Law of the 'High Seas'

[itchybro]

I didn't know where else to post this, and honestly don't kno if I'm re-posting it but, I felt it too important NOT to.

Strong stuff:

Kristina Gjerde: Making law on the high seas | Video on TED.com

[David M]

I am of the opinion that nobody should assume control of the oceans by creating their own laws, good intentions or not. The oceans are the one place left where humans have the freedoms that we so desire. Respecting the oceans is something that should come from within and not be legislated upon.

[delmarrey]

A couple questions:

Has anyone seen floatsome the size of "Texas twice"?

And would being electronically monitored from space be OK with you? Which is intended for fishing boats, but you know what happens as time goes by. We already have DTOPS here in the USofA. So this is an expansion into the rest of the world.

I have no problem with conservation of the seas, just exaggeration and electronic monitoring of open spaces, another bent away from freedoms.

[boatman61]

Interesting stuff... about time too... was somewhat surprised there was no mention of the massive harvesting of Krill thats going on in the Southern Ocean thats also destroying the marine food chain at its root...
Just to be used as fertiliser...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

A couple questions:

Has anyone seen floatsome the size of "Texas twice"?

And would being electronically monitored from space be OK with you? Which is intended for fishing boats, but you know what happens as time goes by. We already have DTOPS here in the USofA. So this is an expansion into the rest of the world.

I have no problem with conservation of the seas, just exaggeration and electronic monitoring of open spaces, another bent away from freedoms.

Commercalism should ALWAYS be monitored... it has no conscience

[itchybro]

Originally Posted by David M

...Respecting the oceans is something that should come from within and not be legislated upon.

That's a nice sentiment but, what about when the tech is developed to drill in deep INTERNATIONAL waters say 5 to 10 miles deep? How obliged will the next muliti-national be to pony up restitution after a BP-esque fiasco and...to whom?

Did anybody "cruise" through this? I've got a friend that's on his way to the gulf via the Tom Bigby river route. I'm gonna be real interested in what he has to say when he gets back.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Just to be used as fertiliser...

Also artificial crab.............

[Pyrate]

Although there is no 'law' on the high seas, each vessel is under the jurisdiction of its flag nation. Therefore, a U.S. flagged boat, whether commercial or pleasure, would have to follow the U.S. laws and could be boarded by U.S. Coast Guard or Navy vessels. Unflagged vessels can be boarded by any nation's government and be subject to their laws. Therefore, there is some governance on the high seas. Having more for environmental purposes would be impeeding on other nations' rights to govern their own merchant and fishing fleets. BP, as a British owned company, should be subject to British law. Of course, having interests in the U.S. and worldwide, each nation has some say in this as well. If they want to keep importing to the U.S., then certain criteria must be met, etc.

Pyrate

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Has anyone seen floatsome the size of "Texas twice"?

No. And I have been through the Sargasso Sea a handful of times and only seen Sargasso weed.

Not to say the seas shouldn't be protected, but legislating the prohibition of ALL human impact on the sea would be ridiculous. And who is going to enforce reasonable laws? Perhaps the world's nations should heavily subsidize the U.S. and other nation's navies to patrol, as well as U.S. and other's "spy" satellites. That includes landlocked nations like Switzerland, Mongolia, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, etc. helping to pay for the effort. Kick me if that ever happens.

[perchance]

If there was a law of the high seas who would enforce it? Surely not the UN considering their track record of late. The seas should be protected from rapacious nations that treat the seas like their own private fishing hole/dumping grounds.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Also artificial crab.............

Artificial crab should be monitored.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

Artificial crab should be monitored.

I worry about crabs.... never had em... never want em.....

[marshmat]

Originally Posted by David M

I am of the opinion that nobody should assume control of the oceans by creating their own laws, good intentions or not..... Respecting the oceans is something that should come from within and not be legislated upon.

Although I echo David's sentiments that such respect should be inherent in any sailor, it is unfortunately not inherent to corporations. It is part of the nature of a modern corporation- indeed, it is legislated so in many places- that its first and foremost duty is to turn a profit for its shareholders. There are only two real ways to get a corporation to do anything that does not translate directly into increased profits: mass customer action (eg. public shaming, boycotts by large purchasing blocs or other corporations) or regulation. Only the latter can be counted on to have roughly the intended effect across the board.

There are a few courses of action available. One is for things to keep going as they are, in which case illegal commercial fishing could well drive many essential species close to extinction, with similarly disastrous results in other sectors. Out population is increasing, our resources are rapidly diminishing- I don't think the status quo is a viable long-term option in this case.

Another is for individual governments and customer blocs to become demanding and picky enough that there is no profit to be made in destroying the ocean ecosystem. Can we do this? Maybe. Taking the profit motive out of destructive fishing, unsafe oil transport, etc. would greatly reduce the need for new laws. Getting people and other corporations to care enough to vote with their chequebooks, though, is even harder than regulating.

Or, it may turn out that some degree of international regulation and monitoring becomes the only way to solve certain problems. I certainly hope that if this must be the case, that a distinction is drawn between commercial operations and individuals. Given that corporations in many powerful jurisdictions carry equal or greater rights than individuals, this would require considerable political will to achieve. Sometimes it's the only way, though- remember how ships were routinely overloaded before Plimsoll lines became mandatory?

Additional layers of bureaucracy and technocracy are not likely to solve anything. As long as greed remains the sole motivating factor, there will be commercial operations that flout the rules or exploit loopholes. A change in culture- extending to the fundamental rights and responsibilities of corporate entities- would take a generation to achieve, but if successful would have permanent, effective results.

(It would be nice to be able to see the linked video in post 1- TED's video server keeps trying to set buggy bridge objects that crash my Flash player.)

[Paul Elliott]

OK, I started to watch this presentation, and 3 minutes 20 seconds into it the presenter mentioned that the laws for dumping trash from ships get progressively more lax at greater distance from land (this is of course true), and then she says "and so we have garbage patches twice the size of Texas" (inexact quote). I hit the Pause button.

I hate this cr*p!!! If you expect me to believe anything you say, I suggest that you avoid the obvious falsehoods, fabrications, and distortions. This "Texas-sized" patch had been pretty thoroughly debunked -- and now it's "twice the size"??? And consists of trash dumped from ships???

Of course there's trash out there, and that's a bad thing. No question about it. There are probably higher densities of trash in the gyre(s): floating junk and sub-surface small bits. But why call it Texas-sized? As long as we're redefining "floating trash island" to mean "areas of slightly higher concentration of small and practically invisible bits", why not just say it covers the entire ocean?

Because that's the truth. Unfortunately it doesn't get people all that excited when you put it like that. But that doesn't mean you should lie about it.

I'm sorry for the rant, but I'm really tired of people lying to me in order to push their agenda -- even if the agenda is well-meaning, and possibly productive. Just make your case using the facts.

I'm going to try to watch the rest of the presentations, but right now I'm not in a particularly receptive mood....

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by marshmat

(It would be nice to be able to see the linked video in post 1- TED's video server keeps trying to set buggy bridge objects that crash my Flash player.)

My Opera browser would play the video, but not the sound. I switched to a recently-installed Chrome browser and it played fine. It's probably due to recent plug-in updates or something.