Bruce Bisset: Invest millions in preserving the ocean, not museums

Should the National Aquarium of New Zealand in Napier be upgraded when the sea is dying?, asks Bruce Bisset.

COMMENT:

There are many ironies in the plan to rebuild an expanded national aquarium on Napier's foreshore, the most glaring of which is that a project which espouses the science of the seas as its purpose is ignoring that science in proceeding.

Sure, there's plenty to admire in the intent to interest the next generation or three in the wonders of the oceans, and certainly the facilities envisaged by Project Shapeshifter (its development name) could serve to promote marine biology and other oceanic disciplines.

They've come up with a classy design, too; the stingray theme is inspired, and would sit well adjacent to Marine Parade.

But no one seems to have noticed that just like the existing building, now tatty and unkempt because of lack of upkeep, the seas are dying.

And by the time the children the aquarium might inspire are old enough to have learned enough to try to do something about that, will be effectively barren.

Frankly, I'd rather be able to take a grandchild fishing than to a museum where they could only stare at what they might once have been able to taste, says Bruce Bisset.

Don't believe me? Already, only about one-fifth of the finfish we traditionally eat are still swimming in the world's seas compared to 50 years ago; most coral reefs are suffering from bleaching and acidification; toxic algal blooms and jellyfish swarms are commonplace; and huge swathes of the benthic (sea-bottom) environment is desert wasteland thanks to trawling and pollution.

So in reality the aquarium would be less a land-based introduction to the complexities of the undersea world than a museum preserving the memory of it.

You can't save the ocean in three man-made tanks, no matter how large.

As much as people like to poke about in museums, I'm reasonably certain that even the Art Deco buffs of Napier would think this a nostalgia trip too far.

And then, of course, there's the not inconsequential matter of sea-level rise.

With global greenhouse gas emissions showing no sign of slowing down, the rate at which major ice shelves are melting is increasing; thus the rate at which the sea is rising is likewise increasing.

If the worst-case predictions are followed – and they've proved accurate so far – then the stingray will wind up covered in shingle and water well within the presumed minimum 50-year life of built infrastructure like this.

Bear in mind that even if the countries busy looking backward at the COP25 conference in Madrid suddenly got serious and changed their ways, a 1m-plus rise in sea level by around 2070 is locked in. Nothing will prevent it, and it could be far worse.

As Australia's former conservative prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Monday: "What the problem is that people on the right are treating what should be a question of physics and science and economics and engineering as though it were an issue of religion and belief. And it's nuts."

That seems to be the underlying approach to this national aquarium project – the belief that everything will be marvellous, when it's far more likely to be a very costly short-lived disaster.

Oh yes, cost. At nearly $80 million it's well on the way to the $100m I predicted such a project would require, without any sea-defences to sustain the integrity of the site long enough to make it half-worthwhile.

If Napier City really wants to do something positive for our marine environment, a hundred million could go a long way to ensuring the immediate environs of Hawke Bay were protected from over-fishing and enhanced for our struggling kai moana.

Frankly, I'd rather be able to take a grandchild fishing with some chance of making a catch than to a museum where they could only stare at what they might once have been able to taste.