Our Time in the Sun

Talk about backfiring.  In our quest for longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives, we’ve removed ourselves so far from our evolutionary history that we’re perversely making ourselves less healthy.  

Yes, pollution is an obvious culprit.  We’ve known for decades that toxic chemicals used for modern conveniences can cause cancer, birth defects, and reproductive problems. 

But I’m talking about something much simpler:  sunshine.  We don’t get it anymore.  At least not enough of it according to Dr. Michael Holick, a medical doctor and researcher responsible for much of what we know about vitamin D and health.  In his 2010 book The Vitamin D Solution, Holick presents compelling evidence that most Americans have insufficient levels of vitamin D, that this insufficiency contributes substantially to serious health problems such as cancer and heart disease, and that just 15 minutes or so a day of sunlight a few times a week can prevent the onset of health problems in many people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released its own report on vitamin D levels (with a lower standard for what's considered acceptable levels), and reported that one-third of Americans have insufficient vitamin D levels.

Not In My Backyard

As they say, denial is more than just a river in Egypt.  Apparently, it’s also a fundamental part of nuclear energy planning in the United States.  The recent disaster in Japan has renewed fears about the vulnerability of US nuclear reactors to earthquakes or other disasters.   In at least one case, the reaction from officials has been a not-so-reassuring “don’t worry, it can’t happen here.” 

Speaking of cars and climate change...

In a recent piece for my local newspaper, the Shepherdstown WV Observer, I used my harrowing experience in a DC rush hour snow storm to address all-to-common skepticism about anthropocentric climate change.   But heavy snowfall wasn’t the only climate-relevant news story this past winter.  We saw a fair bit of hype about the new electric car debuted by Chevy, the Volt.  The Volt has two electric motors that operate from a charged battery with a gasoline engine for backup.  Recharging the battery allows the car to travel 30 or 40 miles, after which the gasoline engine kicks in to keep the electric motors going for a few hundred more miles.  Electric cars are often publicized in the press as being a good environmental choice because they require so little gasoline.   No doubt their widespread use could reduce our dependence on oil – a worthy goal considering climate change, the impacts of drilling and a foreign policy that includes far too many wars and propping up of unworthy tyrants.  But from an environmental standpoint, their benefits are questionable - a question that far too few journalists bother to ask.

Obama Enacts Ocean Zoning

By Amy Mathews Amos

Amid the ongoing coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a major development in how we use and manage offshore waters has gone virtually unnoticed. On July 19 President Obama an executive order directing federal agencies to come up with plans to, in effect, zone the oceans within our territorial waters in much the same way local governments zone land.

Before Tea Partiers cry foul about a new intrusion by the federal government, we should look at what the high seas have become.

We’ve always thought of the seas as free, wild, and infinite. A place we go to get away from rush hour traffic and office cubicles. We picture waves rolling under the bow of a boat, sails full, sun bright. Or white breakers crashing on lonely stretches of beach. To most of us, the ocean seems unimaginably big. Vast. Endless.

But it’s not.

The tar balls washing up on Gulf of Mexico beaches remind us that it’s getting pretty crowded out there. And not just with oil rigs. Walking the shore, we can’t readily see the fierce competition underway for pipeline routes, mining sites, sewage lines, communication cables, fishing fleets, and more. But in reality, things are bumping into each other much more often at sea, whether it’s oil and water, cables and corals, or ships and whales.

Often literally colliding: A 90,000-ton container ship can kill a 100-ton right whale when it hits it. Ship collisions are the biggest source of human-caused death for these endangered cetaceans. The second biggest is entanglement in fishing gear.

To bring order to the seas, it’s time to take our cue from the land. Hence, the Obama administration’s move to begin the process.

For decades communities have used zoning to reduce land-use conflicts and protect property values. In 2008, Massachusetts became the first state to apply this idea to the ocean. With 400 years of seafaring behind it, Massachusetts entered the 21st century struggling to balance modern demands like fish farms, sand mining, and wind farms with declining fisheries and thriving tourism. With the state’s passage of a comprehensive ocean “zoning” law, it now has a framework to identify which offshore areas are appropriate for which uses, and to flag potential conflicts in advance. The Obama Administration wants to do the same thing in U.S. ocean waters and the Great Lakes.

Called “marine spatial planning,” this concept is rooted in conservation. Australia pioneered it in the 1980s to protect valuable coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroves in its world-renowned Great Barrier Reef National Park.

Protecting special places in U.S. waters isn’t new either. Just as our national parks preserve special areas on land, national marine sanctuaries protect resources like the sunken wreck of the Civil War ship USS Monitor off the North Carolina coast, and the country’s northernmost coral reefs in the Flower Garden Banks of the Gulf of Mexico.

But the idea of ocean zoning goes far beyond conservation. The Obama Administration sees it as a way to promote economic development too. Identifying areas suitable for various economic, industrial, or conservation uses in advance can help reduce conflicts and facilitate compatible uses.

This includes energy development, which increasingly drives how we use the ocean. In Massachusetts, conflicts over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, tidally-driven energy facilities, and wind farms fueled change. At the national level, intense pressure for offshore oil and gas drilling leases adds to the urgency.

The catastrophic BP spill in the Gulf forces the question: what areas should be off limits to oil and gas drilling, and where can we develop more sustainable, renewable energy sources so these disasters don’t happen in the future?

Not surprisingly, the idea of flagging parts of the ocean for specific uses raises hackles. To many, this simply doesn’t fit the romantic image of a free ocean. Recreational fishing interests in particular are opposed to anything that might restrict fishing access.

Dr. Elliott Norse, president of the nonprofit Marine Conservation Biology Institute and a leading thinker and supporter of marine spatial planning, likens the idea of a free and open ocean to a “sacred value.” According to psychologists, sacred values are concepts that defy rational decision-making, based solely on strong emotion. No promise of practical benefits can easily sway someone away from a sacred value.

But clinging to outdated notions of what we want the oceans to be could do irreversible harm. We’re placing tremendous new demands on the seas and need a more thoughtful approach to managing them.

The time for marine spatial planning has come. If there was any doubt before, surely those doubts should have sunk with the Deepwater Horizon.

© Blue Ridge Press 2010. Amy Mathews Amos is an independent environmental consultant advising conservation groups and others on marine conservation issues.

Blue Ridge Press is a syndicated news and commentary service reporting on the environment, published by more than 350 newspapers in 45 states, reaching more than 23 million readers.  See blueridgepress.com/

Please respect all copyrights.

Killing Nemo

By Amy Mathews Amos


It’s a true story. Well, not exactly true – clown fishes and blue tangs can’t really talk like they do in Disney’s animated film Finding Nemo. But those beautiful fish inhabiting the aquarium in your dentist’s office or your cousin’s home really are taken directly from tropical coral reefs. And if you found yourself rooting for Nemo, brace yourself.


Each year an estimated 30 to 60 million coral reef fish are removed from tropical reefs and shipped halfway around the world for ornamental display in the United States and Europe. Along the way, many of them die.


Their perilous journey takes them from their coral reef home to a diver’s net, to a boat, to a holding facility, to a jet plane, an importer’s warehouse, then a retail store. They make this trip largely in plastic baggies and boxes, the water replaced every few days to replenish oxygen and remove built-up waste. Not surprisingly, the dirty water and stress take their toll. So to make up for the fish that die, divers take even more from the reef.

While we may find cartoon characters adorable, in reality few of us empathize with captured fish. But beyond the trauma to Nemo and pals is the impact of this largely unregulated practice on coral reefs. More than 85 percent of fish caught for the marine aquarium trade come from Indonesia and the Philippines. Overfishing is rampant in these countries, and controls are almost nonexistent. According to Dr. Brian Tissot, a biologist at Washington State University who has studied the impacts of the marine aquarium trade, some reefs have been “knocked flat” from overfishing, with fish populations a tiny fraction of what they would be without the aquarium trade.

But it’s not just fish populations that get destroyed. Coral reefs are structures produced by living organisms in oceans. The primary organisms typically are stony corals that secrete an exoskeleton of calcium carbonate, creating a reef that supports the corals and a huge variety of other animal and plant life. Divers often squirt cyanide into reefs to stun fish, making them easier to catch. Cyanide typically doesn’t kill the fish outright, but it does kill corals and other life on the reef. Divers also often pry corals apart to find fish hiding in crevices, destroying a reef structure that took decades or centuries to build.

All of this comes at a time when corals can least afford it. Pollution and overfishing for food are major problems on these reefs. And corals are notoriously vulnerable to increases in water temperature and other effects of climate change. According to Tissot, the net effect of removing reef fish in such large numbers is that we are making coral reefs less able to handle stresses like global climate change. “Our best defense against climate change is a stable reef with an intact ecosystem. A reef that retains its own natural complexity will be more resilient to these changes.”


The good news and the bad is that this destruction is driven largely by demand in the United States and Europe. Because we created most of the demand, we can also change it. According to Eric Borneman, a coral biologist at the University of Houston and an author on the aquarium hobby, “Just reducing the mortality rate would make a huge, huge difference.” He urges hobbyists to buy fish only from reputable businesses that source from responsible exporters that can trace their fish to its source. These businesses sell healthy fish that clearly have been handled well throughout their journey. Although they may be more expensive initially, the higher survival rates of these fish make them less costly because they don’t need to be replaced – and therefore don’t fuel demand for overfishing on coral reefs. He also urges hobbyists to learn “which fish are almost impossible to kill and which are almost impossible to keep alive” in captivity. Those that won’t survive in a tank should never be removed from a reef.


Brian Plankis, president of the nonprofit Reef Stewardship Foundation, maintains, “Everyone can take action to help coral reefs, not just hobbyists.” He recommends reducing your personal carbon footprint by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, taking public transportation, and purchasing electricity from renewable sources.


Ultimately, changes need to happen on the water in source countries to eliminate overfishing and cyanide use. But changing demand in the United States can help: without a market, there’s nothing to sell. Changes to U.S. import laws are needed to prevent unregulated or poorly managed fish from entering the country. Stricter shipping requirements to reduce the number of fish that die en route may also be necessary.


In the meantime, keep rooting for Nemo. The future of the world’s coral reefs may depend on it.


Amy Mathews Amos is an independent environmental consultant advising conservation groups and others on marine conservation issues.



© Blue Ridge Press 2010

Blue Ridge Press is a syndicated news and commentary service reporting on the environment, published by more than 350 newspapers in 45 states, reaching more than 23 million readers.  See blueridgepress.com/

Please respect all copyrights.