[Coral-List] Reef Safe Bill In Hawaii

Mon Apr 10 15:41:14 EDT 2017

Hi,

some other thoughts

There must be one reef with some high cultural significance, that
everyone can rally around. So every message to a politician starts
with I can't believe you won't even protect this single most important
reef. Pardon my ignorance, but  there must be a reef that was
associated with some famous queen/king of Hawaii. Some of them had to
live on the coast right? Or had a fishing grounds associated with
their estate.  Or jewelry they wore and is in museums some place came
from the ocean and some set of reefs.

So you can turn it into, whoa, you money-grubbing politicians won't
even protect this one most valuable Hawaiian reef from this evil money
grubbing corporation.

There has to be a consequence for the politicians.  They need to know
you are not just a group of scientists trying to the right thing.

How about a "clothing not chemicals" grass roots college students
protesting?  Kids you've got to love their energy.

Or some area associated with some really expensive resorts that have
high profile environmentally conscience guests,
where the money associated draw of the reefs is far greater than the
some bottles/tubes of sunscreen.  You need just a
 couple resort owners who would  be proponents of the ban so they can
advertise their reefs as "whatever the
chemical is free" since 2017. The whole idea there being "their" reefs
are more beautiful and alive than the others who allow the chemical.

You need to find/create the situation where some business/community
all want the ban.

---

If opponents want to propose a study instead, maybe go with it and
make sure the language includes the ban will be postponed till the
outcome of the study.  And all parties agree if outcome of the study
says its harmful then the ban begins. Makes sense, as thats the
purpose of the study.

When they don't agree to the study it points out the obviousness that
the study is just a bogus way to sidetrack the ban.

You might want to agree to a 10 year study if you get one protected now.

The real win is setting the precedent.

Personally, I like the they won't even protect one reef angle, you've
got to identify that reef and important supporters.

Politicians won't  protect X reef because of Y corporation.

-----

You need an identifiable enemy.  General populous can't relate to some
chemical.  I have 200+ publications and I can't remember the name of
that chemical.   As I write this I don't know what company makes the
stuff.

You need a analogous situation.

So you refer to it always as say

its the modern day PFC , but now creating a death zone around reefs,
killing off the life that creates coral communities .

That might be a good one. People governments banned that to save the
planet.  It was something that came out of a spray bottle.

Every time you talk to anyone, its the modern day PFC killing off the
reef animals.

My general perception is there is not enough life/living organism
connotation  associated with reefs.

---

Then there must be some up and coming business that sells and is going
to make money selling the alternative anti-skin cancer
technology. Whole new markets open to them if you are successful
right? Hopefully you identified more than one of them
to counter the influence of the companies selling your targeted banned products.

I know Patagonia builds there brand on the environmental awareness of
their clientele.

You need to find a couple businesses, maybe owned by Hawaiians,
willing to market the banning as part of their environmental awareness
..

Nowhere on your initial web page are any corporations or improtant
Hawaiians asking  people to join them in supporting this bill.

-----

I would eliminate this for the time being from the web-page:
"...Climate Change and Energy..."

you need a narrow focus on a well defined issue -  too much brain
clutter going around associated  with Climate Change

I might even guess someone put that in there to sabotage your effort.

------

Assume you are going to fail.  Write the press releases identifying
the efforts extended to get it to pass and why.
include a detailed description  why it failed, who specifically was
the cause. Lay out the blame. Who rewrote it to be a study.
Who didn't think it was important enough to discuss.  It should read
shame, shame, shame.  Carry it with you always,
make notes on in the presents of people who aren't supportive. Do a
little research on how non-supporters spend their time,
probably at least one thing trivial compared to this.
If they ask what it is tell them. Give them a copy.  If we don't get a
bill that protects one reef there will be consequences.

----

Sorry for the randomness and un-cohesiveness  of my impromptu writing.
I thought sharing a couple ideas better than doing nothing.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Be Reef Safe <bereefsafe at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that would be an option, although far-fetched from what I can tell with
> this legislature.  Currently the bill is in conference negotiation so maybe
> we should push that idea as it currently has no funding for the study,
> effectively killing the effort.
>
> We want to at least make our efforts a model for other's to follow. We hope
> that other places with coral reefs in their jurisdiction will see how
> popular this is with the public and do something proactively to save their
> corals from these chemicals.
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM Matt Nolan <mpnolan at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> If it has to be a study, then make it an expensive one that is paid
>> for with a tax on products made with the chemicals of interest,
>> and since you'll be taxing all product sold, maybe the opposition to
>> the bill will consider non-use in certain areas the compromise.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Be Reef Safe <bereefsafe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Aloha,
>> >
>> > We have been working hard in Hawaii to improve our reefs and sponsoring
>> > a
>> > reef-safe sunscreen bill which has been watered down into a study, that
>> > probably won't be funded.
>> >
>> > Our funding applications to study oxybenzone effects on the reefs in
>> > Hawaii
>> > has been denied by NOAA as they are focused on climate change.
>> >
>> > We need support to pressure our lawmakers to help us remove dangerous
>> > chemicals from products that are harming the reefs. We are so close to
>> > making it happen.
>> >
>> > The latest wording of the bill prior has been to remove the "ban" and
>> > replace it with a study.
>> >
>> > http://www.bereefsafe.com/hawaii-bill-relating-preserving-coral-reefs-sb1150/
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > http://www.bereefsafe.com
>> > http://www.haereticus-lab.org/donations-fundraising/
>> > https://bantoxicsunscreens.com/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Coral-List mailing list
>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list