen any
> evidence they are affiliated with the Oil Industry. As far as I know
> it is people who still believe in the US Constitution.. The IPCC on the
> other hand is funded by the UN which is historically at the other end
> of the political spectrum. I understand that many of their
> governmental supporters stand to make a bundle from Cap and Trade
> taxes. Gene
>
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> College of Marine Science Room 221A
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158
> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:21:47 -0400
From: "Szmant, Alina" <szmanta at uncw.edu>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Thank you for the threats!
To: Sarah Young <syoungresides at gmail.com>, "Coral List
        (coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID:
        <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA9EC38180 at uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Actually what you have counted as 11 different threats are only 3-4 because several of them are the same ones but using different words:  ocean warming = bleaching and disease.  The elevated temperature causes the bleaching and disease outbreaks.  Thus one (temperature) is the cause of the other two.  Same with coastal development:  coastal development is the cause of the sedimentation and nutrient enrichment, and leads to the algal competition (along with more substrate available for algae after coral death from bleaching and disease, and lack of herbivory from overfishing). Overfishing and all of the previous are consequences of human overpopulation.  Lack of enforcement is also a consequence of human overpopulation pressure on limited resources (plus human greed of course).  Ocean acidification is the latest band wagon/diversion that may eventually affect coral calcification rates if we keep on the same path, but there will likely be few corals
 left alive by then to be aff
   ected by ocean acidification.

So if you want to diagram all of this start with human overpopulation at the top and connect the dots of the various consequences and pathways below it.

?Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.? Eleanor Roosevelt

?The time is always right to do what is right?  Martin Luther King

*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant
Professor of Marine Biology
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina Wilmington
5600 Marvin Moss Ln
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
*******************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Sarah Young
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 12:36 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] Thank you for the threats!

Dear Coral List,

A huge thank you to everyone who responded to my request for information on coral expert perceptions of the major threats to coral reefs.  I should
have anticipated I was opening a can of worms!   Just in case anybody else
is interested I found these three publications the most useful, based on date published, sample size or the number of coral reef based institutions
involved:

Brainard, R.E., Weijerman, M., Eakin, C.M., et al. (2013). ?Incorporating Climate and Ocean Change into Extinction Risk Assessments for 82 Coral Species?. Conservation Biology, 27:6:1169-1178.* ? Tiny sample but adoption of results by wider coral community, recently published and ranked data.*

1. Ocean warming,  2. Disease,  3. Ocean acidification, 4. Reef fishing ? trophic effects, and 5. Sedimentation.

Wilkinson, C. (2008). Status of coral reefs of the world: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia, 296 p.* ? no methods on how impacts are prioritized (unranked), Caribbean region split into subsections with different threats, authoritative publication.*

Coral bleaching, Excess sediment and nutrient discharges, Disease, Coastal development and Hurricanes.

Kleypas, J.A. & Eakin, M.C. (2007). ?Scientists? perceptions of threats to coral reefs: results of a survey of coral reef researchers?. Bulletin of Marine Science, 80:2:419-436. *? 10 years out of date (data collected in
2004) but good purposive sample and ranked data.*

1.  Human population growth, 2. Coastal development, 3. Algal competition, 4. Overfishing, and 5. Laws and enforcement.

As you can see these publications emphasis 11 different threats.  Our message is not very clear.

Isaac Westfield raised a good point ? the scale at which you are looking at threats makes a difference to the consensus you can achieve between experts, you would predict the larger the scale, the greater the consensus (or aggregation). It will be interesting to see if there is more consensus among the general public as to what threatens reefs.

The aim of the exercise is to help prioritise proactive and effective responses in resource limited management environments.  In those situations it is useful to be as specific (locally appropriate) as possible about the threats and impacts and trust that the implementation process is robust enough to deal with differences of opinion.  By robust I mean all those delicious principles of good governance we aim for (participation, accountability, transparency etc.).  In the same breath we are desperately trying to avoid simplifying threats to a list.  The last thing we want is policy makers deciding, ?if we tackle the top two things on this list everything will be ok? (assuming it is even possible to address 'climate change' and 'human population growth').  It is challenging to portray the links, synergies and accumulative effects multiple stressors have on complex marine systems such as coral reefs without confusing people into inertia.

Dennis Hubbard makes another excellent point about how perceptions of threats change given distance from impact ? perceptions change along any number of lines ? the usual demographic suspects, but also value orientation, life experiences, knowledge on a subject, interest in it, the degree to which you believe a threat impacts your sense of autonomy etc.
There are volumes of psyc journals written about perceptions of risk and how these link to behavioural outcomes.  I personally believe that perceptions have a much greater influence on human behaviour than any ?objective reality? of a threat?. Which means that knowing what people think is impacting coral reefs is just as important as knowing the primacy of a particular driver.....

Thank you to Clive Wilkinson for his list of lists! Gene will be pleased to know that at least one person mentioned African Dust! Alina Szmant ? people are not the problem ? they are the solution?..

Thanks again and best wishes,

Sarah

Marine social psychologist
Future of Reefs in the UK Overseas Territories Marine Ecosystems and Governance Research Group Newcastle University _______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:23:55 -0400
From: "Szmant, Alina" <szmanta at uncw.edu>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are
        the major threats to Caribbean coral reefs?
To: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>,
        "coral-list at coral.aoml..noaa.gov"        <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa..gov>
Message-ID:
        <68ECDB295FC42D4C98B223E75A854025DA9EC3818C at uncwexmb2.dcs.uncw.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Koch brothers fund Heartland Institute.  They've got the US Supreme Court on their side it seems in spite of it being a violation of the US Constitution in my opinion.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

"The time is always right to do what is right"  Martin Luther King

*************************************************************************
Dr. Alina M. Szmant
Professor of Marine Biology
AAUS Scientific Diving Lifetime Achievement Awardee Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina Wilmington
5600 Marvin Moss Ln
Wilmington NC 28409 USA
tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913 http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
*******************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 12:32 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are the major threats to Caribbean coral reefs?

Doug I am well aware  who writers of the "Non Governmental" version of IPCC are. And, yes I understand the Heartland Inst. is a conservative group. However, I do not know who funds them and have never seen any evidence they are affiliated with the Oil Industry. As far as I know it is people who still believe in the US Constitution. The IPCC on the other hand is funded by the UN which is historically at the other end of the political spectrum. I understand that many of their governmental supporters stand to make a bundle from Cap and Trade taxes. Gene

--

No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml..noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:18:44 -0400
From: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Subject: [Coral-List] The frustration of environmentalism vacillation
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <534D4DD4.5020102 at mail.usf.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Durwood, That is an especially well reasoned piece. Its the kind" yin and yang" that keeps me awake at night. Very well said. It all reminds me of my favorite expressions,  "We do it to our selves" Gene

--

No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 68, Issue 14
******************************************
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list