Friday, July 27, 2018

A Real Eye-Opener. Man's Rapacious Destruction of Our Oceans.

Think of it this way. When the world's oceans die, we die. Life on Earth depends on the viability of our oceans.

This graphic depicts what little wilderness remains of the world's oceans, the parts denoted in blue.

A new paper published in the journal, Current Biology, finds that just 13 per cent of the world's oceans qualify for the wilderness designation. And just 5 per cent of that 13 per cent lies within marine sanctuary zones.
As human activities increasingly threaten biodiversity [1, 2], areas devoid of intense human impacts are vital refugia [3]. These wilderness areas contain high genetic diversity, unique functional traits, and endemic species [4, 5, 6, 7]; maintain high levels of ecological and evolutionary connectivity [8, 9, 10]; and may be well placed to resist and recover from the impacts of climate change [11, 12, 13]. On land, rapid declines in wilderness [3] have led to urgent calls for its protection [3, 14]. In contrast, little is known about the extent and protection of marine wilderness [4, 5]. Here we systematically map marine wilderness globally by identifying areas that have both very little impact (lowest 10%) from 15 anthropogenic stressors and also a very low combined cumulative impact from these stressors. We discover that ∼13% of the ocean meets this definition of global wilderness, with most being located in the high seas. Recognizing that human influence differs across ocean regions, we repeat the analysis within each of the 16 ocean realms [15]. Realm-specific wilderness extent varies considerably, with >16 million km2 (8.6%) in the Warm Indo-Pacific, down to <2 4.1="" 4.9="" africa.="" aimed="" also="" and="" area="" as="" at="" be="" biodiverse="" biodiversity="" br="" conserving="" continue="" coral="" ecological="" ecosystems="" ensuring="" estate="" evolutionary="" global="" holds="" in="" incorporated="" into="" is="" km2="" large-scale="" little="" marine="" now="" of="" only="" proactive="" processes="" protected="" realm-specific="" reefs.="" retention="" should="" show="" southern="" strategies="" such="" temperate="" that="" the="" very="" we="" which="" wilderness="">
Those vast white expanses? That's where anthropogenic, i.e. man-made, impacts dominate.  From The Guardian:

Huge fishing fleets, global shipping and pollution running off the land are combining with climate change to degrade the oceans, the researchers found. Furthermore, just 5% of the remaining ocean wilderness is within existing marine protection areas. 
“We were astonished by just how little marine wilderness remains,” says Kendall Jones, at the University of Queensland, Australia, and the Wildlife Conservation Society, who led the new research. “The ocean is immense, covering over 70% of our planet, but we’ve managed to significantly impact almost all of this vast ecosystem.” 
Jones said the last remnants of wilderness show how vibrant ocean life was before human activity came to dominate the planet. “They act as time machines,” he said. “They are home to unparalleled levels of marine biodiversity and some of the last places on Earth you find large populations of apex predators like sharks.”

...Scientists warned in January that the oceans are suffocating, with huge dead zones quadrupling since 1950, and in February, new maps revealed half of world’s oceans are now industrially fished. “Oceans are under threat now as never before in human history,” said Sir David Attenborough at the conclusion of the BBC series Blue Planet 2 in December. 
The new research, published in the journal Current Biology, classified areas of ocean as wilderness if they were in the lowest 10% of human impacts, either from one source, such as bottom trawling, or a combination of them all.

As most are on the high seas, very few are protected. “This means the vast majority of marine wilderness could be lost at any time, as improvements in technology allow us to fish deeper and ship farther than ever before,” Jones said.


Anonymous said...

And now...a new oil find with an agreement with a Norwegian company off the coast of one of the deepest areas of the Atlantic Ocean...for 14! No Peter Lougheed here..say what?

Anonymous said...

The above is from me Anyong.

The Mound of Sound said...

I don't understand the Peter Lougheed reference Anyong. What does Lougheed have to do with this Norwegian venture?

Jay Farquharson said...

Lougheed set up the Alberta version of an oil lease based "Soverign Wealth Fund", to reinvest oil monies in Alberta to keep Dutch Disease away.

The Norweigans did it best, Alberta blew their wad on pony tides, NewFoundland and Labrador's not even bothering to try.

Anonymous said...

Norwegians implemented Lougheed's platform regarding royalties which did not take place in Alberta. Norwegians said to oil companies like ExxonMoble...."we get 80% royalties, you get 20% take it or leave it". Oil companies took it and that is why Norway now has a trillion dollars stashed away for the future. Premiers like Premier Ball are aways thinking about the next election. Danny Williams was the only Premier who did not take a pay cheque for being Premier but gave it all away to charity, and he stood up to what ever government was in power in Ottawa at the time, and he was one of those Conservatives . It is ironic that a Norwegian company will be the lead company in this venture off the coast of Newfoundland. How STUPID is that I ask and have sent Ball an email to that effect. However, the upstart will be "no reply as usual. 7:54...I like your implicative analogy....Anyong

Anonymous said...

I wonder about you Mound. Is it because you know I am a woman or is it you forget what you write about? Anyong

Anonymous said...

It seems you just refuse to mention in anything you write about the oceans, that they are responsible for the oxygen we and the animals living in the ocean breath. The Atlantic Ocean produces the highest amount of oxygen in the world. Trees produce the rest. Anyong

The Mound of Sound said...

I understand Lougheed's legacy in Norway and the establishment of the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. I just don't see how Norway's economic policy has much to do with this venture off NL. They're running true to form, investing their windfall in ventures overseas. It's odd that you should take that so personally.

And why should I bring up the issue of oxygen in this post? This has nothing to do with oxygen generation, a subject that has been dealt with several times in other posts. There's no reason for you to get angry over this, Anyong. Perhaps you would be less excitable elsewhere.

Jay Farquharson said...

Nope, both Norway and Alberta built Soverign Wealth Funds.

Norway took thiers and built up an economy built on fish, timber and oil, into a modern, diversified Industrial State by taking a portion of the interest earned by the investments, and investing in energy efficiency, housing, new industry, education, infrastructure, social services, while preserving and growing the capital.

Alberta used the money in the funds and interest earned to cut taxes, subsidize gas and build Hockey Rinks.

The Netherlands never invested the money, just blew it on subsidizing the Oil Industry, ( building a massive one sided bubble and depressing other areas of the economy), until the revinues fell massively.

Jay Farquharson said...

Newfoundland's not using the revinue from past ventures or the new oil field to even try to build a Soverign Wealth Fund.