Slashdot Mirror
Facing Oblivion, Island Nation Makes Big Sacrifice
Damien1972 writes "Kiribati, a small nation consisting of 33 Pacific island atolls, is forecast to be among the first countries swamped by rising sea levels. Nevertheless, the country recently made an astounding commitment: it closed over 150,000 square miles of its territory to fishing, an activity that accounts for nearly half the government's tax revenue. What moved the tiny country to take this monumental action? President Anote Tong, says Kiribati is sending a message to the world: 'We need to make sacrifices to provide a future for our children and grandchildren.'"
Quite enjoyed J. Maarten Troost's The Sex Lives of Cannibals which takes place on the island of Kiribati. A great beach book.
It's interesting to hear the government making a commitment like this. As the article has the president saying: "One million is 1+1+1 and so on. Every person and every action is important." Too often forgotten methinks. The cynic in me is losing out today; facing extinction of their islands, I can hope enough that they're sincere, and they others will listen.
They're gonna feel like fools when the doom and gloom prophesies don't pan out.
According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, two small uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999.
And in other parts of the world:
-A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas, scientists in India say.
-Over the last century, sea levels have risen about 20 centimetres (8 in);[17][18] further rises of the ocean could threaten the existence of Maldives, being the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 metres (7 ft 7 in), with the average being only 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level.
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
The doom and gloom prophecies for fish-stock collapses, at least, are pretty much already halfway through panning out.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on /. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
As of right now no island or territory had sunk due to rising sea levels.
Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes.
As far as Kiribati goes, there is precisely 0 chance of them sinking due to rising sea levels. The real problem is the unregulated phosphate mining that essentially destroyed their island and, likely, undermined (pun intended) the natural strength of island formation. If it disappears beneath the sea - they can only blame themselves.
Good on them for closing their waters to fishing, though. Of course with ever-increasing world population that wants to eat (go figure) that just means some other place will be over-fished.
It's not a "prophesy," it's a measurement. (Unless you think that trend will suddenly reverse for some unexplained reason?)
And since tourists are more likely to want to go to places not drowned, they're also quite nicely snagging interested elements in the tourist entry to back them. It's actually quite ingenious and although it's unlikely to succeed to the point of saving their nation, it might well be the point at which eco-tourism becomes a significant movement. Or perhaps not - that's the danger of futurology, the future is too damn uncertain to make accurate predictions on what will happen.
The most important aspect of this, though, is the incredible gamble of present-day unreliable income in the hopes of securing a future stable income. Politicians are not noted for being up on long-term thinking, when short-term goals offer them rewards right then and there. This is actually quite remarkable, regardless of what happens, and I am greatly impressed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Then I guess we can fish there.
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on /. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
Well, if that was established in a discussion on Slashdot then I don't think there's anything more to be said on the matter. Talk about citation overkill! There's a monk out back with a ladder.
You're (and the article) are talking about low-level atolls (not coral islands) which are mildly to unvegetated and not at all the type of atoll or island suitable for human habitation, thus not the subject of this discussion.
Not to mention, atolls won't rise as fast as the sea. They will be under water for thousands of years before once again cresting. Nothing in your linked article successfully argues otherwise.
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels.
WTF... did you even bother to read the article? He's doing this to protect marine diversity and fish stocks, you know, kinda like how the US has national parks. It has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with dealing with rising sea levels.
Seriously, its times like this, when a blatantly uninformed post gets modded up to +4, that I wonder why the hell I even bother with this place anymore...
Worse, by taking fish out of the water, you make the water level go down (see Archimedes' principle), counteracting rising sea levels.
A fishing ban will only make the sea rise faster.
Fish stocks haven't gone down, it's a global liberal conspiracy which has altered all historic records ... just like with global temperature records (everyone knows that not only is there no AGW, there is no global warming period).
Someone who cared about islanders would suggest they actually solve their problems (in the event those problems actually happen) by building some small seawalls or other simple structures to deal with a modest rise in sea levels. Whining and making ridiculous and destructive spectacles is useless and childish.
Limiting the areas the locals are allowed to fish to protect coral reefs is hardly a good example of government oppression. It's merely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of their plight which advertising their nation for international tourism.
Your saying that one of the poorest countries in the world would be able to exist below sea level on tiny flat islands without contaminating their fresh water supplies by building walls? Please provide more details about these magic walls and how high and thick you think they will need to be, what materials and how 100,000 fishermen could afford it?
Do you even know anything about Kiribati? The country is so small that in New England towns that size still use town meetings for most government decisions. He is closing the fishery to protect fish stocks and to make a point for the world at large. As for sea walls, those would do nothing against the salinization of groundwater on those islands. When your well draws sea water, you have to leave the island anyway, which is what is happening in those islands.
It makes perfect sense if you understand that when they speak of "our children and grandchildren", they're speaking as residents of Earth, not of Kiribati. They're taking a step toward conservation of the planet's biosphere (to the limited but measurable extent that they are able), and setting an example for others to follow, to help preserve it for future generations of humans, not just future generations of I-Kiribati.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes."
However, increasing the base ocean level greatly increases erosion. The height of waves is something like Gaussian distribution, and increasing the level greatly increases the number of high waves in the 'long tail'.
I don't understand why people automatically assume that scientists who spend DECADES studying a particular phenomenon are totally blind to the Captain Obvious answers and don't bother to check them out as part of their research. In your job, do you ignore the bleedingly obvious, to the point of gross incompetence? Why do you automatically assume the same of other people who know a HELL OF A LOT MORE about a subject than you do?
Yes, sea levels are rising, measured in many places with and without local tectonic activity. Yes, scientists have checked against such obvious things and have filtered any such "noise" from them out of their findings.
If you want to challenge the findings of scientific research, get your arse out of that chair and back into college, then get out there and DO the research to prove them wrong. Failing that, I'll take the word of people who know wtf they are talking about over some anonymous coward on the intarwebs.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Do you even know anything about Kiribati?
Of course not. Is that a rhetorical question? Do the people of Kiribati know about me? Are they interested in my problems?
They kind of have to, because your activities, and mine, are putting the very existence of their country into doubt.
And that is why they are speaking out.
He is closing the fishery to protect fish stocks and to make a point for the world at large.
Protecting people from eating and making a spectacle. Bravo.
Protecting fisheries so they don't get annihilated is the most important task for any Polynesian nation.
As for sea walls, those would do nothing against the salinization of groundwater on those islands. When your well draws sea water, you have to leave the island anyway, which is what is happening in those islands.
I admit to not knowing about island fresh water supplies. I'm not sure I believe a small rise in sea levels would automatically change ground water to salt water. Perhaps there is something constructive to be done about it. But I'm pretty sure whining and prohibiting fishing isn't a remedy.
Well, then, do a Google Image Search on Kiribati. And Tuvalu. You'll find pictures of beaches lined with dead palm trees. Those trees are dead because sea level rise raised the average salinity of the ground water they're rooted in. This is what they are "whining" about: our energy consumption is raising sea levels and making their islands uninhabitable.
You're really suggesting shipping people off of Earth really being suggested is a valid alternative to curbing population growth? The amount of energy expended to develop either off-Earth colonies or terraform a planet would be astronomical, then count the energy expended just to leave earth orbit. I am all for off-Earth colonization in the spirit of science and exploration, but suggesting shipping billions of people off the Earth would be viable in the short or long-term is silly. Also it would suggest that we could let earth go to hell and just go use up some other planet.
Having RTFA, it looks like they are taking measures to protect the corals from fisherman with the hope that the gesture will generate awareness and sympathy (ie money) towards their plight. It also hints that by establishing a preserve, they hope to increase tourism to offset the financial loss.
They want to be the Palestinians of the Pacific? That makes more sense than anything else in the article, I suppose.
They just embarked on a gesture that will involve severe sacrifice on their part, and sent their leader to present a calm and mature message detailing their plight, in a way that is meant to arouse admiration and (one hopes) sympathy, instead of horror and revulsion. The Kiribatian approach is as un-Palestinian as a country could possibly be.
I have seen quite a bit of wild speculation here as to the motives of the I-Kiribati, and their President as concerns this initiative. I have had the opportunity to visit Kiribati, to install a SolarNetOne solar powered internet infrastructure package, as part of a project with the Internet Society http://www.isoc.org You might remember the SolarNetOne: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/02/1330252 Having been to Kiribati and worked with the I-Kiribati, I would like to offer my perspective on this topic, as well as a little history.
Kiribati has been inhabited for several thousand years or so by people who have managed to not overfish their waters, not cut down all the trees, not drive the local wildlife to extinction, and not overpopulate their lands. They KNOW how to live in harmony with one another and with their environment. They have a complex system of protecting their own genetic stock that traditionally would not allow a young couple from the same island to mate. They have no homeless, hungry people, or crime. In addition, they are one of the most sincere, honest, and friendly peoples that I have had the opportunity to be around.
Most of the water for drinking and cleaning there is not groundwater. Coral atolls are essentially ancient coral reefs that have grown upon the rims of slightly more ancient volcanic caldera. Underneath a few meters of soil, which is mostly composed of a fine grit of coral dust, is the reef, or the fossil of the reef. In low areas of the ancient fossilized bedrock of reef, fresh water lenses develop. These are areas where fresh water will pool under the soil, and is isolated from the ocean. There is no aquifer to draw from. The fresh water lenses are a source for agriculture, to be sure, but not the main source of drinking and bathing water. That water is rainwater collected in cisterns or barrels for the most part. One of the main impacts upon them will be sea level rise, and no, it will not erode the ancient bedrock of fossilized coral reef away, but it is already taking a toll on the shoreline: http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0614.jpg
Notice the old growth palms that have had their roots undercut. Here is the reef bedrock near the shore:
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0589.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0591.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0592.jpg
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0584.jpg
Notice in the last image there(584), how small the ankleslapper wave is breaking on shore, as opposed to the next to last image(592), where a 15 foot barrel is peeling 1/2 mile offshore. This is because the wave comes up on the shallow outer reef, which rises from VERY deep water, much like on the north shore of Oahu. This forces the wave to expend all its energy on the outer reef, with very little of that energy making it to shore, as one days photos above show. The following image is from the next day, when the wavers were a bit smaller... only 12' or so on the outer reef, and makes the point very well:
http://gnuveau.net/kir/pict0611.jpg
Kiribati is not in the path of Tropical cyclones to cause erosion, being in the region where many of the storms start their lives, like the tropical wave region over and off the east coast of Africa which leads to the Atlantic hurricanes.Needless to say, I do not buy the argument that normal erosion will cause this. Erosion with higher sea levels, which makes the outer reef deeper and allows more wave energy to reach the beach, however, will.
Government is essentially enacted for the most part in what is called Manaeba, or village council, which includes not only an open meeting to discuss events, topics of the day, and courses of action, but also includes a "coverd dish buffet" with each family preparing part of the feast, singing, dancing, and closes with time for socialization. Ideas therefrom are passed up to island council members, and on to members of Parliment, which meets on the capital island of Tarawa. There is no "slick politics" going on in Kiribati, unlike many more developed but imh
Over the past two years, President Tong has brought together 16 Pacific Ocean nations to develop the initiative, which seeks to maintain ocean health by improving management of fisheries, protecting and conserving biodiversity, furthering scientific understanding of the marine ecosystem, and reducing the negative impacts of human activities.
Whether you agree that closing this fishing area is good for the planet or not it looks like they are doing this because they want to do their part in keeping earth healthy and they consider this to be it, not to generate awareness or bring in tourists.
Thank you for understanding. The Pacific nations who stand most to lose from global climate change are making a symbolic gesture: They're saying, in effect, "Even though we have less than the rest of the world, we at least are willing to take action to protect the world's ecosystems."
Implicit in this action is the question, "So what have you done for the planet lately?"
Remember back in Copenhagen, it was neighbouring Tuvalu who exposed just how much of a farce the gathering was by leading a walk-out on the second day. They deliberately timed it early in the conference so that the negotiations among the largest nations didn't steal their thunder. With a bit of principle and a canny sense of timing, they controlled an entire news cycle.
Pacific nations are becoming increasingly adept at the politics of public opinion. They know they have no clout whatsoever on the world stage, and very little economic or geopolitical leverage, so the only alternative left to them is the noble gesture.
(Cute anecdote - The globe in the foyer of the main meeting venue in Copenhagen featured a huge hanging globe. The creator of the globe had, however, neglected to draw in all of the tiny Pacific islands. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, seeing this, asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, "So I take it this is a representation of the UN's climate action plan?")
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
If you'd RTFA, locals are totally allowed to fish, only large foreign companies are banned from fishing! I can't believe this was modded insightful. the point of this ban is to create a marine preserve out of kiribati territories, so even with the loss of their homes, they leave the earth a substantial patch of pristine (as possible) ocean...
It's because science says one thing one day, and weeks later says the opposite. Also, scientists argue among themselves about what the conclusion should be.
Despite your hyperbole, the fact remains that science is never static. No one EVER gets it right on their first try. Many don't get it right on their 20th try. That's the WHOLE POINT of the scientific method and the research process. Science isn't about proving anything; proofs are exclusive only to mathematics and can be dubious even then. Instead, science is about DISproving things. Like in a crucible, irrelevancies, false observations, improper procedures, incorrect conclusions, etc are burned away, usually a bit at a time, to get a PURER product (note not a PURE product, simply a PURER product) that enhances our knowledge and understanding of the world. Ongoing falsification is at the core of the scientific method.
As such, sure, science says one thing one day, then some time later, IMPROVES upon that, either refining it via specificity, OR refutation, even. Unlike what most people understand about science, refutation is a GOOD thing -- it demonstrates that the scientific method is WORKING. No true scientist wants to cling to the wrong answers!
Sure, scientists argue about a lot of things; it is in their nature. However, just because they argue doesn't mean they ignore each others' established and (thus far) unfalsified research. Two scientists could argue vehemently all day long over the specificity of a nearly insignificant point in a pair of competing research studies which otherwise support each other. However, when you ask them about the general consensus of their respective research, they will fully admit to being in near total agreement.
Bottom line, journalism makes science look like a bunch of bumbling clowns because it can't summarize research correctly, and the scientists sometimes do a bad enough job themselves that they don't need help bungling the conclusion. I have this argument all the time with people who don't understand how the scientific method works, and the difference between internet news and peer-reviewed journals.
That's why I pretty much ignore what journalists and pundits say; I go STRAIGHT to the science/research itself. Hell, I still consider myself a skeptic of what scientists say about a lot of things, but if I don't have the knowledge/training and haven't done the research, I will give a scientist who does/has the benefit of a doubt until such time as I do have better information from a more reliable source, or from my own research into the subject.
As such, I (and others) would appreciate direct links to papers, rather than regurgitation of "talking points"-style articles in popular rags, which often cherry-pick and distort salient bits to suit the whims of the article author/editor/publisher. Hence:
Here is Dr. Ioannidis's paper referenced by your linked article.
Just like in the Thurner and Hanel paper recently published, I think that Dr. Ioannidis makes valid and important points in his observations. However, again, they are hypothetical in nature. He doesn't actually review or provide specific evidence for statistical analysis to support his contention that "Most Published Research Findings Are False". Again, that doesn't invalidate his contentions (at least directly), but it also does not indict any specific body of research in any meaningful way. In simpler words, you can't use that as a litmus to automatically disregard any particular research paper "just because Dr. Ioannidis said that 'Most Published Research Findings Are False', thus this paper's findings are false". That's being grossly disingenuous and not a little intellectually dishonest.
Finally, regarding gp post, you seem overly sensitive. I didn't read that as a "here's the obvious, maybe that explains it?" post. But maybe I give people more credit than they
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."