Can Montreal protect the ocean?

Ironically, we will do more damage to the ocean to reach zero emission targets, to preserve it.

It’s good news that world leaders agree to conserve at least 30% of land, freshwater and ocean globally. But ocean protection goes far beyond the 14 pages final Montreal-Kunming agreement.

Long time ago when mathematicians wondered how much the air above us weighs, they concluded: 1. And from that, they asked; how much is the pressure from one atmosphere? Easy starting point.

I would love to have a similar basic starting point for how much damage the ocean can take as we try to tackle the climate crisis.

For a person like me, with basically no natural science background, I want to see the below equation in an info graphic containing all the data and prognosis available. It could be presented in something similar to Climate Trace.

There is a lot of unpacking to do here. A condensed version would actually be a 400 pages book.

As anyone would understand, the first two units need to come down significantly and the other two equally much bigger. The equation today would be something like this, where black indicates the unit’s weight:

Protection

The “more damage” mentioned in the introduction refers to our asks from the ocean: Renewable energy installations, deep sea mining for minerals, shipping and food and medicine production. The total damage obviously needs to go down significantly.

I start with the last unit in the equation; protection. I want to look at what the Kunming-Montreal agreement that was agreed in December 2022, means for the ocean.

Not that much, it appears.

The 14 pages working agreement only mentions “ocean” twice.

If we manage to protect 30% of the ocean, the idea is that it will help regenerate the remaining 70%. But for that to happen, the remaining 70% must be managed sustainably.

There are many aspects and weaknesses that will make the road from today’s 2.4% strongly protected marine areas to 30% bumpy and longer than the ocean can take.

The Guardian asked specialists what they think about the agreement. Keywords on main challenges are lack of jurisdiction in the high seas; “fisheries” are not in the text meaning overfishing remains unaddressed and location of protected areas are not identified; some marine areas need protection more than others.

WWF on the agreement

Here are three snippets of how WWF describes the agreement:

“It is an important document and is billed as a ‘Paris style agreement’ for nature.

This is a huge win for people and planet that sends a clear signal for action by government, business and society.

However, weak language in critical areas of the agreement could undermine its ambition as they are not addressed in national plans and policies. In particular, we are concerned that there is no mechanism to hold governments accountable if targets are not met.

Protection against damages now, and tomorrow

True 30% protection of marine areas would address the following:

The historic and ongoing damages are enormous. From CO2 emissions leading to acidification and heating, to overfishing and trawling, plastic and other pollution, oil drilling and noise.

What are the damages and prospects on each of these “units” in the equation above?

CO2 emissions

Curbing the number one mass killer, CO2 is the most effective protection measure. The ocean absorbs around 25-30 per percent of all CO2 emissions and 90 per cent of the Earth’s excess heat. Heat stored in the ocean causes its water to expand, which is responsible for one-third to one-half of global sea level rise. If we don’t reach zero emission targets, around 30% of ocean-dwelling animals may go extinct by the year 2300

CO2 makes the ocean more acid which weakens the building blocks especially for species with hard skeletons, like coral reefs and oysters. Heat makes marine creatures move to cooler waters and is also one of the main killers of coral reefs.

The world is still aiming at keeping global warming at 1.5 degrees which means 45% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Global emissions need to start a downward trajectory by 2025. But current plans would lead to 11% increase by 2030.

Overfishing

Around 35% of fisheries are overfished compared to 10% in 1974. Increase in fish prices puts extra pressure on fisheries. It is unrealistic that wild fish will be able to keep up with population growth that will reach 10 billion in 2050.

More than 1,550 of some 17,903 marine plants and animals are at risk of extinction In 2015, WWF reported that more than half of vertebrates (fish and whales mainly) are gone.

Trawlers scrape 1.3% of the global sea bed and stir up more carbon dioxide than the emissions of the entire aviation industry.

Plastic pollution

Plastic waste makes up 80% of all marine pollution and around 8 to 10 million metric tons (probably much more) of plastic end up in the ocean each year. It kills sea animals, help transport invasive species to other habitats and enters our food chain.

Global plastic waste is expected to triple by 2060. Since 1950 the cumulative plastic production will rise from 9.2 billion tons in 2017 to 34 billion tons in 2050.

Bold targets to reduce plastic waste are set. Plastic production is big business and corporate sector and states actions to reduce it are closely monitored.

Where is the Conger Ice Shelf and what does its collapse mean?

At 14.2 million square kilometers, Antarctica is the fifth largest continent, close to twice the size of Australia. The Thwaites glacier is called the “doomsday glacier“, the “most dangerous” and “most important”. It is the size of England.

Learn more

Worrying that Conger ice shelf in East Antarctica collapse as it can trigger further melting and sea level rise

Future damages

All of the damages mentioned above, and more, will continue.

What are the additional, planned damages we “need” to make? To give an idea, I will mention two of them.

Offshore wind

Three years ago, in 2019, China had 45 offshore wind projects, either planned, started or completed. Germany had 28, Japan and the US 1. One year ago the figures were: 347, 179, 129 and 164 respectively. Today, 12 months later the figures are 400, 188, 153 and 186.

In addition to physical disruption of marine environments, noise will be an increasing challenge.

The International Energy Agency Offshore Wind Outlook 2019 showed that close-to-shore offshore wind sites globally could provide almost 36,000 TWh of electricity per year, which is very close to the global electricity demand projected for 2040. Actually, the potential is much higher if you include the ocean as a whole: 420,000 TWh.

Sound from ships, sonar and seismic surveys. Acoustic deterrent devices to keep seal and whales away from underwater construction sites. All of this can do damage far beyond the areas where it operates because the sound carries far through water.

Overfishing and less life in the sea means that the sound balance is changed. It disturbs everything from invertebrates to blue whales. There will be more noise from humans, fewer animals to make noise, but also more noise from ice melting and storms, due to climate change.

Deep-sea mining

To date, even the best seabed miners have not succeeded. But, as we learn almost every day, the green economy is screaming for minerals. And for seabed miners this means billions of dollars just waiting to be extracted.

One of the main drivers for minerals are electric vehicles and the vision of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 relies heavily on batteries. The world is getting electrified and will need around 38,700 terawatt-hours in 2050. This is an increase from 27,044 in 2019. The total energy consumption in 2019 was 173,340 TWh, where the EU share was 2,904 TWh.

In July 2021, 622 marine science & policy experts from over 44 countries urged a pause for deep-sea mining. The statement starts with the obvious: “The deep sea is home to a significant proportion of Earth’s biodiversity, with most species yet to be discovered. The richness and diversity of organisms in the deep sea supports ecosystem processes necessary for the Earth’s natural systems to function.”