Friends,

I'd like to acknowledge that some good points have been made all around
on this topic.

Regarding the depletion of populations, extinction of species and
devastation of habitats, I find myself beyond the analogy of the pimple
on the elephant's rear. This may be more on the order of shifting deck
chairs on the Titanic.

The issue that trumps all others, I believe, is the question of the
consequences of rapid climate change. Some scientists claim that the
most prominent models have been too conservative and the northern ice
cap may be gone as early as 2013, as one example. Even if one is in
doubt, the effect of being wrong and doing nothing is far greater than
the effect of being wrong about the seriousness/existence of the change
and acting to remedy/alleviate it. So why not act?

In my belief system, my personal action is relatively meaningless
unless I'm acting in concert with many others. In fact, the answers
need to be political (meaning policies that are enforced). But to
approach political change, there are major impediments. I would start
with the tacit (U.S.) myth that the only/chief way to participate in a
democracy is to vote once every 4 years (every two years at the most).
Add to that myth the idea that great leaders will save us (as if their
pronouncements are reliable indicators of their intentions and their
intentions are impervious to the pressures of prevailing political
forces).

Policies can have practical effects but they need to be enforced and
sustained against shifting circumstances. One ongoing "experiment"
perhaps of interest to many shellers is the state of the coastal
habitat in Cuba, where the government has taken the preservation of the
environment seriously enough to create a cabinet-level ministry.
There's a decent article at the New York Times site ("Conserving Cuba,
After the Embargo") expressing the concern about what will happen after
the embargo ends and the pressure of tourism threatens to re-create the
results we've seen in south Florida. The consensus of scientists is
apparently that the state of the environment in Cuba is much better
than elsewhere in the Caribbean although the coastal sector has been
more greatly impacted by human activity than the interior.

As some have alluded, there's an immense, hidden impediment that public
perception is mediated by the media: even if the public perceives that
there's a problem, they may be misled to believe in scapegoats (rabid
collectors are depleting natural populations) or in false remedies
(corn or soy-based ethanol will provide an answer to the scarcity of
fossil fuel -- to the contrary, such farming not only requires more
energy input than it produces, it takes food away typically from poor
folks and rewards the destruction of large habitats).

I found an apt quotation from circa 1920. Journalist Walter Lippman (no
angel himself) wrote: "If I lie in a lawsuit involving the fate of my
neighbor's cow, I can go to jail. But if I lie to a million readers in
a matter involving war and peace, I can lie my head off, and, if I
choose the right series of lies, be entirely irresponsible."

The scale of the problem is global and the place to start exerting
changes needs to be at least national even though we are all only
individuals who barely manage to act in our individual spheres.  Of
course, I'm not saying that there's no utility in local efforts to save
local habitats (e.g., Reef Rescue in Florida) but can we only fight
piecemeal, rearguard actions? These local groups can be models and
inspirations for others but they could be the building blocks of a
coordinated movement as well. The energy corporations are already hip
to this: they have mounted a "green-washing" campaign to hijack efforts
to find effective new energy sources so that they can maintain their
control of profits. This is done with massive ad campaigns but also
with tax-deductible donations to the most of the major DC-based
environmental groups, hence the largely ineffectual record of the
latter and the scarcity of media discussion of new energy technologies
that aren't monopolized.

Has anyone in COA given serious thought to joining forces with other
organizations/fans of the natural world to do so much as issuing a
statement or advocating some meaningful environmental legislation
(we're not 501(c)(3), are we?)? And I'd be interested to hear what
people in OTHER countries are doing to preserve the viability of the
globe, their region or their reef.

David Kirsh
Durham, NC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------