Mikitivity
11-03-2004, 06:34
Don't be fooled by what some nations are telling you. Ballast water is an important issue, but you'll notice that few people are addressing the specifics of the resolution. Instead they'll talk about the costs, but the truth is that like most of us, they didn't know what ballast water was before this resolution came up.
That is fine. Ballast water management is a relatively new international topic, because prior to the current decade or two, our estuaries were so polluted with toxic chemicals that invasive species were not as big a concern as they are today.
Also, bear in mind that many local governments are adopting these standards. The push here is to standardize some of these measures. Marine pollution is an international problem, and this type of issue has standing.
That said, I encourage you all to search http://www.google.com and form your own opinions. Don't let somebody telling you that this resolution is costly sway your opinion ... if you've read my nation's positions, I think you'll learn that when I say ballast management is not costly that you will see that I speak from an informed truth. But at the same time, don't let somebody like me who tells you it isn't. Test my theory by researching. I'm confident that in a matter of minutes you will see that both the environmental and business communities back me up. Educate yourself. Of course, I'd be happy to post numerous links from very reputable sources.
This proposal is not the product of one nation. It has been discussed at length here while a draft and among North Pacific nations.
That said, I want to answer a few frequently asked questions.
Q: What is Ballast Water?
Ballast is an engineering word used to describe the material that is used to maintain control and stability of craft or structure. It is used in cargo ships, hot air balloons, and under railroad ties (and tracks).
Ballast can be sand, water, gravel, or other small material that is easy to shift around.
When international cargo ships load their cargo at their homeport, the cargo makes the ships unbalanced. It is common practice for ships to pump water from the harbor they in while loading to maintain ship ?draft? (i.e. to correct the lean of the ship until the cargo can be better distributed in the ship).
The water remains in between the hull(s) in sea chests during open sea voyages. Some of the marine life trapped in the water dies during this travel due to extreme temperature changes. However, some of the marine life does not die.
When the ships reach their destination port, the water is again released in order to maintain ship draft. Unfortunately, the water that is released usually comes from another country or bioregion and enough invasive species, including some that pose human health risks, are released into a new environment. Many of these species have no natural predators in their new habitat, and thus spread.
Q: What Cycling Ballast Water Mean?
Some nations already require that ships minimize the amount of invasive species sucking into the ballast sea chests by practicing ballast water cycling. This is a practice where the ship's master / captain will empty the home port water in deep ocean and then take in new water while still in deep ocean (though possibly at a different point).
This practice takes about half to a full day in deep turbulent waters.
Q: Why Cycle at 1,600 m Depth?
There is disagreement on what an ideal ocean depth for cycling is. Most of the NationStates Earth's oceans are on average deeper than 1,600 m. Traditionally, 2,000 m is the point at which the oceans are completely flat (i.e. the end of the continental rise or beginning of the ocean floor). Any water released in the deep ocean is extremely unlikely to mix with water in a quick enough time that an invasive species will be able to "swim" or "float" to a new port or estuary.
While land-locked seas obviously are not as deep as the oceans, they also are often within the domain of one or a few nations. International standards really apply to international, not national, water bodies, thus it was felt that 1,600 m was an appropriate depth.
Q: How much does this cost?
Amazingly very little. A days worth of time plus the cost of operating pumps while at sea.
Q: Are there benefits beyond the prevention of accidental introduction invasive species?
Yes there are. Ships used to use gravel and sand instead of water, but these finer materials would wear ship hulls. By using water, draft is still maintained, but the condition of the hull is easier to maintain. By cycling ballast water while in transit, the pumping system and hull can be checked. If there is repairs are anticipated before arriving at a destination port, arrangements can be made to immediately deal with a malfunctioning pump or hull breach saving well more than a day.
Q: Does this resolution do enough?
In my honest opinion, it is a great start. There are short-term costs, but we all know that the loss of aquatic habitat and species is irreplaceable. We can?t repopulate species that are lost. All too often we as an international community focus on the short-term, not long-term costs. When we voted in favor of the Children in War resolution, it was to protect our children. Interestingly this issue is really not that different. In order to have stable fisheries, we need to promote diversity, which means we need to protect our estuaries. I would say the cost of not acting is far greater than the loss of a day or two in cycling ballast water.
If you feel this resolution is too light weight, then my nation would be happy to work with your nation on building better resolutions. Much how children must learn to walk before they can run, the international community is attempting to address a new immediate threat to human and biological communities. We can not expect to solve the problem with one resolution, but this resolution represents, in my professional opinion, and excellent starting point.
10kMichael
That is fine. Ballast water management is a relatively new international topic, because prior to the current decade or two, our estuaries were so polluted with toxic chemicals that invasive species were not as big a concern as they are today.
Also, bear in mind that many local governments are adopting these standards. The push here is to standardize some of these measures. Marine pollution is an international problem, and this type of issue has standing.
That said, I encourage you all to search http://www.google.com and form your own opinions. Don't let somebody telling you that this resolution is costly sway your opinion ... if you've read my nation's positions, I think you'll learn that when I say ballast management is not costly that you will see that I speak from an informed truth. But at the same time, don't let somebody like me who tells you it isn't. Test my theory by researching. I'm confident that in a matter of minutes you will see that both the environmental and business communities back me up. Educate yourself. Of course, I'd be happy to post numerous links from very reputable sources.
This proposal is not the product of one nation. It has been discussed at length here while a draft and among North Pacific nations.
That said, I want to answer a few frequently asked questions.
Q: What is Ballast Water?
Ballast is an engineering word used to describe the material that is used to maintain control and stability of craft or structure. It is used in cargo ships, hot air balloons, and under railroad ties (and tracks).
Ballast can be sand, water, gravel, or other small material that is easy to shift around.
When international cargo ships load their cargo at their homeport, the cargo makes the ships unbalanced. It is common practice for ships to pump water from the harbor they in while loading to maintain ship ?draft? (i.e. to correct the lean of the ship until the cargo can be better distributed in the ship).
The water remains in between the hull(s) in sea chests during open sea voyages. Some of the marine life trapped in the water dies during this travel due to extreme temperature changes. However, some of the marine life does not die.
When the ships reach their destination port, the water is again released in order to maintain ship draft. Unfortunately, the water that is released usually comes from another country or bioregion and enough invasive species, including some that pose human health risks, are released into a new environment. Many of these species have no natural predators in their new habitat, and thus spread.
Q: What Cycling Ballast Water Mean?
Some nations already require that ships minimize the amount of invasive species sucking into the ballast sea chests by practicing ballast water cycling. This is a practice where the ship's master / captain will empty the home port water in deep ocean and then take in new water while still in deep ocean (though possibly at a different point).
This practice takes about half to a full day in deep turbulent waters.
Q: Why Cycle at 1,600 m Depth?
There is disagreement on what an ideal ocean depth for cycling is. Most of the NationStates Earth's oceans are on average deeper than 1,600 m. Traditionally, 2,000 m is the point at which the oceans are completely flat (i.e. the end of the continental rise or beginning of the ocean floor). Any water released in the deep ocean is extremely unlikely to mix with water in a quick enough time that an invasive species will be able to "swim" or "float" to a new port or estuary.
While land-locked seas obviously are not as deep as the oceans, they also are often within the domain of one or a few nations. International standards really apply to international, not national, water bodies, thus it was felt that 1,600 m was an appropriate depth.
Q: How much does this cost?
Amazingly very little. A days worth of time plus the cost of operating pumps while at sea.
Q: Are there benefits beyond the prevention of accidental introduction invasive species?
Yes there are. Ships used to use gravel and sand instead of water, but these finer materials would wear ship hulls. By using water, draft is still maintained, but the condition of the hull is easier to maintain. By cycling ballast water while in transit, the pumping system and hull can be checked. If there is repairs are anticipated before arriving at a destination port, arrangements can be made to immediately deal with a malfunctioning pump or hull breach saving well more than a day.
Q: Does this resolution do enough?
In my honest opinion, it is a great start. There are short-term costs, but we all know that the loss of aquatic habitat and species is irreplaceable. We can?t repopulate species that are lost. All too often we as an international community focus on the short-term, not long-term costs. When we voted in favor of the Children in War resolution, it was to protect our children. Interestingly this issue is really not that different. In order to have stable fisheries, we need to promote diversity, which means we need to protect our estuaries. I would say the cost of not acting is far greater than the loss of a day or two in cycling ballast water.
If you feel this resolution is too light weight, then my nation would be happy to work with your nation on building better resolutions. Much how children must learn to walk before they can run, the international community is attempting to address a new immediate threat to human and biological communities. We can not expect to solve the problem with one resolution, but this resolution represents, in my professional opinion, and excellent starting point.
10kMichael