188 
basic marine sciences, and in the more specific areas of pollutant behavior and 
transport through the environment as well as the potential impacts on marine life 
and the food chain leading to man. This research, however, must be done BEFORE 
hazardous materials are disposed of; not after they have been swept irretrievably 
into the current of our world waters. Environmental management must emulate 
preventive medicine, anticipating and avoiding tragedy rather than simply mourn- 
ing it after the death knell sounds. 
Others suggest that we ought to continue dumping hazardous material because 
the sea is the cheapest disposal unit. This theory may seem attractive in an era of 
fiscal difficulty, the kind of era in which we now live and in which we may expect to 
live in the foreseeable future. But it is both economic and enviromental health that 
we should seek, and they are compatible if we think ahead. If not drastically forced 
by public opinion, some decision makers have a tendency to focus only on today’s 
immediate problems and to delay strategic action, however urgent and important. 
Yet we, that is the public and our leadership together, must learn to see the rela- 
tionship between today’s costs and tomorrow’s costs. Ecology and economy can be 
reconciled. Both have the same duty; the art of harmoniously managing our house- 
hold, the water planet, Earth. 
Pollution control must indisputably be sought first and foremost in the economic 
sphere. What can we do? We can persuade the producer. Because of the present 
swing in public opinion, which overwhelmingly supports the maintenance of envi- 
ronmental quality, it will soon be profitably for producers to recycle most of the 
waste we consider dumping today. 
The fact that the ocean appears—superficially and inaccurately—to be an inex- 
pensive sewage system has also been put forward as a sufficient rationale for the 
United States, perhaps in violation of the London Dumping Convention. At a time 
when the integrity of a nation in keeping its bilateral and international word has 
consequences that concern the very survival of the species, it is impossible to under- 
state the lack of wisdom in taking such a risk. 
The final suggestion regarding ocean dumping is, without doubt, the most signifi- 
cant. It concerns a general call to consider alternate dump sites and to see the 
oceans, as some witnesses to this body have said, as part of a total environment. 
I most wholeheartedly agree that alternative methods of disposing wastes must be 
explored. Similarly, I join with those who urgently emphasize the dangers of other 
waste disposal methods that endanger life—such as landfills that pollute ground- 
waters. But there are today available techniques to make sure that such infiltra- 
tions do not take place. I leave it to the representatives of organizations which have 
studied this issue specifically to testify on the subject in greater detail. 
Maybe most important of all, we urge that those who would use the ocean to sub- 
sidize their enterprises ought to bear the burden of proof that no irreversible 
damage will result now, or in the future. 
Pollution of any nation’s water is an international issue. The waters bathing the 
Antarctic continent are already showing signs of pollutions that originated in other 
parts of the world. While working along the eastern coast of Venezuela, we on CA- 
LYPSO clearly identified an ascending current (upwelling) of Antarctic waters that 
had travelled thousands of miles along the abyssal plans and finally surged to the 
surface in the tropics. Nothing in the sea is provincial. Both use and abuse of the 
seas are of consequence to all peoples; a GLOBAL OCEAN POLICY thus must be 
established to define a common set of principles and rules for activities of individual 
nations and “a fortiori” for states and cities. 
The Pilatus syndrome—that is, dump it and wash your hands—is no longer an 
expediency. It has now developed into an entirely new, fundamental moral issue. 
What we dump “out of sight” in the sea will not remain for long “out of mind”. The 
anonymous crime of conventional poison dumping is aimed at no one in particular, 
but it may bring about agonies around the world. The ultimate conceivable escala- 
tion consists in threatening not just other nations who are endangered by our reck- 
lessness, but whole generations to come. 
To fulfill a moral obligation that the legacy of the oceans be continued, our first 
concern must be directed to the future. Risks for our progeny must be weighed 
against anticipated short-term, provincial benefits. We have no right to draw checks 
to be paid by our descendants. We have no right to sacrifice their fundamental op- 
tions for present convenience. Our responsibility toward them is overwhelming. 
Each one of the cells of our bodies is a miniature ocean. Poisoning the sea will 
inevitably poison us. Let us act with wisdom, foresight and prudence. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you, Captain Cousteau. 
