This is the seventh in a series of guest posts by Joel Barkan, a previous contributor to “The Intersection” and a graduate student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The renowned Scripps marine biologist Jeremy Jackson is teaching his famed “Marine Science, Economics, and Policy” course for what may be the last time this year (along with Jennifer Jacquet), and Joel will be reporting each week on the contents of the course.

I don’t want to write a post all about climate change on Chris and Sheril’s blog because my fire-retardant suit is at the cleaners. So I won’t. But I will write about what marine scientists can learn from what climate scientists are doing (no “Oceangate” jokes, please).

Each week, I write in this space about a different threat that will inevitably doom our oceans if we fail to act. But which threat is the most critical? At least climate scientists have agreed on a general consensus: most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations as a result of human activities. UC San Diego’s own Naomi Oreskes, in a 2004 Science essay, analyzed nearly a thousand abstracts published in the ISI database between 1993 and 2003 that contained the keywords “climate change.” Three-quarters of them accepted the consensus view and not a single one challenged it. This means climate scientists know the problem (greenhouse gas emissions) and how to address it (reduce emissions). Of course, it’s not that simple, but it’s a basic cause and effect that advocates can rally behind.

It’s not quite so straightforward for marine scientists. (more…)

This is the fourth in a series of guest posts by Joel Barkan, a previous contributor to “The Intersection” and a graduate student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The renowned Scripps marine biologist Jeremy Jackson is teaching his famed “Marine Science, Economics, and Policy” course for what may be the last time this year (along with Jennifer Jacquet), and Joel will be reporting each week on the contents of the course.

“Find a CITES, find myself a CITES to live in.” Isn’t that how the Talking Heads song goes?  No?  Either way, I had the tune stuck in my head all afternoon during our most recent class, in which we discussed the merits of listing species on both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species.  The student presentations covered the listing criteria and some of the problems associated with both groups.  CITES has successfully impeded illegal trade of tropical reptiles and amphibians, but it lacks the same influence with marine species.  For instance, China removed itself from the CITES treaty and freely imports dead seahorses, which are used for traditional medicinal purposes.

Many students seemed puzzled by the role of CITES and the Red List.  What exactly are we trying to accomplish by making lists of animals that are in really, really big trouble?  Adding a doomed species to a list of other species that aren’t doing so hot doesn’t magically solve the problem, as one student pointed out during our discussion.  I came away frustrated at the IUCN’s unwillingness to stand up for the species it so painstakingly evaluates.  Each species on the Red List receives a thorough population analysis by groups of unbiased scientists.  The product is a detail-rich compilation of thousands of species—some critically endangered, some vulnerable, all meticulously calculated by the IUCN.

So what does the Red List do?  (more…)