Green news for the day:
Aggro over aquaculture. The UN recently called for an increase in fish farming in order to ease pressure on wild stocks, a suggestion not received well by many environmental groups, according to Discover magazine:
Environmental groups say the report appeared to ignore the huge environmental problems posed by fish farms: particularly the need to “hoover up” vast quantities of smaller fish like blue whiting, anchovies, sardines and sand eels, and more recently even krill, to feed the farmed fish [The Guardian]. Critics also worry that water-borne antibiotics and hormones used in fish farms are polluting the ocean, and say that farmed fish are more likely to catch infectious diseases, which escapees can transmit to wild schools.
Earlier this yeah, the WWF announced they will be forming a new council to regulate global standards for responsible seafood farming. As the BBC’s Richard Black reports, it has caused a bit of a spat amongst environmental groups — the debate centering around the question: “should green groups engage with something that on balance they’d rather not have around, or should they simply campaign against it?”
A coalition of environmental and indigenous groups argue “it will both fail to remedy the environmental problems with industrial aquaculture and exclude from the decision-making process local communities who are most damaged by the industry.”
Are we better off encouraging more but better-regulated fish farming, or trying to abolish the industry altogether?
In other news:
Antelopes under threat. A quarter of the world’s antelope species is under threat of extinction, according to Reuters. Hunting and damage to their habitat has resulted in 25 species as being listed as “endangered”, with the scimitar-horned oryx rated as extinct in the wild and now only existing in captivity.
Coal protesters face chilly reception. Protesters picketed a Washington DC coal plant on Monday in what was billed as “the nation’s largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change”, with the aim of highlighting the role of coal in global warming, but faced freezing temperatures (oh the irony, etc). Whether the rally was a success seems to depend on who’s reporting it: The Daily Green indicate it was, claiming the event closed the plant; CNN seem pretty neutral but quote a police officer as saying it “didn’t affect the operations of the power plan”; while Fox declared the event a “wet blanket“.
6 Comments
Farmed fish like silver perch dont need to be fed a fish meal. This is an option that does however make them grow faster. Perhaps this wont be such an issue in future when the expect rise in oil prices forces the cost of the fish meal to become uneconomic. There are issues with fish farming, such as water availability, the introduction of exotic species and disease and nutrient load however on a balance it would seem to be a reasonably benign way of meeting humanities ever increasing protein requirements. At very least they dont burp or fart methane as do ruminants.
Yes, it is possible to farm some fish without using other fish, but mainly people farm
carnivorous fish so fish farming is a NET consumer of fish. So if you want to really destroy
the oceans quickly, then fish farming is the way to go! Sure, you can farm
vegetarian fish, provided you don’t mind feeding them grain. That’s a great
little earner because people who can afford fish can always outbid the poor for
the grain to feed those fish. Either way the poor get screwed. Fish is only
about 1% of global calories and we are destroying the oceans for a pittance.
There is no “increasing protein requirement”, we already produce more than enough
for about 8 billion people … easy. What we have is rampant protein fetishism, promoted
by all manner of people who don’t bother to read the research, or people, like
the CSIRO who are happy to misrepresent even their own research to sell
a million copies of a book about a diet that was a dismal failure in its long
term study.
The other group who would apparently like to destroy the ocean are all those
so-called experts spruiking omega-3s, again despite the only major meta-analysis
showing that omega-3s provide no cardiovascular benefits.
Last time I looked geoff the worlds population was increasing. A rising population equals a rising protein requirement any way that you look at it. Your assertion that we now produce enough protein to feed about 8 billion people appears to be way too high. Can you post a source for that little statistic? Research is what I do for a living and I happen to know quite a bit about Bidyanus bidyanus (Silver Perch). They do not require grain or fish meal if extensively raised. So if these fish were encouraged to be farmed extensively just how would the poor get screwed? Omega-3 oils appear to be important for cellular phospholipids (used in cell to cell signaling) and also appear to be important for developing brains so their usefulness should not be underrated. Fish farming does not have to equate to an ocean destroying exercise.
So lets see…
The greenies don’t want us to farm fish, and they don’t want us to keep raping the oceans… so I guess fish should be off the menu?
They also don’t want us to raise cattle or sheep…
They don’t want us to cut down any more trees to produce more grain…
They don’t want us using synthetic fertilizers or chemical stimulants to improve yields..
That doesn’t really leave a lot of options does it? It would appear to mean that the greenies want people to starve…
If this is the case, I’d like to see the greenies starve first to show us how its done.
Don’t have kids please – we don’t want your misguided green genes polluting the pool of human rationality any further. Besides, think of the environmental damage a child would cause! They’d probably dig a hole or something and upset some worms.
Alternatively, I’d like to see the plan from the greens which permits people to eat their existing varied diet regularly without upsetting the environment. Lentils and mung beans are no replacement for a steak or barramundi fillet.
I’m all for conservation – but generally against preservation. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs (although the greens are probably against breaking eggs if not against the entire chicken industry). The more I hear from the extreme greens, the more I think they shouldn’t be entitled to our collective omelet.
The greenies don’t want us to farm fish, and they don’t want us to keep raping the oceans… so I guess fish should be off the menu?
They also don’t want us to raise cattle or sheep…
They don’t want us to cut down any more trees to produce more grain…
They don’t want us using synthetic fertilizers or chemical stimulants to improve yields..
That doesn’t really leave a lot of options does it? It would appear to mean that the greenies want people to starve…
If this is the case, I’d like to see the greenies starve first to show us how its done.
There lies the conundrum. With an capitalist economy model that relies on growth they don’t have a solution. With their thinking the only solution is to reduce population or take humans out of the picture for that perfect environment.
Fish farming comes in a range of options. Australia has some massive artificial waterways in the North where fish like Barramundi can feed on introduced pests such as Red claw. They also don’t require intensive feeding there is so much. Fanatical conservationists wont have many of these options.
The barramundi doesn’t make it too market yet Australians gobble down tonnes of import deficit dollars worth of Basa grown in the Mei Kong Delta a bottom dwelling catfish in a very muddy habitat feeding on I don’t know what.
Australia also has the commercial wild fishery that processes tonnes of fish where much of that offal especially in regional areas is tossed instead of using valuable omega3 oils from the offal in meal food for intensive farming.
Australians ruin another habitat in another country with a dubious diet. Australians increase the trade deficit eating this fish which has to be paid for by proxy.
If Australians go the pro veg diet our faecal matter volume will increase 4 times with the necessity to deliver that with 4 times the current vehicle volume of water in the deep sewerage system.
Maybe we should ship it to the Mei Kong Delta in trade for Basa?
Poor countries might have low CO2 emissions because they cant afford the energy. Poor countries also have an appalling environmental management record in many cases propped from the death knock by first world country funding.
Fanatical conservationists should be supplying the solutions, many people know the issues, without commerce there isn’t the financial ability to manage that environment.
The fact is fanatical conservationists don’t have the solution. They should lead by moving to countries with low emissions, eat their rice, have no car and live in a mud hut by the Mei Kong Delta.
I don’t really understand what feelgoodcause’s comments are meant to achieve. Is the argument that there isn’t a problem so we don’t need to do anything about it? Is it that there is a problem but we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it.
Really I suspect it’s about trying to put up a straw man so that we can pretend that things work fine the way they are, and that everything is just fine.
(p.s. we could have a waterless sewer system, the water based design was just what was convenient when mass-sanitation was invented in the 19th century).
(p.p.s most developing countries in a bad state are there due to the adverse consequences of colonialism which was a phenomenon related to the industrial revolution. Are you saying in this case that polluter shouldn’t pay?)