Shifting Baselines Blog

Your reasoning strikes me as rather bizarre.

In the first place, the fact that Moore's latest piece of Bush-hating, America-bashing propaganda wins a prize at a French film festival shouldn't be taken as a sign that it will have "major impact" outside of the traditional liberal enclaves where group-think has already made Moore a millionaire.

But even if it does have such influence, what does that have to do with saving the oceans? One of the greatest ocean threats today is the epidemic of caulerpa taxifolia released into the Mediterranean at the Cousteau Institute in Monaco, just down the road from Cannes (see: http://mossback.org/archives/2003/04/cousteau-attacks-the-oceans/ .) With friends like these, the ocean needs no enemies.

And exactly how many people on this planet are aware of Caulerpa taxifolia?

Which is the point.

The oceans are facing two major crises -- "The Science Crisis" and "The Communications Crisis." Most of the solutions to the Science Crisis are relatively simple -- stop throwing so much bad stuff in, stop taking so much good stuff out. I'm sure that a concerted multi-national effort on the Caulerpa problem could contain it in a few years.

But the Communcations Crisis is a much, much larger problem. A great many scientists are coming around to this realization/frustration. And that is what our entire project is about -- great scientific solutions are worthless with a general public who doesn't perceive any problems.

Given the current state of contentment with ocean decline (witness California where the governor cut the entire $2 million budgeted for the state's Marine Life Protection Act and the public didn't blink an eye), more effective communication is the ONLY hope for the future of the oceans.

Which brings us back to Moore's film -- NOT the politics of it (if its as ramshackle as his previous film you have little to fear), but simply the fact that a piece of mass media can still penetrate through the spam-cluttered channels of mass communications these days and actually motivate an audience.

I get contacted by a lot of people saying, "Can't you make a documentary that will get the public fired up about saving the oceans?" Well ... most days I say, "I doubt it." A lot of older people dream of the days of Jacques Cousteau's films on television inspiring everyone to love the oceans. But the audience has changed ... I fear. At least I think. Until I read about a film like Moore's and see that it is still possible to use the medium to stir people, even if it doesn't match your political views.

So it is a cause for hope in the struggle to communicate such things as the fact that Americans have created a huge Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico which probably isn't going to get cleaned up until the public is made aware of it and prompted to show some sort of level of self-disappointment. But that's not even close to happening yet.

Thanks for the comment.

- Randy Olson

The public isn't aware of the caulerpa problem, but governments are: several American states have passed laws banning its importation and sale, as has the federal government. Dealing with the problem that's already been established is another whole kettle of fish, however, because there's no good method of eliminating it.

It's an interesting problem in no small part because of Jacques Cousteau's role in releasing it into the Mediterranean - this guy is supposed to be a friend of the oceans due to his consciousness-raising, but in actuality he's a major bad guy.

As to Michael Moore, you're looking at the boy who cried wolf, a man who has no credibility and whose shrieking makes it hard for people with legitimate issues to be heard. Rather than praising him, you should be condemning him.

Okay, let's leave Michael Moore out of the ocean (and yes, go ahead and make a whale joke potshot), but Jacques Cousteau? How could you?

Seriously, thrash all you want at the Cousteau image, the resin has already set -- he is an ocean hero for eternity. Yes, he did a few marginal things (I've heard bad stories of what the Calypso left behind in Antarctica), but he did so much good that it just can't be out-weighed.

And let's get to the bottom of your accusation -- what exactly was his role in releasing Caulerpa into the Mediterranean? Let the prosecution offer up the evidence ...

From Mossback: "Caulerpa taxifolia, commonly known as Notched Caulerpa, was developed at the Wilhelmina Zoo in Stuttgart, Germany, and introduced into the Mediterranean at the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco while Jacques Cousteau was director. This variety of caulerpa overwhelms indigenous plants and destroys the coastal ecosystem because it produces a toxin that prevents fish and other predators from eating it, and it thrives in the temperate waters of the most colorful marine ecosystems.

"Growing at the rate of an inch a day, and reproducing by cloning, at can’t be simply picked out of the oceans and removed: it has to be poisoned, at the expense of all the other flora and fauna in the area, or eaten by its one predator, a tropical sea slug that can’t live in all the waters where caulerpa grows." (http://mossback.org/archives/2003/04/cousteau-attacks-the-oceans/ )

This is much more serious than leaving some trash behind, and to this day the director of the Monaco museum refuses to take responsibility for it.

Okay, stand by, we're going to get to the bottom of this accusation. I've sent a few e-mails to people who know the real story.

Saying Jacques Cousteau is responsible for an environmental disaster implies he was out there heaving Caulerpa bombs off the Monaco pier.

He was Director of the Institute. Directors tend to be rather busy and travel a lot. It may have happened on his watch, but if it was beyond his control, it isn't fair to throw mud at his name years later.

Let's see what I hear back from my sources.

Well Mr Olson this debate has gotten me interested...What did you find out? I have no idea which of you are right about this but I would like to know :)

Once again I would like to state that I am here and I am interested in helping out our oceans. I am not a scientist or anything but I am an average citizen who cares deeply for our environment....point me in the right direction and I will get to work.

So here is what I found out, and I think this is pretty much the bottom line on the Caulerpa story. The statement below is from a very prominent algologist friend who points out that the algal physiologists at the Monaco Institute were guilty of negligent behavior, and they all (include the mighty Jacques) should have taken an aggressive response to the problem and didn't. But there's no justification for using the incident to tarnish Cousteau's reputation. It is not as if he EVER advocated anything to harm the environment. And furthermore, he lived in an age when destructive behavior was the norm.

Here's what the authority said:

Caulerpa taxifolia was first found outside its native habitat within yards of the Monaco Aquarium, which had been growing a strain obtained from the Stuttgart Aquarium. Initially, before the big press descent, aquarium workers admitted to releasing it, thinking it would not grow in colder Med. waters, according to Alex Meinesz who found it and raised concern.

Although we can't declare Jacques himself quilty, all evidence points to the Monaco Aquarium. I personally feel they have been irresponsible by refusing to admit C. tax. is a problematic invasive spp. Their research is biased as a result.

Molecular id's confirmed that the C. tax. strain in the Med. arose from the Stuttgart public aquarium and this is the strain that invaded Southern California.

It's time to get past pointing fingers. An institution like the Monaco Aq. could do great public service by educating on the risks of releasing non-natives. Over a decade ago, the consciousness re. marine invasive spp. was barely aware and certainly no one would have predicted that if released, this alga could survive the winter. Now one of the best-known things about invasive spp. is we can't predict well what they will do in new environments. Of course, we know this now, so what really is at stake for the MA in persisting that C. tax. is only invading in response to pollution just gets in the way? The point is that it is non-native and had to be introduced.

"The Killer Algae" by Alex Meinesz documents the anecdotal evidence, which is not contradicted by the molecular evidence. One might also wonder why he did not rip up the square meter patch when he first found it...