# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Possible solutions to the world's energy, food, environmental, and other problems are far more likely to be found in nearby oceans than in distant space.
Every year, the federal budget process begins with a White House-issued budget request, which lays out spending priorities for federal programs. From this moment forward, President Obama and his successors should use this opportunity to correct a longstanding misalignment of federal research priorities: excessive spending on space exploration and neglect of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into a greatly reconstructed, independent, and effective federal agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting, the additional funding necessary for this agency should be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The basic reason is that deep space-NASA's favorite turf-is a distant, hostile, and barren place, the study of which yields few major discoveries and an abundance of overhyped claims. By contrast, the oceans are nearby, and their study is a potential source of discoveries that could prove helpful for addressing a wide range of national concerns from climate change to disease; for reducing energy, mineral, and potable water shortages; for strengthening industry, security, and defenses against natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis; for increasing our knowledge about geological history; and much more. Nevertheless, the funding allocated for NASA in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2013 was 3.5 times higher than that allocated for NOAA. Whatever can be said on behalf of a trip to Mars or recent aspirations to revisit the Moon, the same holds many times over for exploring the oceans; some illustrative examples follow. (I stand by my record: In The Moondoggle, published in 1964, I predicted that there was less to be gained in deep space than in near space-the sphere in which communication, navigations, weather, and reconnaissance satellites orbit-and argued for unmanned exploration vehicles and for investment on our planet instead of the Moon.)

Climate

There is wide consensus in the international scientific community that the Earth is warming; that the net effects of this warming are highly negative; and that the main cause of this warming is human actions, among which carbon dioxide emissions play a key role. Hence, curbing these CO ₂ emissions or mitigating their effects is a major way to avert climate change.

Space exploration advocates are quick to claim that space might solve such problems on Earth. In some ways, they are correct; NASA does make helpful contributions to climate science by way of its monitoring programs, which measure the atmospheric concentrations and emissions of greenhouse gases and a variety of other key variables on the Earth and in the atmosphere. However, there seem to be no viable solutions to climate change that involve space.

By contrast, it is already clear that the oceans offer a plethora of viable solutions to the Earth's most pressing troubles. For example, scientists have already demonstrated that the oceans serve as a "carbon sink." The oceans have absorbed almost one-third of anthropogenic CO ₂ emitted since the advent of the industrial revolution and have the potential to continue absorbing a large share of the CO ₂ released into the atmosphere. Researchers are exploring a variety of chemical, biological, and physical geoengineering projects to increase the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon. Additional federal funds should be allotted to determine the feasibility and safety of these projects and then to develop and implement any that are found acceptable.

Iron fertilization or "seeding" of the oceans is perhaps the most well-known of these projects. Just as CO ₂ is used by plants during photosynthesis, CO ₂ dissolved in the oceans is absorbed and similarly used by autotrophic algae and other phytoplankton. The process "traps" the carbon in the phytoplankton; when the organism dies, it sinks to the sea floor, sequestering the carbon in the biogenic "ooze" that covers large swaths of the seafloor. However, many areas of the ocean high in the nutrients and sunlight necessary for phytoplankton to thrive lack a mineral vital to the phytoplankton's survival: iron. Adding iron to the ocean has been shown to trigger phytoplankton blooms, and thus iron fertilization might increase the CO ₂ that phytoplankton will absorb. Studies note that the location and species of phytoplankton are poorly understood variables that affect the efficiency with which iron fertilization leads to the sequestration of CO ₂. In other words, the efficiency of iron fertilization could be improved with additional research. Proponents of exploring this option estimate that it could enable us to sequester CO ₂ at a cost of between $2 and $30/ton-far less than the cost of scrubbing CO ₂ directly from the air or from power plant smokestacks-$1,000/ton and $50-100/ton, respectively, according to one Stanford study.

Despite these promising findings, there are a number of challenges that prevent us from using the oceans as a major means of combating climate change. First, ocean "sinks" have already absorbed an enormous amount of CO ₂. It is not known how much more the oceans can actually absorb, because ocean warming seems to be altering the absorptive capacity of the oceans in unpredictable ways. It is further largely unknown how the oceans interact with the nitrogen cycle and other relevant processes.

Second, the impact of CO ₂ sequestration on marine ecosystems remains underexplored. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which noted in a 2013 report that absorption of CO ₂ is "acidifying" the oceans, recommended that "the administration and Congress should take actions to measure and assess the emerging threat of ocean acidification, better understand the complex dynamics causing and exacerbating it, work to determine its impact, and develop mechanisms to address the problem." The Department of Energy specifically calls for greater "understanding of ocean biogeochemistry" and of the likely impact of carbon injection on ocean acidification. Since the mid-18th century, the acidity of the surface of the ocean, measured by the water's concentration of hydrogen ions, has increased by 30% on average, with negative consequences for mollusks, other calcifying organisms, and the ecosystems they support, according to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. Different ecosystems have also been found to exhibit different levels of pH variance, with certain areas such as the California coastline experiencing higher levels of pH variability than elsewhere. The cost worldwide of mollusk-production losses alone could reach $100 billion if acidification is not countered, says Monica Contestabile, an environmental economist and editor of Nature Climate Change. Much remains to be learned about whether and how carbon sequestration methods like iron fertilization could contribute to ocean acidification; it is, however, clearly a crucial subject of study given the dangers of climate change.

Food

Ocean products, particularly fish, are a major source of food for major parts of the world. People now eat four times as much fish, on average, as they did in 1950. The world's catch of wild fish reached an all-time high of 86.4 million tons in 1996; although it has since declined, the world's wild marine catch remained 78.9 million tons in 2011. Fish and mollusks provide an "important source of protein for a billion of the poorest people on Earth, and about three billion people get 15 percent or more of their annual protein from the sea," says Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist affiliated with the ocean conservation organization Oceana. Fish can be of enormous value to malnourished people because of its high levels of micronutrients such as Vitamin A, Iron, Zinc, Calcium, and healthy fats.

However, many scientists have raised concerns about the ability of wild fish stocks to survive such exploitation. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that 28% of fish stocks were overexploited worldwide and a further 3% were depleted in 2008. Other sources estimate that 30% of global fisheries are overexploited or worse. There have been at least four severe documented fishery collapses-in which an entire region's population of a fish species is overfished to the point of being incapable of replenishing itself, leading to the species' virtual disappearance from the area-worldwide since 1960, a report from the International Risk Governance Council found. Moreover, many present methods of fishing cause severe environmental damage; for example, the Economist reported that bottom trawling causes up to 15,400 square miles of "dead zone" daily through hypoxia caused by stirring up phosphorus and other sediments.

There are several potential approaches to dealing with overfishing. One is aquaculture. Marine fish cultivated through aquaculture is reported to cost less than other animal proteins and does not consume limited freshwater sources. Furthermore, aquaculture has been a stable source of food from 1970 to 2006; that is, it consistently expanded and was very rarely subject to unexpected shocks. From 1992 to 2006 alone, aquaculture expanded from 21.2 to 66.8 million tons of product.

Although aquaculture is rapidly expanding-more than 60% from 2000 to 2008-and represented more than 40% of global fisheries production in 2006, a number of challenges require attention if aquaculture is to significantly improve worldwide supplies of food. First, scientists have yet to understand the impact of climate change on aquaculture and fishing. Ocean acidification is likely to damage entire ecosystems, and rising temperatures cause marine organisms to migrate away from their original territory or die off entirely. It is important to study the ways that these processes will likely play out and how their effects might be mitigated. Second, there are concerns that aquaculture may harm wild stocks of fish or the ecosystems in which they are raised through overcrowding, excess waste, or disease. This is particularly true where aquaculture is devoted to growing species alien to the region in which they are produced. Third, there are few industry standard operating practices (SOPs) for aquaculture; additional research is needed for developing these SOPs, including types and sources of feed for species cultivated through aquaculture. Finally, in order to produce a stable source of food, researchers must better understand how biodiversity plays a role in preventing the sudden collapse of fisheries and develop best practices for fishing, aquaculture, and reducing bycatch.

On the issue of food, NASA is atypically mum. It does not claim it will feed the world with whatever it finds or plans to grow on Mars, Jupiter, or any other place light years away. The oceans are likely to be of great help.

Energy

NASA and its supporters have long held that its work can help address the Earth's energy crises. One NASA project calls for developing low-energy nuclear reactors (LENRs) that use weak nuclear force to create energy, but even NASA admits that "we're still many years away" from large-scale commercial production. Another project envisioned orbiting space-based solar power (SBSP) that would transfer energy wirelessly to Earth. The idea was proposed in the 1960s by then-NASA scientist Peter Glaser and has since been revisited by NASA; from 1995 to 2000, NASA actively investigated the viability of SBSP. Today, the project is no longer actively funded by NASA, and SBSP remains commercially unviable due to the high cost of launching and maintaining satellites and the challenges of wirelessly transmitting energy to Earth.

NASA does not claim it will feed the world with whatever it finds or plans to grow on Mars, Jupiter, or any other place light years away. The oceans are likely to be of great help.

Marine sources of renewable energy, by contrast, rely on technology that is generally advanced; these technologies deserve additional research to make them fully commercially viable. One possible ocean renewable energy source is wave energy conversion, which uses the up-and-down motion of waves to generate electrical energy. Potentially-useable global wave power is estimated to be two terawatts, the equivalent of about 200 large power stations or about 10% of the entire world's predicted energy demand for 2020 according to the World Ocean Review. In the United States alone, wave energy is estimated to be capable of supplying fully one-third of the country's energy needs.

A modern wave energy conversion device was made in the 1970s and was known as the Salter's Duck; it produced electricity at a whopping cost of almost $1/kWh. Since then, wave energy conversion has become vastly more commercially viable. A report from the Department of Energy in 2009 listed nine different designs in pre-commercial development or already installed as pilot projects around the world. As of 2013, as many as 180 companies are reported to be developing wave or tidal energy technologies; one device, the Anaconda, produces electricity at a cost of $0.24/kWh. The United States Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory jointly maintain a website that tracks the average cost/kWh of various energy sources; on average, ocean energy overall must cost about $0.23/kWh to be profitable. Some projects have been more successful; the prototype LIMPET wave energy conversion technology currently operating on the coast of Scotland produces wave energy at the price of $0.07/kWh. For comparison, the average consumer in the United States paid $0.12/kWh in 2011. Additional research could further reduce the costs.

Other options in earlier stages of development include using turbines to capture the energy of ocean currents. The technology is similar to that used by wind energy; water moving through a stationary turbine turns the blades, generating electricity. However, because water is so much denser than air, "for the same surface area, water moving 12 miles per hour exerts the same amount of force as a constant 110 mph wind," says the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the Department of the Interior. (Another estimate from a separate BOEM report holds that a 3.5 mph current "has the kinetic energy of winds in excess of [100 mph].") BOEM further estimates that total worldwide power potential from currents is five terawatts-about a quarter of predicted global energy demand for 2020-and that "capturing just 1/1,000th of the available energy from the Gulf Stream ...would supply Florida with 35% of its electrical needs."

Although these technologies are promising, additional research is needed not only for further development but also to adapt them to regional differences. For instance, ocean wave conversion technology is suitable only in locations in which the waves are of the same sort for which existing technologies were developed and in locations where the waves also generate enough energy to make the endeavor profitable. One study shows that thermohaline circulation-ocean circulation driven by variations in temperature and salinity-varies from area to area, and climate change is likely to alter thermohaline circulation in the future in ways that could affect the use of energy generators that rely on ocean currents. Additional research would help scientists understand how to adapt energy technologies for use in specific environments and how to avoid the potential environmental consequences of their use.

Renewable energy resources are the ocean's particularly attractive energy product; they contribute much less than coal or natural gas to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is worth noting that the oceans do hold vast reserves of untapped hydrocarbon fuels. Deep-sea drilling technologies remain immature; although it is possible to use oil rigs in waters of 8,000 to 9,000 feet, greater depths require the use of specially-designed drilling ships that still face significant challenges. Deep-water drilling that takes place in depths of more than 500 feet is the next big frontier for oil and natural-gas production, projected to expand offshore oil production by 18% by 2020. One should expect the development of new technologies that would enable drilling petroleum and natural gas at even greater depths than presently possible and under layers of salt and other barriers.

In addition to developing these technologies, entire other lines of research are needed to either mitigate the side effects of large-scale usage of these technologies or to guarantee that these effects are small. Although it has recently become possible to drill beneath Arctic ice, the technologies are largely untested. Environmentalists fear that ocean turbines could harm fish or marine mammals, and it is feared that wave conversion technologies would disturb ocean floor sediments, impede migration of ocean animals, prevent waves from clearing debris, or harm animals. Demand has pushed countries to develop technologies to drill for oil beneath ice or in the deep sea without much regard for the safety or environmental concerns associated with oil spills. At present, there is no developed method for cleaning up oil spills in the Arctic, a serious problem that requires additional research if Arctic drilling is to commence on a larger scale.

More ocean potential

When large quantities of public funds are invested in a particular research and development project, particularly when the payoff is far from assured, it is common for those responsible for the project to draw attention to the additional benefits-"spinoffs"-generated by the project as a means of adding to its allure. This is particularly true if the project can be shown to improve human health. Thus, NASA has claimed that its space exploration "benefit[ted] pharmaceutical drug development" and assisted in developing a new type of sensor "that provides real-time image recognition capabilities," that it developed an optics technology in the 1970s that now is used to screen children for vision problems, and that a type of software developed for vibration analysis on the Space Shuttle is now used to "diagnose medical issues." Similarly, opportunities to identify the "components of the organisms that facilitate increased virulence in space" could in theory-NASA claims-be used on Earth to "pinpoint targets for anti-microbial therapeutics."

Ocean research, as modest as it is, has already yielded several medical "spinoffs." The discovery of one species of Japanese black sponge, which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led researchers to develop a late-stage breast cancer drug. An expedition near the Bahamas led to the discovery of a bacterium that produces substances that are in the process of being synthesized as antibiotics and anticancer compounds. In addition to the aforementioned cancer fighting compounds, chemicals that combat neuropathic pain, treat asthma and inflammation, and reduce skin irritation have been isolated from marine organisms. One Arctic Sea organism alone produced three antibiotics. Although none of the three ultimately proved pharmaceutically significant, current concerns that strains of bacteria are developing resistance to the "antibiotics of last resort" is a strong reason to increase funding for bioprospecting. Additionally, the blood cells of horseshoe crabs contain a chemical-which is found nowhere else in nature and so far has yet to be synthesized-that can detect bacterial contamination in pharmaceuticals and on the surfaces of surgical implants. Some research indicates that between 10 and 30 percent of horseshoe crabs that have been bled die, and that those that survive are less likely to mate. It would serve for research to indicate the ways these creatures can be better protected. Up to two-thirds of all marine life remains unidentified, with 226,000 eukaryotic species already identified and more than 2,000 species discovered every year, according to Ward Appeltans, a marine biologist at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

The discovery of one species of Japanese black sponge, which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led researchers to develop a late-stage breast cancer drug.

Contrast these discoveries of new species in the oceans with the frequent claims that space exploration will lead to the discovery of extraterrestrial life. For example, in 2010 NASA announced that it had made discoveries on Mars "that [would] impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life" but ultimately admitted that they had "no definitive detection of Martian organics." The discovery that prompted the initial press release-that NASA had discovered a possible arsenic pathway in metabolism and that thus life was theoretically possible under conditions different than those on Earth-was then thoroughly rebutted by a panel of NASA-selected experts. The comparison with ocean science is especially stark when one considers that oceanographers have already discovered real organisms that rely on chemosyn-thesis-the process of making glucose from water and carbon dioxide by using the energy stored in chemical bonds of inorganic compounds-living near deep sea vents at the bottom of the oceans.

The same is true of the search for mineral resources. NASA talks about the potential for asteroid mining, but it will be far easier to find and recover minerals suspended in ocean waters or beneath the ocean floor. Indeed, resources beneath the ocean floor are already being commercially exploited, whereas there is not a near-term likelihood of commercial asteroid mining.

Another major justification cited by advocates for the pricey missions to Mars and beyond is that "we don't know" enough about the other planets and the universe in which we live. However, the same can be said of the deep oceans. Actually, we know much more about the Moon and even about Mars than we know about the oceans. Maps of the Moon are already strikingly accurate, and even amateur hobbyists have crafted highly detailed pictures of the Moon-minus the "dark side"-as one set of documents from University College London's archives seems to demonstrate. By 1967, maps and globes depicting the complete lunar surface were produced. By contrast, about 90% of the world's oceans had not yet been mapped as of 2005. Furthermore, for years scientists have been fascinated by noises originating at the bottom of the ocean, known creatively as "the Bloop" and "Julia," among others. And the world's largest known "waterfall" can be found entirely underwater between Greenland and Iceland, where cold, dense Arctic water from the Greenland Sea drops more than 11,500 feet before reaching the seafloor of the Denmark Strait. Much remains poorly understood about these phenomena, their relevance to the surrounding ecosystem, and the ways in which climate change will affect their continued existence.

In short, there is much that humans have yet to understand about the depths of the oceans, further research into which could yield important insights about Earth's geological history and the evolution of humans and society. Addressing these questions surpasses the importance of another Mars rover or a space observatory designed to answer highly specific questions of importance mainly to a few dedicated astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and select colleagues.

Leave the people at home

NASA has long favored human exploration, despite the fact that robots have become much more technologically advanced and that their (one-way) travel poses much lower costs and next to no risks compared to human missions. Still, the promotion of human missions continues; in December 2013, NASA announced that it would grow basil, turnips, and Arabidopsis on the Moon to "show that crop plants that ultimately will feed astronauts and moon colonists and all, are also able to grow on the moon." However, Martin Rees, a professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University and a former president of the Royal Society, calls human spaceflight a "waste of money," pointing out that "the practical case [for human spaceflight] gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturisation." Another observer notes that "it is in fact a universal principle of space science-a 'prime directive,' as it were-that anything a human being does up there could be done by unmanned machinery for one-thousandth the cost." The cost of sending humans to Mars is estimated at more than $150 billion. The preference for human missions persists nonetheless, primarily because NASA believes that human spaceflight is more impressive and will garner more public support and taxpayer dollars, despite the fact that most of NASA's scientific yield to date, Rees shows, has come from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, the Kepler space observatory, space rovers, and other missions. NASA relentlessly hypes the bravery of the astronauts and the pioneering aspirations of all humanity despite a lack of evidence that these missions engender any more than a brief high for some.

Ocean exploration faces similar temptations. There have been some calls for "aquanauts," who would explore the ocean much as astronauts explore space, and for the prioritization of human exploration missions. However, relying largely robots and remote-controlled submersibles seems much more economical, nearly as effective at investigating the oceans' biodiversity, chemistry, and seafloor topography, and endlessly safer than human agents. In short, it is no more reasonable to send aquanauts to explore the seafloor than it is to send astronauts to explore the surface of Mars.

Several space enthusiasts are seriously talking about creating human colonies on the Moon or, eventually, on Mars. In the 1970s, for example, NASA's Ames Research Center spent tax dollars to design several models of space colonies meant to hold 10,000 people each. Other advocates have suggested that it might be possible to "terra-form" the surface of Mars or other planets to resemble that of Earth by altering the atmospheric conditions, warming the planet, and activating a water cycle. Other space advocates envision using space elevators to ferry large numbers of people and supplies into space in the event of a catastrophic asteroid hitting the Earth. Ocean enthusiasts dream of underwater cities to deal with overpopulation and "natural or man-made disasters that render land-based human life impossible." The Seasteading Institute, Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, and the League of New Worlds have developed pilot projects to explore the prospect of housing people and scientists under the surface of the ocean. However, these projects are prohibitively expensive and "you can never sever [the surface-water connection] completely," says Dennis Chamberland, director of one of the groups. NOAA also invested funding in a habitat called Aquarius built in 1986 by the Navy, although it has since abandoned this project.

If anyone wants to use their private funds for such outlier projects, they surely should be free to proceed. However, for public funds, priorities must be set. Much greater emphasis must be placed on preventing global calamities rather than on developing improbable means of housing and saving a few hundred or thousand people by sending them far into space or deep beneath the waves.

Reimagining NOAA

These select illustrative examples should suffice to demonstrate the great promise of intensified ocean research, a heretofore unrealized promise. However, it is far from enough to inject additional funding, which can be taken from NASA if the total federal R&D budget cannot be increased, into ocean science. There must also be an agency with a mandate to envision and lead federal efforts to bolster ocean research and exploration the way that President Kennedy and NASA once led space research and "captured" the Moon.

Much greater emphasis must be placed on preventing global calamities rather than on developing improbable means of housing and saving a few hundred or thousand people by sending them far into space or deep beneath the waves.

For those who are interested in elaborate reports on the deficiencies of existing federal agencies' attempts to coordinate this research, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (JOCI)-the foremost ocean policy group in the United States and the product of the Pew Oceans Commission and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy-provides excellent overviews. These studies and others reflect the tug-of-war that exists among various interest groups and social values. Environmentalists and those concerned about global climate change, the destruction of ocean ecosystems, declines in biodiversity, overfishing, and oil spills clash with commercial groups and states more interested in extracting natural resources from the oceans, in harvesting fish, and utilizing the oceans for tourism. (One observer noted that only 1% of the 139.5 million square miles of the ocean is conserved through formal protections, whereas billons use the oceans "as a 'supermarket and a sewer.'") And although these reports illuminate some of the challenges that must be surmounted if the government is to institute a broad, well-funded set of ocean research goals, none of these groups have added significant funds to ocean research, nor have they taken steps to provide NASA-like agency to take the lead in federally-supported ocean science.

NOAA is the obvious candidate, but it has been hampered by a lack of central authority and by the existence of many disparate programs, each of which has its own small group of congressional supporters with parochial interests. The result is that NOAA has many supporters of its distinct little segments but too few supporters of its broad mission. Furthermore, Congress micromanages NOAA's budget, leaving too little flexibility for the agency to coordinate activities and act on its own priorities.

It is hard to imagine the difficulty of pulling these pieces together-let alone consolidating the bewildering number of projects-under the best of circumstances. Several administrators of NOAA have made significant strides in this regard and should be recognized for their work. However, Congress has saddled the agency with more than 100 ocean-related laws that require the agency to promote what are often narrow and competing interests. Moreover, NOAA is buried in the Department of Commerce, which itself is considered to be one of the weaker cabinet agencies. For this reason, some have suggested that it would be prudent to move NOAA into the Department of the Interior-which already includes the United States Geological Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement-to give NOAA more of a backbone.

Moreover, NOAA is not the only federal agency that deals with the oceans. There are presently ocean-relevant programs in more than 20 federal agencies-including NASA. For instance, the ocean exploration program that investigates deep ocean currents by using satellite technology to measure minute differences in elevation on the surface of the ocean is currently controlled by NASA, and much basic ocean science research has historically been supported by the Navy, which lost much of its interest in the subject since the end of the Cold War. (The Navy does continue to fund some ocean research, but at levels much lower than earlier.) Many of these programs should be consolidated into a Department of Ocean Research and Exploration that would have the authority to do what NOAA has been prevented from doing: namely, direct a well-planned and coordinated ocean research program. Although the National Ocean Council's interagency coordinating structure is a step in the right direction, it would be much more effective to consolidate authority for managing ocean science research under a new independent agency or a reimagined and strengthened NOAA.

Setting priorities for research and exploration is always needed, but this is especially true in the present age of tight budgets. It is clear that oceans are a little-studied but very promising area for much enhanced exploration. By contrast, NASA's projects, especially those dedicated to further exploring deep space and to manned missions and stellar colonies, can readily be cut. More than moving a few billion dollars from the faraway planets to the nearby oceans is called for, however. The United States needs an agency that can spearhead a major drive to explore the oceans-an agency that has yet to be envisioned and created.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Possible solutions to the world's energy, food, environmental, and other problems are far more likely to be found in nearby oceans than in distant space.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
seaworld responds to questions about captive orcas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SeaWorld responds to questions about captive orcas, 'Blackfish' film - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, CNN will present the premiere of "Blackfish," a documentary that traces the history of killer whales in captivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A woman carrying a child stands in front of a giant mound of plastic waste in Bekasi, West Java. ANTARA FOTO/ Fakhri Hermansyah/pras

There has been a growing trend of restrictions and bans on plastic bag use worldwide. By mid-2018, over 127 countries had enacted regulations limiting their use, a more than threefold increase over the last decade.

The latest adherents are Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, the second-largest polluter of plastic waste into the oceans, and Japan, which ranks second for volume of single-use plastic packaging per person. On July 1, both Jakarta and Japan banned the use of free plastic bags at checkout counters.

These recent policies in Jakarta (an outright prohibition) and Japan (a surcharge) are important steps by politicians towards shifting away from a linear economy in which resources are often used once and then discarded. They should indeed decrease the number of plastic bags that end up in landfills, clog sewer systems, spoil our landscapes, degrade into secondary microplastic pollution and kill wildlife. They may also raise environmental consciousness among consumers.

Despite the good intentions of these new rules, plastic bag bans are problematic for a few reasons.

1. They are not the largest sources of plastic pollution

Plastic waste is indeed a very serious problem. Humans use as many as 1 trillion single-use "carrier bags", about 128 per person per year. The total for all single-use plastic is much greater, at 150 million tons per year. Think of this as 19.23kg of single-use bottles, cutlery, straws, packaging and more for every single person on the planet.

However, the latest research shows plastic bags make up only a fraction of marine debris in the waters of Greater Jakarta. Thin or thick plastic wraps and sacks constitute just over 13.5% of all debris items found and 8.5% of their weight.

In Japan, plastic shopping bags account for only about 2% of all plastic waste produced in the country.

Moreover, while plastic bags are visible to us all, we need to remember that what is in them is often more harmful to the environment than the bags themselves. For example, products with heavy plastic packaging and containers can weigh many times more than the bag. Or consider the actual items, from toxic cleaning solvents, to high-food-mile imported strawberries, to soda in an aluminium can.

2. Consumers may shift to worse alternatives

Evidence from previous plastic bag restrictions shows this does reduce their use, but sometimes leads to more environmental harm if customers switch to other materials with larger resource footprints.

Paper bags can require 400% more energy to make, not to mention the harvesting of trees and use of noxious chemicals in production. Growing cotton "requires land, huge quantities of water, chemical fertilisers and pesticides".

Plastic bags use fossil fuels, a nonrenewable resource, and are permanent, entering the waste stream forever. They may cause more pollution on land and in waterways, but have less effect on climate change and land use than other types of bags.

Biodegradable bags, perhaps surprisingly, could be "the worst option" in terms of their impact on climate, harm to soil, water pollution and toxic emissions.

In the end, a decision on the type of bag becomes about which particular environmental issue takes priority.

3. Consumers, who feel good about not using plastic bags, may do more harm in other ways

Researchers in psychology have observed people often harm the environment when they try to save the planet. For example, they might buy more of a product, like groceries, because they are labeled as eco-friendly.

This is related to the concept of compensatory behaviour.

For example, people may feel that, since they recycle, they don't need to consider the extra meat they ate that week. Or because they walked instead of driving to the store, they deserve to buy an extra piece of clothing.

Sometimes compensatory action takes the form of attempts to account for previous harms. For example, buying carbon offsets for flying might make a passenger feel good, but from an environmental perspective it's less desirable than not boarding in the first place.

The point here is that reducing plastic bag use might grant people mental licence to take other actions that are more detrimental to the environment.

So where does this leave us, and what should we do?

What's next?

Ultimately, the greatest gain from plastic bag bans and pricing is probably in shifting environmental outlooks.

Research connects charges for plastic bags to attitudinal changes among consumers, including support for additional environmental policies.

There can be broader shifts in norms, as " the emergence around the world of an anti-plastic bag norm has been rapid and widespread ". The hope is that increased consciousness in this part of our lives will raise awareness about environmental impacts and alter behaviour in other ways.

This leads to some insights about bags.

For example, according to the UN Environment Program, a cloth bag used between 50 and 150 times will have a lower climate impact than a single-use plastic bag.

When it comes to a plastic bag, if you want to want to halve the environmental harm, use it twice. Drop it to 25%? Use it four times. Reduce the impact by 90%? Use it ten times.

And if we do get reusable bags, we really need to re-use, re-use and re-use them. As an article in Popular Science has pointed out: "Regardless of the material, the best bags are the ones you already own."

In the end, should plastic bag bans be banned? Not exactly, but the entire story of their effects must be more closely considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three reasons why banning plastic bags is problematic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brymer interviewed 15 extreme sports participants, 10 men and five women, in Australia, Europe and North America for the study. (The authors define extreme sports as "independent leisure activities in which a mismanaged mistake or accident would most likely result in death.") Three themes emerged: Extreme sports are invigorating, hard to describe and sometimes transcendent.

Invigorating: One mountaineer likened his sport to a "life altering powerful energy."

Hard to describe: "It's just three hours of AAAAAARRRRR (yells out)," said one skier.

Transcendent: A BASE jumper told the authors, "You do it because you are obviously hitting some sort of plane that you can't normally hit."

Daisher, too, has a unique way of explaining what he feels when he jumps.

"When you're into the 'gnar zone'" - and by that, he means gnarly, Daisher says - "that's when you just be, and you just forget about everything."

Daisher had just pulled off eight BASE jumps from the I. B. Perrine Bridge in his home of Idaho Falls, Idaho, on the day HowStuffWorks talked to him, with plans for 12 more that day. He and the participants in the study report that there is some carryover into their normal lives from their decidedly outside-of-normal activities. But the authors conclude that the real payoff is in the moment: "While benefits might transfer to everyday life, the essential element of the experience seems to be during the activity."

The most reaffirming part of the study may be this: For those involved in extreme sports and some of the Earth-shackled among us who may consider a fling on the wild side, it's worth it.

"[We should] move away from the notion that extreme sports are about risk and risk taking and therefore only open for a few people who have the required personality structure," Brymer says in his email, "to a more inclusive perspective that means everyone can get involved. In the end not everyone will want to be an extreme sports participant but adventure is very powerful and beneficial."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Sports Athletes Crave the Reward, Not the Risk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brymer interviewed 15 extreme sports participants, 10 men and five women, in Australia, Europe and North America for the study. (The authors define extreme sports as "independent leisure activities in which a mismanaged mistake or accident would most likely result in death.") Three themes emerged: Extreme sports are invigorating, hard to describe and sometimes transcendent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extreme sports for kids are on the rise, with the continuing popularity and more technical tricks and stunts on skateboards and mountain bikes.

But some people worry that kids aren't mentally and physically prepared for this kind of risky play. MPR News host Kerri Miller examines the benefits and of extreme sports for kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme sports for kids are on the rise, with the continuing popularity and more technical tricks and stunts on skateboards and mountain bikes. But some people worry that kids aren't mentally and physically prepared for this kind of risky play. MPR News host Kerri Miller examines the benefits and of extreme sports for kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to separating the rational from the reckless, few activities draw a line in the sand quite like extreme sports. Do you think you're an extreme sports practitioner just because you grunt loudly when you hit a tennis ball? Well, try jumping off a 1,000-foot-tall cellphone tower with only seconds to deploy your parachute, or leaping from an airplane for a little wingsuit flying. Your attitude is likely to change.

For those who participate in these sports, laughing in the face of death is a persistent itch that requires scratching. This comes at a high price, and not just to personal safety. One can spend anywhere from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars on training, equipment and travel - all for the undeniable adrenaline rush of risking life and limb.

What are the costs associated with extreme sports? Click ahead and find out.

By Daniel Bukszpan
Posted 16 November 2011

BASE jumping isn't just dangerous, in some parts of the world it's illegal. BASE is short for Buildings, Antennas, Spans and Earth, all of which serve as platforms for jumpers and all of which have an altitude of 2,000 feet or less.

Someone jumping from 2,000 feet has mere seconds before a fatal collision with the ground, barely enough time to deploy a parachute - and therein lies the thrill.

The parachute that's designed specifically for BASE jumping has a larger pilot chute than the one used in traditional skydiving. It costs between $1,200 and $1,500.

For some skiers, tearing up the expert slopes in Aspen simply doesn't offer the kind of high-stakes thrills they crave. For them, the only type of skiing that satisfies is heli-skiing, which involves being flown by helicopter to high mountain summits and negotiating untouched, virgin snow at top speed.

Whistler Heli-Skiing, a company based in British Columbia, offers helicopter access to mountaintops for prices ranging from $815 to $1,150 per person. Skiers should be advised, however, that it's not just the skiing that's dangerous. Frank Wells, the one-time Walt Disney CEO, died during a 1994 heli-skiing trip when his helicopter crashed.

High-altitude climbing is a very expensive pursuit, thanks almost entirely to the cost of the equipment and services needed to keep a climber alive. These costs increase along with the altitude, so climbers attempting to ascend Mount Everest can potentially spend six digit figures to reach its summit, according to WhatItCosts.com. Fees include $30,000 for oxygen canisters, $25,000 for a lead guide, $10,000 to $15,000 each for two assistant guides, and $7,500 for the gear-hauling services of yaks. There is also such equipment as glacier glasses and sleeping bags rated to at least minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit, all of which can cost between $8,000 and $15,000.

These are only a few of the charges and while they're steep, you simply can't skimp on them. Those who have chosen to climb on the cheap and forego some of these expenses have paid with their lives. Indeed, mountaineer Jon Krakauer, who was part of a failed 1996 expedition that killed five of his fellow climbers, said in his 1997 book "Into Thin Air" that climbing Everest is a decision frequently made by people who may not have thought it through. "Attempting to climb Everest is an intrinsically irrational act - a triumph of desire over sensibility," wrote Krakauer. "Any person who would seriously consider it is almost by definition beyond the sway of reasoned argument."

Scuba is an acronym for "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus." Scuba diving was once considered the exclusive province of marine biologists, Navy frogmen and Jacques Cousteau, but now couples honeymooning in the Bahamas and elsewhere regularly strap on a tank, goggles, and fins to commune with exotic sea life.

Scuba.com, an online resource that sells scuba gear, offers a "Scubapro Top-of-the-Line Warm Water" personal gear package that includes fins, boots, a mask, and a snorkel for $410. All fine and good, but even the most experienced diver won't get very far with these things if there's no scuba tank to allow underwater breathing. So Scuba.com also offers aluminum tanks at prices ranging from $132 to $440. Divers will also need to be certified by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors in a course that costs $120.

If you're going to confront your fear of heights by jumping out of an airplane, why do it the sissy way with conventional skydiving? Instead, consider skysurfing. It involves leaping out of an airplane with a skyboard attached to your feet and doing acrobatic maneuvers in midair.

Skysurfer.com sells a variety of boards for enthusiasts of every skill level. It has beginner's boards that start at $395 and higher-end models for experienced sky surfers that sell for as much as $1,295.

Legend has it that street luging was invented in the 1970s by California teenagers who would lie down flat on their skateboards and careen downhill on the street, right alongside busy automobile traffic. Today, there is a vehicle designed specifically for this pursuit, the street luge.

The street luge is based on the design of a skateboard but has a modified shape and includes handles. The SPORT Noreaster Street Luge sells for $329.95, and the website that sells it offers a helpful caveat to potential buyers: "Even at slower speeds, you can get seriously injured. At higher speeds, DEATH is possible." Duly noted.

SuperSport motorcycles are not meant for leisurely jaunts through scenic countryside. They are meant to be thrilling for high-speed rides, and those looking for comfort or fuel economy should look elsewhere.

SuperSport motorcycles have become popular with aspiring Evel Knievels looking to satisfy their inner daredevils, but the bikes have a higher-than-average fatality rate. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states that in 2008 alone, 1,342 people were killed on these motorcycles.

If the very real threat of death doesn't give you pause, there's also the price to consider. The 2012 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R ABS sells for a manufacturer's suggested retail price of $14,999.

People who believe their experience with recreational diving is sufficient training for underwater cave diving are flat-out wrong. It's one of the most dangerous types of diving in the world and it's not widely practiced, mainly due to the skills required and the very expensive equipment.

The masks, fins, wetsuits and dive lights used by recreational divers are completely useless for cave diving, so recreational divers wishing to engage in underwater spelunking will have to spend approximately $9,000 just for basic gear. Those who cave dive without the equipment risk getting lost due to lighting failure, or succumbing to hypothermia.

White-water rafting is a demanding sport. Navigating rough waters in an inflatable raft offers endless opportunities for broken bones and drowning, and uninitiated individuals could easily find themselves in a part of a river they can't escape -a serious problem when there are high waterfalls involved.

While there are many risks involved in white-water rafting, one thing that isn't hazardous about it is the cost. Ocoee Rafting in Tennessee offers rafting trips down the Ocoee River that include all equipment, such as a helmet, life jacket, and paddle, and a trained guide, all for just $35 per person. On Saturdays, the per-person charge skyrockets to $40.

A wingsuit is a jumpsuit with fabric under the arms and between the legs that allows a human being to remain aloft in midair. Wingsuit enthusiasts still have to pack a parachute, so those wishing to pretend they are a part-man/part-falcon hybrid will have to pry themselves away from the illusion as the flight draws to a close. Still, it remains the closest thing to flying that a human being can experience outside of an airplane.

Naturally, a high-quality suit is essential. The extreme sports website The Adrenalist recommends the Venom suit by Phoenix Fly, which retails for $1,500.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People participating in extreme sports can spend anywhere from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands on training, equipment and travel, all for the undeniable adrenaline rush of risking life and limb. What are the costs associated with extreme sports?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FRIDAY, March 14, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- Ever since the advent of the "X Games" in the mid-1990s, Americans have embraced so-called extreme sports such as mountain biking, skateboarding and snowboarding.

But experts are warning that the fun can quickly turn to tragedy when amateurs try to mimic stunts they've seen on television.

A new analysis finds that extreme sports have been linked to more than 4 million injuries since 2000, and now cause more than 40,000 head and neck injuries annually.

"While we're been inventing and coming up with all these new sports, the conversation has been all about the excitement and not about the safety," said study co-author Dr. Vani Sabesan, an assistant professor in the department of orthopaedic surgery at Western Michigan University School of Medicine in Kalamazoo, Mich.

"We know that youth tends to push the envelope and take things to the next level," she added. "So the tricks involved in these increasingly popular sports are becoming more and more advanced every year. And that means more and more accident risk."

Sabesan is slated to present her findings Friday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) in New Orleans.

Her team reviewed information collected by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System between 2000 and 2011.

Although the focus was on accidents involving non-professional athletes, the database also collected statistics on seven sports that currently draw in seasoned sports figures participating in either the Winter or Summer versions of the X Games. Those include surfing, mountain biking, motocross, skateboarding, snowboarding, snowmobiling and snow skiing.

According to the study, these seven sports combined were linked to more than 4 million injuries occurring over the 11-year period.

About one in every 10 of those injuries were to the head or neck. Head injuries accounted for the vast majority of that group (87 percent) when compared with neck injuries (17 percent).

About 2.5 percent of both head and neck injuries were classified as "severe," meaning they involved a fracturing of either the skull or bones of the neck.

Overall, the sport associated with the greatest number of head and neck trauma incidents was skateboarding, which produced more than 129,000 such injuries during the study. Sabesan's team point out that the number of Americans who skateboard has risen by nearly 50 percent, to more than 14 million, since 1999.

Snowboarding, the cold-weather cousin of skateboarding, was linked to more than 97,000 head or neck injuries. The researchers say there are now an estimated 7 million snowboarders across the United States.

Skiing ranked third on the head/neck injury list with more than 83,000 cases reported, followed by motocross with an excess of 78,000 injuries.

Overall, the annual number of head and neck injuries linked to extreme sports rose from just over 34,000 in 2000 to more than 40,000 in 2010.

Sabesan and her colleagues believe that parents -- as well as those involved in organizing extreme sports teams and events -- need to be aware of the risks.

"We have very young kids, and they're getting younger all the time, going 60 miles an hour down a ski hill," Sabesan noted. "So, the risk for life-altering accidents is real and serious."

"Certainly, some sports have a higher risk for neck fractures, and others for concussion," she added. "But in general we need to make sure protective equipment is available -- such as helmets and wrist guards -- and encouraged. And we need to make sure we provide medical care and team doctors on site, and that kids know that it's possible to get a concussion when doing these sports and are encouraged to seek medical help when there's any concern."

Newly elected AAOS president Dr. Frederick Azar said the study sheds light on a relatively unexplored subject.

"The preponderance of head and neck injuries is mind-boggling, although not surprising," said Azar, who is also chief of staff at the Campbell Clinic in Memphis, Tenn. "Because with extreme sports we're dealing with levels of height and speed and exertion that are not always as controllable as some of the more traditional sports."

"This work is a baseline starting point to raise awareness of the nature of the problem so we can start looking for ways to maximize safety, " he added. "Particularly because we expect these kinds of sports to become even more popular in the coming years."
More information
Visit the U.S. National Institutes of Health for more on head injuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Extreme Sports' Linked to 40,000 Head and Neck Injuries Per Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FRIDAY, March 14, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- Ever since the advent of the "X Games" in the mid-1990s, Americans have embraced so-called extreme sports such as mountain biking, skateboarding and snowboarding. But experts are warning that the fun can quickly turn to tragedy when amateurs try to mimic stunts they've seen on television.

# data[].attributes.headline
Distribution of injuries in individual extreme sports from 2000 to 2011. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Distribution of injuries in individual extreme sports from 2000 to 2011. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Space Society - Working to Create a Spacefaring Civilization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WHY WE DO — AND MUST — GO INTO SPACE - National Space Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Jeffrey G. Liss, NSS Board of Directors The smart answer — more than 40 years after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon — to why we go into space, is: “We must.” Space Pays! — The Space Program Has Paid for Itself It is a myth that we cant afford space. Confirmation that space […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
WHY WE DO — AND MUST — GO INTO SPACE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists worry that growing numbers of rocket flights and the rise of space tourism could harm Earth's atmosphere and contribute to climate change.

When billionaires Richard Branson and soared into space this month aboard their companies' suborbital tourism vehicles, much of the world clapped in awe.

But for some scientists, these milestones represented something other than just a technical accomplishment. Achieved after years of delays and despite significant setbacks, the flights marked the potential beginning of a long-awaited era that might see rockets fly through the so-far rather pristine upper layers of the atmosphere far more often than they do today. In the case of SpaceShipTwo, the vehicle operated by Branson's Virgin Galactic, these flights are powered by a hybrid engine that burns rubber and leaves behind a cloud of soot.

"Hybrid engines can use different types of fuels, but they always generate a lot of soot," said Filippo Maggi, associate professor of aerospace engineering at Politecnico di Milano, Italy, who researches rocket propulsion technologies and was part of a team that several years ago published an extensive of hybrid rocket engine emissions. "These engines work like a candle, and their burning process creates conditions that are favorable for soot generation."
Related: Air pollution from reentering megaconstellation satellites could cause ozone hole 2.0
According to Dallas Kasaboski, principal analyst at the space consultancy Northern Sky Research, a single Virgin Galactic suborbital space tourism flight, lasting about an hour and a half, can generate as much pollution as a 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight. Some scientists consider that disconcerting, in light of Virgin Galactic's ambitions to fly paying tourists to the edge of space several times a day.

"Even if the suborbital tourism market is launching at a fraction of the number of launches compared to the rest of the [tourism] industry, each of their flights has a much higher contribution, and that could be a problem," Kasaboski told Space.com.

Virgin Galactic's rockets are, of course, not the only culprits. All rocket motors burning hydrocarbon fuels generate soot, Maggi said. Solid rocket engines, such as those used in the past in the boosters of NASA's space shuttle, burn metallic compounds and emit aluminum oxide particles together with hydrochloric acid, both of which have a damaging effect on the atmosphere.

(Image credit: NASA)

The BE-3 engine that powers Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital vehicle, on the other hand, combines liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to create thrust. The BE-3 is not a big polluter compared to other rocket engines, emitting mainly water along with some minor combustion products, experts say.

Too little is known

For Karen Rosenlof, senior scientist at the Chemical Sciences Laboratory at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the biggest problem is that rockets pollute the higher layers of the atmosphere - the stratosphere, which starts at an altitude of about 6.2 miles (10 kilometers), and the mesosphere, which goes upward from 31 miles (50 km).

"You are emitting pollutants in places where you don't normally emit it," Rosenlof told Space.com. "We really need to understand. If we increase these things, what is the potential damage?"

So far, the impact of rocket launches on the atmosphere has been negligible, according to Martin Ross, an atmospheric scientist at the Aerospace Corporation who often works with Rosenlof. But that's simply because there have not been that many launches.

"The amount of fuel currently burned by the space industry is less than 1% of the fuel burned by aviation," Ross told Space.com. "So there has not been a lot of research, and that makes sense. But things are changing in a way that suggests that we should learn about this in more detail."

Northern Sky Research predicts that the number of space tourism flights will skyrocket over the next decade, from maybe 10 a year in the near future to 360 a year by 2030, Kasaboski said. This estimate is still far below the growth rate that space tourism companies like Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin envision for themselves.

"Demand for suborbital tourism is extremely high," Kasaboski said. "These companies virtually have customers waiting in a line, and therefore they want to scale up. Ultimately, they would want to fly multiple times a day, just like short-haul aircraft do."

The rate of rocket launches delivering satellites into orbit is expected to grow as well. But Kasaboski sees bigger potential for growth in space tourism.

"It's like the difference between a cargo flight and a passenger flight," Kasaboski said. "There's a lot more passengers that are looking to fly."

The problem is, according to Ross, that the scientific community has no idea and not enough data to tell at what point rocket launches will start having a measurable effect on the planet's climate. At the same time, the stratosphere is already changing as the number of rocket launches sneakily grows.

(Image credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

"The impacts of these [rocket-generated] particles are not well understood even to an order of magnitude, the factor of 10," Ross said. "The uncertainty is large, and we need to narrow that down and predict how space might be impacting the atmosphere."

Space shuttle's ozone holes

So far, the only direct measurements of the effects of rocket launches on chemical processes in the atmosphere come from the space shuttle era. In the 1990s, as the world was coming together to salvage the damaged ozone layer, NASA, NOAA and the U.S. Air Force put together a campaign that looked at the effects of the emissions from the space shuttle's solid fuel boosters on ozone in the stratosphere.

"In the 1990s, there were significant concerns about chlorine from solid rocket motors," Ross said. "Chlorine is the bad guy to ozone in the stratosphere, and there were some models which suggested that ozone depletion from solid rocket motors would be very significant."

The scientists used NASA's high-altitude aircraft to fly through the plumes generated by the space shuttle rockets in Florida. Reaching altitudes of up to 60,000 feet (19 km), they were able to measure the chemical reactions in the lower stratosphere just after the rockets' passage.

"One of the fundamental questions was how much chlorine is being made in these solid rocket motors and in what form," David Fahey, the director of the Chemical Sciences Laboratory at NOAA, who led the study, told Space.com. "We measured it several times and then analyzed the results. At that time, there were not enough space shuttle launches to make a difference globally, but locally one could deplete the ozone layer due to this diffuse plume [left behind by the rocket]."

The space shuttle retired 10 years ago, but rockets generating ozone-damaging substances continue launching humans and satellites to space today.

(Image credit: Virgin Galactic)

In fact, in 2018, in its latest Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, which comes out every four years, the World Meteorological Organization included rockets as a potential future concern. The organization called for more research to be done as the number of launches is expected to increase.

Worse than geoengineering

Rosenlof's team studies the broader effects of human-made substances in the higher layers of the atmosphere using powerful NOAA supercomputers. The work is akin to predicting the proverbial butterfly effect, the influence of minuscule changes in the chemistry of the air tens of miles above Earth on climate and weather patterns on the ground. For her, black carbon, or soot, emitted by rockets burning hydrocarbon fuels, is of particular concern.

"The problem with soot is that it absorbs ultraviolet light, and that means that it could heat the stratosphere," Rosenlof said. "When you start heating the stratosphere, the layer above the troposphere [closest to the ground], you start changing the motion in the stratosphere. You are changing the energy transfer, and that could actually affect what is happening on the ground."

Rosenlof points out that many of the particles generated by some rockets have been of interest to scientists due to the possible effects they could have on the global climate in a different context - that of geoengineering, the deliberate tampering with the atmosphere with the aim of stopping or mitigating global warming.

Rosenlof recently co-authored a paper that used the same powerful NOAA supercomputers to model what the scientists call a climate intervention. The team was interested in the climate effects of dispersing sulfur dioxide particles, which are known to reflect light away from Earth, in combination with soot (which is also part of rocket emissions) in the lower stratosphere. Soot absorbs energy from sunlight and pushes the sulfur dioxide aerosol particles to a higher altitude by warming up the surrounding air. At that higher altitude, the sulfur dioxide can start its climate-cooling work. The experiment modeled what would happen when 1.1 million tons of sunlight-reflecting sulfur dioxide mixed with 11,000 tons of black carbon were released in the upper troposphere by aircraft over a 10-day period.

The study didn't find any significant negative effects on weather on Earth. Yet, those results do not dispel Rosenlof's concerns about the possible risks associated with the growing number of rocket launches.

Altering the jet stream

"Black carbon in the geoengineering experiment that we did isn't as high as the stuff from these rockets," she said. "The problem is that the higher you go, the longer something lasts. Neither of them is ideal, because either of them would produce heating in places where we don't have heating right now."

According to Maggi, the soot particles generated by hybrid rocket engines are extremely small and light-weight. In fact, when he and his colleagues tried to measure the soot output of hybrid rocket engines in a laboratory, they couldn't reliably do it with precision because of the particles' minuscule size.

"We were able to measure the particle output from solid rocket motors," Maggi said. "These are about a micron in size, and there [are] a lot of them. But because they are large, they fall to the ground more quickly. In hybrid rocket engines, we were not able to collect the soot from the plume because it's extremely fine, a few nanometres in size."

Maggi fears these particles could, in fact, stay in the stratosphere forever.

"They have the same size as the carbon emitted by aircrafts," Maggi said. "And we know that there is a layer of carbon in the atmosphere at the flight level of aircrafts which is staying there. It's very likely that particles coming from rocket motors will do the same."

The accumulation of these particles over years and decades is what worries the scientists. Just as the current climate crisis started relatively slowly as the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere grew, the pollution in the stratosphere may only start causing harm some years down the road.

Rosenlof added that in the long term, injecting pollutants into the stratosphere could alter the polar jet stream, change winter storm patterns or affect average rainfall.

"You might go from 25 inches [64 centimeters] a year to 20 inches [51 cm] a year in some places, which maybe doesn't sound like that big of a deal unless you are a farmer trying to grow your wheat right there," Rosenlof said. "Then a subtle change in rainfall can impact your crop yields."

Work to be done

For this reason, Fahey says, it is critical that scientific work starts now to evaluate the future risks.

"There is this fundamental gap where we just don't have the numbers, and that means that the science is limited because we have this lack of information," he said. "We feel it is part of our responsibility [at NOAA] to assess the impact of human activity on the stratosphere. Rockets are a principal and unique source [of stratospheric pollution], the launch frequencies are increasing and the effects are accumulating."

Fahey envisions a wider research program that would analyze the emissions and impacts of individual types of rocket engines and fuels on the stratosphere. The data could be used in Rosenlof's models to better predict the effects in accordance with the expected growth of the number of launches. Fahey, however, says that a political decision would have to come first to provide NOAA and its partners with funding that would enable them to take the high-altitude aircraft to the sky again and gather the data. The good news is, he added, that the U.S. Congress seems to be aware of the problem and things might soon start to move.

"We would like to see a national program run by NOAA or the Air Force that would develop a database with basic emission characteristics of modern propulsion systems based on observations," he said. "We could gather some data in ground tests but also in the same way that we did with the space shuttle - by flying through the plumes just after launch."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The rise of space tourism could affect Earth's climate in unforeseen ways, scientists worry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists worry that growing numbers of rocket flights and the arrival of space tourism could harm Earth's atmosphere and contribute to climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The potential environmental impact of expanded space exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most people think the bottom of the ocean is like a giant bathtub filled with mud-boring, flat and dark. But it contains the largest mountain range on earth, canyons far grander than the Grand Canyon and towering vertical cliffs rising up three miles-more than twice the height of Yosemite's celebrated El Capitan.

When you look at publicly available topographies of the seafloor, you can get the impression that the job of mapping the planet is over. Far from it. Even these seemingly precise representations, often based on satellite estimates of ocean depths, are not all that revealing. They're rather like throwing a wet blanket over a table set for a fancy dinner party. You might see the outlines of four candelabras surrounded by a dozen chairs, perhaps some drinking glasses if the blanket's really wet. But that's about it. You wouldn't see the utensils and plates, let alone what's for dinner. Satellite data, in other words, only gives a rough idea of what lies beneath the sea.

Only a tiny percentage of the ocean floor has been carefully mapped, which means we know less about 71 percent of the Earth's landscape than about the far side of the Moon. That's a lot of terra incognita. More than half of the United States of America lies in the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone extending out from its borders beneath the sea. If the country wants to extend its claim farther onto the continental shelf, and thus claim the trillions of dollars' worth of oil and gas deposits probably found there, it needs to map those realms.

Exploration and mapping, and making the data open source, would be for the betterment of all citizens-not just in economic terms but in opportunities for unexpected discoveries. Meanwhile, too many ocean researchers go back to well-trodden regions.

In one way or another I've been mapping the ocean since 1967. After being assigned by the Office of Naval Research to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, I soon found myself standing watch on the research vessel Chain as it steamed back and forth across the continental margin off the East Coast, equipped with an instrument that bounced sound waves off the bottom of the sea and gauged the return. But the smooth, curved landscape pouring from the wet paper recorder onboard barely resembled the submarine canyons the ship was passing over. We simply had to guess how deep each canyon was.

Years later I learned that the Navy had worked with General Instrument to produce a sophisticated sonar system yielding extremely accurate maps, but the system was secret and few oceanographers knew it existed. I saw what this sonar could produce in 1973 during Project FAMOUS (French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study), the first time scientists used deep-diving vehicles to explore the rugged volcanic terrain of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in water depths of 10,000 feet and more. Similarly detailed maps helped guarantee the success of our historic expeditions to the Mid-Cayman Rise and Galápagos Rift in 1976 and 1977, including the discovery of the first hydrothermal vents and their exotic chemosynthetic life-forms.

Last year I mounted the latest multi-beam sonar on Nautilus, the vessel operated by the Ocean Exploration Trust, the nonprofit education and research organization I founded. The instrumentation makes highly accurate 3-D maps, discerns if the seafloor is hard or soft, and can even detect oil and gas in the water column.

We filled in holes in publicly available bathymetry, as the science of measuring ocean depths is known, between the Bahamas and Florida, where there is potential for underwater landslides that could generate tsunamis reaching the East Coast. Such maps can reveal slope instabilities. We worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to map a refuge for spawning fish near the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and made some of the first maps around the Belize Barrier Reef.

One standout mission included surveys over natural gas seeps in the Gulf of Mexico, where we tracked gas bubbles from their source deep in the seabed. Then there are the cultural artifacts that so capture public imagination: Nautilus mapped the wreck of the U-166, the only German U-boat known to be sunk in the Gulf of Mexico during World War II.

All in all, our forays with Nautilus have mapped nearly 40,000 square miles of seafloor-a vast area the size of Kentucky, but a drop in the bucket compared with what's left to do. Next year's expeditions include trips south of the Equator for the first time. I can only wonder what waits for us in that hemisphere, where the ocean covers more than 80 percent of the area and where few explorers have ever been.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people think the bottom of the ocean is like a giant bathtub filled with mud-boring, flat and dark. But it contains the largest mountain range on earth, canyons far grander than the Grand Canyon and towering vertical cliffs rising up three miles-more than twice the height of Yosemite's celebrated El Capitan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exploration is key to increasing our understanding of the ocean, so we can more effectively manage, conserve, regulate, and use ocean resources that are vital to our economy and to all of our lives.

Despite the fact that the ocean covers approximately 70% of Earth's surface and plays a critical role in supporting life on our planet, from the air we breathe and the food we eat to weather and climate patterns, our understanding of the ocean remains limited.

Ocean exploration is about making discoveries, searching for things that are unusual and unexpected. As the first step in the scientific process, the rigorous observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archaeological aspects of the ocean gained from exploration set the stage for future research and decision-making.

Through ocean exploration, we collect data and information needed to address both current and emerging science and management needs. Exploration helps to ensure that ocean resources are not just managed, but managed in a sustainable way, so those resources are around for future generations to enjoy. Exploration of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is important for national security, allowing us to set boundaries, protect American interests, and claim ocean resources.

Unlocking the mysteries of ocean ecosystems can reveal new sources for medical therapies and vaccines, food, energy, and more as well as inspire inventions that mimic adaptations of deep-sea animals. Information from ocean exploration can help us understand how we are affecting and being affected by changes in Earth's environment, including changes in weather and climate. Insights from ocean exploration can help us better understand and respond to earthquakes, tsunamis, and other hazards.

The challenges met while exploring the ocean can provide the impetus for new technologies and engineering innovations that can be applied in other situations, allowing us to respond more effectively in the face of an ocean crisis, such as an oil spill. And, ocean exploration can improve ocean literacy and inspire young people to seek critical careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

As a species, humans are naturally inquisitive - curiosity, desire for knowledge, and quest for adventure motivate modern explorers even today. And if all of these examples don't provide enough reasons to explore the ocean, well, ocean exploration is also just cool (if you need it: proof).

The NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is the only federal program dedicated to exploring the deep ocean, closing prominent gaps in our basic understanding of U.S. deep waters and the seafloor and delivering the ocean information needed to strengthen the economy, health, and security of our nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Ocean Exploration and Why Is It Important?: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the fact that the ocean covers approximately 70% of Earth's surface and plays a critical role in supporting life on our planet, from the air we breathe and the food we eat to weather and climate patterns, our understanding of the ocean remains limited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why space exploration is always worthwhile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A toolkit to help you advocate for the value of exploring space even when there are important problems to be solved here on Earth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Space tourism: rockets emit 100 times more CO₂ per passenger than flights

# data[].attributes.subject
Space tourism: rockets emit 100 times more CO₂ per passenger than flights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The commercial race to get tourists to space is heating up between Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson and former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. On Sunday 11 July, Branson ascended 80 km to reach the edge of space in his piloted Virgin Galactic VSS Unity spaceplane. Bezos' autonomous Blue Origin rocket is due to launch on July 20, coinciding with the anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing.

Though Bezos loses to Branson in time, he is set to reach higher altitudes ( about 120 km). The launch will demonstrate his offering to very wealthy tourists: the opportunity to truly reach outer space. Both tour packages will provide passengers with a brief ten-minute frolic in zero gravity and glimpses of Earth from space. Not to be outdone, Elon Musk's SpaceX will provide four to five days of orbital travel with its Crew Dragon capsule later in 2021.

What are the environmental consequences of a space tourism industry likely to be? Bezos boasts his Blue Origin rockets are greener than Branson's VSS Unity. The Blue Engine 3 (BE-3) will launch Bezos, his brother and two guests into space using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. VSS Unity used a hybrid propellant comprised of a solid carbon-based fuel, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), and a liquid oxidant, nitrous oxide (laughing gas). The SpaceX Falcon series of reusable rockets will propel the Crew Dragon into orbit using liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen.

Burning these propellants provides the energy needed to launch rockets into space while also generating greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Large quantities of water vapour are produced by burning the BE-3 propellant, while combustion of both the VSS Unity and Falcon fuels produces CO₂, soot and some water vapour. The nitrogen-based oxidant used by VSS Unity also generates nitrogen oxides, compounds that contribute to air pollution closer to Earth.

Roughly two-thirds of the propellant exhaust is released into the stratosphere (12 km-50 km) and mesosphere (50 km-85 km), where it can persist for at least two to three years. The very high temperatures during launch and re-entry (when the protective heat shields of the returning crafts burn up) also convert stable nitrogen in the air into reactive nitrogen oxides.

These gases and particles have many negative effects on the atmosphere. In the stratosphere, nitrogen oxides and chemicals formed from the breakdown of water vapour convert ozone into oxygen, depleting the ozone layer which guards life on Earth against harmful UV radiation. Water vapour also produces stratospheric clouds that provide a surface for this reaction to occur at a faster pace than it otherwise would.

Space tourism and climate change

Exhaust emissions of CO₂ and soot trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Cooling of the atmosphere can also occur, as clouds formed from the emitted water vapour reflect incoming sunlight back to space. A depleted ozone layer would also absorb less incoming sunlight, and so heat the stratosphere less.

Figuring out the overall effect of rocket launches on the atmosphere will require detailed modelling, in order to account for these complex processes and the persistence of these pollutants in the upper atmosphere. Equally important is a clear understanding of how the space tourism industry will develop.

Virgin Galactic anticipates it will offer 400 spaceflights each year to the privileged few who can afford them. Blue Origin and SpaceX have yet to announce their plans. But globally, rocket launches wouldn't need to increase by much from the current 100 or so performed each year to induce harmful effects that are competitive with other sources, like ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and CO₂ from aircraft.

During launch, rockets can emit between four and ten times more nitrogen oxides than Drax, the largest thermal power plant in the UK, over the same period. CO₂ emissions for the four or so tourists on a space flight will be between 50 and 100 times more than the one to three tonnes per passenger on a long-haul flight.

In order for international regulators to keep up with this nascent industry and control its pollution properly, scientists need a better understanding of the effect these billionaire astronauts will have on our planet's atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Space tourism: rockets emit 100 times more CO₂ per passenger than flights - imagine a whole industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The commercial race to get tourists to space is heating up between Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson and former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. On Sunday 11 July, Branson ascended 80 km to reach the edge of space in his piloted Virgin Galactic VSS Unity spaceplane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are The Benefits Of Space Exploration?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why explore space? It’s an expensive arena to play in, between the fuel costs and the technological challenge of operating in a hostile environment. For humans, a small mistake can quickly become fatal — something that we have seen several times in space history. And for NASA’s budget, there are pro…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists have successfully photographed a black hole, landed rovers on Mars, and sent spacecraft to the dark side of the moon. Yet, one of the last unknown frontiers - and one of the most deceptively familiar - is on our very own planet.

More than 80% of the ocean remains unexplored. And because it's difficult to protect what we don't know, only about 7% of the world's oceans are designated as marine protected areas (MPAs).

With this in mind, we explain why a body of water that covers most of Earth's surface is also one of the most vulnerable - and least understood - places in the universe.
Under pressure
One of the biggest challenges of ocean exploration comes down to physics. Dr. Gene Carl Feldman, an oceanographer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, explains that the ocean, at great depths, is characterized by zero visibility, extremely cold temperatures, and crushing amounts of pressure.

"In some ways, it's a lot easier to send people into space than it is to send people to the bottom of the ocean," Feldman told Oceana. "The intense pressures in the deep ocean make it an extremely difficult environment to explore."

Although you don't notice it, the pressure of the air pushing down on your body at sea level is about 15 pounds per square inch. If you went up into space, above the Earth's atmosphere, the pressure would decrease to zero. However, if you went diving or hitched a ride in an underwater vehicle, those forces would start to stack up the further down you went.

"On a dive to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, which is nearly 7 miles deep, you're talking about over 1,000 times more pressure than at the surface," Feldman said. "That's the equivalent of the weight of 50 jumbo jets pressing on your body."

Of course, human-occupied submersibles aren't the only way to explore and study the ocean. We can even learn some lessons from space. Feldman specializes in satellite technologies that record the color of the ocean as a means of measuring the distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, which can change rapidly and even double in a day.

When these technologies were first used in the late '70s, satellites were able to capture detailed images of the ocean within minutes, while it would take a ship 10 years of continuous sampling to collect the same number of measurements, according to Feldman.

With that said, some things are better measured in the water - however difficult it may be to get there.
'Bearing witness'
Ocean exploration technologies have come a long way. Floats and drifters, devices that rely on ocean currents to carry them while they collect data, have been complemented in recent years by an ever-sophisticated fleet of underwater vehicles. This can include human-occupied vehicles (HOVs), remotely-operated ones (ROVs), and autonomous and hybrid ones.

In a recent webinar hosted by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, film director and ocean enthusiast James Cameron called for an "all-of-the-above" approach, but also highlighted the value of continuing to plunge people into the great unknown. In 2012, Cameron set a record when he visited the Mariana Trench - the deepest part of the ocean - in a "vertical torpedo" sub.

"I call it bearing witness," Cameron said. "There's something very exciting about being physically present and using all of your senses. Plus, you can come back and tell the story, and that engages an audience. The most important aspect of exploration, in my mind, is coming back and telling the tale."

Oceana uses a combination of technologies on its expeditions, which have charted previously unexplored waters, including areas off of Southern California, several seamounts in the Canary Islands, and a deep trench south of Malta. Another seamount near Morocco, which was also previously unexplored, led to the discovery of a deep-sea coral reef - the only one of its kind that is still growing in the Mediterranean Sea.

In Europe's biodiversity hotspots, expeditions resulted in the first-ever record of a live brown-snout spookfish, as well as the documentation of two starfish species, one black coral, and one stony coral that were previously thought to only live in the Atlantic Ocean.

And in Chile, following Oceana expeditions which recorded the rich and unique marine life in the Desventuradas and Juan Fernández islands, the government was persuaded to make those places marine parks. A multiple-use MPA was also established in the Caleta Tortel commune following multiple Oceana expeditions.

While the benefits are undeniable, expeditions are expensive, and the lack of detailed maps and data make them all the more challenging.

Ricardo Aguilar, the leader of Oceana's expeditions in Europe, said they can't bank on bathymetric information - which can serve as a guide to an area's underwater terrain - because in most cases it doesn't exist.

"We only have good information on less than 5% of the world's oceans, and maybe sparse information on another 10%," Aguilar said. "Therefore, how can we protect areas where we have no clue what is there?"

Herein lies the catch-22: We need exploration to collect more information, but many agencies around the world are reluctant to fund projects where there are too many unknowns.

"There seems to be an increasing trend towards avoiding risk at all costs, which means that you often have to prove that you know all the answers before you can even start your investigation," Feldman said. "But this is the wrong approach. Science is not only about having the answers. Science is really about asking the questions."
Evidence, not excuses
Oceana has protected nearly 4 million square miles of ocean to date, and expeditions have been crucial to this success. Expeditions yield photographs, video footage, scientific data, and narratives that can all be used to bolster the case for new or expanded protections.

"By exploring previously unexplored areas, we have been able to discover new species and new habitats, but also to identify vulnerable habitats or threatened species that were protected 'on paper,' but because nobody knew they could be found in these places, there were no measures to effectively protect them," Aguilar said.

"One of the most common excuses governments have used for not taking action is the lack of information to choose which areas to protect and how to manage them. Also, the opposition of different stakeholders to creating new MPAs was due to this lack of data."

Oceana endorses plans to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030, a goal known as 30×30. While the world still has a long way to go, continued ocean exploration can supply the evidence needed to protect the ocean and the many resources it provides.

Even though data is useful, Feldman says a compelling case for MPAs can still be made when the reverse is true. Because scientists do not have a complete understanding of how one change to the ocean affects the entire ecosystem - and which of those changes may be the tipping point that causes collapse - it is common sense that areas should be designated for protection and further research.

"Since we don't know how all the pieces fit together, setting aside areas where we just say, 'We're leaving these alone' or 'We're going to have minimal intervention' is perhaps the safest thing to do until we know better," Feldman said. "The idea of setting aside areas that are environmentally important and unique is probably a really smart move until we can get smarter about how we manage the ocean."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why does so much of the ocean remain unexplored and unprotected?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists have successfully photographed a black hole, landed rovers on Mars, and sent spacecraft to the dark side of the moon. Yet, one of the last unknown frontiers - and one of the most deceptively familiar - is on our very own planet. More than 80% of the ocean remains unexplored.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While there are seemingly few pieces of undiscovered terra firma left on Earth, adventurers shouldn't turn in their compasses just yet.

The world's five oceans have gone largely unexplored. Because the oceans cover 71% of the planet's surface, that means most of Earth has yet to be observed by humans. With manned and unmanned submersibles and other underwater technologies pushing the pace, the years ahead should be a hallmark era of deep sea exploration.

Expect to learn more about ocean habitats that have so far eluded observation, and expect to be wowed by the underwater discoveries of never-before-seen creatures and other aquatic life that will undoubtedly illustrate the workings of the deep blue sea and how this largely unknown environment shapes the planet.

A Vast Underwater World to Explore

It's often said that 95% of the Earth's ocean floor is unexplored. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) puts that figure at more than 80%. A professor of marine ecology at the University of Southampton in the U.K. posits that while satellite technology has mapped just about 100% of the ocean floor at a certain resolution, less than 0.05% has been mapped at the highest possible resolution and even less ground has actually been explored.

No matter how you dive into it, a substantial swath of sea still hasn't seen a human-led expedition. Although relatively few in number, past discoveries hint at the beauty and wonder that awaits explorers. While others went before him, Jacques Cousteau undoubtedly sparked the interest of generations of explorers by documenting his deep-sea journeys on film. Cousteau made oceanic study seem like a dreamy endeavor that almost anyone with the right equipment could pursue. And they had the right equipment thanks to him: He invented the self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (better known as SCUBA).

In 2012, filmmaker James Cameron famously took a solo submarine dive nearly seven miles down to a Pacific Ocean valley known as Challenger Deep, the deepest surveyed spot on Earth that was visited only once before but with a two-person submersible. (Cameron's record dive was bested this year by 52 feet.)

There's Life in the Deep Blue Sea

Other underwater explorers have failed to match Cousteau's legacy (Who could?) or generate as much media coverage as Cameron did, but many have made significant scientific underwater discoveries. Consider the work in progress right now.

NOAA and several government agencies recently studied deep water habitats off the U.S. Mid- and South Atlantic coasts in a project called " Deep Search 2019." The researchers made the first observed sighting of tubeworms in that part of the ocean, a finding that will reveal more about a creature that uses chemosynthesis to convert hydrogen sulfide into food.

Another NOAA initiative, " Windows in the Deep 2019," furthered a years-long study of seafloor methane seepage in the northern U.S. section of the Atlantic Ocean. By observing the methane plumes, the researchers hope to learn how gas hydrate dynamics influence ocean ecology.

Meanwhile, off the southeast Pacific coast of Chile and Peru, three new species of fish were discovered 7,500 meters below the surface. Temporarily named "the pink, the blue and the purple Atacama Snailfish," the fish live in the Hadal Trenches, one of the deepest places on Earth and where tectonic plates collide.

Larger initiatives such as the International Ocean Discovery Program bring together researchers from around the world to examine seafloor rocks and sediments to make sense of the Earth's history.

Knowledge to Inform Conservation

Those and many other journeys wouldn't have happened without technology that can survive the pressure of extreme ocean depths and the effects of seawater corrosion. Researchers rely on submersibles such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) - which are ship-tethered robots that can reach great depths. They also use autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), which are preprogrammed robots that also dive deep. Human occupied vehicles (HOVs) carry people to ocean floors and feature robotic arms that collect creatures and sediments.

Technology and the unquenched, objective curiosity of marine researchers will continue to push deep sea exploration at a time when such studies will help us understand how the Earth can handle climate change. With coral and other ocean species under threat of extinction because of warming water, researchers need to know more so they - and us - can better protect already fragile underwater ecosystems.

Optogenetics is technology that combines genetics and optics allowing researchers to control the activity of genetically modified

In the complex carbon molecule methanol a key molecule of life was discovered in a developing solar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deep Sea Exploration Will Unveil a Vast, Unexplored World - Now. Powered by Northrop Grumman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While there are seemingly few pieces of undiscovered terra firma left on Earth, adventurers shouldn't turn in their compasses just yet. The world's five oceans have gone largely unexplored. Because the oceans cover 71% of the planet's surface, that means most of Earth has yet to be observed by humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mars is an obvious target for exploration because it is close by in our Solar System, but there are many more reasons to explore the Red Planet. The scientific reasons for going to Mars can be summarised by the search for life, understanding the surface and the planet's evolution, and preparing for future human exploration.

Searching for life on Mars
Understanding whether life existed elsewhere in the Universe beyond Earth is a fundamental question of humankind. Mars is an excellent place to investigate this question because it is the most similar planet to Earth in the Solar System. Evidence suggests that Mars was once full of water, warmer and had a thicker atmosphere, offering a potentially habitable environment.

Understanding the surface of Mars and its evolution

While life arose and evolved on Earth, Mars experienced serious climate change. Planetary geologists can study rocks, sediments and soils for clues to uncover the history of the surface. Scientists are interested in the history of water on Mars to understand how life could have survived. Volcanoes, craters from meteoroid impacts, signs of atmospheric or photochemical effects and geophysical processes all carry aspects of Mars' history.

Samples of the atmosphere could reveal crucial details on its formation and evolution, and also why Mars has less atmosphere than Earth.

Mars can also help us to learn more about our home. Understanding martian geophysical processes promises to uncover details of the evolution and history of Earth and other planets in our Solar System.

Human exploration

To reduce the cost and risk for human exploration of Mars, robotic missions can scout ahead and help us to find potential resources and the risks of working on the planet.

Before sending astronauts, we need to understand the hazards. Inevitably, astronauts would bring uncontained martian material when they return to Earth, either on their equipment or on themselves. Understanding any biohazards in the soil and dust will help the planning and preparation of these future missions.

Going to Mars is hard and it is even harder for humans because we would need to pack everything to survive the trip to our neighbouring planet and back. Designing a Mars mission would be easier if we could use resources that are already available locally. Water is a valuable resource for human expeditions, both to consume by astronauts and for fuel. Samples gathered by robots could help to evaluate where potential resources are available for future human explorers and how to exploit them.

Thank you for liking

You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mars is an obvious target for exploration because it is close by in our Solar System, but there are many more reasons to explore the Red Planet. The scientific reasons for going to Mars can be summarised by the search for life, understanding the surface and the planet's evolution, and preparing for future human exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we talk about brain injuries in sports, we talk a lot about football. We mention boxing and mixed martial arts and might talk about repeated head trauma in soccer or hockey, but we mostly talk about football.

There's good reason for that, but that doesn't mean that less traditional sports are incident free or brain injury free. The adventure sports world was rocked by the revelation earlier this year that the autopsy of BMX biker Dave Mirra, frequently described as a "legend" or "icon" of the sport, who died by suicide, showed signs of the degenerative brain condition chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, something we normally associate with football.

A recent study tallying head and neck injuries in "extreme sports" - the sorts of activities featured in the X Games - found that as participation in these sports continues to rise, so does the incidence of concussions and head and neck injuries.

As a September Outside Magazine feature notes: "Mirra's diagnosis, along with mounting scientific and anecdotal evidence, has many pros wondering if we're on the verge of a CTE epidemic among action-sports athletes. More shocking are the signs of widespread health consequences from concussions in the amateur ranks - people like you and me."

This is a real concern.

Based on the aforementioned study (which analyzed 4 million extreme sports injuries that occurred between 2000 and 2011, 11.3% of which were head or neck injuries) and some other available data, here are the some of the risks for injuries that adventure athletes face, with a particular focus on head and neck injuries.

A note: This isn't meant to discourage participation in these sports. But awareness of risks should encourage people to properly prepare, motivate people to seek medical attention in case of an accident, and hopefully provide a reason to put on a helmet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 of the most dangerous adventure sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When we talk about brain injuries in sports, we talk a lot about football. We mention boxing and mixed martial arts and might talk about repeated head trauma in soccer or hockey, but we mostly talk about football. There's good reason for that, but that doesn't mean that less traditional sports are incident free or brain injury free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The death of Harambe the gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo, shot to protect a child who had fallen into his cage, has caused outrage. Some of the anger has now turned from "trigger-happy" staff towards zoos in general. Why, some are asking, is an endangered gorilla behind bars in the first place?

In an ideal world, Harambe would live peacefully in Central Africa. There would be no deforestation, no poachers, and no diseases transmitted by humans and our livestock.

But in the real world, fewer than 900 mountain gorillas are left in the wild. And zoos are a necessary and vital part of efforts to conserve them and other endangered animals.

Modern zoos aim to promote animal conservation, educate people, and support further wildlife research. The three are entwined to ensure the animals are housed to the highest possible standards of welfare. Staff are dedicated to providing species-specific housing, appropriate diets and husbandry to ensure that the animals' lives are as natural as possible within captivity.

Anti-zoo and animal rights groups such as CAPS, PETA or the Born Free foundation claim that zoos are inherently cruel. They highlight animals housed in small cages for "our entertainment" and claim all should be released back into the wild.

But zoo design has moved a long way since the bad days of bare, concrete cages, and indeed innovative enclosures these days can closely replicate an animal's wild habitats.

Sam Ward, Author provided

In fact, most zoo animals, including Harambe the gorilla, have been born and bred in captivity. They have never experienced "the wild", which many people assume is a wonderful and safe place, despite destruction of natural habitats for palm oil, threats from climate change or the increase in poaching.

Two ways capturing animals helps conserve them

Zoo conservation work can be "in-situ", where money, expertise and sometimes staff are provided to protect animals and their habitats in the wild.

Large, charismatic animals such as pandas, tigers or elephants draw the crowds. These flagship species help to raise the profile and funds for in-situ conservation efforts for the not so well known species. For example, there aren't many visitors who would be passionate about protecting frogs or other amphibians yet zoos have been instrumental in preventing the loss of a large part of the world's frog fauna.

"Ex-situ" conservation, meanwhile, takes place outside of the animals' natural habitats, usually back at the zoo and often involving international captive breeding programmes. These studbooks can outline suitable genetic matches for breeding, to maintain a sustainable captive population of a certain species and ensure genetic variation.

Species such as the golden lion tamarin, Arabian oryx, Przewalski's horse, the European bison, and even the common dormouse have at some point been reliant upon captive breeding so as not to become as dead as the Dodo.

hofhauser / shutterstock

Education & research

In the UK at least, zoos must have a written education strategy and an active education programme. If you have been to an accredited zoo recently you will have noticed they use games and technology to go way beyond these basic requirements.

Research within zoos often looks at animal behaviour or welfare, helping to ensure the animals are well housed and fed. Other research investigates the impact humans have on the zoo animals, from the visitor effect to the relationships which can be formed between the animals and their keepers. I recently investigated the human-animal relationship between zoo animals and the keepers.

Research also focuses on biological functioning of animals. Much of this is work that cannot be conducted in the wild if the animals live in remote or inhospitable areas. To take one recent example: Italian scientists who wanted to investigate the Vocal Repertoire of the African Penguin made recordings of a captive colony in a Turin zoo.

Overall, zoos provide opportunities to observe and engage with exotic animals, many of which may be threatened with extinction in the wild. Seeing them up close can spark a passion for biology, conservation and the environment.

So next time you decide to visit a zoo, take a deeper look at the animal care and information that is provided for you. You may become a defender of zoos and the vital work they do. But please: don't enter their enclosures.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In defence of zoos: how captivity helps conservation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The death of Harambe the gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo, shot to protect a child who had fallen into his cage, has caused outrage. Some of the anger has now turned from "trigger-happy" staff towards zoos in general. Why, some are asking, is an endangered gorilla behind bars in the first place?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oftentimes zoos and aquariums can get bad press which sparks the debate over how beneficial they are for wildlife. While we can't deny there are a couple of bad apples in the mix, the majority of zoos help enrich the lives of animals in many different ways. Many zoos do more than just connect people with nature; they also exist to facilitate and promote animal conversation. If you're wondering how zoos improve the lives of animals, this blog is for you!

Protection Against Extinction

It's sad to say, but the world is currently going through a mass extinction due to human activities encroaching on wildlife. A study published by Science Advances in 2020 found that human population and activity has caused rapid global mammal extinctions over the past 126,000 years. Even currently, many species are going extinct across the globe, and many more are facing the threat of extinction. Modern zoos and aquariums help combat these problems. Breeding programs help preserve genetic biodiversity and help reintroduce critically endangered species into the wild. Having animals in protection provides a reservoir against a population crash in the wild. Zoos have helped remove animals from the endangered species list and have saved many from extinction. Without the efforts of zoos, there would be fewer animal species alive today!

Zoo's Research Helps Wildlife

In order to reintroduce animals into the wild and repair the ecosystem, we need to understand how certain animals live and act. Studying animals in zoos can create real positive change for wildlife populations. Even if animals in zoos are never introduced to the wild, they still help improve the lives of their counterparts living in nature. Modern zoos act as a place for observation and research to study issues such as animal disease or infection and to help develop treatments.

Zoos Care for Their Animals

While there are many underfunded and neglectful zoos out there, the good ones positively contribute to the animals' health and well-being. Animals can have a quality of life as high or higher than in the wild. They don't suffer from the stress and threat of predators, the pain of parasites, injury, or illness, and they won't suffer from starvation or drought. Instead, they enjoy a peaceful life with a high-quality diet filled with all of the supplements they need. They won't have to endure the bullying or social ostracism that often happens in nature. Many dreadfulthings happen in the wild that aren't present in zoos.

The Children's Nature Retreat

We hope this blog has helped give you an understanding of how zoos improve the lives of animals! With the ongoing threat to wildlife environments and the many benefits that come with zoos, it's safe to say that they're essential to the long-term survival of many species. Not only can zoos help protect, breed, and reintroduce animals, but we can learn about them to help create a better world for them.

At the Children's Nature Retreat, many of our animals have been acquired from owners who could no longer keep or care for them. Some have been rescued from harsh living conditions and now enjoy the serenity of the Retreat. If you want to say "hi" to some of our animal friends, We have over 200 animals, We are open 7 days a week, no reservations required. You can visit us at 5178 Japatul Spur Alpine, CA 91901, or get in touch by calling (619) 320-4942 or contacting us on our website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Zoos Improve the Lives of Animals Oftentimes zoos and aquariums can get bad press which sparks the debate over how beneficial they are for wildlife. While we can't deny there are a couple of bad apples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the death of Harambe the gorilla at the Cinicinnati Zoo, do not forget the work zoos do to keep endangered and extinct animals alive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Above The Noise | Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? | Season 3 | Episode 24 | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

# data[].attributes.headline
Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity is Not Conservation

# data[].attributes.subject
Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity is Not Conservation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity Is Not Conservation. Here's Why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some captive animal venues tout their conservation efforts, their main focus is profiting off the backs of animals for entertainment. The majority of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animals aren't actors, spectacles to imprison and gawk at, or circus clowns. Yet thousands of elephants, bears, apes, and others are forced to perform silly, difficult tricks under the threat of physical punishment; carted across the country in cramped, stuffy semi-truck trailers; kept chained or caged in barren, filthy enclosures; and regularly separated from their families and friends-all for the sake of entertainment. Many of them are even forced to perform until the day they die.

PETA is determined to get animals out of the entertainment business. Our dedicated staff members work full time exposing and ending animal abuse in the entertainment industry, and their work is paying off: Consider the demise of Ringling Bros. circus, for example. In addition to ending circus cruelty, these staff members work with officials to overhaul horseracing rules nationwide, spearhead hard-hitting undercover investigations and public campaigns that are crucial in turning public opinion against animal-exploiting attractions, persuade travel companies to stop selling tickets to SeaWorld and other cruel operations, persuade companies like Coca-Cola to stop sponsoring abusive forms of entertainment such as the deadly Iditarod, persuade entertainment executives not to use animals in movies or TV and to use motion-capture technology instead, chip away at abusive animal exhibitors like the Mobile Zoo, and facilitate the transfer of neglected animals from roadside zoos, traveling menageries, and other seedy facilities to reputable sanctuaries.
PETA's Victories: Animals in Entertainment
Circus acts featuring only willing human performers, TV shows and films using CGI animals, and interactive, virtual reality aquariums are captivating audiences. Meanwhile, archaic, cruel animal acts are on the decline. Thanks in part to PETA's work, public opposition to horseracing cruelty, marine parks, dog sledding, elephant rides, cockfighting, petting zoos, horse-drawn carriage rides, bullfighting, sport fishing, trophy hunting, rodeos, traveling animal acts, roadside zoos, and safari parks has never been stronger. Animal-free forms of entertainment teach audience members about conservation-something places that imprison and enslave animals, such as SeaWorld, only pretend to do.

What's Wrong With Circuses? And Is SeaWorld Really That Bad?

Animals don't like to put on shows-they're used and abused for the sake of human entertainment. To force bears, elephants, tigers, and others in circuses to perform confusing and physically demanding tricks, trainers use bullhooks, whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, and other painful tools of the trade. Frustrated by years of beatings and confinement, many of them snap-countless animals, trainers, and members of the public have been injured and even killed.

Animals held captive at marine parks or in aquariums don't fare much better. In captivity, orcas and other dolphins swim in endless circles in tanks that, to them, are the equivalent of bathtubs, and they're denied the opportunity to engage in almost any natural behavior. Instead, some are forced to perform meaningless tricks. Most die far short of their natural life expectancy.

The dead bodies of tigers at pseudo-sanctuaries, bears confined to cages and pits, and bulls forced to buck and fight are stacking up, too.

There's only one acceptable thing to do with animals exploited for entertainment: Retire them to reputable sanctuaries or loving homes.

PETA has helped facilitate such transfers, as in the case of Nosey the elephant-we campaigned for her freedom from the circus for years, and now she's loving her sanctuary home in Tennessee. Charlie, a Thoroughbred horse on the brink of a fatal breakdown, was also rescued by PETA-he now spends his days grazing on grass in a large pasture with his guardian, a longtime PETA supporter and friend. And then there was Tregembo Animal Park in North Carolina, which two local animal advocates represented by PETA's lawyers successfully sued, allowing us to transfer bears Ben and Bogey to a sprawling Colorado sanctuary. Between 2013 and 2018, PETA saved more than 70 bears from cramped pens and concrete hells, helping to transfer them to true sanctuaries where they can finally play, climb, have friends, and raise their families. Some of our rescues have even helped shut down roadside zoos.

How You Can Help Animals Forced to Perform or Fight

These life-changing victories wouldn't be possible without the help of our members and supporters. Each of us can help prevent suffering and deaths by refusing to buy a ticket to watch broken animals languish in captivity or perform stupid tricks, demanding that government agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture do their jobs, and urging companies not to do business with animal-exploiting operations.

With the help of our members and supporters, PETA works globally to expose and end the use of animals in entertainment. Some of our efforts include the following:

Conducting groundbreaking undercover investigations and colorful advocacy campaigns to inform the public

Persuading government agencies to hold circuses, roadside zoos, marine parks, and other operations accountable when they apparently violate the law

Encouraging companies to refuse to promote or sponsor elephant rides, tiger encounters, "swim with dolphins" excursions, the Iditarod, or other animal attractions

Advocating for pro-animal legislation

Organizing spirited protests outside businesses and company headquarters to help prevent new animal-exploiting attractions from opening

Calling on roadside zoos and traveling menageries to do the right thing by retiring animals to reputable sanctuaries

Persuading county and state fairs to exclude wild animals from their attractions

This multifaceted approach yields scores of victories for animals imprisoned and used by the entertainment industry around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animals in Entertainment: Circuses, SeaWorld, and Beyond | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animals in entertainment suffer immensely. Find out how PETA is putting an end to elephant rides, horseraces, roadside zoos, and safari parks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
September 7, 2011- Animal Equality carried out a nine-month undercover investigation into the most iconic zoos in Spain, uncovering physical and psychological abuse on a massive scale.

Photos, videos, and expert reports revealed an industry that is anything but "educational."

Investigators observed animals living among their own feces in a state of constant anxiety. Many were taken from their families and transported to other zoos, while others were killed when their group size exceeded the space allotted to them. The survivors were often hit and abused by zoo employees.

Social animals were forced into solitary confinement, while animals who usually live alone were forced into close contact with others. Some animals were even confined next to their predators, and constant conflict among confined animals was common.

In their unnatural environments, animals often resorted to self-mutilation and other bizarre behaviors.

One Animal Equality investigator even documented the last days of "Chata," a baby lioness who fell ill at Seville Zoo and died without receiving any veterinary care. Disturbing footage shows Chata chained around the neck and struggling to free herself, with one vet attributing her ongoing illness to simply not wanting to live.

To make matters worse, many animals became ill and hungry or endured extreme temperatures. Dolphins and sea lions performed demeaning and embarrassing performances, becoming distressed by screaming visitors. Hordes of people peered into animals' cages, their camera flashes worsening the unrest.

The questionable 'educational' message of zoos presents a moral dilemma for parents and children. They teach the most impressionable humans that animals exist only for our pleasure. To instill values in our children - such as respect for others - we can begin by refusing to support industries that cage animals for life.

How You Can Help Confined Animals:

But animals in zoos are not the only ones subjected to extreme confinement, abuse, and psychological anguish. In our own backyards, billions are suffering behind closed doors.

Around the world, cows, pigs, and chickens are held in unsanitary factory farms and slaughterhouses, where they suffer from diseases, physical abuse, and shockingly legal methods of slaughter.

From the mother pig - who is held in a cage too small for her to turn around in - to the baby cow separated from his mother and left to starve, animals suffer for food every day. The bond between mothers and babies is destroyed by companies who market their products as "humane."

The good news is that organizations like Animal Equality are sharing the truth about factory farming with animal lovers around the globe. We've even launched a petition to end factory farming in the U.S. for good:

<br data-mce-bogus="1″><a href="http://ws.amazon.co.uk/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&amp;MarketPlace=GB&amp;ID=V20070822%2FGB%2Fanimaequal-21%2F8010%2F575d7613-6a7c-4cb8-84a8-ec348844d5c2&amp;Operation=NoScript">Amazon.co.uk Widgets</a>

Please enable Javascript in your browser in order to use this form.

Millions have even chosen to replace meat, dairy, and eggs with delicious, diverse, and high-quality plant-based products. Thanks to the Love Veg movement, thousands have unlocked free plant-based recipes and a library of tips for beginners.

Whether in zoos or factory farms, caged and abused animals need our help today. Will you lend them your voice as we fight for a kinder world together?

Spain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos: Life of Animals in Captivity | Animal Equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal Equality's investigation team has carried out a nine-month undercover investigation into the most important zoos in Spain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
n a few days, a pair of two-year-old cheetahs, Saba and Nairo, will depart from the UK on a remarkable journey. The brothers will be taken from Howletts Wild Animal Park, in Kent, and flown to South Africa to begin a new life - in the wild.

It will be the first time that cheetahs born in captivity have left the UK for rewilding in Africa, says Damian Aspinall, who runs Howletts. "There are only about 7,000 cheetahs left on the planet and they are listed as vulnerable," he says. "This reintroduction - to a reserve in Mount Camdeboo, in south of the country - is important because it will help to support the small population of cheetahs we have left in the wild."

And the process of releasing animals from his wildlife parks is likely to continue unabated, adds Aspinall. He now campaigns vigorously for a sharp acceleration in the return of all captive animals to the wild and, ultimately, the closure of all zoos and wildlife parks in the UK - including his own.

"We have no moral right as a species to let animals suffer just because we are curious about them," he says.

The day of the zoo is over, he claims - and his views are reflected by other critics who view wildlife parks andanimalcollections as anachronisms that should be phased out of existence over the coming 25 years.

Yet zoos are a major part of British culture. About 30 million visits are made to animal collections every year, according to the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Some of these outfits are small and isolated - and occasionally fall foul of local authorities for their mistreatment of animals. On the other hand, some larger institutions, such as London or Chester zoos - are well-run and, according to supporters, justify their existence for three clear reasons: education, research and conservation.

According to this argument, revealing the wonders of our planet's wildlife to the public, and investigating the biology of these animals in order to help them return to nature provide zoos with valid reason to exist. In a world beset by climate change, habitat loss and soaring human numbers, zoos provide protection for the world's endangered species.

David Attenborough argues that aquariums, such as this one in Dubai, are more successful than zoos at conserving species in captivity. Photograph: John Kellerman/Alamy Stock Photo

So who is right? Is there any justification, today, for keeping wild animals in captivity? Are zoos good for the planet's threatened creatures - or are they relics of past cruel attitudes to wildlife?

One argument is that zoos educate visitors, particularly younger ones, about the wonders of the planet's wildlife. But Chris Draper of Born Free, the international charity that campaigns against keeping wild animals in captivity, disagrees. "Today, people get more from a TV nature documentary than they will ever get from seeing animals in zoos. In captivity, an elephant or a giraffe is out of its natural environment and probably in an unnatural social grouping. Television or the internet are much better resources for understanding animals than a zoo."

Aspinall agrees. "David Attenborough's programmes are far more educational than a day trip to a zoo," he says. And you can see their point. Attenborough's last series, Seven Worlds, One Planet, was made up of typically stunning material - dramatic close-ups of gentoo penguins fleeing leopard seals, pumas in pursuit of guanacos, and Barbary macaques in high-level chases after infant kidnappers. It was exhilarating, informative - and surely ideal for getting people hooked on animals.

But Attenborough flatly disagrees and is emphatic that his documentaries cannot compare to seeing the real thing. Only the sight of a creature in the flesh can give us a true understanding of its nature, he says.

"There is no way you can appreciate the quiddity of an elephant except by seeing one at close quarters," he told the Observer. "People ought to be able to see what an animal looks like. And smells like. And sounds like. I think that is quite important. Actually, very important."

Education certainly justifies a well-run zoo's existence, he insists. On the other hand, Attenborough acknowledges that some animals fare better than others in zoos. "Modern aquariums are particularly successful, with their vast ceiling-high tanks in which you can see whole communities of different species of fish living together. They are absolutely fabulous."

By contrast, polar bears, big raptors and large hunting mammals like lions are not suitable for being kept in zoos, says Attenborough. "I certainly agree with Mr Aspinall in saying you should not have lions in zoos - unless they were becoming endangered in the wild, which, of course is now becoming a real risk."

Damian Aspinall, chairman of the Aspinall Foundation, plans to close the charity's zoos. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

And the same goes for conservation, he adds. "Breeding programmes for animals that are on the verge of extinction are of incredible importance. If it was not for zoos, there would be no Arabian oryx left in the world, for example."

The Arabian oryx was hunted to extinction in the wild by 1972 but was later reintroduced - originally with animals from San Diego safari park - to Oman. Further reintroductions have since taken place in Saudi Arabia and Israel and iIt is estimated that there are now more than 1,000 Arabian oryx in the wild.

Other species reintroduced to the wild using zoo-bred animals include the European bison and Przewalski's horse. But that is about it, argues Aspinall. "Only a very small number of animals held by European zoos have been the subject of release projects, and third of those species were not rated as threatened," he says. Instead, zoos are cluttered with unthreatened species put there purely to entertain the public: otters and meerkats are common examples.

However, zoo officials reject the idea that their rewilding successes are limited and point to other examples of successfully returning zoo-bred animals to the wild - for example, the Mauritius kestrel. In 1974 only four of these beautiful raptors were known to exist in the wild. It had become the world's rarest bird thanks to habitat loss, introduction of non-native predators, and widespread use of DDT and other pesticides on the island.

A rescue plan was launched by a number of organisations, including the Durrell wildlife park and London Zoo, in a bid to save the Mauritius kestrel from extinction in the wild. "The invasive crab-eating macaque was a particular problem," says Gary Ward, curator of birds at London Zoo. "It had arrived in Mauritius from Asia and was stealing eggs from kestrel nests. So we designed nesting boxes that were longer than a macaque's arm, so they couldn't reach in to snatch eggs. The birds then had a safe place to bring up their young."

Gentoo penguin and Mauritius kestrel

Nesting boxes, in combination with other conservation measures, allowed numbers of Mauritius kestrels to rise to about 800 - although these have dipped slightly in recent years.

Other zoo-led rewilding successes have ranged from the spectacular, such as the Californian condor which was restored to the skies above the western US last century, thanks to the release of young birds bred in San Diego - to the minuscule, such as the return of the tiny partula snail, native to Huahine and Moorea in the Society Islands, French Polynesia, from populations bred in London, Edinburgh, Chester and Amsterdam zoos.

However, zoo opponents argue that these reintroductions remain infrequent and do not justify the keeping of other, unthreatened wild animals, a point taken up by Sam Threadgill of Freedom for Animals, which has campaigned for the abolition of zoos for several decades.

Together with Born Free, Freedom for Animals has studied zoos in England and Wales and concluded that only a small percentage of their animals are endangered species, and only about 15% are threatened.

"It is a simple fact that the vast majority of animals kept in zoos are not endangered or threatened and are there simply to provide public entertainment," he says.

Aspinall goes further. He maintains that many large mammals kept in zoos - lions, elephants, and rhinos, for example - are inbred or diseased or have the wrong genetic profiles to reintroduce to the wild, where they could further weaken wild populations already struggling to survive. "So why are they being 'arked' in the first place?" he asks.

The infrequency of releases of zoo-bred animals into the wild is acknowledged by Dominic Jermey, director general of the Zoological Society of London, but interpreted in a different way: "The truth is that many 'wild' areas are no longer viable habitats for animals - and reintroduction is much more complicated than people might realise. Many of the world's most threatened species are living in habitats degraded by agriculture, threatened by disease or hemmed into tiny areas with no way of reaching potential mates without coming into conflict with humans."

For his part, Aspinall points to conservation successes that he believes can be achieved with key endangered species without any input from zoos. First, he plans to gradually empty his two zoos - at Howletts and at Port Lympne, near Folkestone - and use these to help set up large groups of animals - gorillas, rhinos, lions and others - in protected reserves in Africa. "A particular animal would be given homes at several reserves so that if one got into trouble for some reason - civil war, for example - there would be other sources that could resupply the reserve once those troubles had been sorted."

The majority of animals in zoos are not endangered or threatened and are there simply to provide public entertainment.

Sam Threadgill, Freedom for Animals

Aspinall points to the example of the mountain gorilla. Their numbers had fallen to under 250 by the early 1980s. Today the population stands at 1,000. "This is in the country of Gabon, surrounded by aggressive habitat destruction, civil war and poaching - and all done without any captive breeding."

The crucial point of this plan is that animals would not be kept behind bars but left to roam in their homeland. And instead of money being spent on zoos, funds would go directly to conservation.

But the idea of closing zoos to boost funds for conservation is challenged by Mark Pilgrim, chief executive of Chester Zoo. His organisation has a total annual budget of £47m.

"That money is raised virtually entirely from people paying at our doors to get in," he says. "After you deduct our running costs and cash for new development, we have around £1.5m and that goes on conservation in the field - work that includes studies of chimpanzees in Nigeria and sun bears in Asia and a programme to reintroduce eastern black rhinos to Uganda. If we simply closed our doors, as some people have suggested, our funding of these conservation projects would come to an immediate halt."

He quotes as an example Nigeria's Gashaka Gumti national park, which houses the last reserve of the highly endangered Nigerian-Cameroon chimpanzee. "Chimpanzees here live in forests that are less dense and drier than where other members of the species live in other parts of Africa," says Andrew Moss, a lead conservation scientist at Chester. "Their diets are rich in insects, and we have found they are amazingly adept at making tools that are just right for getting a different type of insect.

"The crucial point is that if we had closed our gates at Chester, the research camp we support at Gashaka Gumti would have been badly hit and this crucial field work threatened."

Nor is it merely money for conservation work that makes zoos important, say supporters. Expertise built up in zoos is also crucial. Over the past few years, wild vulture populations in India and Nepal have crashed from about 40 million to a few thousand because of the use of diclofenac, a livestock anti-inflammatory drug that is highly poisonous to vultures who eat their carcasses.

"We have been closely involved in conservation work, and our expertise in building aviaries on site to protect the last few vultures - and in treating sick animals - has been tremendously useful," says Nic Masters, assistant director of wildlife health at London Zoo.

In the end, these efforts and other attempts at conservation may prove futile in a world challenged by climate change, habitat loss and swelling numbers of humans, as Draper argues. "Keeping alive a handful of the last of a sub-species starts to look like fool's errand because this tiny population is destined either to a life in captivity in perpetuity or to extinction. Neither of those two options is particularly attractive in anyone's book, I would say. The damage has been done."

This view is contested by scientists who still believe there is time to save species and who argue, strenuously, that zoos have a role to play as arks for threatened wildlife. This idea is backed by primatologist Jane Goodall, whose pioneering studies of chimpanzees in the wild have revealed the complex lives led by humanity's closest biological relatives.

"Groups who believe all zoos should be closed have not spent the time I have out in the wild," she once said. "They haven't seen the threats destroying chimpanzee habitat; they don't understand what it's like to watch a chimp struggle, wounded and lame from a wire snare. But I do."

The first zoo

Until the early 19th century, collections of exotic animals were usually owned by kings and queens and were symbols of royal power. This changed with the establishment of the Zoological Society of London in Regent's Park in 1828. This was the world's first scientific zoo and was intended to be a collection of unusual beasts for scientific study.

The camel enclosure at Regent's Park Zoological Gardens in 1835. Photograph: Heritage Images/Getty Images

The collection was eventually opened to the public in 1847. A couple of decades later, the music hall song Walking in the Zoo was made popular by Alfred Vance and is notable for first popularising, in Britain, the word "zoo" as a short form of "zoological gardens" in addition to the Americanism "O.K." in the song's chorus: "Walking in the Zoo, walking in the Zoo/The O.K. thing on Sunday is walking in the Zoo."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cruel or kind? Education and conservation are cited as reasons for keeping wild animals in captivity, but many critics say zoos are outdated relics of a less enlightened era. We hear what both sides say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Bridget M. Kuehn

Is the idea of the zoo as an ark archaic? Are zoos exploiting animals for profit? Are they prisons for wild animals? Does the need for species conservation outweigh the costs to individual animal welfare? These are some of the question zoos face as they try to respond to the criticism from animal rights groups and justify their existence to a public increasingly concerned about the welfare of captive animals.

Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, addressed these questions in his presentation "In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity" at the 2002 AVMA Animal Welfare Forum in Milwaukee Oct.11. The forum was co-sponsored by the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians.

According to Dr. Hutchins, one of the problems reputable zoos and aquariums face is guilt by association. He explained that there are really two kinds of zoos: AZA-accredited zoos, and zoos that don't meet AZA standards. Of the 2,400 animal exhibitors licensed by the Department of Agriculture, fewer than 10 percent meet AZA standards for accreditation, Dr. Hutchins said.

A question of ethics

Despite the high standards of AZA zoos and aquariums, some individuals object to zoos on an ethical basis.

Some people believe that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty and, therefore they conclude all zoos are inherently wrong, Dr. Hutchins said. Others are concerned that living in a zoo diminishes animals' quality of life, that captive breeding is of limited value, or that entertainment is not a sufficient justification for keeping animals in captivity.

To satisfy these concerns, zoos and aquariums have to weigh the costs and benefits.

"The central question we need to answer as caring people is: do the benefits of accredited zoos to society outweigh cost to individual animal welfare?" Hutchins said.

The primary benefits zoos provide to society are education and conservation of species and habitats, he said.

"I think the central ethical justification for zoos and aquariums in the modern world is their commitment to conservation," Dr. Hutchins said.

He explained that, during the past decade, zoos have shifted their focus from preserving species through captive breeding programs to preserving habitats and species in the wild.

Zoos support conservation by educating the public, raising money for conservation programs, developing technology that can be used to track wild populations, conducting scientific research, advancing veterinary medicine, and developing animal handling techniques.

By studying animals in captivity and applying that knowledge to their husbandry, zoos can provide valuable and practical information that may be difficult or impossible to gather in the wild.

"We need to know about the biology of animals to conserve," Dr. Hutchins said.

Zoos also help by participating in collaborative efforts with other zoos and conservation groups, or directly supporting a wildlife reserve by contributing expertise, training, funding, and other resources.

The AZA tracks the conservation efforts of member zoos with biennial reports on conservation science. According to the most recent report, AZA members participated in or supported 1,400 field conservation projects worldwide, and over 300 projects in North America between 1999 and 2000.

Putting welf​are first

Conservation alone is not enough to justify the existence of zoos, Dr. Hutchins said, "A strong commitment to individual animal welfare is equally important."

To improve animal welfare, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums must ensure quality care, promote natural behaviors and natural environments, assess and improve their training and education programs, and address the problem of surplus animals, Dr. Hutchins said. They also must reach out to nonaccredited zoos and promote high-quality care for all captive animals, he said.

The AZA is taking a number of steps to promote improved animal welfare at accredited and nonaccredited zoos and aquariums, including:

Developing species-specific resource manuals and standards for animal care

Requiring AZA zoos and aquariums to develop and implement enrichment programs.

Training USDA-APHIS inspectors

Lobbying the government for more funding for APHIS

Reducing the number of surplus animals by giving "do not breed" recommendations

Developing a system to track animals and setting policies that forbid the transfer of animals to substandard facilities and hunting ranches

Outreach to substandard zoos has been a priority; in fact, the AZA Roadside Zoo Task Force helped develop model state and local legislation to close the worst facilities.

"By reaching out in this way, AZA zoos and aquariums are demonstrating their concern for animal welfare outside their realm," Dr. Hutchins explained.

Dr. Hutchins concluded his presentation by stressing the importance of advancing both conservation and animal welfare.

"I think having these dual goals of animal welfare and conservation provides a strong ethical justification for zoos and aquariums."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Bridget M. Kuehn Is the idea of the zoo as an ark archaic? Are zoos exploiting animals for profit? Are they prisons for wild animals? Does the need for species conservation outweigh the costs to individual animal welfare?

# data[].attributes.headline
How Do Zoos Help Animals Facing Extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
How Do Zoos Help Animals Facing Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate rages on whether zoos offer the best option to protect animals facing extinction. On one side of the fence, you have scientists who state that zoos can help an endangered species thrive; detractors state that the best way to protect a threatened species is to create protective preserves where they can breed naturally. The one topic both groups agree on is that human impact on wildlife ecosystems affects, threatens and disrupts animals and plants that depend on these communities.

Most scientists and people agree that human encroachment on ecosystems around the world threatens the survival of all animal and plant life that depend on these to survive. Worldwide ecologists and experts boldly claim that humans are responsible for all or part of the wildlife extinctions that continue to occur.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a study ordered by the United Nations and begun in 2002 and compiled by more than 1,350 scientific experts worldwide, estimated that at least 24 species a day or 8,700 species per year go extinct.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 2007 disagreed with that figure, as it indicated that rate as upwards of 150 species per day. But to date, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature claims only 800 species in total have been documented as extinct over the last 400 years. The variance in numbers, writes environmental author Fred Pearce, might be due to the differences in the computer models being used to create the statistics.

The Endangered Species Act in the United States was signed into law in December of 1973. It "provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend," states the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency.

Since it replaced the Conservation Act of 1966, the ESA has been amended multiple times to include plants and invertebrates and other wildlife under its protection. To that end, several zoos have taken up captive breeding programs to ensure the continuation of multiple threatened species.

By 1982, the California Condor was all but extinct, with only 25 to 27 condors living in the U.S. By 1987, all 27 condors were put into a captive breeding program in hopes of keeping them from going extinct. The birds were distributed between two zoos in southern California: The San Diego Zoo and the Los Angeles Zoo. This program was later expanded to include other zoos on the west coast.

The San Diego Zoo built a special aviary enclosure that gave the birds room to spread their wings, fly and mate. The captive breeding program had been so successful that by 1993, some of these massive birds were reintroduced back into the wild in Baja California, California and Arizona.

In the Big Sur area of California in 2006, biologists documented a mating pair with a nest in a redwood tree cavity, the first to be spotted in the wild since release. The captive and wild population of these birds has grown from 23 to over 400 in 2015 due to the success of this program. Zoos have also helped thwart the extinction of other creatures, such as the black ferret.

Proponents against captive breeding programs state that such programs can cause animals to inbreed, even when released into the wild, thus changing the evolution of the species by decreasing its genetic diversity.

Some species just won't mate in captivity, as in the case of Lonesome George, the rare Pinta Island Galapagos tortoise. Taken into captivity in 1972, George was placed in the Tortoise Breeding and Rearing Center on Santa Cruz Island - off the coast of Santa Barbara, California - where he refused to mate with any of the females of a similar species. The last of his line, he died in 2012 in captivity, never having bred.

Arguments against captive breeding programs cite that releasing animals back into the wild can also include the introduction of deadly funguses and bacteria into the natural environment and result in decreased sperm count and low reproduction rates. Another key issue facing released animals is an ecosystem and wildlife habitat that supports them.

Nature's breeding programs tend to work best, as these programs rely on natural settings and drives to ensure the continuation of the species. But for these 'natural' breeding programs to work, animals need a protected preserve or area in which they can live without threat of hunting or poaching. Organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation argue for the protection and restoration of wildlife habitats and the reduction of threats to endangered species in the wild.

While species bred in captivity tend to have less genetic diversity and produce smaller litters or broods, sometimes captive breeding is the only solution to protect a species. While zoos might not offer the most ideal options, they do help in educating people about conservation and endangered species and go a long way to protecting animals in threat of extinction.

Conservation efforts seem to work best if they include establishing wildlife habitats and preserves that work together with zoos to ensure endangered species can thrive. Reducing threats to wildlife should include the establishment of protected lands where no hunting or poaching is allowed, provision of contaminate-free water for the animals within the habitat and the reduction or elimination of invasive species not native to the preserve that upset nature's balance.

Accredited zoos, aquariums, rescue organizations, sanctuaries and preserves must adhere to strict standards of care, animal welfare, the education of guests and visitors about wildlife conservation and a commitment to conserve the world's "wild animals and wild places" to receive accreditation.

When you visit, spend or donate money to these organizations, a portion of your donations fund these efforts. While zoos might not represent the best solution for protecting endangered species, it's clear by their Species Survival Programs, zoos can have a positive impact on bringing some species back from the brink of extinction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Zoos Actually Help Protect Animals Facing Extinction?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human encroachment on ecosystems around the world threatens the survival of all animal and plant life that depend on these to survive. Zoos might not be the best place for animals, but they often adopt conservation and captive breeding programs for threatened or endangered species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos Cause Animals Far More Harm Than Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos are considered a top family destination, but they promote animal suffering and speciesism while showing kids it’s okay to treat animals like property.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ethics of Keeping Dolphins and Whales Captive

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ethics of Keeping Dolphins and Whales Captive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 1984, there was a workshop on "Animals on Display: Educational and Scientific Impact" held at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. In it, the AAZPA's Ethics and Law Working Group considered the ethics of keeping animals in captivity. The group, which included representatives from marine parks and Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, acknowledged a "special responsibility to preserve and respect animals as part of the natural environment" and a "moral obligation" to show "compassion and humane treatment to animals in captivity."

Its report said: "Those who work with captive animals in aquariums and zoos have a special obligation to convey knowledge of the natural world to the public, to interpret the lives of animals accurately .. to portray animals as they are, to display animals under conditions that, so far as possible, allow them to behave naturally, and to offer them adequate social contact, ideally with others of their species. In addition, a workable ethic for the treatment of animals in captivity must include a requirement to provide appropriate space, nutrition, and health care."

The group felt that if "bringing animals into captivity .. causes adverse effects, these effects, on balance, are outweighed by such benefits as enhancement of human appreciation for all animals, conservation of species, and advancement of knowledge." But then, they took their views a step further, trying to pre-empt any possible argument: "Some people contend that it is morallv wrong to remove animals from the wild and hold them in captivity, either because they believe that some animals have evolved sufficiently to acquire rights equivalent to those recognized for human beings, or because they believe animals are severely harmed by life in captivity ... These beliefs are not currently supported by sufficient scientific evidence. Consequently, they do not provide a factual basis for an overriding moral objection to displaying animals in captivity."

The AAZPA statement, however, misses the whole point of a moral or ethical view, which is that is a matter of belief. There is no need for facts, only a true conviction. The AAZPA panel and other marine park proponents have a right to their beliefs, too, but they cannot disprove those who disagree with them.

The AAZPA workshop was partly a response to the "Whales Alive" conference (Global Conference on the Non-Consumptive Utilisation of Cetacean Resources) held at the New England Aquarium in Boston in June 1983. Whales Alive was attended by a wide group of whale researchers and environmentalists, as well as those affiliated with marine parks and aquariums. Consensus could not be reached on the moral issue, but participants came up with a number of recommendations, suggesting better standards for captive cetacea and further research into the possible effects of capture. A report of the conference noted that captivity for cetaceans would need "to be continually reviewed in the light of ... future research findings, aquarium experience and changing public sentiments." Yet in the end, the conference resolutions suggested: "Efforts should be made to bring to an end, in due course, the keeping of cetaceans in captivity."

Since then, at an April 1990 "Earth Week" symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, entitled "Whales In Captivity: Right or Wrong?", participants drawn from marine parks, as well as whale scientists and environmentalists, sought greater understanding and dialogue on the issues. But, after a day with some fierce arguing, they came up with no consensus.

In July 1990, as the issue became more polarized, the Bellerive Symposium on Whales and Dolphins in Captivity, met in Geneva. There were no marine park owners or curators in attendance, no one arguing in favour of keeping whales and dolphins captive. The Chairman's conclusions: "Whales and dolphins are self-aware beings that routinely make decisions and choices about the details of their lives. They are entitled to freedom of choice. Thus, they are entitled to freedom. Imprisoning them in captivity is, quite simply, wrong."

The greatest impact of this view - in changing the rules and regulations about keeping cetaceans captive - came in the state of Victoria, Australia where, in 1985, all further capture of cetaceans was banned. At the national level in Australia, the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, entitled Dolphins and Whales in Captivity, stated: "Many people concerned with animal welfare now question whether humans are entitled to exploit animals and to act in a manner which will cause animals to suffer. Critics argue that oceanaria exploit cetacea primarily for profit and that this is morally indefensible because it causes suffering to cetacea who, as intelligent and complex beings, are entitled to greater consideration by humans. They believe that arguments advanced by oceanaria, for keeping cetacea captive, such as enrichment, awareness and improved knowledge, are inconsistent with, and subordinate to, their commercial motives .... Critics consider that, even if oceanaria could show that profit and recreation were not the primary motives of oceanaria, the use of captive cetacea for education and research is not only of dubious benefit but is also morally questionable."

Some people are opposed to making money from exhibiting orcas. However, they do not object - or object much less - if bonafide science, education and conservation form part of the programme. But philosphers Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan argue that, although scientific study may have many benefits which will accrue to cetacea themselves, the morality of these benefits depends "on the means used to secure them. And no benefits are morally to be allowed if they are obtained at the price of violating individual rights."

A few years earlier, when Australia was coming to grips with a century of intensive whaling, Sir Sydney Frost, in his report on whales and whaling, decided that any interference with cetacea required strong justification on the grounds that it was either essential or unavoidable". In considering whether humans should "use" cetacea, he took into account the suffering that might occur as a result of that use and the effect of the possible high intelligence of cetacea on their propensity to suffer. He recommended that "the taking or killing of any cetacea - whether intentionally for scientific, display or other purposes, or incidentally such as in fishing or shark-netting operations - should be carefully scrutinised to ensure that it is either essential or unavoidable."

Australia's Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare also considered the suffering of the animals: "The fact that cetacea undergo some suffering in captivity is not, of itself, an overriding factor in determining whether cetacea should be held in captivity. All animals, including human beings, suffer to a varying extent in their natural environment and it would be inconceivable for animals not to suffer at times in captivity. Rather, it is the nature and extent of suffering which should be taken into account in deciding whether to keep particular species of animals in captivity."

The committee noted that empirical data has shown that cetaceans suffer varying degress of stress and trauma during capture and captivity The same may not be true of the third generation bottlenose dolphins born in captivity. But, after weighing all the evidence, the committee concluded that cetaceans should "not be subjected to the possibility of deprivation or suffering which conditions and quality of life in captivity might occasion."

Ethical arguments against keeping orcas captive sometimes cite the importance of culture in orcas and the intensity of family ties. Michael Bigg, in his address at the Third International Orca Symposium in March 1990, stated: "Cultures are simply learned behaviours that are passed on to the next generation. The killer whale's longevity, its intelligence, its long-term bonds between adults and offspring, and localized populations make it a very good candidate for possessing cultures."

The ethical considerations of keeping animals captive has been treated at length by various authors, such as Peter Singer in his 1977 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals and the papers of philosophers Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan.

Perhaps the clearest explanation of the ethical arguments is given by Victor B. Scheffer, former US federal biologist and chairman of the Marine Mammal Commission. In trying to understand both sides of the issue, he has explored the sentiments people have about animals in general and whales in particular, and has written perceptively about it in his many articles and books:

"At the core of humaneness," he wrote in the final chapter of Marine Mammals of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters, "is the idea of kind-ness, or the idea that we and the other animals are basically of one kind." To Scheffer, the key is that we are all "part of the living animal world ... caught up together in a sort of spiritual biomass" and therefore "we have the right to insist not only that animals be spared distress (pain and fear) but that they be used in ways acceptable to large numbers of thoughtful men and women."

Scheffer confessed an "inability to deal adequately with the problem of how one learns what the general public wants from, and for, the whales, seals and other marine mammals," adding: "I myself believe that what men and women are saying today about them is, 'Let them be.' A useful marine mammal, they say, is one out there somewhere in the wild - free, alive, hidden, breathing, perpetuating its ancient bloodline.

"My real argument is emotional or, if you wish, sentimental. I believe, quite simply, that sentiment is one of the best reasons for saving not only some of these animals - but all of them."

The orca captivity debate is important for many reasons. All of us are trying to come to terms with a world which the human species has put in peril by its actions of domination over nature. The removal of these few animals probably does not represent a risk to the future of Orcinus orca as a species; in fact, as we have seen, some of what is learned in captivity may in future be helpful to wild populations. But the ethical issue should not be dismissed because only a few animals are involved. Whether or not "animals have evolved sufficiently to acquire rights equivalent to those recognized for human beings" or "animals are severely harmed by life in captivity", this is an issue involving not only a couple hundred orcas but also millions of people - the millions who see orcas every year in marine parks as well as those who choose to stay away. The feelings of all of these people, their ethical views, are crucial.

Feelings about animals differ of course from person to person. The differences are partly cultural, partly the differences between urban vs. rural backgrounds. Developmental psychologists tell us that our caring about animals - mostly acquired as children and developed as young adults - is closely tied to our feelings about nature, as we 11 as other people, including our families and ourselves. We must explore these links and develop them. Our improvement and ultimate survival as a society depends upon fostering respectful links with animals.

"In the long run," says Paul Spong in a recent article in Whalewatcher, "the whales will only be truly saved when we humans no longer regard them as resources to be exploited and 'managed', but rather as fellow creatures - self-organized social animals with clear rights that we acknowledge, grant, and protect. Paramount among these rights should be those that address issues of habitat protection and freedom."

Part of that freedom is freedom from captivity. Complicating the issue of not wanting to "manage" orcas, however, is the fact that as we move into the 21st Century, habitat for all animals, in competition with humans, is increasingly in short supply. For better or worse, humans have the job of "managing" the Earth. Rather than pressing for no management", we must work for more caring management - utilizing a technique that business calls "hands-off management". We must intensify non-invasive research programmes and, at the same time, fight against those who would distort scientific information or use it, for example, to exploit whales. We need the scientific background to know when whale populations are in trouble and what might be done to help them. Humans, despite a poor record of respecting the rights of other humans, as well as whales in general, or orcas in particular, are now in the position of helping or hurting all life on Earth. The question may well become: Can humans be good managers without assuming the traditional role of exploiter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Debate - The Ethics Of Keeping Whales And Dolphins Captive | A Whale Of A Business | FRONTLINE | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February 1984, there was a workshop on "Animals on Display: Educational and Scientific Impact" held at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. In it, the AAZPA's Ethics and Law Working Group considered the ethics of keeping animals in captivity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SeaWorld announced today that it will end orca breeding at all of its marine parks and phase out its killer whale shows. The move comes after years of pressure by animal rights and animal welfare advocates, including some scientists who have argued that these animals shouldn't be kept in captivity.

"I'm thrilled and very, very proud of the stance that SeaWorld is taking," says biopsychologist Lori Marino, the executive director of The Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy in Kanab, Utah, which aims to inject more science into the animal advocacy movement. "They are clearly evolving as an organization." But Kelly Jaakkola, the director of research at the Dolphin Research Center in Grassy Key, Florida, calls the move a "surprise" and says it could hinder researchers' ability to learn more about orcas. "I don't think it was a science-based decision."

Animal advocates, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), have long pressured SeaWorld to free its whales and dolphins, a group collectively known as cetaceans. PETA even filed a lawsuit in 2011 arguing that orcas were "slaves" under the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Then came the popular 2013 documentary Blackfish, which cast a pall on captivity by focusing on a SeaWorld orca named Tilikum that had killed several people. (Tilikum is now seriously ill.)

But a handful of scientists have also been pressuring marine parks to release their cetaceans. In 2010, Marino banded together with other scientists, activists, and philosophers to draft a "Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans" declaring that no whales and dolphins "should be held in captivity ... or removed from their natural environment." Marino, whose own work indicated that dolphins were capable of self-awareness and other types of advanced cognition, felt that keeping these social, intelligent animals in marine parks did not justify what could be learned from them. Critics shot back that removing all cetaceans from captivity could curtail important research that could not be replicated in the wild. (There are about 600 cetaceans kept in 34 facilities in North America today.)

It's unclear just how much research was being done on SeaWorld's orcas. Marino says it was minimal. But Heidi Harley, a comparative psychologist at the New College of Florida in Sarasota who has studied cetaceans at a variety of marine parks and was advising SeaWorld on improving its orca enclosure in San Diego, California, says important work on breeding and physiology was being done. "A lot of what we know about killer whale health has come out of SeaWorld research." This work, she says, is important to conserving these animals in the wild. "As the climate changes and the ocean changes it would be nice to know how flexible these animals are and what impact a changing environment will have on them. There are so many questions."

SeaWorld says it will keep its remaining orcas until they die-which for some could be decades from now-but that it will turn its attention to "natural orca encounters" and programs that emphasize "orca enrichment, exercise and overall health", rather than theatrical shows. It made no announcement about its dolphins, which Marino and other advocates have also urged them to stop breeding. (In 2014, the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland, announced that it was considering moving all eight of its dolphins to a marine sanctuary.)

That's makes sense to Richard Connor, an animal behaviorist at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who studies wild dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia, and who supervised a student who studied killer whales at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. "I think the move is a good decision for killer whales, who can travel up to 160 km in a day," he says. "But dolphins are more amenable to captivity, and we've just scratched the surface of what we can learn from them." In the wild, he says, it's much harder to do controlled experiments and to account for the large amount of variables. "Taking them out of captivity would hamstring this field enormously."

Shawn Noren, a physiologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), who has studied cetacean development and physiology at marine parks for nearly 20 years, says that the challenge for her and others going forward is to convince the public that the knowledge that can be gained from these animals justifies keeping some of them in captivity. She spends some of her time teaching marine biology to high school students at UCSC's Long Marine Lab, and she says that before Blackfish came out, "the kids were giddy to meet our dolphins. Now, they want to know why we have these animals in tanks." She says when she tells them about the research she and others do, the students change their minds. "We need to explain to them why this is important."

Harley says she sees SeaWorld's move as part of a larger trend of reevaluating the ethics of keeping cognitively complex animals in captivity, whether it be cetaceans or chimpanzees. "I think about this stuff all the time." Still, she says, "as the world changes, having more information is better than having less information. Before we interacted with orcas in captivity, we thought they were savage beasts. Now, people hold their infants up to kiss them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As SeaWorld stops breeding orcas, what are the impacts for research?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SeaWorld announced today that it will end orca breeding at all of its marine parks and phase out its killer whale shows. The move comes after years of pressure by animal rights and animal welfare advocates, including some scientists who have argued that these animals shouldn't be kept in captivity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SeaWorld Ends Dolphin 'Surfing' and Related Stunts During Its Shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SeaWorld Entertainment has begun to phase out stunts that involve trainers riding on dolphin's dorsal fins and snouts, it tells the SEC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I was walking on the beach with my friend who asks, so did you sign the petition? What petition... To free the Orcas in captivity. No, I did not, I save marine animals everyday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Blackfish' film ignores SeaWorld's benefits to conservation, research | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SeaWorld executive and orca trainer Michael Scarpuzzi responds to the film, 'Blackfish,' about the 2010 killing of Dawn Brancheau by the killer whale, Tillikum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You don't have to spend long in SeaWorld to realise it isn't like other theme parks in Orlando. There's no gleaming tower at the entrance, just a street which looks like it would be at home in the Florida Keys. Stores are set inside quaint-looking houses with porticoes and pastel-colored clapboard sidings. Instead of being neatly cropped, trees hang over many of the paths making it seem like they have been carved out of the countryside. Unusual as this is, the real magic is behind the scenes.

Although it is best-known for its marine life and thrill-rides, New York-listed SeaWorld Entertainment runs one of the largest animal rescue programs in the United States. Since the first SeaWorld park swung open its gates in San Diego in 1964 the company has helped more than 33,000 animals with more than 2,100 rescued and rehabilitated last year alone.

That message has been watered down in recent years following the release in 2013 of a documentary called Blackfish which raised questions about SeaWorld's treatment of its killer whales. The theme park operator has long defended its practices but eventually decided to transition its orca shows to more educational encounters. It will still have orcas at its parks for many years to come and there is good reason for this.

Although Orcas are not endangered as a species, according to the World Wildlife Fund, some local populations are considered threatened or endangered due to a number of factors including pollution and whaling. SeaWorld says it has committed to pouring $10 million into research and conservation of killer whales in the wild which is the largest private commitment of its kind. It is another message which has been lost over the past few years as the company found itself in the eye of a publicity storm.

SeaWorld has made it through the choppy waters and as we have reported, it has had several consecutive quarters of growth in revenue with attendance over the first nine months of this year up by 1.4 million on the same period in 2017. Its stock price has also swelled by a staggering 84.6% over the past six months to close at $29.34 on Friday. As the clouds have cleared it has brought the company's conservation efforts back into focus.

A report last month in the Orlando Sentinel revealed that so far this year, SeaWorld has cared for 55 manatees - more than ever before. A total of 15 alone have been afflicted by the toxic algae bloom known as red tide which has plagued Florida for months. SeaWorld's rescue team sees the worst of this as it is available 24/7, 365 days a year and is often the 911 call from local, state and federal agencies.

Several of the manatees were brought to SeaWorld by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), a state agency which manages and regulates fish and wildlife resources. It is a frequent occurrence as manatees are often injured by boats which is part of the reason they are considered to be a threatened species.

Commonly known as sea cows because of their aquatic plant diet, manatees are slow-moving and can be found in shallow rivers or coastal areas so are particularly at risk of being cut by propeller blades. According to the FWC, 520 manatees died in Florida last year, including a record 104 killed by boat strikes.

Few guests to SeaWorld will be aware that animals are treated in an extensive rescue facility hidden away behind the park. As it doesn't just cater for its own animals, it has to keep space free in case there is a local emergency like the red tide. The Orlando Sentinel report said that six of the manatees affected by it recovered within a day or so and were transferred to other facilities in Florida to ensure that SeaWorld had room for more. That's just the start.

The company casts a wide spell thanks to the SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund, a non-profit private foundation which has awarded more than $11 million in conservation grants to over 800 organizations since it was set up in 2003. Guests in the parks donate to it and every cent of the funding goes towards on-the-ground wildlife conservation projects.

They range from reintroducing cheetah to their native ranges in Namibia to hiring guards to protect elephants from poachers and cleaning up North American beaches littered with marine debris. In addition to these popular causes, it also backs less well-known but equally valuable initiatives such as the Mexican government's VaquitaCPR conservation plan.

Vaquitas are tiny porpoises which are only found in Mexico's Gulf of California and are the most critically endangered marine mammal in the world. The mission of VaquitaCPR is to locate, rescue and care for vaquitas in a safe haven with the ultimate goal of returning them to an environment free from vertical fishing nets.

SeaWorld doesn't just contribute cash and care to these kind of causes but also breaks new ground. The company says that specialist staff have been carrying out scientific research at its parks for nearly five decades and the results have been published in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals. It adds that research at SeaWorld is also performed by scientists from national and internationally renowned universities and research organizations such as UCLA and the San Diego Zoo.

All of the SeaWorld parks are accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums and they give back to the industry too. The company says that its animal rescue and care experts have made a number of innovations over the years including creating prosthetic beaks for injured birds and developing an 'animal wetsuit' to help injured manatees stay afloat. That really is a happy ending.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don't have to spend long in SeaWorld to realise it isn't like other theme parks in Orlando. There's no gleaming tower at the entrance, just a street which looks like it would be at home in the Florida Keys. Stores are set inside quaint-looking houses with porticoes and pastel-colored clapboard sidings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blackfish: how captive killer whale documentary ended SeaWorld’s orca breeding programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Blackfish struck an emotional chord over the plight of a traumatised performing whale, prompting real change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to reduce the impacts of single-use plastic products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A series of UNEP reports recommend how to phase out single-use products in favour of reusable alternatives to improve human and environmental health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to reduce the impacts of single-use plastic products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A series of UNEP reports recommend how to phase out single-use products in favour of reusable alternatives to improve human and environmental health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Single-use plastics are in the spotlight, as more and more people opt to reduce them. This even includes businesses like Hyatt Hotels and McDonalds in the U.K. and Ireland-as well as Starbucks, whose plan to go plastic-straw-free by 2020 will save one billion straws per year.

Places around the world, like the U.K., Taiwan, Seattle, San Francisco, Montreal and Vancouver, are joining the plastic-free movement. That means reducing straws, cotton swabs, microbeads, and/or plastic bags. And for places like Ireland and Hong Kong, the movement is working. Plastic bag levies have lead to high reductions in plastic bags use. It has dropped as much as 90 per cent in Ireland since the introduction of the levy in 2002 . Some cities and counties in the U.S. also have their own plastic bag bans and levies in place.

What Are 'Single-Use Plastics?'

Let's take a step back and define 'single-use plastics' for a moment. What are they? A 2018 U.N. Environment report on single-use plastics defines them as plastic "items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled."

Examples of single-use plastic include:

plastic forks and knives

plastic shopping bags

plastic coffee cup lids

plastic water bottles

Styrofoam and plastic take out containers

and, of course, plastic straws

According to the U.N. Environment, the most common single-use plastics found in the environment (in order of magnitude) are:

cigarette butts

plastic drinking bottles

plastic bottle caps

food wrappers

plastic grocery bags

plastic lids

straws and stirrers

other types of plastic bags

foam take-away containers

Why Are Single-Use Plastics Bad?

Single-use plastics may represent the epitome of today's throwaway culture. The U.N. Environment reports just nine per cent of the world's nine billion tonnes of plastic has been recycled. Most of our plastic ends up in landfills, our oceans and waterways, and the environment. Plastics do not biodegrade. Instead they slowly break down into smaller pieces of plastic called microplastics.

Research shows the effects plastic has on the Earth as well as on humans. It can take up to thousands of years for plastic bags and Styrofoam containers to decompose. In the meantime, it contaminates our soil and water . The toxic chemicals used to manufacture plastic gets transferred to animal tissue, e entering the human food chain. Styrofoam products are toxic if ingested and can damage nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

For many animal species, plastic waste is simply a nightmare. The video of a sea turtle with a plastic straw stuck in its nostril went viral globally; it may have even led to the plastic straw bans. Plastic items like bags and straws choke wildlife and block animals' stomachs. Turtles and dolphins, for example, often mistake plastic bags for food.

The data for this disastrous single-use plastics problem paints a shocking picture. According to Global Citizen, plastic production has more than tripled since the '90s. It also shows half the world's plastic was made after 2003. About 150 million tons of plastic-many of it non-degradable-is floating in our oceans, reports the World Economic Forum. You may be aware of the gigantic garbage patch floating between California and Hawaii. It contains an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastics, says Global Citizen.

If this doesn't sound bad enough already, the problem is getting worse. The Government of Canada reports that, each year, about eight million tons of plastic waste enters our oceans. That is like dumping a garbage truck full of plastic into the ocean every minute. If this continues, plastics could outweigh fish in our oceans by 2050. Unless we take drastic action now, it's expected that the amount of plastic littering the world's oceans will triple within a decade.

What Can We Do About It?

The world's global plastic disaster sounds downright scary, but we can still change our fate. Here are some ideas:

Use cloth or reusable shopping bags instead of plastic bags

Bring your own coffee mugs, and avoid establishments that don't offer non-plastic options. Or opt for "for here" options or regular mugs, dishes and cutlery

Avoid non-recycled plastic bottles and plastic straws

Support efforts to reduce our dependence on single-use plastics. Examples are plastic bans and levies on shopping bags

Recycle as much as possible-and support establishments that do the same

Buy items in bulk to reduce plastic packaging

Bring your own take-out containers, or support establishments that use recyclable takeout options

Be informed-get to know what is and isn't recyclable in your town/city/area

We can all do our part to prevent further damage to our environment and our waterways from plastics! 'Zero waste' or 'zero plastic waste' movements are springing up around the world to tackle this issue. If we each do our part now, we can help stop the world's preventable plastic problem from getting worse.

Would you like to be the first to hear about our new products and more?
Sign up for ourNature's Path Newsletter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Single-Use Plastics Are Bad-And What You Can Do About It - Nature's Path

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Single-use plastics are in the spotlight, as more and more people opt to reduce them. This even includes businesses like Hyatt Hotels and McDonalds in the U.K. and Ireland-as well as Starbucks, whose plan to go plastic-straw-free by 2020 will save one billion straws per year.