[Coral-List] Crazy Ideas to Save Coral Reefs

Steve Mussman sealab at earthlink.net
Tue Sep 4 14:40:10 EDT 2012

       While I support your suggestion to pressure scuba certification agencies
   to put more emphasis on
   coral awareness and buoyancy control, I believe that the scuba industry has
   a unique obligation to do
   even more. All of us in the industry who are concerned are already teaching
   diving with an appeal to
   ecological sensibilities. With few isolated exceptions, dive masters around
   the world are doing an
   outstanding job protecting their reefs and associated marine life from the
   impact of divers. While we
   as divers can always do more to diminish our impact, why can't our industry
   step forward and address
   perhaps  an  even greater threat to our coral reefs? For no matter how
   conscientious we become as individual
   divers, climate change can ultimately upset the precarious balance found in
   coral reef ecosystems around
   the world.
     Why not insist that the diving industry, through it's primary directive
   force DEMA (Diving Equipment
   Manufacturers Association), sign on to a position statement that clearly
   articulates it's concern for the
   future of coral reefs everywhere? Something along the lines of that posted
   by the GSA : Decades of scientific
   research  have  shown  that  climate  can change from both natural and
   anthropogenic causes. DEMA concurs
   with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National
   Research Council (2006),
   and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global
   climate has warmed and that
   human activities (mainly greenhouseâgas emissions) account for most of the
   warming since the middle 1900s.
   If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by
   the end of the twenty-first century
   will result in large impacts on humans and other species including coral
   reefs and associated marine ecosystems.
   Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination
   of adaptation to the changes
   that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO[2] emissions from
   anthropogenic sources.
     Now that would be a show of leadership that would grab the attention of
   divers and non-divers alike.

     -----Original Message-----
     From: Helder Perez
     Sent: Sep 4, 2012 8:55 AM
     To: Steve Mussman
     Cc: Douglas Fenner , "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"
     Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Crazy Ideas to Save Coral Reefs
     As a professional SCUBA diver for almost ten years, I can tell you that
     most divers will abide the rules of the certifying agency (PADI, NAUI,
     CMAS, etc.). Before diving, people are required to pass a series of tests.
     It's not a tight filter, but it does add pressure to the diver, and it may
     create a positive impact.

   So,  how  about  this crazy idea: coral listers send a petition to the
   certifying agencies listed above -and others- to put more effort in buoyancy
   control and coral awareness as a requirement for the entry levels. This
   little step would lessen the impact of the divers and the whole diving
   industry in coral reefs around the world.

   We could have a letter of support signed by the folks of NOAA's Coral Reef
   Conservation Program, NCRI, Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, the Department
   of State, TNC and the ICRS Chairman, among the dozens, if not hundreds, of
   government institutions, universities and NGOS that claim to work, and
   profit, in coral conservation.

   Funny, it all goes back to advocacy. The question here is, Is It Worth It?
   Helder I. Pérez
   Bay Islands Foundation
   Skype ID: helder.perez
   On 3 September 2012 10:33, Steve Mussman <[3]sealab at earthlink.net> wrote:

     Just some insight regarding the apparent inaction on the part of the
     recreational diving industry in response to rising CO2 levels and
     climate change. As some have pointed out, one would think that this
     constituency would be an aggressive advocate for the protection of coral
     reefs and other marine ecosystems, but they have abdicated responsibility
     as it applies to this contentious issue. After all, divers and the diving
     industry are made up of a cross section of the world community and as such
     reflect the fact that a clear consensus has yet to be established. The
     itself is dominated by manufacturers, dive operators and certification
     all with their own agendas, none of which is enhanced by taking a stand on
     divisive issue that might result in offending consumersâ sensibilities or
     worse, implicating their own contributions to the problem at hand.

   -----Original Message-----
   >From: Douglas Fenner <[4]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
   >Sent: Sep 1, 2012 10:43 PM
   >To: Eugene Shinn <[5]eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
   >Cc: [6]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
   >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Crazy Ideas to Save Coral Reefs
   >    I assume we are not to take your suggestions seriously that divers
   >should not urinate in the water, wear sunscreen or exhale, that the purpose
   >was to show that things divers might try to help the reef are ridiculous.
   >I think we've mentioned before that although concentrations of some things
   >(like CO2 in breath) are high, it makes all the difference how much total
   >quantity we are talking about, a breath is such a small amount it won't
   >make any difference.  Of course, 7 billion people breathing does make a
   >difference, although many more trillons of trees and grass plants and other
   >plants also make a difference absorbing CO2.  Which leads to the point that
   >deforestation is a contributor to CO2 increases, and a concerned person
   >could avoid buying tropical hardwoods and a few other things that come from
   >destructive practices in tropical forests, and support sustainable forestry
   >practices in all forests.
   >     I believe Hoegh-Guldberg's was a co-author of the scientific article,
   >not the one in Mother Jones.
   >     I agree Hoegh-Guldberg is right, I think there is no chance on global
   >action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while the world economy is so
   >weak and threatened with the problems in Europe.  Further, I was just
   >reading an article that stated that in the US, climate change is near the
   >bottom of the list of priorities for voters.  So to be realistic, the only
   >thing that could reduce world greenhouse emissions in the near future would
   >be a massive economic recession (the beginning of the recent great
   >recession did just that for one year, but a year later the increase in
   >emissions was larger than usual, putting us back on the highest projections
   >that IPCC made or higher).  I don't suggest we try using a great depression
   >to reduce CO2 emissions, but shifting world economies that are already
   >developed towards sustainable prosperity and efficiency with reduced
   >ecological footprint instead of endless growth might be good for a variety
   >of reasons including slowing the growth of greenhouse gases.
   >     I find it interesting that you say that "Actually there is little we
   >can do regarding CO2 that would significantly change its concentration in
   >the air or water
   >in the short term."  As stated, that is, as far as I know, quite correct,
   >but then I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise.  Change the
   >statement slightly to read "Actually there is little we can do regarding
   >CO2 that would significantly change the rate it is being released in the
   >short term."  and if by "short term" you mean a few years or anything less,
   >and then it is still correct, I believe.  You can't change it in a year.
   >But of course this all conveniently omits what so many have been talking
   >about, and that is, starting on a process of reducing CO2 emissions that
   >over the next few decades would stop the increase in the rate of emissions
   >and then reduce emissions to low levels (essentially changing to an
   >electric economy based on renewables) and avoid having the temperature and
   >ocean acidification go nearly as far as they would without curbing
   >emissions (and thus keeping the world liveable).  That would still be a
   >massive undertaking that would take real time and money, though estimates
   >are that it would cost a lot less than most people presume, perhaps as
   >little as 1.2% of the economy.  I contend we throw away more stuff than
   >1.2%, and that the economic benefits in the future would far outweigh that
   >cost.  But I'm no economist.  Australia has already embarked on such a
   >program and estimates it will cost Australia 1.2%.
   >     There is also an interesting use of the word "we" in Gene's message.
   >As in 'there is nothing WE can do that will have an effect.'  That of
   >course depends on the unstated assumption of who "we" are.  If "we" are
   >divers, I think that is quite true.  All divers could stop emitting any
   >greenhouse gases and it would make very little difference.  Of course,
   >every other group of people with the same number of people in it can say
   >the same thing, "what we do makes very little difference."  And yet
   >everyone in the world community put together very much make all the
   >difference (they choose not to reduce emissions at this point, but they
   >could).  So everybody has the same excuse for doing nothing, and letting
   >the reefs be destroyed, the arctic ice all melt (so the Arctic ocean then
   >absorbs much more sunlight and heats up further) and all the Arctic
   >permafrost melt (releasing huge amounts of carbon released that in time
   >will likely dwarf what humans release making global warming unstoppable),
   >and summer heat waves like the one that killed so many in Russia and the
   >one that killed over 10,000 people in Europe will be common events,
   >droughts that greatly reduce harvests and drive world food prices way up
   >starving poor people, and on and on.
   >    It's all a great excuse for doing nothing, which appears to me to be
   >the point of Gene's message.
   >    There are a wide variety of things that individual divers can do, I
   >certainly can't think of all of them.  They can go to dive at MPAs like the
   >ones in Fiji where the villagers are employed as dive and snorkel guides
   >and a diver fee goes to pay for schooling for the children.  Or the shark
   >dives in Palau that pay something like 14% of all the country's tax revenue
   >and supported Palau declaring it's entire waters as a shark protection
   >zone, and they've also protected humphead wrasse and bumphead parrots.
   >They can also join expeditions from groups like Coral Cay Conservation
   >which work to survey reefs for designation as MPAs, working with local
   >groups, and which provide dive training, training in marine life
   >identification and survey techniques (plus 6 days a week of diving on some
   >great reefs) or similar groups like Blue Adventures, Greenforce, etc.  I've
   >done it, can't recommend it enough.  A whole series of MPAs on the east
   >side of Negros Island in the Philippines where I worked with a group to
   >survey reefs for MPAs were MPAs when I left 15 years ago, and now I am told
   >there are a whole series of diver resorts there that dive in the MPAs and
   >are booked 6 months in advance and charge $200 a night and hire workers and
   >benefit the local economy, and the fishermen have more fish to catch as
   >well.  There are a number of other divers organizations that have good
   >programs that help as well.  Divers can also put in a good word for MPAs
   >and how they would like to see big fish.  Put in a good word for reducing
   >sediment and nutrient runoff.  They can also support politicians who want
   >to do something about protecting coral reefs, and most importantly do
   >something as a society about greenhouse gas emissions, sediment runoff,
   >nutrient runoff, overfishing, overpopulation etc.  They can also do things
   >in their everyday lives like recycle as much as possible, drive as fuel
   >efficient vehicle as possible (get out of those SUV's and giant pickups,
   >except when other vehicles won't do the job like hauling heavy stuff in a
   >pickup), use public transportation when possible and support making public
   >transportation available.  Walk or bike more for short trips instead of
   >driving (getting some good exercise and getting healthier as well!).  Pay a
   >small amount extra to fly carbon-neutral.  Don't set the air conditioning
   >on flash-freeze during the summer, suggest to diver's resorts that they
   >check out using cold water air conditioning (with the water returned deep
   >below the reefs).  Don't buy things you don't need or use that fill your
   >garage and mini-storage (manufacturing uses a lot of energy and water).
   >Eat more vegetables and fruits and less meat (meat production adds a lot to
   >greenhouse gas production, plus vegetables and fruits are more healthy for
   >you, and you can feed 10 times as many people with plants than animals,
   >which brings world food prices down helping poor people).  Support ending
   >ethanol in fuel, since it takes more fuel to produce the ethanol than the
   >ethanol substitutes for, and uses food to fuel vehicles which drives up
   >world food prices and hurts poor people.  Change light bulbs to compact
   >fluorescents or even better LEDs, put in more insulation in the house,
   >replace a worn out furnace with the most efficient model available, buy the
   >most efficient appliances like refrigerators, stoves and washers, dry
   >clothes on a line if possible instead of using a drier.  Suggest that the
   >company turn off lights at night (huge numbers are left on in cities every
   >night, wasting lots of energy)  Support ending huge subsidies to fossil
   >fuel companies, including the cost of the military needed to keep sea lanes
   >open to keep oil flowing.  Without massive subsidies paid for by taxpayers,
   >oil and coal particularly would be much less competitive than renewable
   >energy and the switch to renewables would happen.  Support not developing
   >tar sands.  Those ideas just begin to scratch the surface of the many
   >things people can do, there are whole books of suggestions of things we can
   >do.  Many of them save you money as well!!
   >     So in short, there is a lot divers can do.  We can choose to be part
   >of the solution, instead of part of the problem (and just watch the reefs
   >die).  I heard someone recently say that pointing out things that people
   >can do that will help save reefs is something they didn't consider
   >advocating, they considered it just being responsible.
   >     I would have to disagree to some extent that most changes due to CO2
   >are in deep water or shallow estuaries.  First, the greatest changes due to
   >CO2 are in temperatures, and they are greater in the polar areas than the
   >tropics.  The reduction of area and thinning of the Arctic ice is an
   >example, plus the melting of permafrost that releases huge amounts of
   >methane and leads to dry vegetation catching fire and burning huge amounts
   >of carbon.  But I think Gene was referring to dissolved CO2 (but once again
   >not being specific).  My understanding is that the largest amount of CO2 in
   >the atmosphere that dissolves in the ocean does so in the polar waters,
   >where the cold water is able to dissolve much more CO2 than in the
   >tropics.  Further, the most important spot is in Antarctic waters where
   >water is produced that is both colder and more saline and which sinks to
   >form a layer of deep water in all the world's oceans.  That takes the most
   >CO2 out of the atmosphere.  The decrease in pH is probably greatest in
   >polar waters and deep sea water, certainly calcium carbonate saturation is
   >least in cold water (where there are no coral reefs).  That is surely what
   >Gene is referring to and we agree on that.  As for the effects of the
   >dissolved CO2, it may affect many things, including tropical corals and
   >shell-forming organisms all over the earth.
   >     On the point on corals in deep water below the compensation zone, I
   >agree with Gene.  But I point out that almost all those species of coral
   >are tiny, and none (none! zero) of them produce solid geological
   >constructions of calcium carbonate, let alone protect shorelines.  (A few
   >species build constructions called deep reefs, but they are made of thin
   >branches and don't form a solid construction.  Yes, coral reefs have a lot
   >of sand in them, and are commonly riddled with holes, but they are a lot
   >more solid than the deep constructions which are more like a staghorn
   >thicket.)  If you don't care about whether the geological structures we
   >call coral reefs protect shorelines and provide people many billions of
   >dollars of ecosystem services a year, then tiny deepwater corals which add
   >to one end of their skeleton while the other end dissolves will do fine..
   >Fine if entire countries wash away? (Maldives, Marshall Is., Tuvalu,
   >Kiribati, etc, but that's OK because they are tiny third world countries?
   >Tough luck?)  Oh, that's OK, sea level rise caused by global warming is
   >going to drown them anyhow?  Not sure divers will find those deepwater
   >corals exciting, and tourism is another ecosystem service that reefs
   >provide people with that is worth more tens of billions of dollars a year.
   >How will reef fish do swimming around deepwater corals that are about 3 cm
   >tall, scattered on sediment (that's what most deep water corals are)?  Will
   >there be enough reef fish to attract divers?  Will reef fish catches
   >continue at present levels?  Reef fish need rugosity, complexity, holes to
   >hide in, deep corals don't provide that.  How many tens of millions of
   >people along the tropical shorelines depend on reef fish to feed their
   >families, and if they don't catch food that day their family has nothing to
   >eat that night?  Try living along the coast in Indonesia or the Philippines
   >and you'll see what I mean.  Indonesia has 230 million people, the world's
   >fourth largest population country, and the Philippines has over 92 million,
   >and a large part of both countries' populations are heavily dependent on
   >reef fish for their protein and to sell to buy the staple, rice.  Survival,
   >in other words.  Not to mention the tiny detail that you can't grow deep
   >corals along tropical shorelines, the water is way way too hot even without
   >global warming (deep corals live in water just above freezing).
   >    The dive industry is a natural constituency for coral reefs, but they
   >don't seem to have been very vocal or as active as they could be.  I think
   >they could make a difference.  So could all of us.  The problems are all
   >solvable, but not if we don't even try.
   >   Cheers,  Doug
   >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Eugene Shinn <[7]eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
   >> Dear  Jessica, In answer to your question, what can a diver do, you
   >> might suggest that they do not urinate in the water, do not wear
   >> sunscreen, and do not exhale,(exhaled breath contains between 30,000
   >> and 40,000 ppm CO2). Actually there is little we can do regarding CO2
   >> that would significantly change its concentration in the air or water
   >> in the short term.  Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is correct when he said in
   >> Mother Jones Magazine, "It's unwise to assume we will be able to
   >> stabilize atmospheric CO2 at levels necessary to reduce or prevent
   >> ongoing damage to marine ecosystems." Most changes due to CO2  are in
   >> deep water or in shallow estuaries, not in coral reef areas. Deep
   >> water corals below the compensation zone have always dwelt with
   >> higher levels of CO2. 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
   >> <[8]eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
   >> Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
   >> -----------------------------------
   >> _______________________________________________
   >> Coral-List mailing list
   >> [9]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
   >> [10]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
   >Dept. Marine & Wildlife Resources, American Samoan Government
   >PO Box 7390
   >Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
   >Coral-List mailing list
   >[11]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
   Coral-List mailing list
   [13]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov


   1. http://www.utila-iguana.de/fib
   2. http://www.facebook.com/iguanastation
   3. mailto:sealab at earthlink..net
   4. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
   5. mailto:eshinn at marine.usf.edu
   6. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
   7. mailto:eshinn at marine.usf.edu
   8. mailto:eshinn at marine.usf.edu
   9. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
  10. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
  11. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
  12. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
  13. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
  14. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

More information about the Coral-List mailing list