The Sea Around Us Chapter 1 Summary

In “Chapter 6 – The Sea Around Us” of Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, the author reveals the fact that the ocean is acidifying due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. In this chapter, Kolbert notes that there was a lack of biodiversity near the vents at Castello Aragonese in order to present the oceans’ future possibility. One of the types of sea creatures that ocean acidification would devastate are the calcifiers, which are organisms that create shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate (Kolbert 117-122). Credible sources of information, such as the EPA and the Smithsonian Institution, agree that ocean acidification poses a serious threat to marine calcifiers,

however not everyone believes this, as some calcifiers will benefit and because they do not think there will be any repercussions on humanity; therefore, for everyone to accept the dangers of ocean acidification, they must learn the negative consequences that will affect them and the majority of the calcifiers, so that every person may try to mitigate the predicament, preventing a potential mass extinction in the ocean.
To begin with, it is important to understand how ocean acidification works. Kolbert claims that humans burned fossil fuels to contribute about 365 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; deforestation added about 180 billion tons, and every year carbon in the atmosphere increases by nine billion tons. Currently, there is over four hundred billion tons of carbon in the air (113). The EPA asserts that the ocean becomes acidified when carbon dissolves in the water, and it absorbs about a third of the atmosphere’s carbon (“Understanding”). When carbon dioxide and water fuse, they create carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is a weak acid. But, because of the H+ ions, it acidifies the ocean regardless, since the ocean is naturally basic. Furthermore, carbonic acid can transmute to carbonate and bicarbonate (“Ocean”). Kolbert affirms that the pH of the ocean's surface has dropped from an average of 8.2 to an average of 8.1, since before the Industrial Revolution, meaning the ocean is about thirty percent more acidic than it was before (114). The pH of the ocean is expected to drop to 7.7 or 7.8 by the end of the 21st century (“Ocean”). This pH rise is calamitous for the calcifiers.
Marine calcifiers would likely feel the acidification effects the most due to their building of their calcium carbonate shells or exoskeletons. Kolbert notes that there is a diverse range of calcifying species, and that “it’s been estimated that calcification evolved at least two dozen separate times over the course of life’s history” (121). So, acidification is detrimental for calcifiers, as they are still weak against the lowering of the pH, though they evolved more than twelve times. Shell-building calcifiers build their shells by combining calcium ions (Ca+2) “with carbonate (CO3-2) from surrounding seawater, releasing carbon dioxide and water in the process” (“Ocean”). But, due to the excess carbon in the water, more hydrogen ions are prevalent, which leaves fewer carbonate ions for these calcifiers; this happens because carbonate naturally attracts to hydrogen more than calcium, so the carbonate that binds with hydrogen becomes bicarbonate (2HCO3-), and the calcifier cannot use the carbonate. Thus, shell-building creatures, such as mussels and oysters, will have difficulties constructing their shells; it is predicted that mussels’ shells will be smaller by twenty-five percent, while oyster shells will diminish by ten percent (“Ocean”). Further, if the calcifiers are able to build their shells and skeletons, the acidified water is still able to dissipate them (“Understanding”). The Ocean Portal Team point out that urchins and starfish have shell-like structures made out of high-magnesium calcite, which is a type of calcium carbonate that is easily dissolved. Moreover, the two types of calcifying zooplankton, foraminifera and pteropods, are also threatened. Zooplankton are extremely important, as ocean food webs are based around them (“Ocean”). Therefore, if there are less zooplankton in the sea, there will be less animals overall. In addition, zooplankton are critical in storing carbon in the sea, for “when shelled zooplankton (as well as shelled phytoplankton) die and sink to the seafloor, they carry their calcium carbonate shells with them, which are deposited as rock or sediment and stored for the foreseeable future” (“Ocean”). This is helpful because it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, the shelled zooplankton do not fare well in acidic water; lab experiments have shown that the shells of foraminifera dissolve quickly. The pteropods’ shells are made of aragonite, which is “a delicate form of calcium carbonate that is 50 percent more soluble in seawater” (“Ocean”).
There will be other harmful effects on calcifiers.

The Ocean Portal Team report that the mussels will have more difficulty hanging on to rocks or other objects, for their byssal threads are weaker in acidified water. Also, oyster larvae struggle to build their shells due to the acidification; in the first forty-eight hours of the oysters’ lives, they rapidly grow their shells. But, the acidic water corrodes them faster than they can grow, which has led to a population decrease in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (“Ocean”). These negative impacts on calcifiers are seen by various credible references of

information.
With all the “alternative facts” out there, it is difficult to trust anything that one hears about, including the acidification of the ocean. Yet, there are plenty of reliable sources that agree on the detrimental effects of acidification on calcifiers, including the EPA and the Smithsonian Institute. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is a government agency that aims to protect the environment, thus if they recognized that acidification is threatening, then it should be taken into account. Nowadays, the EPA may be untrustworthy, as the current head of the agency does not believe in climate change, but they have not updated their page on ocean acidification since December of 2016, which is before President Donald J. Trump took office, so it should be a genuine source of information. The Smithsonian Institution is a world famous museum, so they should only have sound facts; museums, in general, should all be credible, as they are in existence to educate the public. Unfortunately, regardless of valid references, there are still some people who refuse to see the negative consequences of the acidifying ocean.
Because there are some animals that will benefit from the changing sea, there are people who are skeptical of the impacts of ocean acidification. For example, the article “Ocean” reports that “crustaceans (such as lobsters, crabs, and shrimp) grow even stronger shells under higher acidity” (The Ocean). Additionally, Sean D. Connell et al. studied the Eatoniella mortoni, which is a gastropod, near CO2 vents. The team noticed that there was a greater profusion of these gastropods than in other locations; this was due to “CO2 indirectly act[ing] as a resource (e.g. habitat and food) for” this gastropod (R95). But, these are just a few creatures that will gain advantages; while these will be better off, this does not mean that the whole ocean will, as whole food webs may break down. These creatures might overpopulate and ravage the ecosystem. Hence, the acidification of the sea will not be beneficial for the overall population of calcifiers, as only some will benefit.
To change the minds of people, it is necessary to appeal to emotion.

Nasir Naqvi et al. confirm “that emotions play a role in guiding decisions” (261). The article “The Role” also mentions that “moral decisions…engage emotions, especially when one is required to consider the consequences of one’s actions for another’s well-being” (263). Perhaps learning about the plight of the calcifiers due to ocean acidification will be enough to change some minds. But, recognizing the impact it will have on humans will be the major factor in influencing others. This is what was wrong with Kolbert’s book: she did not discuss what acidification would do to humans. She could have explained that some zooplankton is weak against acidification, and since they assist in absorbing the carbon dioxide, it could be detrimental for humans to see these types of microscopic organisms become scarce. For, if they do, there would be even more carbon in the atmosphere, which would make it harder for humans to breathe. In addition, the lack of zooplankton would result in a decline of biodiversity, as zooplankton are the basis for various food webs. Less marine animals means less seafood for humans, which would be an immense problem because an innumerable amount of people depends on it. Everyone must learn the dangers of ocean acidification so that the predicted future can

change.
By this point in time, ocean acidification has advanced so much that it may be impossible to stop. Still, it may be possible to slow it down, allowing creatures in the ocean more time to adapt to the changing pH. The Ocean Portal Team report that coccolithophores, a type of calcifying phytoplankton, will be able to adapt to the 7.7 or 7.8 pH projected waters due to their hasty reproduction habits (“Ocean”). For that reason, zooplankton may also evolve so that they can live in the acidic water. In order to reduce the rate at which ocean acidification is currently progressing at, people must cut down their burning of fossil fuels. Anyone can do this by utilizing different methods of transportation, including buses or carpool, and recycling; also, encourage the usage of green energy (The Ocean). Hopefully, all people will acknowledge the dangers of ocean acidification, for change must happen.