[Coral-List] Reef Safe Bill In Hawaii
Be Reef Safe
bereefsafe at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 18:48:19 EDT 2017
Mahalo for some of the inspiration. I think you have something there. I
pulled your notes and began working on options.
We can't take it to a cultural level as part of the sacredness of the
reefs, fishing & coastal areas etc. are maintained thru them being unknown
to the general public.
We are currently focused on Molokini Crater area as a rallying point (off
the island of Maui). It's a popular destination, used as a backdrop from
many resort pictures and far enough out that only boats can get there.
There is plenty of advertising dollars spent making it sound great. We
thought that would be a good one to go after. About 1/4 of the boats
visiting practice reef safe efforts already.
Our goal is to get every tour operator to invest in the reef system at
Molokini as it is important to their viability. It seems like a prudent
move considering the profit reaped from it.
Organizations we partner with like
https://www.mauireefs.org/reverse-the-decline/ are helping to collect data,
raise awareness and educate.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:41 PM Matt Nolan <mpnolan at lbl.gov> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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>
> > Yes, that would be an option, although far-fetched from what I can tell
> > this legislature. Currently the bill is in conference negotiation so
> > 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
> > that other places with coral reefs in their jurisdiction will see how
> > popular this is with the public and do something proactively to save
> > 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>
> >> > Aloha,
> >> >
> >> > We have been working hard in Hawaii to improve our reefs and
> >> > a
> >> > reef-safe sunscreen bill which has been watered down into a study,
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
More information about the Coral-List