Can We Still Save the Ocean? A rational look at progress, pressure, and personal responsibility

The photo I took above is where I am from, "if you look far enough you can see New York", my dad used to tell me watching the sun set by the lighthouse. The Atlantic ocean between us, it was hard as a child to grasp her immensity.

Cousteau said "We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one." It is a reminder that protecting the ocean is essential for protecting all life on Earth.

It is not an exaggeration to say that modern civilization depends on the ocean. It covers over 70 percent of the planet’s surface, absorbs a large portion of the carbon emitted by human activity, regulates climate systems, and sustains vast ecosystems of biological diversity.

Unlike forests, which receive considerable symbolic attention as the "lungs" of the planet, the ocean performs similar functions with less fanfare. Tuna, whales, and microscopic plankton play essential roles in the global carbon cycle. They are components of a system that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years and that, until recently, operated outside the sphere of human disruption.

But this system is now under stress, largely due to us.

The challenges facing the ocean are not mysterious, nor are they ideological. They are measurable. Ocean surface temperatures have risen by approximately 0.88 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era. The increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has led to acidification, which affects coral reefs and other marine life that rely on stable pH conditions.

Pollution is another straightforward variable. Plastic debris, chemical runoff, and untreated sewage enter the ocean through rivers, coastal development, and maritime traffic. Fishing pressure, particularly through illegal and industrial-scale operations, has pushed many species beyond their regenerative thresholds.

Even consumer choices play a part. Farmed salmon, to cite one example, often rely on feed derived from wild fish caught in distant waters, illustrating how local demand can have global ecological consequences.

At BRiN, we start with a simple premise: rational behavior at scale can yield systemic change. This is why we produce toothbrushes made from ocean-bound plastic, a material diverted from coastlines before it can enter the water. Each brush prevents roughly six plastic bottles’ worth of waste from reaching the ocean.

This is not a revolution, but it is not trivial either. Behavioral science shows that when sustainable choices are easy and available, they become defaults. Defaults shape norms. And norms, over time, shift outcomes.

If we agree that part of the solution lies in collective behavior, then accessible alternatives must be part of the strategy. That is where we believe our work contributes. It’s not charity. It’s evidence-based design.

Earlier this month, the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC), hosted in Nice and co-organized by France and Costa Rica, was not intended to produce a global treaty. Its purpose was diagnostic. Delegates gathered to evaluate existing frameworks and stimulate international momentum.

Among the most significant topics was the governance of the high seas. These areas, which fall outside national jurisdictions, constitute 64 percent of the ocean’s surface. They are both unregulated and increasingly exploited, particularly in the context of deep-sea mining.

In 2023, the High Seas Treaty, or BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction), was introduced to impose a legal structure on these previously unregulated zones. For the treaty to come into force, 60 countries must ratify it. Before the conference, 31 had done so. Afterward, the count rose to 50, with an additional 15 expected in the near term.

(From left) UN general secretary Antonio Guterres, Costa Rica president Rodrigo Chaves and France's President Emmanuel Macron attend the opening session of the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3), which gathers leaders, researchers and activists to discuss how to protect marine life until June 13, at the Centre des Expositions conference centre in the French riviera city of Nice, on June 9, 2025. -- Photo by Laurent Cipriani / AFP

Should this threshold be met, the treaty would enable the establishment of marine protected areas, require environmental impact assessments for international projects, and define how marine genetic resources can be used. These are practical mechanisms, not rhetorical gestures.

Beyond the treaty itself, several developments signal incremental progress:

• Ninety-six countries endorsed the idea of a global plastic pollution treaty.

• A coalition raised concerns about underwater noise pollution, which interferes with marine mammals’ navigation systems.

• Thirty-seven countries now support a moratorium or pause on deep-sea mining, up from 33 prior to the conference.

While these shifts are not transformative in isolation, they mark a measurable trend. Momentum matters. In complex systems, feedback loops often begin with marginal gains.

One issue that illustrates the tension between ecological science and economic interest is bottom trawling. This method of fishing, which involves dragging large nets along the ocean floor, is known to destroy habitats. Environmental groups want it banned, particularly in marine protected areas.

However, the technique supports livelihoods and provides food security in many coastal regions. France, for example, made no new commitments on the issue during the conference, to the frustration of NGOs.

This tension is not new. It reflects a basic principle: environmental protection, to be sustainable, must be compatible with economic resilience. The choice is not between nature and people, but between smart regulation and unmanaged decline.

Is Optimism Justified?

That depends on your metric. The percentage of ocean under some form of protection has risen from 8.4 to 11 percent. It is progress, though still short of the 30 percent goal set by many scientific institutions.

But we do have evidence that marine protection works. The reserve at Banyuls-sur-Mer and Cerbère, established in 1974, shows clear signs of ecological recovery. Species like the brown grouper are returning. These results occurred despite continued human activity such as tourism and regulated fishing.

This suggests a key point. With consistent rules and enforcement, ecosystems can recover. The question is not whether nature can rebound. It is whether we give it the chance.

The health of the ocean remains precarious. But the tools for reversing the damage exist. Scientific knowledge, legal frameworks, technological innovation, and behavioral incentives are all in place. What remains is execution.

We should resist despair. We're optimistic. The history of environmental policy shows that when societies act on evidence, they make progress. The Montreal Protocol phased out ozone-depleting substances. Lead was removed from gasoline. Rivers that once caught fire now support fish and tourism.

We view our role as one node in a larger system. We do not expect toothbrushes to solve climate change. But we do expect that offering better choices, grounded in reason and practicality, can contribute to a broader shift.

The outcome of the Nice conference was not perfect. But it was progress. And in a system as large as the ocean, progress compounds.

- François.