A small group of people started a program to introduce critical scientific issues into the political debate. Their efforts snowballed into a broad dialogue called Science Debate 2008.
They posed 14 questions to each candidate. Number 9 reads "9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?"
An important question, to be sure, but why single out fisheries by name as a critical problem? The US does not have jurisdiction over most of the world's fisheries. So why pose the question to the candidates in this way?
Why not ask about oil pollution? The legacy of the Exon Valdez is a gift that keeps on giving. The possibility of new efforts toward oil production from the continental shelf make the the problem of oil pollution even more current.
What about plastics? The ocean is full of it. Animals are eating it. Check out Jan TenBruggencate's Raising Islands Blog.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment