Timehost says, "Welcome to the TIME Forum! Our chat
tonight is on the Earth's endangered environment - what its chances are for
survival in the next century and beyond, and what we can do , if anything,
to make a difference."
Timehost says, "Joining us is marine biologist
Sylvia Earle, whose article on how mankind trashes the oceans, called "Roll On,
Deep Blue," appears in Our Precious Planet TIME's international
special issue on the environment.
Timehost says, "Ms. Earle also holds a world record
for diving the greatest depth ever reached by a solo untethered diver - 1,000
meters."
Timehost says, "We are also happy to welcome to the
chat TIME International Editor Charles Alexander, who put together Our
Precious Planet and who will be sharing his insight
with us into the issue as a global phenomenon."
C_alexander says, "Thanks. Glad to be here."
Sylvia_earle says, "I too am pleased to be a part
of the action."
Timehost says, "To get the ball rolling, let's
start with a question from our audience."
Timehost presents question #170 from Wibbs:
This is a question for both or either of you. For all the ruckus made about
overfishing and illegal whaling by Norway and Japan, not to mention
Iceland, where should we draw the line between the dictates of culture and
those of the global environment? These are all, after all, traditionally
strong fishing societies.
Sylvia_earle says, "There are two issues at hand: the "living resources" within
the territorial waters of the countries involved, and, second, those in the global
commons, beyond the national jurisdiction."
Sylvia_earle says, "While a case could be made that
all of us have a vested interest in all life on earth,
as part of our life support system, and a source of other
benefits, and that the rights of any
individual or any nation who threaten elements of that life now must be
viewed in a different way than in times past, some are trying to make a case
that what happens within territorial waters is a business of the nation
involved, whether whales, cod or other migratory species, or species confined to those
waters."
Sylvia_earle says, "We had to grapple with similar
issues with migratory birds that transcend national
boundaries. Generally, policies are in
place whereby nations respect as part of a common heritage, those
creatures that move back and forth."
C_alexander says, "Fishing is fine as long as you take out no more than the
seas can replace. We call that sustainable
fishing."
Timehost says, "But who should decide what a
sustainable amount of fishing is, Charles? Is there any one international
body that individual countries respect that much?"
C_alexander says, "Good question. Sylvia might best
answer that."
Sylvia_earle says, "The number of individuals who
can be taken from wild populations on a sustained basis is small. Systems involved have developed
over millions of years and we are the new predators in those systems. Nothing has prepared life in
the sea for the high levels of predation that we are imposing. It is no wonder that we are
witnessing the collapse of many species that we have taken in large numbers in
recent times."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #174
from Mactheknife:
Can we realistically expect that developing nations that are seeing their
growth rate skyrocket will want to hold back on their consumer habits for the
sake of a starfish or two?
Sylvia_earle says, "(Laughs.) I think that's not the question. They're
not consuming tons of starfish. The concern is finding a truly
sustainable source of sustenance for humankind, without
disrupting the natural systems on which all of us depend for life."
C_alexander says, "Can aquaculture (fish farms) be run in
a sustainable manner?"
Sylvia_earle says, "There's a better chance of
achieving sustainability under controlled circumstances
if we choose the species to be cultivated wisely. Ten thousand years of
terrestrial agriculture has taught us to cultivate plants and animals that eat low on the food
chain. They need to be hardy, accept crowding, and taste good."
Sylvia_earle says, "There are some success stories
with aquaculture, notably freshwater fish such as catfish and tilapia. Tuna is not
promising by comparison. They are top of the line
predators, high on the food chain. It takes about two pounds of
plants to make one pound of one year old catfish or chicken. It may take one hundred
thousand pounds of plant material working through the food web, to make one pound of ten year
old tuna."
C_alexander says, "To get back to the original question about
curbing consumer habits, we need a new
mindset that enables us to be willing to save something for future
generations."
Timehost says, "The next question is from someone
who knows the underwater world very well..."
Timehost presents question #176 from Moderator:
This question comes from one of the writers who works with Jean-Michel
Cousteau: Does the future of undersea exploration lie with Remote Operated
Vehicles (ROV's) or manned expeditions? It seems to us that ROV's are
cheaper and can go deeper, but what does Dr. Earle think?
Sylvia_earle says, "(Laughs) Dr. Earle thinks that we should
use whatever tools we can assemble and choose the right one for
the right job. Sometimes the method of choice
involves the ROV, such as staying underwater on
station for days at a time, as it does in Antarctica. But there is no substitute for
being there. Some say a picture is worth a
thousand words. "I think an experience is worth
a thousand pictures."
Timehost says, "Charles, getting back to the point
you were making about changing the consumer mindset, we have a question from a guest who
wonders how to concretely think globally, but act locally -- particularly if the local
government is not very interested. Any suggestions of approaches that work in
correcting local environmental problems?"
C_alexander says, "The local press loves a good environmental controversy. Get
your local paper into action. Stage a demonstration. Get out the school kids."
Sylvia_earle says, "Most actions, maybe all of them,
start with individuals. We all have the power to make a
difference. The trick is to use that power"
C_alexander says, "Education is also key."
C_alexander says, "Kids these days are much more environmentally aware
than older generations, and they are teaching their parents. "
Timehost presents question #175 from Mactheknife:
Charles, I don't understand why you've included Mikhail Gorbachev in a
magazine issue on cleaning up the environment. Tell me, what has that man
ever accomplished concretely on the environmental front in his own country?
When Chernobyl exploded, Moscow kept dead quiet until the Scandinavian
countries started making noises. And yet he writes that from day one it was
his policy to get to the bottom of it. What has he done that deserves this
special attention?
C_alexander says, "I heard him speak in Moscow before he lost power. He
is a real environmentalist, and his new organization, the
International Green Cross, is a force for change. I remember that when I was
listening to him, at a time when his hold on power
was waning, I thought to myself, 'If the
Russians don't want this guy, we should take him.'"
Timehost presents the speakers with question #205
from Galehey:
Boy, Macktheknife's a busy little bee, isn't he? Anyway, speaking of
Russia, what about those false whaling reports they put out for 40 years?
Yikes. No wonder those species haven't recovered as fast as expected!
Sylvia_earle says, "A positive sign is that the
truth has come out and the person responsible is
still alive. Even if the whales aren't."
Timehost says, "This next question has a more
domestic ring to it. Please, either Sylvia or Charles, feel free to
answer..."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #179
from Woods_time:
Al Gore once said that the environment ought to be the nation's organizing
principle after the Cold War. Do you agree, and do you think Gore still
believes this?
C_alexander says, "I think Gore still believes it but he keeps a low profile on
environmental issues to make life easier for
his boss."
Timehost says, "Sylvia, would you agree?"
Sylvia_earle says, "Whether he believes it or not,
the environment IS an organizing, unifying issue. Some say, 'it's the economy,
stupid,' but it's increasingly obvious
that a sound economy is dependent on a sound "environment. If the environment is bankrupt,
so is the economy."
Timehost presents question #171 from Wibbs:
Sylvia, why is it that wealthy first nations talk a good line about keeping
the oceans clean, but rarely put their money where their mouths are when it
comes to issues such as the eutrophy of the Baltic Sea, or the disappearance
of the Aral Sea? The West seems to do nothing but pontificate. What gives?
Sylvia_earle says, "I think there's good news along
with the bad. I'm encouraged in part by the
talk, more by the action. Twenty five years ago the U.S.
established legislation for protected areas in the sea, in
some ways patterned after the National Parks Service, a
concept that some say is the best idea that America ever had."
Sylvia_earle says, "The US now has a dozen marine
sanctuaries, encompassing about 16,000
square miles. And worldwide there are more
than twelve hundred. This involves less than half of
one percent of the ocean as a whole but it is a start."
Sylvia_earle says, "The eutrophication begins on
the land and must be addressed by policies concerning what we put
into the atmosphere as well as what we put on the
land -- lawns, farms, golf courses, and
direct discharge -- that eventually flows to the
sea."
Timehost says, "But what "we" in the U.S. do
doesn't mean all that much for the rest of the world. How do we convince
Uzbekistan to change their cotton monoculture, for example, in the case of
the Aral Sea? Do foreign countries wield any influence in a situation like
that, Charles, in your opinion?"
C_alexander says, "We have to hope that programs run
by the U.N. and other international groups can help educate other countries.
Unfortunately, some agencies, like the World Bank, which has
supported huge destructive dam projects,
need a lot of education themselves."
Sylvia_earle says, "What we do here in the US does
matter -- both good examples and bad. It's vital that have sound
policies. It rings hollow for us to
criticize other nations for destructive environmental policies if
we engage in them ourselves. If we put our own house in
order, in terms of consumption and production of waste, others
may be inspired to follow the good example."
Timehost says, "Our next question continues that
thought...."
Timehost presents question #207 from Woods_time:
Can the U.S. prevent a crash in the pacific fisheries?
Sylvia_earle says, "We can do a lot in the
marketplace, for starters. If we cease to be consumers of
wild caught species that are taken irresponsibly, that would help. If we publicize widely the
destructive policies, that would help. If we make it unethical through
our education and behavior to consume or to support those nations who
consume irresponsibly, that, too, would help."
C_alexander says, "Sylvia is an adviser to a group called Sea
Web that will soon start a campaign against eating swordfish, which
are highly endangered. The group is lining up some
famous chefs to take swordfish off their menus. It will be interesting to see if
Americans will boycott swordfish just as
they once boycotted grapes to help
stop labor abuses."
Sylvia_earle says, "Imagine this: an Atlantic swordfish has to
weigh about one hundred pounds to reproduce. They can be taken legally at 33
pounds. We're killing and eating the
babies. Some long lines to catch
swordfish in the Atlantic extend seventy miles, with baited hooks every few
feet."
Sylvia_earle says, "It's confusing for consumers to
hear that swordfish are in trouble when swordfish appears in menus
in restaurants and supermarkets all over the
country. When people know better,
perhaps they will do better."
Timehost says, "We unfortunately have time for just
one more question. It's an amalgamation of a few that
were submitted to both of our guests tonight: If you both had to name the single most dangerous
environmental problem the world faces today, what would it be? And how would you evaluate our
chances for successfully overcoming it?"
C_alexander says, "Sylvia has convinced me that the devastation of the
oceans is right at the top of the
list. As she says so eloquently in
our special issue, the oceans are
our life-support system. Without healthy oceans, life on
earth is impossible. I'll let her comment on the
chances that we can return the seas to health."
Sylvia_earle says, "Underlying the devastation of
the oceans and other environmental threats
is ignorance. What we're putting into the
sea and what we're taking out,
as well as shoreline destruction, all contribute, but the biggest
problem is that people do not understand the significance of
nature generally, and the oceans specifically, to their survival and well-being."
Sylvia_earle says, "The best chance for recovery is
with exploring before exploiting and communications such as the
Time magazine special issue that informs not just
scientists and policy makers but the public at large. The best hope for positive
change is with an informed public."
Timehost says, "Thank you both very much for
joining us tonight!"
C_alexander says, "Thanks, Sylvia. You were a major part of our
special issue."
Sylvia_earle says, "Thank you very much. I look
forward to seeing more such comprehensive and valuable sources of information
produced in the future."
Timehost says, "Thanks again to both of our
guests. Good-night!"
