Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Oceans In Peril: Do We Care?

Environmental Threats to Our Oceans 


On the northern shores of the Adriatic Sea, Croatian fishermen cherish an old adage: “If you stick your finger into the sea, you are connected with the whole world.” Today perhaps this is true even if you don’t stick your finger into the sea.

The Adriatic Sea, a large bay off the northern Mediterranean, is part of the vast body of salt water that covers three-quarters of the earth. Even though divided into seven oceans and a multitude of seas, this body of water remains one whole.  Currents and tides carry its contents from one end to another.

Increasingly, the contents are runoff chemicals, organic matter, oil and waste, produced by humans and harmful to life in the ocean.  Scientists say 80% of pollution to the marine environment comes from land-based sources that can be as small as septic tanks, cars and trucks and as large as farms, ranches and forest areas.  Coastal development aggravates the situation.

“The biggest effect of coastal development is paving over land that otherwise would allow the water that is polluted to filter before it ends up in our coastal waters,” says Christophe Tulou, president of the Center for Sea Change, a U.S. organization promoting solutions for the protection of oceans.

“That’s one big impact. The other is filling in wetlands or converting the natural coastline in such a way that those areas which tend to be the nursery areas for our commercially important fish are destroyed,” he adds.

Tulou is also a member of the Pew Ocean Commission, an independent group of scientists, politicians and businessmen that reported on the state of US ocean waters last year.  He says what people do far away from the coast, for example in the cornfields of mid-western United States, also has an impact on oceans: “What happens is the fertilizer is put on the field, oftentimes in the fall after the harvest, and it lies there through the winter. In the spring when the snow melts and the spring rains come, a fair amount of that fertilizer, instead of going into the ground and supplying food for the plants, washes off the fields and ultimately ends up in, for example, the Mississippi River.  And well over a million tons of that nitrogen flow into the Gulf of Mexico every year.”

In water, nitrogen has the same effect as in soil: it acts as a fertilizer. It promotes the growth of algae and plankton, which soak up the oxygen and suffocate other marine life, creating the so-called “dead zones.” One of the largest is in the Gulf of Mexico.  Others are scattered around the world, including in such small seas as the Adriatic.


The United Nations reports that the number of known “dead zones,” ranging from one square kilometer to more than 70,000 square kilometers in size, has doubled in the past decade to about 150.

Pollution can travel very far.  A chemical once used in pesticides in Asia has accumulated in Atlantic Canada. It followed atmospheric and water flows across the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans to end up off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in eastern Canada. Traces of arsenic, copper and zinc found on a Hawaiian island were linked to smelting in China.


In the past few decades, industrialization and urbanization of Africa have increased emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides above the levels produced by the developed world. Some scientists warn they may add still more.

“There are a lot of areas of the world which don’t use the energy of the developed world, and they don’t have the money to put on anywhere near that much of fertilizer and have perhaps because of that used better land practice,” says Reg Watson, a marine researcher at the University of the British Columbia in Canada. “And if their land degrades, they might do the same that has been done in many areas of the world: use more and more fertilizers.”


Reg Watson says global warming, caused by toxic gases such as carbon dioxide, is the biggest threat to oceans. Pollutants get into the water which circles around the world as if on conveyor belts, affecting global climate: “Some of those conveyor belts of warm and cold water are what keeps the world looking the way it is now. And so one of the biggest concerns about the marine environment, and I guess the world in general, is that we might be influencing the way those conveyor belts work.  But we don’t know what else that means in terms of the temperature of the sea.”

Over-fishing is another major threat to ocean life. Scientists estimate that commercial fishing during the past 50 years has caused a 90 % decline of the large predatory fish species, such as tuna, marlin, cod and haddock.

“So there are many, many species that are suffering because we are catching more fish than the ocean can replenish, says Christophe Tulou. “Some good examples are fish like cod, which was so abundant when the first Europeans arrived on our shores that they literally could lower a basket off a ship and pull up a basket full of fish.  They are now declared endangered species off the east coast of Canada.”

What’s worse, the fish that eventually finds its way to the table may not be as safe as it once was. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have recently warned Americans, especially pregnant women, to limit the consumption of tuna because it contains mercury, a chemical harmful to children’s development. Mercury is emitted into the air by coal-fired power plants.

If this is happening in the United States, scientists say it could be much worse in countries with fewer environment-protection laws.  The United States has had clean-air and clean-water laws in place for almost half a century, and others have been added regularly to protect oceans against dumping waste from ships, overfishing and runoff pollution.


Christophe Tulou says a more concerted effort is needed: “We have far too many laws and far too many agencies that are trying to manage ocean resources and they are not coordinating.”

Profits often get in the way.  Under the pressure from some industrial states, the Environmental Protection Agency eased requirements for emission reductions that would make the air significantly cleaner.


Human activities everywhere impact the ocean and what happens in one place, affects everyone.  Scientists say that to reverse the current decline of oceans, the clean-up effort must be global.  Yet when it comes to signing international treaties, such as the Kyoto protocol on reduction of greenhouse emissions, many nations waver.

But some progress has been achieved, says Rebecca Lint of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. General public in many countries is getting more informed and many initiatives come from concerned citizens.  She agrees that efforts must be more international: “The other thing that really works well is when these regional organizations get together they say: let’s agree on the fishing laws and if other countries don’t abide by those laws, lets put in trade restrictions and not buy their seafood products.”

President Barack Obama wants to take a step in that direction. He announced a plan Tuesday to use his executive authority to create the world’s largest marine protected area in the south-central Pacific Ocean in an effort to protect diverse habitats of coral reefs, whales, dolphins, sharks, sea turtles and fish species from commercial fishing and other activities.

His new initiative has already come under fierce attack by those whose profits depend on exploiting maritime resources.  But there are many who support the plan.  Hollywood movie start Leonardo DiCaprio for one.

As Tulou says "we are all one ecosystem and we must all take care of it."  

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Will Russia Move Further After Crimea?

WASHINGTON — Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is meeting with President Barack Obama Wednesday, days before a referendum in Crimea where a Russian-speaking majority is likely to bring the strategic peninsula under Moscow's control. Analysts say the meeting will not stop the referendum, which is set for Sunday, but warn of the urgency of stopping Russia from moving on to other Russian-populated regions of the former Soviet Union.


Ukraine's Arseniy Yatsnyuk at the White House
Russia has made it clear that a flurry of diplomatic activity ahead of the Sunday referendum will have little effect on its plans to take control of the Crimean region.  Washington-based political analyst Peter Eltsov said that no matter what official name it will assume, Crimea is lost to Ukraine. He added Ukraine has to fight to prevent any Russian attempt to move further.

"It's the biggest fear of the new Ukrainian government and it is quite likely - depending of course on the political situation - that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will try to go to certain parts of eastern Ukraine.  We need to remember that there is no direct by-land connection between Russia and the Crimean peninsula," said Eltsov.


Stephen Blank, an analyst with the American Foreign Policy Council, agreed. He also placed blame on the European Union for a lax response to Russia's move to take over the strategic peninsula. 



Stephen Blank, AFPC
"There have been no real organized economic sanctions on Russia; there have been no systematic strategic military actions to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; and if I were Mr. Putin I would think I’ve gotten away with it.  I don’t think he will in the end, but I think up till now there has been too little action, and whatever action there has been, has been uncoordinated," said Blank.

Yatsenyuk's visit to Washington has another significant purpose; Eltsov said the interim government in Kyiv needs U.S. economic support to survive, and the political support to block Moscow from advancing further into Ukraine's territory. Eltsov added that for now, Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine seem to reject Russian intervention, but that the mood can quickly change.

"The identity really is a fluid category, as anthropolgists say. It depends on the situation, in particular in case of war like we saw, for example, in the former Yugoslavia.  Those issues can really change and switch between sides really fast - overnight - depending on rumors, depending on particular political developments.  This is a very dangerous situation," said Eltsov.

Eltsov also said Putin seems intent on reviving some of the former Russian Empire as his legacy, and if he is not stopped, he will attempt to bring back under Moscow's control other Russian-populated areas, for example in Kazakhstan.


"It is not impossible that given the political situation he would want to take a chunk of northern Kazakhstan, which is populated mostly by Russians. But that would be, of course, a much more difficult enterprise," said Eltsov.

Eltsov said the best guarantee against Russian aggression is a NATO presence in vulnerable areas. He thinks Russia is not likely to invade NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, despite their sizeable Russian-speaking populations. 

"The country which is not militarily allied and has a very weak military of its own, and is in such financial chaos, is definitely a very easy target," said Eltsov.

Last week, the U.S. government authorized sanctions, including visa restrictions, against those found to have violated Ukraine's territorial integrity. The European Union also took measures against Russia, suspending talks on visas and a new economic agreement.

To see the video version of this report click below:

http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraines-pm-to-meet-with-obama/1869353.html