http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php en hank@greenteamusa.com Copyright 2010 2010-06-25T13:40:34+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/ocean_health_issues_and_answers/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/ocean_health_issues_and_answers/ Why we need healthy oceans, why the oceans are in crisis and what can be done about it.It’s fairly simple. Without the ocean, human life on Earth would be impossible. As Sylvia Earle says, “No blue, no green.” Yet after centuries of abuse at the hands of mankind, the ocean is in crisis, a fact recognized by 48 percent of Awakening Consumers in a recent g-Think survey. Here is a topline look at ocean health: why we need it, why it’s threatened and what we can do about it. FIVE REASONS WE NEED HEALTHY OCEANS: 1. Oxygen. Ocean plants and bacteria produce over half the oxygen we breathe. 2. Carbon Absorption. The oceans absorb roughly 30 percent of global carbon emissions and 80 percent of the heat generated from increased levels of greenhouse gases. Without the ocean, global warming would be a far greater threat than it already is. 3. Weather. The ocean is a vital component of the climate system. It exchanges with the atmosphere large quantities of heat, water and gases. It is responsible for the global redistribution of heat from tropics to polar regions that keeps climates predictable, and the planet habitable. 4. Water. The ocean returns moisture to the atmosphere that becomes the rain that grows crops and feeds rivers and streams. 5. Food. The ocean provides over 157 million tons of food per year, about 2 percent of the world’s total food production. While that number may seem low, consider that the ocean provides about 16 percent of the protein humans consume, and that approximately one billion people depend on the ocean as their primary source of food. As the world’s population heads toward 9 billion, the ocean stands to play an even more critical role in providing nutrition to ever-growing demand. (7) THREE REASONS THE OCEANS ARE IN CRISIS: 1. Overfishing. Humans are pulling fish out of the ocean faster than the fish can reproduce. Clearly, this is not a sustainable model. Over the past 50 years, one third of the world’s fisheries have collapsed. Current trends suggest global fisheries could collapse completely by 2048. Today more than 90 percent of the stock of certain species, including blue fin tuna, shark, swordfish and Atlantic cod has disappeared. (1) As coastal fisheries become depleted, fishing fleets have to move farther out from shore and shift to deeper water species. Because these deeper water species (such as Orange Roughy and Grouper) tend to have larger body size, longer life spans, later sexual maturity and slow growth, they are more vulnerable to overfishing. (2) Advanced fishing techniques such as bottom trawling has added to the problem. Bottom trawling wreaks havoc on biodiversity by removing up to 60 percent of all species within an area in just a single trawl. This can mean the disappearance of coral communities thousands of years old in a matter of hours. (3) 2. Climate Change. Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere naturally lead to increased levels of CO2 in the ocean. These increased levels can negatively affect growth, reproduction, disease resistance and other biological and physiological processes in many marine species. More than anything, increased carbon absorption has led to the acidification, or the altering of the pH balance, of the ocean. The acidity of the ocean surface has increased 30 percent since before the Industrial Revolution. (4) If current trends continue, ocean acidity could rise by another 100 percent by the end of this century. (5) Many species will be unable to adapt to the rapid changes in ocean acidity and carbonate concentrations, especially those that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons, such as lobster, crab and other shellfish. (8) 3. Pollution. Many marine species are harmed or even killed by plastic debris, which could jeopardize their survival. Marine animals are mostly affected through entanglement in and ingestion of plastic litter. Other threats include the use of plastic debris by “invader” species and the absorption of PCBs from ingested plastics. (9) The ocean now contains over 400 “dead zones ,” mostly downstream of agricultural basins, and exposed to runoff of fertilizers, pesticides and soil. Normal marine biodiversity has ceased to exist in these regions which span more than 245,000 square kilometers, according to some estimates. (10) The ocean is home to over 90% of the world’s species—flora and fauna that could one day hold the cures for asthma, malaria and cancer. Yet plastic debris, coastal runoff and other forms of pollution are decreasing the possibility of those potential cures ever being realized. THREE THINGS YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT: 1. Eat smarter. The U.S. is the world’s third-largest consumer of seafood (behind China and Japan). However, more than three-quarters of the seafood Americans eat is imported from some other country. Eating less seafood, and eating closer-caught seafood clearly makes sense on a number of levels. Awakening Consumers seem to understand this. Almost 92 percent said, at one time or another, they chose not to eat a particular seafood because of concerns about its scarcity. There are dozens of seafood selector cards issued by various NGOs, and while their effectiveness has been questioned, 23 percent of Awakening Consumers have used one when making a seafood selection. Not all seafood is the same, and eating some species has a greater impact on ocean biodiversity than others. For example, eating a top predator species such as tuna, shark or swordfish has a greater impact than eating a species lower down on the food chain such as tilapia or mussels. 2. Cut down your carbon. Lessening their carbon footprint and fossil fuel consumption is a concept Awakening Consumers are very familiar with. Ditto the need to recycle plastic waste. As awareness of the connection between these behaviors and ocean health becomes more apparent, there will be even more motivation for Awakening Consumers to embrace them. 3. Demand Marine Protected Areas. As a society, we place great value on our protected lands—our state and national parks and World Heritage sites. Twelve percent of the planet’s land is protected; less than 1 percent of the ocean is. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) protect critical spawning and migration areas for a large number of species. They often include large no-catch zones, which research has shown can generate 20 times more revenue through ecotourism than fishing (11). In summary, the health and well-being of the ocean is at a critical juncture. While mankind needs a healthy ocean in order to survive, we continue to threaten its well-being with a variety of destructive practices. It would not be at all surprising to see public awareness of ocean health issues gain increasing levels of traction in the years ahead. Because when the ocean is in crisis, we are all in crisis. SOURCES: 1. Myers and Worm (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283;  Baum et al. (2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392;  Ferretti et al. (2008) Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 22: 952-964 Worm et al. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787-790 (2) Morato et al. (2006) Fishing down the deep. Fish and Fisheries 7: 23-33 (3) Thrush and Dayton (2002) Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity . Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 449-473 (4) Orr et al. (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681-686 (5) Caldeira and Wickett (2005) Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 110:C09S04 (6) Sabine et al. (2004) The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367-371;  IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (7) FAO (2006);  Duarte et al. (2009) Will the oceans help feed humanity? Bioscience 59: 967-976 (8) Fabry et al. (2008) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414-432 (9) Derraik (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852 (10) Diaz & Rosenberg (2008) Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems. Science 321: 926-929 (11) Sala et al. (2001) Rapid decline of Nassau grouper spawning aggregations in Belize: Fishery management and conservation needs. Fisheries 26: 23-30 (12) McCook et al. (2010) Marine Reserves Special Feature: Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA Issue 21 2010-06-25T13:40:34+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_rime_of_the_awakening_mariner/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_rime_of_the_awakening_mariner/ Lauren Mann provides a fresh take on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s epic song of the sea. Preface: Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in 1797, supposedly after taking a long walk through the English countryside with his buddy William Wordsworth . At 625 lines, it’s one of the longest poems in the English language, and I always marveled at how he had the time and patience to craft stanza after stanza of perfect, rhyming prose. But then again, these guys basically had nothing to do except think, write, drink tea, ride horses and try not to catch scarlet fever. So of course they wrote long, complex, allegorical poems – and of course people spent entire days reading and appreciating this delicate craft. I’m not afraid to say that this poem tormented me a bit in school. I struggled to find meaning in Coleridge’s strange tale of an old sailor who stops a wedding guest en route to a wedding to ramble on and on about his harrowing experience at sea. And I admit that I had little patience for Olde English (the language, not the malt liquor; the latter I had plenty of time for, as most college students do). But, a decade later, with g-think Oceans on my mind, it somehow spoke to me, peeking its little Romantic Literature head out from the pages of my mental bookshelf. So, I thought I’d attempt to turn the Ancient Mariner into an Awakening Mariner. Nerdy? Probably. I’ll let you be the judge. The Rime of the Awakening Mariner There is an Awakening Mariner, Who sees a fading blue. And dreams of a day when it will be A brighter, richer hue. Each shrinking wave with salty foam Reflects a grayish cloud But how it came to be this way, (S)he wonders now aloud: “Where is my sea? Where is my boat? I’m lost up here on land. My legs, though sturdy and secure, Are feeling more like sand. I’ve sailed the world ‘round in my mind And slept on every shore. On one I met my would-be muse Who spoke of local lore. It was a myth like none I’d heard, A story both new and old. Where creatures glided gracefully In a place that’s deep and cold. With shining speed and intentions pure They danced and circled the earth, Following human currents blind And inspiring bottomless mirth. I know this place from another life. Its memories haunt and charm, Leading me with no other choice But to sound the ocean alarm.” And so the Awakening Mariner Is rising to the cause. For consciousness (s)he would rather wear Than the corpse of an albatross. Issue 21 2010-06-23T15:36:06+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_river_wife_chapter_one/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_river_wife_chapter_one/ In an exclusive for g-Think readers, chairman and co-founder of Green Team Australia, Heather Rose, also an award-winning author, reads from her latest novel, The River Wife, a myth about water and love.The River Wife is a new myth, a new story of loss and also hope for humanity as we learn to engage differently with water, no longer a substance we can take for granted, but a gift that allows each generation to transform into the next. “A grown-up fairy tale told in exquisite language. Story-telling at its best.” ABC NZ “A cool and luscious fable of love ... with all the hallmarks of the great love stories - passionate and tantalising, elegiac and profound.” The Canberra Times, Australia Issue 21 2010-06-23T04:30:03+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_roi_of_oceans/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_roi_of_oceans/ Dollars, cents and the business case for ocean health. Forget warm and fuzzy, this is about cold, hard cash.How do you place monetary value on the world’s oceans? How do you determine the return on investment, or ROI, of an ocean? In addition to revenue from fishery, natural resources and tourism, how do you assign less tangible value, like leaving a healthy living system for future generations? How do you assign value to a sunset or the sound of the rolling tide? The concept of the ocean as “capital,” or in other words, an asset that can produce income in the future, is not something that most people consider everyday. But consider this: The value of marine ecosystem goods and services, in addition to traditional human uses like transportation, resource extraction and waste disposal, annually adds up to 63 percent of the total estimated value of all systems on earth.  And yet, this money-maker that we call the ocean, is treated like a service for hire, to be extracted and used as needed, rather than invested in and protected as a partner in the development of a long-term economic future for our people and planet. Why is this? One may argue that the ocean is the best example of the classic Tragedy of the Commons, a social theory set forth by Garrett Hardin in 1968 that describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.  How do you personalize the ocean to a species of innately self-interested mammals? Well, in the age of capitalism, why don’t we take a look at the bottom line and explore an economic argument for its existence. Like our industrial economy, the ocean economy comprised of goods and services that are dependent upon each other. We need a healthy system of coral reefs, kelp forests, mangroves, salt marshes, mud flats, estuaries, rocky shores, sandy beaches, sea mounts, abyssal plains and open oceans if the ocean is to produce tangible value for its human users. Tourism, recreation and leisure are probably the most human-centric activities that contribute to the ocean-economy. With 898 million arrivals to the marine environment in 2007 and an annual growth of 5 percent worldwide, revenues from coastal tourism amount to over $161 billion globally. Certainly nobody can argue that oceans draw a crowd. But this is a double-edged sword, as coastal communities are incentivized to both protect and develop their resources, often opposition to one another. It is this complex paradox that constantly pushes and pulls the economics of coastal protection, but in general, most would agree that tourism is one of the best ways to humanize the ROI of the ocean. But what about the less human-centric activities that make up ocean economics? Feeding Life Consider Ocean as food. There are some startling economic dilemmas that arise: 1. Oceans provide over 157 million tons of food per year 2. Fishing is a $90+ billion industry 3. 75 percent of world fish stocks are exploited or overexploited (meaning that the max wild capture potential from the world’s oceans is about tapped) 4. 200 million people fish for their livlihoods 5. 16 percent of the global population depends on fish as a primary source of protein.  We want and need fish and the myriad industries it supports (ship building, fish meal and other byproducts, culinary arts…). Yet while we are dependent on fish in so many ways, the unending pursuit of a quick profit, with no consideration to the carrying-capacity of the source of the product,  has resulted in over-exploitation, and in many cases the destruction of fragile breeding grounds such as coral reefs. By only looking at short-term gains, instead of the long-term sustainability of our fishing stocks, we are endangering the goose that lays the golden egg. We’re ensuring that this robust and important economic system that feeds us and the global economy, is on its way to fulfilling the 2006 prediction that global fisheries will collapse by 2048.  Although this prediction has been criticized for being exaggerated and alarmist, there is little doubt that we are dependent upon an unsustainable industry, both economically and environmentally speaking. To give a real world example of the kinds of backwards and short-term economics at play, consider that blast fishing in Indonesia brings earning of about $15,000/per square kilometer over a 20-year period, but generates losses to society ranging from $91,000 - 700,000/persquare kilometer.  Certainly some food for thought. No pun intended. Sustaining Life Besides supporting life through sustenance, marine life is also proving to be more and more valued in the business of saving life. Between 1960 and 1982 about 16,000 chemicals from marine plants and animals were analyzed for their anti-cancer effects. Over the years, compounds found in marine plants and animals have proven to posses healing qualities that support cardiovascular health, nervous system health and immunity as well as demonstrating anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties.  Yet the human and economic benefits of marine biotechnology are just beginning to be realized. To date only 4 marine-based drugs are on the market (it takes an average of 10+ years from discovery to market), yet these 4 represent an annual market of more than $50 million. With a long pipeline of drugs in the research phase, the economic and human opportunities of marine-drugs are enormous. One example of a marine based healthcare product, Macro-algae (think sushi and skin care) makes up a $6 billion market, while another $6 billion comes from the fast growing micro-algae market (think supplements).  In today’s world you can’t walk down the aisles of Whole Foods without seeing ads highlighting the digestive benefits of spirulina or the soothing affects of seaweed-infused lotions. A Wise Investment The above only highlights a few of the assets that make up our economic investment in the Ocean. We have been given a set of highly valuable assets, that whether we want to or not, makes us all investors in the world’s oceans. We’re investors because we all personally have something to gain or lose. Unfortunately, we are not paying proper attention to the long-term sustainability of our investments. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from our most recent economic crisis. When complicated deals are being made that systematically externalize risk, don’t be surprised when you end up footing the bill. There’s a reason why they call it the Tragedy of the Commons. Possibly the BP oil spill will begin to wake people up to the fact that even if they don’t have a beachfront view, the ocean is inextricably tied to their everyday lives. We see this happening as communities, long dependent on fishing run out of healthy product, tourist destinations lose bookings to tar blobs, and (as happened to me last week) lump crabmeat is no longer available on the bistro menus of Brooklyn. This may be the wake-up call that we need to realize that the ocean, so long taken for granted, is at the heart of our everyday lives. But how many crab cakes will it take before it hits home? That’s going to be up to you. Sources: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. In: Nature, Vol. 387 http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. PISCO (2002): The Science of Marine Reserves. Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans p. 5., http://www.piscoweb.org. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer 1/2008, http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/wtb.html. FAO (2007): The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome. Worm, Boris, “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services”, Science 3 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 787 - 790 Burke L, Selig L, and Spalding M (2002): Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute WRI, Washington DC. The marine pharmacology review 2003 and 2004 covers the peer-reviewed literature during this period - Mayer A M S, Rodríguez A D, Berlinck R G S, Hamann M T (2007): Marine pharmacology in 2003–4: Marine compounds with anthelmintic antibacterial, anticoagulant, antifungal, anti-infl ammatory, antimalarial, antiplatelet, antiprotozoal, antituberculosis, and antiviral activities; affecting the cardiovascular, immune and nervous systems, and other miscellaneous mechanisms of action. In: Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C, Vol. 145 (2007)) Carlsson A S, van Beilen J B, Möller R, Clayton D (2007): Micro- and Macro-Algae: Utility for Industrial Applications. Outputs from the EPOBIO- project; FAO (2003): A guide to the seaweed industry. FAO Fisheries Technical paper 441. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Issue 21 2010-06-23T03:55:40+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_undeniable_influence_of_the_tour_operator/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_undeniable_influence_of_the_tour_operator/ They bring their clients face-to-face with the natural wonders of the ocean. As such, tour operators could be a powerful force in getting people more emotionally engaged with the ocean. Meet one who’s doing just that.First imagine soaring grey dolerite cliffs scored by time. Now see a deep green ocean where sea birds circle and a pod of dolphins leaps. Take a journey to the far southern tip of one of Australia’s southern most islands – Bruny – off the coast of Tasmania, and you’ll find yourself in a landscape that is entirely remote and inaccessible by car. It’s a coastline once known only to professional fishermen. Now that stretch of ocean is home to Australia’s leading ecotourism experience, winner of the Australian Tourism Award for Ecotourism for 2009, and client of Green Team Australia. Rob Pennicott, owner of Pennicott Wilderness Journeys and creator of Bruny Island and Tasman Island Cruises, is a man with a passion for the sea. “I used to be a fisherman. I used to take friends with me, and they loved it. And I thought maybe if they loved it, tourists would love it too,” he says. That passion has led Rob to share this wild and inaccessible landscape with more than 150,000 guests since 1999. Last year alone, more than 43,000 people experienced the Great Southern Ocean on one of Rob’s custom-designed boats. “It’s an ever-changing environment, and we want people to have one of the best days of their lives, so we designed the boats for comfort, safety, speed stability and ease of viewing,” he says. There are no windows, so people are up close with nature. They can smell the salt air and feel connected with everything they see. We carry a maximum of 43 passengers per boat, so your eco-cruising experience is intimate and personal.” The sights include stunning natural cliff formations including Fluted Cape and Breathing Rock, rock columns, caves and blowholes, a fur seal colony, albatross, sea eagles, shearwater, and dolphins. From October and November, they may even see migrating whales. While the 12.5-meter boats are powered by three 300hp Mercury Verado supercharged 4-stroke engine boats, they’re built for high fuel efficiency and the quietest operation making them the world’s lowest emission power plants of their type. “We call them the 4WD’s of the sea because of their unequalled sea-keeping abilities,” says Pennicott. “Everyone in our business - from skippers to café staff - are committed to true respect and care for the environment.” That philosophy runs deep in the business. Robert Pennicott, his wife, artist Michaye Boulter, and their two children Mia and Noah, live on Bruny Island, and the flow-on effects of their business ripple far and wide across the island. The business prioritizes local businesses as their main source of goods and services, and provides support to the local community by sharing their profits through donation of cash and services, fundraising support and conservation. In 2007, the company founded the Tasmanian Coast Conservation Fund in partnership with WILDCARE Tasmania and to date has donated $65,000 towards important work carried out by the Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife . These conservation and sustainability efforts were recognized in 2008, when the company won the Australian Telstra Sensis Social Responsibility Award. The following year, Pennicott Wilderness Journeys went on to win the 2009 Tasmanian Qantas Award for excellence in Sustainability . The company is 100% carbon offset with Greening Australia, with the money going towards local planting projects. It’s a business created by a passion for the ocean and a love of wilderness, and it supports not only a family and an island community, but offers transformational experiences to tourists, many of whom experience the power and majesty of the ocean for the first time. “We don’t just say we want people to have the best day of their lives, we set about making sure in every way that this is the experience they have,” says Pennicott. “Unless people have experienced nature it can be hard for them to understand why it’s worth protecting and defending.” For more information www.pennicottjourneys.com.au Issue 21 2010-06-23T03:45:08+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/what_lies_beneath_/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/what_lies_beneath_/ The Academy Award-winning documentary demonstrates not only the brutal slaughter of dolphins in Japan, but also how an emotional appeal just might be the best way to arouse awareness on ocean issues. Imagine a tranquil, crystal clear lagoon. The water is so blue that you can see to the very bottom, and gaze at an array of colorful fish and other sea creatures, even dolphins, swimming beneath the surface. Now imagine a group of fisherman. Standing with the fisherman are animal trainers flown in from across the globe. Watch as they carefully maneuver hundreds of these dolphins into this secret lagoon, and violently harpoon every last one that isn’t anointed beautiful enough for a seaquarium. A deep red now clouds the crystal blue water. This is one of many heartbreaking scenes from the Academy Award-winning documentary, The Cove. The film exposes the brutal capture and killing of dolphins in a secret cove in the coastal Japanese town of Taiji. Those deemed “attractive enough” for display are sold to aquariums worldwide, and the remainder are killed and sold for their meat. The film’s protagonist is Ric O’Barry, who helped capture and train the five dolphins that starred in the 1960s Flipper TV series, launching what would become a multi-million dollar industry. But since Flipper, Barry has become one of the most adamant and vocal opponents to keeping animals in captivity, and helped pave the road to this film’s creation. The Cove has received ample backlash, most notably in Japan. Last fall, Taiji officials threatened to sue the filmmakers prior to the film’s screening at the Tokyo Film Festival. There has been great debate over its release, not to mention the fear-mongering that has ensued: Last month, 50 riot police protected the film’s Japanese distributor from violent demonstrators outside their Tokyo offices, and an angry mob of hired protesters showed up at the home of Takeshi Kato, the Japanese distributor, angrily beating on his door and making threats through loudspeakers. This all begs the seemingly reasonable question: How is the brutal killing of over 20,000 dolphins a year sanctioned? The Japanese government maintains that eating both dolphins and whales remain an important cultural tradition, and a critical element of national scientific research. Dolphin hunts also occur in many other cities besides Taiji. The film’s director, Louie Psihoyos, wrote in his blog that before the film was shot, hardly any Japanese knew that dolphin hunting was a relatively common national practice. And when they were shown the raw footage of the brutal killing in Taiji, every last person was horrified.  But the fact remains that thousands of these feeling, thinking creatures are killed every year in Japan, sold to aquariums, or to consumers as whale meat. Yet, only 1 percent of Japanese people regularly eat whale meat, or what they believe to be whale meat. Whaling accounts for 0.001 percent of Japan’s economy, or less than one tenth the value of the country’s yearly market for toothbrushes. So what’s really going on here, and why should the Awakening Consumer care? The Cove is a microcosm of a much more pervasive and detrimental global issue. The film uses the jarring tragedy in Taiji to slap us in the face—to get our attention and address the greater issue of how we respect - or fail to respect the ocean, and the creatures living in it.  Perhaps like me, you live in a major city far from the sea, which makes it difficult to have a visceral feeling of compassion for regular, everyday fish. Perhaps the idea of harming a mammal like Flipper, however, pulls harder on the heartstrings (and that’s the film’s intention). The truth is oceans are a part of our everyday life. We are vitally dependent on its resources, and yet less than 1 percent of the ocean is protected by law (for additional ocean facts, see Hank’s article). It does seem that some of us are starting to put the pieces together. 48 percent of Awakening Consumers believe the oceans are in crisis, and 92 percent say they avoid eating particular seafood because of its scarcity. Yet even for the Awakening Consumer, 57 percent are clueless about the Marine Stewardship Council Seal, which certifies the fisheries that operate in an environmentally responsible way and help prevent overfishing. We can help reduce our human footprint by curbing seafood consumption, protecting our wildlife from capture, and calling our political leaders’ attention to these issues (visit www.takepart.com/thecove for 5 things you can do today). But to truly engage Awakening Consumers, we need to appeal to their emotions. This was the approach taken by the producers of The Cove, and the film succeeded in garnering global attention and grossed over $1 million in box-office sales. Such an emotional appeal would have far greater and, more importantly, long lasting affects on the Awakening Consumer’s behavior than any single protest or petition. Issue 21 2010-06-23T03:33:36+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/message_in_a_test_tube/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/message_in_a_test_tube/ Dr. Mary Hagedorn is creating a genetic bank for every coral species on the planet. But is she any match for a baby panda?A few years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the Smithsonian’s Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal Virginia. In this gorgeous setting, deep in horse and farm country, resides a group of scientists working against the clock, using human fertility techniques to reproduce and save all kinds of endangered species. On this particular day, the scientists had set up mini exhibits (not unlike a high school science fair) featuring reproductive and genetic research used to preserve threatened or endangered pandas, clouded leopards, elephants, black-footed ferrets and baby coral. Yes, endangered baby ‘Elkhorn’ coral! That’s where I met marine biologist, Dr. Mary Hagedorn. There she was with her little aquarium of Elkhorn coral, competing for attention with fuzzy, adorable baby tigers and pandas. Hardly a fair fight. Mary’s exhibit sums up where we are with ocean issues in general. When you ask people about their concerns for the environment, ocean issues tend to drop like baby Elkhorn competing with living plush toys. Mary’s life work has been to further ocean health. She is one of only a few scientists in the world using human fertility techniques to conserve our marine resources. Mary has created the world’s first genome repository for coral. In this series of repositories (in Europe and the U.S.) reside frozen sperm from endangered coral, collections that could one day help diversify shrinking coral populations like those in the Florida Keys. Like a scientific Noah’s arc, Mary’s genome repository may someday help reseed the oceans. And why should we care? What do coral reefs really do for us? Like any good mother, they feed and protect us. Coral reefs are living dynamic ecosystems. They are the rainforest of our oceans that have been on our planet for more than 200 million years. Although all of the reefs in the world only occupy an area twice the size of Texas, they are small eco-dynamos. They provide invaluable services to us, such as acting as feeding and nursery grounds for fish and invertebrates, providing natural storm barriers for coastlines, purifying C02 from the atmosphere, and could provide potential sources for undiscovered pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, coral reefs help produce 30 billion dollars for our world economy every year in tourism and food production. Unfortunately, coral reefs are experiencing unprecedented levels of degradation due to the impact of humans. Increased levels of greenhouse gasses are warming our oceans, making them more acidic and causing the coral to stress, bleach and be more susceptible to newly emergent diseases. The increased acidity is decreasing their reef-building calcification, and unless we take action now, coral reefs and many of their associated animals may cease to exist in the next 25 to 50 years, causing the first global extinction of a worldwide ecosystem. What will prevent this catastrophe? In the end, Mary believes energy conservation will make the biggest impact. Even little changes, like walking to work or school, using cloth bags at the grocery store, planting a vegetable garden and installing solar water heaters can make a difference. The direct link between the health of our oceans and the health of our planet cannot be denied, and yet the emotional link is missing. Making consumers care as much about baby coral as they do about baby pandas—or baby humans for that matter—is something that we at Green Team, along with Mary and other marine scientists from organizations like National Geographic, struggle to convey. It’s time for oceans to move toward the top of the world’s list of critical issues. And we believe that will happen. Over the next few years, we anticipate a rise in the awareness of ocean issues, especially among Awakening Consumers. This could be welcome news for Mary, coral and adorable baby pandas, too. Green Team is proud to support Dr. Mary Hagedorn’s amazing work, and you can contact her at hagedornm@si.edu. As part of our Giving Work program we created HelpMarySaveCoral to help generate awareness of her work and fundraise for it. Issue 21 2010-06-23T03:22:21+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/barrier_islands/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/barrier_islands/ For centuries, artists and authors have turned to the ocean for inspiration. Meet one who has made a ritual of it in North Carolina.One of the wonderful things about living in North Carolina is its spectacular coastline, and its relationship to the ocean. Most people in these parts don’t refer to it as “the ocean.”  Down here it is known as “the beach.” North Carolina’s beaches are pretty much the same as Florida’s, without the hype, and without the people.  Finding space to throw the Frisbee, or clearing a section for volleyball is no trouble at all. I’ve spent the last couple of decades in North Carolina, and in doing so I have become a great fan of the coast.  I’ve fallen in love with the sun and the waves, and especially the birdlife that frequents our shores. I find myself at the beach a few times a year, and when I do I am caught between the hedonist in me, who loves the beach, and the environmentalist in me, who knows that humans shouldn’t really occupy the beach the way we do. Since 2005 I have written three books.  Each one has been written at the kitchen table, after the children are in bed and the stickiness of dinner has been removed.  I write amidst Lego blocks and Yu Gi Oh cards.  Surrounded by both Homies and homework.  And when the manuscript is nearing completion, I escape to the beach for a week of solitude to “finish her.” For my first book I spent a week on Kilby Island —a private island in the Pamlico Sound in which all of the houses are built on stilts.  Every few years Kilby Island is washed away by a weather event, and the ground floor of each house is typically destroyed. After each storm, people repair any damage that might occur to the second floor, replace their mangled decks and staircases, and slowly, as the memory of the destruction passes, they build new docks, and ground floor bathrooms, and tool sheds—slowly, and carefully, until another storm surge washes everything out to sea. I love Kilby Island.  Its estuary is filled with crabs and eels and ospreys and herons, and there is nothing finer than watching the morning mists rise from its brackish waters through the picture window of a waterfront dwelling.  At the same time it is clearly a place that humans should not inhabit.  In nature its job is to protect the inland from storms.  It is supposed to shift and change, and it was never meant as a foundation for second homes. For my second book I borrowed a house on Oak Island.  Its beach is odd, because it is populated with strange rounded debris that get in the way of a decent touch football game.  Prior to play, everybody scans the sands and removes the solid pieces from the sand. A close inspection of the chunks reveals them to be polished asphalt from a road that was once there, and cement aggregates from foundations gone by.  The ocean has taken a share of Oak Island, and those residences that were once a few blocks from the beach are now beachfront. I love Oak Island.  When I launch my kayak there, I can see shore birds, ocean birds, and woodland birds all on the same day.  But it is painfully obvious that Oak Island is not a place suited to human habitation.  While nothing is finer than sleeping with the window open ten yards from the crashing waves, it will not be long before that island has vanished into the sea. For my third book I snagged a place on Topsail Island, which is by far my favorite, and a place I have been every year for the past decade.  To finish my manuscript I stole away for a week in March, a time when the tourists have yet to arrive. The place I borrowed was far and away the most spectacular house on earth.  From the front porch was a clear view of dolphins jumping in the sound at sunset.  And the back door was pure oceanfront. To my horror my first day there was accompanied by the “beep,” “beep,” “beep” of earthmoving equipment.  Thinking that perhaps a foundation was being dug next door, I stepped out onto the spacious deck to see a bulldozer heaping sand against a staircase that led to the beach. I went beachcombing on subsequent days, and realized that every mile or so there is another piece of heavy equipment, pushing sand in a mighty wall against the wonderful houses.  At least it looks like a mighty wall.  Until you look back at the ocean.  Giant earthmovers look puny next to her.  Clearly an encroaching ocean will wash away the beach houses of Topsail Island. My books are often called “hopeful.”  I don’t really trade in “doom and gloom” like so many writers found in the “energy and society” section of the bookstore.  That makes me wonder how I can put a hopeful spin on the three island paradises that I have used to finish my books. And unfortunately I can’t do that.  They are all marked for deletion.  Whether it is rising sea levels, or warmer water temperatures, or the natural progression of geologic time is not that important.  They will all be gone, just like me. And I think that is where the hope comes in.  Just as the promise of death is what makes life interesting (no one wants to suffer like a vampire after all), the impending death of North Carolina’s barrier islands is part of what makes them beautiful. What I am going to do is continue to love “the beach.”  I’m going to vacation there.  I’m going to take my children there.  I am going to continue to go there to watch the birds.  And any chance I get, I’m going to borrow a place to write there. I might as well.  It is magnificent while it’s here. Issue 21 2010-06-23T02:48:01+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_great_barrier_reef_the_good_the_bad_and_the_uncertainty/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/the_great_barrier_reef_the_good_the_bad_and_the_uncertainty/ Some say Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is barreling down a path toward disaster and destruction. Rowan Smith says, not so fast...Having recently returned from diving on the Great Barrier Reef I noticed how friends were then telling me how worried they were by the deteriorating environmental situation there. And they weren’t alone. Television programs and articles have stressed how the Reef is under threat: leaching and bleaching, acidification, rising water temperatures, pollution. Even as I write, a Chinese coal tanker lies grounded after taking an illegal shortcut and slamming into the protected ecosystem, leaking fuel oil and leaving a scar three kilometers long that will take 20 years to repair itself. (Is the true wonder of the world these days how hopeless we are at looking after our planet?) I’ve now been diving on the Great Barrier Reef for five or six years, while holidaying in Port Douglas in far north Queensland, and it can be hard not to explore this magical underwater world without seeing it through these increasingly other-colored, and certainly not rose-colored, goggles. The tour operators never say much to alleviate one’s worries. On the one-hour journey from the Port Douglas marina to the outer reef, they provide an upbeat preview of the day’s activities for our large, international party of sightseers, snorkelers and recreational divers. It includes safety drills, destinations (reef sites to be visited), the all-important seasickness tablets, the underwater digital or disposable cameras that can be purchased, and finally a breakaway technical briefing on the day’s dives for those doing so. On none of these trips (made with several different companies) have I ever heard any mention of, commentary on, or structured interpretation about the health of the Reef. Even when guests are informed that they’ve paid a Government Reef Tax on top of the tour price, no one explains why this was paid. (For the management of the Reef, including ranger patrols, education and research.) So when an American colleague recently told me the Great Barrier Reef sustainability program is regarded as being best practice, that she understood “Great things are happening out there,” I felt a sharp disconnect with much of what I’d been feeling, as well as hearing. So I went to the fount of all wisdom: Google. Buried amongst the tourism websites about the vivid blue waters and coral-creature-color paradise that is the Great Barrier Reef, I find one entry for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) . Winner of a United Nations 2007 World Environment Day Award for Excellence in Marine and Coastal Management , this government organization, along with the Queensland Tourism Industry Council and the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, launched in August 2009 the Great Barrier Reef Tourism Climate Change Action Strategy 2009 - 2012. It provides a way forward for the Reef tourism industry, government and other partners to take action in response to climate change. Reef and eco-tourism expert, Tony Charters, Principal of sustainable tourism consultancy and Convenor Tourism Futures and Global Eco, confirms that GBRMPA has done an excellent job working with the tourism industry, providing such incentives as 15 year permits for independently assessed quality of eco-tourism operations, instead of a usual six. He says there is a distinct, measurable link between high-standard operators and reef protection. Other innovations include an emissions calculator, specifically developed for Marine Park tourism operators, plus practical lessons on how they can reduce their footprint and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Case studies are also being developed to provide information on the use of bio-diesel in marine operations, on climate change action and response certification schemes, on becoming carbon neutral and understanding carbon offsetting. Businesses that adopt Climate Action Certification (through Ecotourism Australia) receive practical assistance to equip themselves for the impacts of climate change and to reduce their contribution to greenhouse gas production. Charters expects that increasingly frequent extreme weather patterns, such as cyclones, will put pressure on businesses to enact these measures. “The hardest issue for tourism operators is to know at which point they need to adapt their business to take account of climate impacts,” he says. Some of the impacts of climate change will unfold over decades – at what point do you bite the bullet and change your product or operating infrastructure?” It can be expensive, assessment costs for an application to the GBRMPA rangefrom a few hundred dollars to six-figure sums, depending on what the development is – pontoons, jetties, pipelines, dredging and marinas being examples. It can also be time consuming, a major project generally taking between six months and three years for planning, assessment, construction and management. So, good things are happening for the longer term, after all. And action is being taken. Certainly my own experience diving on coral reefs has taught me that you can return to the same spot after several years, expecting visual degradation, only to find it looking more abundant in animal, plant and coral life than I’d remembered. However, I still could not help thinking, despite all the good things happening to the preservation and management of the Reef, about the Ross Garnaut Review. The Review was an independent study by economist Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments. It stated, among other things, how the country’s major environmental assets, so important to our tourism business, are also highly susceptible to climate change. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the first assets to be named, and the Review illustrated poignantly that a no-mitigation scenario would mean the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed by 2050. It states elsewhere how a difference of CO2 concentrations, say 450 parts per million instead of 550, would be of major significance. The former would still be expected to damage – making mass bleaching twice as common as it is today – but not destroy the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs, while the latter would probably lead to their destruction. And Garnaut’s certainly not alone in his insistence that we need to make significant changes, fast. The World Wildlife Fund says 14 million tonnes of mud; pesticides and chemical fertilisers continue to wash onto the Reef every year. The “outstanding
universal values of the Reef have already been altered by rapid climate change” says Professor Ken Baldwin in a statement by 13 prominent Australian marine and climate scientists. In 1998 and again in 2002, when summer maximum temperatures rose one to two degrees, unprecedented coral bleaching occurred and extensive mortality due to thermal stress affected over 50 percent of the Reef. The World Wildlife Fund says the amount of sediment flowing from the land into the marine park has quadrupled over the past 150 years, largely due to the expansion of grazing and cropping and the loss of native vegetation and wetlands. And so it goes. So I find that I’ve arrived back where I started at the surface of this issue, not sure if the news about the future of the Great Barrier Reef is good, or if it’s bad. Like so much climate shifting debate, it seems to all be a matter of degrees. Issue 21 2010-06-23T02:48:00+00:00 http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/a_former_client_gone_wrong/ http://greenteamusa.com/gthink/index.php/site/single/a_former_client_gone_wrong/ Green Team used to work with BP. Now that the brand has become the poster child for environmental disaster, we reflect on what used to be.There’s one logo on our client page that has become a real conversation starter: BP. Yes, BP used to be a Green Team client. As such, we include its logo on the page of “Companies We’ve Worked With” during our credentials presentations. These days, that logo stands out like a big, green and yellow bull’s-eye. “You need to get rid of that one.” “Do you still work with them?” “Green Team worked with BP?” The reactions vary, but there is a universal air of curiosity. So we answer the questions and fill in the blanks. Yes, we used to work with BP. No, we don’t anymore. Haven’t in ten years. We helped them promote their cultural and environmental NGO partnerships. Yes, they were a great client. Yes, it was a great brand. Yes, it’s a shame. Green Team worked with BP when Lord John Browne was at the helm. In 1997, Browne became the first major oil executive to stand up and acknowledge not only the reality of global warming, but also his industry’s role in it. He was ostracized by his peers. We worked with BP in 2000, when the brand repositioned itself (with brilliant work from Ogilvy) to stand for something new, “Beyond Petroleum.” BP introduced the concept of a carbon footprint into the general consciousness through its TV commercials. Pretty radical at the time. And then, to show the world it wasn’t just flippantly dishing out advertising hyperbole, BP became the largest producer of solar energy in the world. Sure, solar still represented only a small fraction of the BP energy portfolio, but as the commercials said at the time, “It’s a start.” Both the general public and the investment community rewarded BP for its progressive stance. The Reputation Institute ranked BP #28 in overall brand reputation in the UK. For the sake of comparison, Exxon was #148 (out of 150). From a Green Team perspective, BP was a great client. The people we worked with not only allowed us to produce great work, they insisted upon it. They were a smart, determined group, many of whom we still maintain close ties with today. Then the wheels started falling off the BP wagon. In 2006, Lord Browne stepped down amidst scandal. There was a refinery explosion in Texas, a pipeline leak in Alaska. The new CEO, Tony Hayward, suggested that the company may divest itself of its alternative energy holdings, inviting cynics to proclaim that BP now stood for “Back to Petroleum.” Then came April 20, 2010. Now BP is watching its reputation and value plummet. In a recent g-Think survey, Awakening Consumers seem poised to punish BP for the Gulf of Mexico spill. Prior to the spill, 61% of respondents said they had purchased gas at a BP station. But in the wake of the spill, only 12% say they will again, and a whopping 43% say they will never again patronize BP. In that same survey, Awakening Consumers gave the pre-spill BP a responsibility rating of 5.85 (on a scale of 1-10; 1 being least responsible, 10 being most responsible). Over a month into the ongoing spill, that rating has dropped to 2.35. On April 19, BP stock closed at $59.48 a share. As of press time, it’s trading at $38.20. The company has lost an estimated $50 billion of market value since the spill, and Credit Suisse analysts estimate spill-related costs could reach $37 billion. Besides the obvious outrage, there seems to be an element of schadenfreude in the public sentiment toward BP today. It’s understandable, and serves as a cautionary tale for any brand that promotes itself as being environmentally responsible, then changes its mind. An offshore rig explosion and resulting oil spill could have happened to any oil company, but it happened to BP, and that just may mean the end of what was—at one time—a great brand and a great client. And that’s a shame. Issue 21 2010-06-23T02:47:44+00:00