Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While the announcement of the policy change is rooted in politics, there is another aspect to it and can have a very tangible effect on the environment so it is in that light I'mm starting this thread.
It is known that the ocean environment that surrounds Cuba is among the most untouched and in many cases as close to pristine as the world has. Without the industrialization and pressures of mass exploitation, much of the ocean floor and the environment there has remained intact and less affected than most other places.
How long with that remain as it is? So far, Cuba hasn't seen huge expansion of it's industrial capacities that impact the fragile coasts and ocean beds surrounding the country. The European countries don't see the same opportunities that come with close proximity but that has now all changed because the US is a row boat distance away.
What does the policy change hold for that environment's future?
As someone who has worked in the natural resource field and traveled in the former Soviet Union. Communist countries are notorious for destroying the enviroment.
Not sure where Cuba falls in that spectrum, but the reason the ocean environment is pristine surrounding Cuba is that the Communist government there restricts boat ownership for obvious reasons. The ocean is their Berlin Wall.
Don't confuse pretty pictures with functioning ecosystems. In the Russian Far East, it was pretty much....well, one Forester described as the "most advanced hunter gatherer society in the history of man". The rivers and forests were pretty stripped of anything that could be caught. The cream of society were those that the Soviet government allowed to have guns. They got to shoot things to eat. They were pretty forests until they were logged under Soviet forestry practices.
If the Castro brothers dictatorship falls and people are allowed to fish it might really impact the coastal environment. Hopefully, when that happens economic development will proceed rapidly enough to protect the coastal ecosystems.
The best societies for the environment are advanced market economies with lots of rich people and very few poor people. Oh, and they usually have LOW population levels compared to the rest of the world.
[quote=Dakster;37703306
I do agree that the area needs to be protected. But at one point, the great oil reserves around Cuba will be extracted.[/QUOTE]
You know I missed that.
Not sure that oil will affect the flats and ocean environment around Cuba. It really did not affect the Gulf of Mexico. Now the Mississippi Delta is a different issue, there are ALL SORTS of impacts there including oil development, but Cuba does not have a delta ecosystem.
I still think the greatest ecosystem impact is that once Cuban's are allowed to own boats they will fish for food. It is poor people on the edge of survival that really impact natural ecosystems. AND nobody should blame them for that....though I did have a few elitiest fly fisherman tell me that starving people should ONLY fish with flies and practice catch and release!!
More boats = more pollution so I can agree with that. That last part about subsistence fisherman practicing catch and release is almost comical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
