Stewart M. Patrick

The Internationalist

Patrick assesses the future of world order, state sovereignty, and multilateral cooperation.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Sea Change: Our Dying Oceans

by Stewart M. Patrick
June 22, 2011

A view over the mountains of Moskenesoya, Lofoten islands, Norway (Cody Duncan).

–Svolvaer, Norway

The Internationalist is spending this week in the gorgeous Lofoten Islands of Norway, just below the Arctic Circle. As boondoggles go, this one is fairly legit. I’m attending a symposium sponsored by the Norwegian Nobel Institute on the changing nature of world politics since the end of the Cold War. In a subsequent post, I’ll blog on any brilliant insights that arise from the assembled scholars.

But since I’m sitting in a beautiful fishing village, it seems more urgent to draw readers’ attention to a looming ecological disaster with no known historical parallel: the impending death of the world’s oceans.

Earlier this week, a panel of twenty-seven marine scientists released a devastating report documenting in harrowing detail the dire state of the seas. Thanks to global warming, chemical pollution, rampant over-fishing, and ocean acidification (itself a byproduct of climate change), these experts now anticipate “an unprecedented loss of species comparable to the great mass extinctions of prehistory” (The Independent). Major extinctions will occur not only at the top of the food chain, among major predators like sharks and tuna, but at the very bottom, in the destruction of the world’s coral reefs—upon which millions of species depend, and which are already suffering from record “bleaching” events.

Some of these trends are already well documented—including in our own award-winning interactive Global Governance Monitor feature on the world’s Oceans. The new findings suggest that the cumulative effect of multiple destructive human activities are hastening the crisis of the oceans faster than expected—and will lead to major extinction events within a generation or two.

When he was running for president in 1992, former (and once again) governor Jerry Brown of California kept repeating a line that made him sound like an angry, environmentalist crank: “We’re turning this planet into a stinking junkyard!” But maybe he was just ahead of his time. Consider a huge ocean area called the North Pacific Gyre—greater than the size of Texas. There, tiny particles of plastic already outweigh life-giving plankton by a factor of six to one.

Why, a foreign policy traditionalist might ask, should we care about the oceans? In a fundamental sense, oceans are the source of life on earth, shaping our climate, providing sustenance, and cleansing the air we breathe. Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the world’s population, but FAO estimates that at least seventy-five percent of commercial species are overexploited, fully exploited, or precariously recovering from depletion. At a time of growing food insecurity, we cannot afford collapsing marine ecosystems, which will threaten a vital source of nutrition for more than a billion people. Maritime pollution, meanwhile, poses a growing threat to human health, as heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), plastics, petroleum and pesticides, enter the global food chain. Thanks to global warming, finally, the oceans are now less effective at serving as “carbon sinks” than previously—portending accelerated climate change.

Unless current trends are reversed, humanity faces a self-inflicted calamity: the ruination of seventy-one percent of the earth’s surface. The degradation of the oceans is a classic instance of the “tragedy of the commons.” Reversing our current course will require unprecedented collective action from the world’s leaders.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Larry

    line graph ….

    CO2 causes Ocean Acidification … a process well understood to threaten small marine organisms with a shell, because more acid waters make it harder to form, and harder to keep a calcium-based shell, as well as for these vital eco-system organisms to survive birth and the natural developmental stages of Life…


    … The reason i love “science”… is that science uses a well tested set of principles (the “Scientific Method”) …. to search for the “truth”… and science is always willing to sift through the newest data to get to the truth.

    … We humans tend to have an intrinsic bias, often somewhat “optimistic”…. and even to the point of living in total denial of the obvious reality all around us…. we just go on “singing in the rain”…

    … It was just a few short years ago…. when the scientists at NOAA reported it would take about 100 years for the Oceans to return to pH equilibrium… “after”… we stop burning all fossil fuels…

    … Now NOAA has sifted through the new data… and revised the “forecast”…. it will probably take thousands of years… “after” we stop burning fossil fuels….

    … and then i ask myself… how many decades will phytoplankton survive in increasingly acidic Oceans…

    … so in the interest of simply taking an objective look at step #1 in this “re-balancing” process… please look at this graph: …. and try to honestly answer just one question, in our humanely “optimistic” manner…

    … Question #1 … what will it take for Earth’s civilizations to stop burning that much fossil fuel… so that the thousands of years of Oceanic “re-balancing” to equilibrium… countdown can begin…

    also see:


  • Posted by kladionice

    I just like the valuable information you provide to your articles. I?ll bookmark your weblog and test once more right here regularly. I am relatively sure I will be informed many new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the following!

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required