I found this interesting, if sort of funny, in a tragic way...
Minister says he will boycott Nobu over sale of bluefin tuna
Just read the comments (I refrained) to see the way that this is going, and how the very actions PR'd has again been mired in accusations of 'selectivity' at best from another messenger who is in the spotlight for the message they seek to share.
I also predict an 'interesting' if not edifying spectacle of those who are high-profile on the advocacy front being targeted and hence rather restricted in their lifestyle choices. Hard to imagine this working out well in any way in the long term.
As it happens, as it seems a 'delicacy' only for those who can afford to go to flash restaurants I can't see this as a bad bit of publicity as those luvvies who wallow in this area might respond, but as a lover of 'normal' tuna in his weekly lunch sarny I am hoping this is not an issue that will really affect me, but fear it will eventually.
BBC - NEW - Tuna: Fin words, suspicious tail
Showing posts with label OVER-FISHING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OVER-FISHING. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Want chips with your chips?
We seem to be in a new era of catching up with the obvious.
EU fisheries paper catches the drift
More and more people chasing fewer and fewer natural resources.
And it's having a deleterious effect.
Whodathunkit?
Must be a lesson there, as we await a green budget that also 'grows' the economy.
Not sure building more houses to accommodate the accelerating population growth, on what's left of the countryside, is quite the best start.
Remind me, does self-interest kick in before or after snagging votes to stay in power?
EU fisheries paper catches the drift
More and more people chasing fewer and fewer natural resources.
And it's having a deleterious effect.
Whodathunkit?
Must be a lesson there, as we await a green budget that also 'grows' the economy.
Not sure building more houses to accommodate the accelerating population growth, on what's left of the countryside, is quite the best start.
Remind me, does self-interest kick in before or after snagging votes to stay in power?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Where's the real damage being done?
Map shows toll on world's oceans
NEW addenda at end.
The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.
So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.
But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.
I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.
So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.
But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.
I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.
'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?
Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?
And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.
To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'
I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.
I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.
Addenda -
Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'
BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.
NEW addenda at end.
The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.
So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.
But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.
I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.
So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.
But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.
I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.
'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?
Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?
And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.
To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'
I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.
I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.
Addenda -
Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'
BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Has fish had its chips?
Well, it looks increasingly likely over the coming decades, according to this from Reuters.
Whilst we mentioned both the increasing numbers of dead zones and the proportion of the oceans affected by man on this blog only recently, this report suggests that "Climate change has compounded previous problems such as over-fishing, as rising temperatures kill coral reefs, threaten tuna spawning grounds, and shift ocean currents and with them the plankton and small fish which underpin ocean food chains."
"A deadly combination of climate change, over-fishing and pollution could cause the collapse of commercial fish stocks worldwide within decades"
Given that some 2.6 Billion of our planet's population pretty much depend on fish protein, things don't look too promising, do they?
I suppose they could always eat corn and wheat etc instead. Oh, I forgot, where such crops do continue to grow, they'll be using all spare output to make stuff to run cars on. I think I feel a bit of a dilemma coming on somewhere down the road.
Whilst we mentioned both the increasing numbers of dead zones and the proportion of the oceans affected by man on this blog only recently, this report suggests that "Climate change has compounded previous problems such as over-fishing, as rising temperatures kill coral reefs, threaten tuna spawning grounds, and shift ocean currents and with them the plankton and small fish which underpin ocean food chains."
"A deadly combination of climate change, over-fishing and pollution could cause the collapse of commercial fish stocks worldwide within decades"
Given that some 2.6 Billion of our planet's population pretty much depend on fish protein, things don't look too promising, do they?
I suppose they could always eat corn and wheat etc instead. Oh, I forgot, where such crops do continue to grow, they'll be using all spare output to make stuff to run cars on. I think I feel a bit of a dilemma coming on somewhere down the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)