Fish report hits bottom note
How much do you know about the splendid alfonsin?
No, me neither.
At first I thought he must be the mannish hero of some cheap boys' novella - a Pimpernel in the face of organised crime, a Zorro jumping on the cat-stroking villainry of world domination, a musketeer with liberty carved into his very eyeballs.
Somewhat disappointingly, in one sense, it's a fish.
And I know this: if trawlers used to catch 60 tonnes of them in a single hour back in the 1970s and now they catch only one tonne in an hour, something has happened to the alfonsin that he must consider entirely the opposite of splendid.
You or I might get to eat a splendid alfonsin (also known as splendid alfonsino, which is even more heroic); but we're unlikely to see one alive, as they generally live on or near the ocean floor at depths that can reach 1.3km.
For a long while after the dawn of commercial fishing, such species remained out of reach, out of sight and out of mind.
No more. As more accessible stocks dwindled, and demand continued to rise with the growing human population and affluence, ever more well-equipped fishing vessels began to target these deep-ocean species with a range of methods, the most destructive of which entails dragging five-tonne pieces of iron at the front of trawls over the sea floor - fine, if it's just sand and silt, but not so great if it's a deep-sea coral reef.
Three years ago, following a heap of pushing and prodding and repeated false starts, the UN General Assembly eventually acknowledged the possibility that soon some of these species might vanish out of sight forever unless steps were taken to protect them.
Deep-water bottom-dwellers are often slow to grow and slow to reproduce. The orange roughy can live to at least 149.
This makes them highly vulnerable to overfishing, unlike species that reproduce with great fecundity when they're barely out of the fry stage.
Conservation groups pressed the UN for a straightforward moratorium on bottom-trawling except in places where good management regimes were already established.
Enough member governments demurred to force a weakening, but what emerged was, by the standards of these things, not a bad set of measures: scroll down to "A/RES/61/105" at this research guide.
Governments promised to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), either by themselves or through regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Where no competent RFMO existed, they would create one.
Countries would bar vessels that flew their flags from bottom-fishing in international waters where it had not been proven that no harm would come to VMEs. The precautionary principle was everywhere and most of these rules had to be put in place pretty quickly, by the end of 2008.
That 2006 resolution also instructed the UN secretary general to monitor the situation and provide a status report. It had to be ready for this year's UN General Assembly, which opens in the middle of next week.
At this moment, officials from UN member governments are in New York poring over the secretary-general's report [329Kb pdf].
It's unlikely that any of the bottom-trawling countries will find much to keep them awake at nights.
The main reason is encapsulated in a couple of sentences so strangely juxtaposed in sentiment that they could belong to different centuries; you'll find them on page seven.
The first states that submissions for the report were solicited, and did in fact arrive, from member governments, RFMOs and non-governmental organisations - which in this case mainly means conservation groups such as the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC).
The second states that the people compiling the report based it on submissions from governments and RFMOs, as well as unspecified "other relevant information".
So - er - what happened to the rest of the submissions?
The DSCC's take on this is that "the secretary general's report collated the information received on what has been done, but in doing so does not clearly show what has not been done".
For an example of what the coalition means, let's take the area managed by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC).
The report says that NEAFC decided to prohibit gillnets and entangling nets (which work pretty much as their name suggests) in water deeper than 200m; very good. It also agreed to "reduce all deep-water fishing effort" by one-third.
According to the DSCC, what the report omits is that gillnets and entangling nets are a minor source of catches, the majority coming from trawls - which are not banned; and that under the effort-reduction measure, the reported catch actually rose from 20,000 tonnes in 2004 to 90,000 tonnes in 2007.
And so on; there is more, much more of this.
The secretary general's report is long (67 pages), detailed and acronym-dense, and unless you readily know your PECMAS from your SIODFA you'll not find it easy going; nor will you the detailed DSCC submission [597Kb pdf].
But what it really boils down to is this. The UN resolution three years ago said, in a nutshell, "don't fish the sea bottom unless you know you can do it sustainably".
What seems to have happened in many areas of the world is that member governments have put into place regimes that say "we don't have any information to say that's not sustainable, so we'll presume it's okay to continue".
Lobbyists for fishermen may at this point wish to express concern about livelihoods; two things are worth bearing in mind.
Firstly, all governments signed up to this; anyone who doesn't like it should complain to them.
Secondly, the resolution doesn't ban bottom-fishing; it just says don't do it unless you know it won't destroy deep-sea ecosystems, such as ocean vents, or the very fish stocks you're trying to catch.
UN member states don't have to accept the secretary general's report. They're discussing it this week, and it will come up again during the General Assembly (agenda item 77b, in case you're interested).
If they're serious about making fishing sustainable, they might ask how it is that catches can rise by a factor of more than four under measures that are supposed to cap them.
They might ask why it is that in the entire north west Pacific, fishing nations have agreed to protect just one part of one seamount among many that are likely to support vulnerable ecosystems.
They might ask why protocols designed to encourage captains to move on when they realise they're having an "encounter" with a vulnerable marine ecosystem stipulate they can bring up 100kg of live coral or 1,000kg of sponges before realisation has to dawn.
Then again, they might not ask any of this; in which case, we had better enjoy the splendour of the alfonsin and all its cousins while we still can.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Too many fishermen, not enough fish.
Surely all the governments allowing this must be breaking the charter? If they are allowing things to happen because they don't know, but the charter says they should only be allowed to if they definately do know it is possible, then why aren't they being taken up on it?
Complain about this comment
do you have any good news richard?
if anyone wants to see why market forces will destroy this planet they need to look no furhter than fisheries. fish stocks till they're rare, price goes up, fish even harder to scoop up the remaining stocks to make a killing and then.......well scrap your boat and join the unemployed.
i'm not saying those that fish (fisherman seems non pc and fisherpeople sounds awful!) don;t care about the oceans but they're in a free market trap where if they don;t take it someone else will (classic tragedy of commons).
i also vaguely recall a documentary where tonnes of orange roughy were landed (as you say many of the fish would have hatched in the 19th century) but there was no market so they were dumped in one big smelly heap of rotting fish.
i love seafood but hardly eat it at all now. maybe the only way to stop this is for consumers to make ethical decisions about their food choice....but that line of argument gets as messy as a rotting pile of orange roughy. i wish i had a solution.
Complain about this comment
We've said it before...
...maybe it doesn't sink in...
2 men e pea pull
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@rossglory & davblo2
we can agree about some things ;)
Complain about this comment
Never mind the fish, now that the greens have managed to kill that awful beast consumerism, what jobs are they going to do to be able to feed themselves?
There's several ways to wreck the planet as they say.
Complain about this comment
Those who see the matter as too many people need to propose a solution not just what they see as the problem. If nature seeks balance than a culling of herd would be on the horizon. You must accept that this will be random and you may be a victim as well. Of course other solutions would require a rank ordering of human populations based on criteria set by the powerful and as civilized folks some modified extermination program could be instituted. Rapid industrialization over the past hundred years has removed the individual fishing communities and replaced with fleets owned by investors seeking profits. Fish are now farmed, some for economic reasons some for environmental, fed steriods. About 1/4 of the world goes to sleep hungry every night so although they are on the demand side of the equation they never seem to intersect the supply side of the graph. Death by stravation is more common than most think or would like to know. Of course the issue in Western countries and now in the major cities of China of obese children and adults might be considered as a part of the problem. Human solutions should include some sense of humanity.
Complain about this comment
This isn't new, it isn't pretty, and what it doesn't say is that if we keep doing what we're doing in the same way we have less than 50 years till we wipe out all of our ocean life, destroying the seabeds and removing any hope of recovery. End of the Line - book and movie - goes into all of this in more detail and has suggestions about what we the consumer can do about it. We don't have to accept ludicrous fishing quotas handed out by the EU who aren't even listening to the scientific community who adivse them, nor should those breaking the rules on tonnage be ignored, hefty penalties need to be enforced and fast. Consumers need to start taking responsiblity for what they eat. As where and how your fish was sourced - parsely and butter is not the correct answer! - and was it done so sustainably. Email restaurants, supermarkets, snack bars. Oh and then there are the places that are still serving blue fin tuna - which is an endangered species, so it's like killing & eating a tiger or an orangutan!- and the only concession they're willing to make is a note on the bottom of the menu. I'm not normally a fanatic follower of causes, but this one has got me hooked - no pun intended. Ask questions, be interested, we can make them change - look out for the marine maritime conservation label on packaged products showing you the fish has been sustainably sourced.
Complain about this comment
As davblo2 said, there are simply too many people.
Too many who believe it's a 'right' to have as many offspring as they can, whether they can afford to look after them or not, even when in many cases, they can't even give their children a sound footing in life.
In general, no governments care about environmental issues, if any did, we'd have far less toxic waste, we'd ban the production of useless plastic products, we'd prevent the destruction of natural habitats the world over, especially earths lungs, the rainforests and we'd prevent the wasteful overproduction of food in rich countries which sees over 25% of all food being thrown away and that's before anyone even addresses overfishing.
Simply put, not enough people actually care about the future of our planet and certainly no politicians do, have any of the limits set at Kyoto, Rio etc. actually been met, will any country ever reach any of the targets?
Complain about this comment
Thanks for this excellent piece Richard.
This one is not about feeding the masses -- the high seas bottom trawling fleets go way offshore, and supply high-end markets in Europe, Japan, the US etc. There is simply no good excuse for wiping out ancient coral reefs, not to mention the deep-sea fish themselves, and it is shameful that governments continue to allow it to happen.
Complain about this comment
Excellent blog post, thanks.
Just a few notes I will make from personal experience.
The first is that many fishers (this is the correct PC term in science these days - I saw one of you wondering on your comments) are opertaing close-to or below the breadline. It is simply not an option for them to stop fishing as intensively as possible, including in many cases outside of marine laws that are difficult to enforce. These fishers have a choice of environmental destruction or financial ruin... and that is a very hard choice when others depend on their income. We must find a way to remove these fishers from the fishery so that they can stand on their own two feet or we must change the way in which they fish. To do this we must relieve any debt they have or substitute their income. Throwing restrictions at them which they can't possibly follow (for reaons of their own financial wellbeing) will just see them circumnavigate those rules.
A second point is on over-population (and I agree whole-heartedly on this... the world has too many people). This is a hard message to get across and is understandibly hard for some people to accept. Realistically a global 1-child policy isn't coming anytime soon so we must work in a multitude of ways to address the issue. Some marine charities have already recognised that this issue is not a sympton of over-fishing, but THE cause. one is Blue Ventures who (I believe) as part of conservation efforts are taking mobile family planning clinics (by boat) to remote coastal communities in the developing world. I hope we can find a similar solution in the developed world! One idea I have is getting the church onside - if you have any ideas on how to do that - get started!
Thanks... and NEVER EVER eat deep-water species of fish... they simply can't be fished sustainably, even if the label says they are!!! Look at the Marine Conservation Society website for a list of fish you can eat! :o)
Complain about this comment
Watch any trawling program and see that 'the wrong type of fish' causes many of the issues. There should be no 'wrong sort of fish.' If pollock is what you catch, then pollock it is. 'Master' chef pap on TV gives people the idea that they should be eating exotic fish as a normal daily diet, eg. giant prawns and rare tuna. There used to be a snobbish thing about preferring haddock over cod. Haddock fetched a higher price, which probably saved it from the scarcity problem of cod.
I would agree that there are 2 men e peas and cues...and sometimes there are too many peas in one pod, but the human rights act prevents production control. On the other hand, if there were controls how would DNA databases interfere with who could and who couldn't and what would the penalties be for those in violation? One man's Utopia is another man's hell. Be careful what you wish for!
Complain about this comment
Keep making people aware of the reality, in spite of the fact, they don't really want to hear it.
If we don't get some very definitive action on world human populations, soon, by governments worldwide, there will be no saving the environment. We are at critical mass, and we will implode within 50 yrs, at the current rate of population growth.
Why humans cannot open their eyes and see the destruction to the planet, is beyond me. I guess they simply don't look.
Complain about this comment
Eddhind....
Nicely written comments. On the subject of getting organized religion to recognize the damage being done by humans....I doubt there is any hope of that whatsoever. Perhaps that is indeed what Armageddon is really all about.....self-destruction, through over-population.....fueled by religious fanaticism.
Why organized religion continues to keep their heads in the sand, is truly inexplicable, given the amount of science that has clearly shown our over-population issues and how they impact on the planet.
Perhaps the only way forward, is to hope that more people turn away from the ignorance of religion, or at least allow their religion to be tempered by science, and reality.
Personally, I don't hold out much hope for the planet, or for humanity.
Complain about this comment
Organized religion attempts to correct human behaviour but humans have selective hearing and prefer to listen to the bits that appeal to them while leaving out the sensible message.
People respond far more to the much louder cry of advertising and self gratification. It is a bit like shopping in the supermarket. Do you buy the boring economy brand or go for the exciting stuff with the fancy label promising good eating? Why eat plain grub when there is so much more exotic stuff begging to be eaten.
Religion is not ignorant but the people who practice it can be, just as they can be ignorant about the environmental message. It would seem rather odd to call highly qualified and experienced environmentalists ignorant because people weren't listening and responding to the message.
Complain about this comment
Bingo!!!
Your 'Tuna' article was major and this is icing.
Jobs? When you stop all this 'dredging' you allow more smaller
fishermen to join in and make a living as well as give the fish
and environment a break.
As stated in your 'Tuna' article, using poles puts a lot of people
to work...
You mention here the orchestrated governmental apathy that seems to be all the rage.
If there is ONE THING OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT COULD BE CHANGED for the
better: I believe stopping bottom-trawling world-wide is the MOST
POSSIBLE. The blatant facts make bottom-trawling VERY VULNERABLE.
It's us or a corporate world with everything possible doled out to us...
We're almost there, now. And I haven't even mentioned an EMPTY OCEAN.
Richard, take a break from everything else and focus on this one
vulnerable travesty and let's end it. Everything else crazy is a hard
task. This, I think is a sitting duck...
Time's a wasting.
Complain about this comment
Fishing -- particularly trawling -- is one of the heaviest users of fossil fuels. For a long time I've been trying to pin down the exact figure for oil consumed per given weight of fish caught. The best estimate to date seems to be about half a litre of oil burnt for each kilo of fish landed -- but if anyone can provide a definitive answer I, and several other people, would really like to know. On this basis the sooner oil prices go through the roof (again) the better; I'm sad to say I think it will be the only realistic way to stop the over-fishing madness.
Once fossil fuels are priced out of contention not only will there be a tremendous increase in work for everyone, in agriculture as well as fishing, but GHG emissions will fall away and the world will become an all round healthier place to live. We've been living in a fool's paradise for the last eighty years or so -- and we've geared up for it to continue ad infinitum. The end, undoubtedly, will come sooner than we think and then it'll hit us big time that we've sold the family silver.
I'm not at all optimistic, folks.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #6: "Those who see the matter as too many people need to propose a solution not just what they see as the problem."
Sorry, but no. Just because you see a problem doesn't mean that you have to have a good solution.
I hope every one can agree to that at least.
There are too many people.
The problem started some time ago.
There were possible solutions then but they were not used.
The longer we wait the harder it gets to solve the problem.
I don't have a good solution to hand; and if I did, who would listen to me?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
TVGgirl is right when she points out that this has nothing to do with feeding the burgeoning population of the planet .... it's about greed. Deep sea fishing is strip mining the sea for luxury fish. It is a high investment business that fills the pockets of a select few investors, some of whom are close to those in power in influential UN Member States. It doesn't even employ many fishers. But the damage done to deep sea habitats and biodiversity is enormous. Worse still, we can't even measure it properly because of a huge under-investment in marine research.
What would happen if, one day, somebody drove a line of 20 bulldozers, side by side, through Epping Forest? There would be hell to pay! Just because we can't see the bottom of the sea, a much bigger level of destruction barely causes a ripple. Except for those of us who study such things or for the lucky ones who read your excellent blog!
And by the way, I was shocked to go into a major wholefood emporium in London last week - where products were beautifully presented as environmentally sound - and found "no no" fish on sale (such as swordfish). We have along way to go...
Complain about this comment
On over-population.
- Any solution to the problem (and I agree it's a helluva problem) has to be solved by consensus.
- To achieve consensus the majority have to accept there's a problem.
- To ensure the majority accept there's a problem we first have to bring it to their attention.
- To present a solution before the majority has accepted there's a problem will create enmity.
Most population-aware people know this, so don't suggest solutions -- even if they secretly hold opinions.
Complain about this comment
JRWoodman #19: "On over-population..."
Well said!
...and with that in mind, it's amazing how quickly people jump down your throat when you even mention the subject.
I think it could be important to understand the reason for that extreme reaction in order to somehow circumvent it and get the message across.
Comments welcome from "opponents" as to what springs to mind when you here the phrase "too many people". Are you scared, upset, offended... or what?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
TVGgirl #9: "This one is not about feeding the masses -- the high seas bottom trawling fleets go way offshore, and supply high-end markets in Europe, Japan, the US etc."
...and...
greenNautilus #18: "TVGgirl is right when she points out that this has nothing to do with feeding the burgeoning population of the planet .... it's about greed."
Put it like this.
Even if you are right, the high-end markets you mention ride on top of the low-end markets (ie the rest of us). They are a feature of the "too many people" and its inevitable social hierarchy.
And another way.
When the human population was much lower, we could do pretty much as we liked, wherever we liked, and however much we liked, (good, bad, or distasteful as some of it may seem to us now); but the best part was that 99% of the rest of the global inhabitants could go their merry way undisturbed. Now we disturb more and more of their lives and habitats and we keep pushing the boundary simply by being more and more people. On top of that we invent more efficient ways of "disturbing" them.
The question is; where will it end?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
It seems to me overfishing is easier to relate to than climate science!
And this makes sense, at least to me.
However, the problem with both is the same - Industrial Man has embraced a way of life which has almost severed our 'feel' for the natural world, and perhaps caused us to remain essentially immature for most or all of our lives.
Maybe we can stop bottom-trawling, but it is insufficient.
We need to make changes much closer to home - ourselves.
This has the advantage that you need convince no-one - other than yourself.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Passage from 'The Great Learning'
"The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue
throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing
to order well their states, they first regulated their families.
Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their
persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified
their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be
sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts,
they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of
knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their
knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their
thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts
being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being
cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being
regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being
rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must
consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/conf2.htm
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum - from 'The Great Learning'
"When he who presides over a state or a family makes his revenues his
chief business, he must be under the influence of some small, mean
man. He may consider this man to be good; but when such a person is
employed in the administration of a state or family, calamities from
Heaven, and injuries from men, will befall it together, and, though
a good man may take his place, he will not be able to remedy the evil.
This illustrates again the saying, "In a state, gain is not to be
considered prosperity, but its prosperity will be found in
righteousness."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/conf2.htm
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"Farming as we do it is hunting, and in the sea we act like barbarians."
"If we go on the way we have, the fault is our greed and if we are not willing to change, we will disappear from the face of the globe, to be replaced by the insect."
"The road to the future leads us smack into the wall. We simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers. Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years."
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Legendary climber Reinhold Messner:
"Man was obliged to forget to conserve nature when he tried to perceive it rationally, instead of emotionally and instinctively."
- Fro the book, "Antarctica", 1991.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
From 'wunarik', and an African village:
"A man without wealth is not without words."
------------
From the 'Yurok Indians' of northern California:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGXRO2i9F84
- I hope we can all enjoy our weekend - (Manysummits)
Complain about this comment
We seem pretty much agreed that this type of fishing is not a good way to continue but I do not see a solution other than natural forces.
I think that JRWoodman #16 makes a good point in saying that this type of fishing is expensive and I would add to that. As fish stocks are depleted through over fishing it will at some point become unprofitable as the cost of fishing outweighs the diminishing returns. So all is not lost.
Also I read lots of posts on population explosion. Again allowing natural forces is the way to go. There seems to be thinking right now that global temperatures are going to go down in the next 20-30 years. Some say it's a blip and others say it's the start of the next ice age. Whichever is true our current dream like environment that has seen a heyday for humanity will reverse. Our current population will decrease as food production falls as the growing seasons diminish and usable farm land recedes to the equator?
This will cause a natural decline in our population; on whom where ever that might fall and by a variety of means. Other unplanned events will no doubt be thrown in like solar storms wiping out communications, earthquakes, volcanoes, escalating continental drift, tsunamis and the like.
In past years I have prepared for our current warming but now I'm stocking up for the cooling. It's going to be a rough ride and I urge everybody to considered preparing for a pretty gruesome future as the wars for resources and food increase. There will be no need for active human culling as some suggest. Nature has its own way in these matters and not always agreeable. As it was with the dinosaurs, our efforts as always will be brought to naught. But there’s no harm in being as prepared as possible. Just don’t rely on governments. Nurturing family, neighbors and close friends are our best bet.
On the bright side I hear that AGW will be back with vengeance in 30 years time. For those of us that survived of course. But thinking about it there’s unlikely to be much CO2 production by then. Problem fixed!!!!
Just a little tounge in cheek as I drift from a heavy week into a welcoming weekend.
Night, night.......
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #28: "We seem pretty much agreed that this type of fishing is not a good way to continue but I do not see a solution other than natural forces."
Do you incorporate that philosophy into your "Project Management" activities?
I think most of us hope that we can use our combined intelligence (I'm sure there's an odd teaspoonful here and there) to plan ahead and avoid the "wrath of nature".
You do work in planning don't you?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
A united voice is gradually emerging from this blog and it appears to be coming from both sides of the divide.
Manysummits,
Education for the masses is based on learning skills in preparation for the workplace.
The education is geared for the needs of the employer and not the needs of society.
The schedule for this learning is packed in an attempt to get as many employer friendly skills learned as possible.
Although spirituality is designed to be embedded in that learning, it is squeezed out by the pressure of target and grade setting.
For spirituality to grow and thrive, it would have to find space in the rush of the day.
To find space in the rush of the day would require longer school days.
Longer school days would require teachers and co-workers to work longer hours.
Longer hours would alter wage demands.
I agree that the population needs to be educated in a way that meets the requirements of the employer and meets the requirements of creating healthy society.
Who is going to replace the relatively-free society creating organisation called the church and with what and who is going to pay?
When and where is society creation going to take place considering we now have a seven day week?
How are the needs of poorer people going to be met in paying for the society making activities?
Fish exploitation, fish neglect, fish extinction
Fish value, fish husbandry, fish survival
Complain about this comment
15 years ago Greenpeace and the WWF would have been protesting this.
Sadly they've lost the plot since then.
Complain about this comment
Good to see some well-argued comments in this discussion. Thought I may add a couple of notes based on what people have said.
Banning-deep sea fishing: Achieving this would be an amazing thing, but it has to be done with with the fishermen as well. A wholesale ban will not remove the trawlers from the fishery, just the deep-sea fishery. These super-trawlers will then join the coastal fleet where they will cause equal levels of destruction. Although fish populations are more sustainable on the coast - ecosystems such as maerl beds (breeding grounds for juvenile fish) and seagrass beds also take decades to recover (if at all). Also somebody mentioned that it is only large corporations fishing the deep-sea for premium fish. Unfortunately that is simply not true, as it may be easier to negotiate with that smaller group. Many deep-sea fishers are small operations trying to make "end's meat", as would be the case with many of the orange roughy fishermen in NW Europe. Also much deep-sea fish is not premium grade fish and will just end up as cheap fishmeal (that will probably go on to feed your "organic salmon" - but that is a debate for another day).
Bottom-trawling: Bottom-trawling cops a lot of flack, and rightly so. Beam trawling is probably the most destructive fishing method (including dynamiting) that there is. However technology is being introduced that minimises the dfamage of bottom-trawling. Some progressive fishermen now use rollers on the bottom of their nets, hoodless nets and varying mesh sizes. You can actually achieve some pretty good results with this. If you trawl on fairly muddy/sandy ground (not coral reefs/deep-sea reefs/etc.) you can eliminate a lot of the bycatch and ecological destruction - some fishers now have less than 10% bycatch and probably cause very little ecological damage) - the only real damage would be from their trawl doors. The alternatives to bottom-fishing that we could puch fishers into may be a lot worse. The obvious alternative is gill-netting. It causes little damage to the marine floor (benthos), but it has its own problems - the biggest of these is ghost fishing. A lost gillnet will catch fish FOREVER at a much greater volume than it ever would have had attached to a trawler. Other alternatives are seine nets - which are very effective at not letting ANY fish escape. Perhaps the best alternative is long-lining, but again you will get a high bird bycatch with that and you won't be able to catch all species of fish.
A note on religion and population - I am not blaming religion per se for population booms, although I admit it has rarely helped. What I am advocating more is that people will often listen to the church more than they will scientists or politicians. This may not be the case in NW europe where the power of the church has probably diminished, but in countries in SE Asia (e.g. Philippines) where much fishing occurs, church attendance is near to 100%. This is not an exclusive dig at the Catholic Church, as I am sure other churches have the same policy, but the policy regarding contraception is not helpful when dealing with population control. It is institutions like these what we have to convince to endorse birth control. We have to convince them that the "lesser evil" is controlled "fun" rather than ecological degradation. We should all go and study our bibles, koran's, respective other texts to find sections that promote environmental protection!
Sorry, way to much to say on this! :o)
p.s. I agree - never eat swordfish!
Complain about this comment
#31
I guess you'll be happy to learn that WWF and Greenpeace haven't 'lost the plot' as you seem to believe? Both WWF and Greenpeace have been and are contiuing to work actively on fisheries issues internationally, along with a large number of lesser known organisations.
Complain about this comment
eddhind'
Being RC from birth I have to thoroughly agree with you about birth control issues. There are many RC's who do not agree with the doctrine and do not follow it because they want to limit family size for economic as well as environmental reasons. There appears to be those on this blog who would like to see engagement with the church to educate people about limiting family size. It is a massive issue and affects a large number of the world population. Reduction in family size would be a TINY step in the right direction towards sustainability. The church will not drop its stance purely by outside pressure. The debate would have to start with the Intellectuals at the Vatican who would need all of the latest scientifically proven data (which they probably have anyway) It is a question of 'Do unfertilised eggs have standing.' The response would probably be abstain or use the withdrawal method, both unsatisfactory choices. The withdrawal method increases the likelyhood of birth defects and unplanned pregnancy, and few are willing to abstain from procreative activity permanently. I think this part of the debate has to come from those who have been or are part of a religious background.
Back to fish, ironically the symbol of the Christian faith.
Complain about this comment
I agree wholeheartedly on the fact that it has to come from somebody with a religious background. I suppose my argument actually has no specific qualms with religion - it isn't even totally about birth control. My quandry is more how to we convert the unconverted...? Very few people trust politicians (often rightly so, but certainly not always - politicians have some very good things to say but it has all been lost in spin and expenses scandals). Scientists are pretty poor at getting the message across to the "man on the street", although I hope we are improving in doing that - but still I don't think people really like the overbearingness and rule-making persona that scientists often display. Unfortunately many think pressure groups like Greenpeace are left-wing hippies and dismiss them out of hand without listening. So which major bodies are we left with that people listen to? Religious bodies are certainly one (Maybe not in Europe but certainly in some areas with large populations such as the Middle East, Africa and Southern Asia) - so this is where my original thought came from I guess. What else does that leave us with... totalitarian governments/dictatorships (not always known for their environmental kudos) and the tabloid press! Does this mean we have to rely on convincing the Sun and Daily Mail that our idea is a good one?!! Maybe!!! Perhaps the chippy in Albert Square can use sustainable fish? Maybe Take That can "rule the sustainable world" for us? How about Simon Cowell starting Eco-Idol? We need a popular voice... and we need it NOW!
Complain about this comment
@RichardBlack
Spot on - cheers for that. Thank you for highlighting our destruction and rape of yet another environment and ecosystem - one, about which we know so very little. I am sure many tire of my rantings about all the "old environmental issues" - but I am heartened by your highlighting of this issue.
As I have said before - just imagine if we could restore our fisheries to the levels of 3-400 years ago. We could obtain a sustainable yield of quality fish much greater than the unsustainable yield we obtain today.
This is (one of many) environmental issues which is immediately dire and deserving of urgent attention. Ten years ago, a professional fisherman said to me that sadly, these activities will continue until the last fish is caught. Let us hope he was wrong - but I fear he spoke the truth.
Again, while we disagree on a number of issues, cheers for highlighting this one.
How about some more on the "old" environmental issues? I think it would be well receieved.
Thanks Richard.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealy #36:
Yes, I agree - more on the full range of 'old environmental issues.'
Perhaps not to discuss solutions to each individually, but rather to try and figure out how things altogether have gone so wrong?
There are concerned and capable people working on each individual issue, but without wide public support and individuals 'walking the talk' little can be done.
I am reminded by your mention of the 'last fish' in your post of my time on the Atlantic East coast, in Lunenberg, Nova Scotia in 1996, when a fisherman jokingly told me that the 'last cod' to be found hereabouts was the one on top of the chuch steeple - a windvane!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To eddhind #36:
Perhaps Michael Moore will take up the "Limits to Growth" as his next documentary topic??
"Any port in a storm," as the saying goes.
Or perhaps, something I wrote to myself in 1994:
"If something isn't working - try something else!"
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
As the leaves turn to gold here in Calgary, and as Underacanoe and I await the awakening of Cloudrunner, it occurred to me that much of what I see on this blog is simply disbelief on what we have all done to our environment.
And the most natural response - wait and see.
In the meantime, lets not add to the problem, and kill the messenger.
If some of us choose not to believe - so be it. But surely most of us can see the difference between the messenger and the message?
- Manysummits in Calgary, nearing the autumnal equinox - worldwide -
Complain about this comment
manysummits,
I spent the afternoon reading back over all of your old posts to get an idea of what you are about. I see that you are not just an ordinary citizen blogger but someone with a commercial environmental background. I see that your wife Julie is a painter as well as climber. I have BA( hons) Fine Art Sculpture for what it is worth in the real world. I have also been logging your reading list and checking out the authors on wiki. You refer to Toynbee in one of your blogs which was the name of my secondary school as a child. George Mombiot was on our recommended reading list for MA level Interactive Media Production( which I really struggled with and didn't get) I am going to plow through as much of the recommended reading as I can and I have approached my local library to recommend getting a copy of The Age of Stupid as well as books you have recommended. I was surprised that the library and the local cinemas did not know anything about that film and it makes me realise that this blog refers to quite specialist learning.
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #29. You ask if I work in planning.
Before planning a project that project will have passed a portfolio assessment and it would be prioritized according to various business drivers. My initial gut assessment of the situation with this deep sea fishing was that it was going to happen whatever we do. Doing anything will just prolong the agony. If it goes the way of such things it will bottom out naturally enough. Several others have commented in a similar vain. Some risk assessment could be useful to keep an eye on impacts.
I think LarryKealey #36 says it well with his example:
"Ten years ago, a professional fisherman said to me that sadly, these activities will continue until the last fish is caught. Let us hope he was wrong - but I fear he spoke the truth."
I agree with the sentiment of the fisherman.
I’ll save the planning skills for those projects with the high end drivers with the best returns for the effort. I’ve got a few of those on the go in my home town area to keep me busy. Please do not consider that I do not care - perhaps I’m too pragmatic; I do get called that from time to time.
Hope this explains.
Tim
Complain about this comment
To sensibleoldgrannie #40:
I am honored that you would take the trouble to look back like that!
I tried a post a while ago that quoted former President of the United States John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the artist - I am not sure if it was removed for some technical reason. I will repeat it just in case. It is my view as well:
"Too often in the past, we have thought of the artist as an idler and dilettante and of the lover of the arts as somehow sissy and effete. We have done both an injustice. The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard, often amidst deprivation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is marked by intense application and intense discipline...
I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist."
--------------
I can never get over the feeling when I am blogging on science that this is not the answer. And I can never get over the feeling that the cave paintings at Lascaux, France, and Altimira Spain, and in the Australian Outback, and the African homeland..., were not in a very real sense who we really are - but that we seem to have have forgotten.
Why not? Technical achievment is dazzling, another way of saying blinding.
But we are surely more than our tools, and there is surely more to life than material gain.
Having been and done considerable, it was a shock to find that I am most me when a part of nature, climbing mountains, and that in giving up all to pursue my dream I received all, in the form of my wife Underacanoe, and our son, Cloudrunner, and this near the end of my life.
There is truly magic in boldness and daring.
Always I remember the Vedic chant, among the oldest of recorded thought:
"There is no happiness for the man who does not travel;
Living in the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner;
For Indra is the friend of the traveller, therefore wander."
-----------------
You know, the National and Aeronautics Space Administration once had a mission ststement, very Camelot-like, which was:
"To understand and protect our home planet."
We need to become one with ourselves again. I just read a new quote, from a new book, from a Cherokee man:
"People do not realize that when they harm the Earth, they harm themselves, and they do not realize that when they harm themselves they harm the Earth."
May the road rise to meet you, 'sensibleoldgrannie.'
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #41: "My initial gut assessment of the situation with this deep sea fishing was that it was going to happen whatever we do. Doing anything will just prolong the agony. If it goes the way of such things it will bottom out naturally enough."
That strikes me as a very sad, business like view.
Don't we have feelings about these things?
We should be able to agree what the problems are without casting care aside because the outcome seems inevitable.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Adherence to the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was ranked as “dismal” in a review published earlier this year.
The survey examined 53 countries responsible for 96% of the marine catch worldwide. A set of 44 questions about compliance with the code covered six evaluation fields: balancing of conservation and economic goals; management targets; expansion of fisheries and establishment of protected areas; day-to-day compliance; socio-economic factors including impacts on small-scale and coastal fisheries; and control of illegal fishing and that conducted under ‘flags of convenience’.
The study used a ranking scale of 1 to 10, where a 4 or lower was considered a “fail”, 7 or above was “good”, in between was a “pass”. No country received a 7. And only six countries achieved a score of ‘about 6’ (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Nambia, New Zealand, Norway, USA). And even these six countries, had fail grades in at least three of the evaluation fields.
Overall, across the 53 countries, the 5 most problematic issues were: introduction of ecosystem-based management; control of illegal fishing; reduction of excess fishing capacity, and minimising by-catch and destructive fishing practices. Twelve countries received fail grades across all or most parts of the compliance analysis.
The authors drew two main conclusions. The first was that compliance scores were on average twice as high for developed countries as for those from developing countries. There was evidence which suggests a close correlation with resources available for monitoring and enforcement, which suggested that the situation could be improved with assistance targeted specifically on boosting monitoring and enforcement. The other main conclusion was that while the voluntary nature of the code may have been helpful in getting it adopted in the early-1990s, the case is growing for making the code a more formal through transforming it into a legally-binding instrument.
The commentary was published in Nature on 5 February 2009 (vol 457, page 658-9).
For a link to the full WWF report and a discussion, see http://tinyurl.com/aeae6e.
Complain about this comment
From the gloomy, to the slightly more positive…
A paper by Boris Worm and his colleagues in 2006 noted that, based on extrapolation of historical data, the world’s commercial fisheries would completely collapse by 2048 (Science, 3 November 2006, vol 314, p. 787-790). It wasn’t the centre piece of the analysis, which was rather on the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functions. However the 2048 detail was seized on and received much attention both in the media and from other scientists working with fisheries management. It also attracted much criticism. One of the critics was Ray Hilburn, a fisheries scientist from Seattle. He had, for example, publicly called the assessment ‘incredibly sloppy’ and the projection ‘mind-bogging[ly] stupid’.
Not even waiting for the dust to settle, Worm and Hilburn decided to work together to try and work out why their different data or methods of analysis yielded such different conclusions. By doing so they also hoped that they would be able to help create better databases that would be considered generally reliable and informative.
One of the intriguing things about the controversy that developed is that views were polarised along the lines of the background of the person looking at the analysis. Boris Worm is a marine biologist, and many of those who shared his perspective on the data came from this field. Critics tended to come from a fisheries management background. The marine biologists tended to look at marine ecosystems and saw pristine habitats (without fishing) as ideal. Fisheries managers tended to see marine ecosystems whose resources could be harvested. The two groups tended to rely on different data too. Worm’s team were looking at biodiversity loss at a global level, so they had to rely on the most comprehensive data – global catch data tonnages reported by countries. Fisheries scientists tended to look at particular stocks of fish, and used data gathered specifically for these purposes at smaller scales (and regard catch data as unscientific and unreliable).
One output from the collaboration between Worm and Hilburn was published recently in Science and concludes that, with proper management, it ought to be possible to rebuild the world’s fisheries (‘Rebuilding Global Fisheries’, Science, 31 July 2009, vol 325, p. 578-585).
Using data from ten of the world’s large fisheries they found that some species were overfished in some places and not in others. The good news was that in five of the ten fisheries, the steps which had been taken to limit the damage from overfishing were beginning to be seen as the exploitation rates (the proportions of available fish caught) in these areas were declining. Reviewing a range of the management techniques used, they concluded that in general the most effective approach was a combination of catch quotas coupled with strategic fishing measures aimed at specific species (e.g. using certain types of fishing nets whose shape and mesh size are designed to catch only certain sorts of fish). The also recommend that the “maximum sustainable yield” should be thought of as an unacceptable maximum rather than as a target to be pursued – fishing a little below this level is the most efficient way of ensuring a sustainable income.
And just to show that such reform is not just simply another ‘do good’ project that will simply drain resources, look at the results of an analysis published by the World Bank and FAO last year.
“The Sunken Billions: the economic justification for fisheries reform” study shows that the difference between the potential and actual net economic benefits from marine fisheries is in the order of $50 billion per year – equivalent to more than half the value of the global seafood trade. The cumulative economic loss to the global economy over the last three decades is estimated to be in the order of two trillion dollars. In many countries the catching operations are buoyed up by subsidies, so that the global fishery economy to the point of landing the fish is in deficit. However, the same study calculated that improved governance can recapture a substantial proportion of the of this $50 billion annual economic loss, concluding that “With effective economic incentives, rather than being a net drain on the global economy, sustainable fisheries can create an economic surplus, be a driver of economic growth and a basis for livelihood opportunities.”
For the World Bank press release, see : http://go.worldbank.org/EKE38PW3O0
Complain about this comment
In recent postings on these pages such as ‘Africa re(de)fines the climate dialogue’ there has been discussion about whether those who live in richer countries should do more than the poor on climate change. Some have dismissed this as yet another ‘scam’ and simply more unfounded ‘whinging and begging’.
This debate eventually prompted me to look up again a paper I first read last year on the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. This paper argues that as human impacts to the environment accelerate, disparities in the distribution of damages between rich and poor nations mount. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) by U. Thara Srinivasan et al as “The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities” (5 February 2008, vol 105, no 5, pp 1768-1773).
The focus of the analysis is an estimate of the distribution of ecological damages and their driving forces in the context of changes in the flow of ecosystem services globally as a result of changes to the environment as a result of human activity. They ‘conservatively’ estimate the environmental costs of human activities during the period 1961–2000 in six major categories (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, agricultural intensification and expansion, deforestation, overfishing, and mangrove conversion). They also attempt to connect quantitatively the costs borne by poor, middle-income, and rich nations to specific activities by each of these groups.
They found ‘striking imbalances’, even when they made adjustments to the impact valuations in order to allow for different standards of living across the groups – i.e. evidence for an uneven distribution pattern of damages across income groups. They note that climate change and ozone depletion impacts predicted for low-income nations are overwhelmingly driven by emissions from the middle-income and rich nations. This pattern was also observed for overfishing damages indirectly driven by the consumption of fishery products. By their calculations, disproportionate emissions of greenhouse gases alone by the rich group of countries may have imposed climate damages on the poor group greater than the latter's current foreign debt. It is also worth noting that their estimates of each group's share in various damaging activities are independent from controversies in specific environmental valuation methods (i.e. even if the different methods gave different specific figure for the environmental valuations, the pattern of distribution were similar across the methods used).
I’m sure some will disagree with the study’s premises (especially when it comes to AGW?), but the fact that their assessment yields similar outcomes across a range of economic activities with environmental impacts suggests that there is a genuine underlying cause for concern about the distribution between rich and poor countries of the benefits and associated negative environmental impacts.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #44, #45 & #46
Thank you simon-swede for taking the time to present some interesting Sunday morning reading.
Here is a glimpse of progress towards cease-fire for "Peace Day" (tomorrow)...
Afghanistan: Peace Day 2009
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #47 re Peace Day:
I read the letter from President Karzai with respect.
And as I write to you I recall President Kennedy's 'Peace Speec' in 1963, which I keep in my special binder, and which I refer to often.
Peace on Earth, Good Will towards Men appears an elusive goal, as always.
------------------------
To simon-swede:
May I second davblo2's comments. It seems to me the forgiveness of debt to the developing world is actually something that might be arranged.
Call it what you will, the personal bankruptcy of the developing world perhaps?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
I just cut short my Sunday coffee shop visit to write to you.
I know that you typically do not comment on some of my more spiritual blogs, and I don't expect you to this time.
Nevertheless, I have just finished reading Freeman Dyson's "The Sun, the Genome and the Internet", and not long ago, Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing."
All very interesting, ulra-modern, a blend of 'deep-ecology' and 'go for the stars' thinking.
Then I came across a new book, "The Threshold", by Thom Hartmann, (2009). I do not intend to read this book at this time. It is another in a long line of recent treatises, like James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia, A Final Warning."
But I came across a saying at the beginning of the chapter on 'The Environment' which struck me, and as you know, I react impulsively at times.
I crudely put this saying out the other day on the blog, but I have since looked up the source and wish to present both the saying and the source here today.
'Rolling Thunder' was a Cherokee medicine man, 1916-1997, and died close in time to both Carl Sagan and Jacques Cousteau. He said:
"Too many people don't realize that when they harm the earth they harm themselves, nor do they realize that when they harm themselves they harm the earth."
--------------
In reading Dyson and Stone, I got the uneasy feeling, despite their erudition, that both were suffering from what I hesitate to call, but will nonetheless, 'ivory-tower' syndrome. By this I mean that in practice, their lives are far removed from the visceral 'part of nature' of the dedicated mountain climber, or hunter-gatherer, or tribal pastoralist in Africa...
Freeman Dyson, in particular, struck me as detached, despite his obvious humanitarian efforts and goodwill.
Objective thought, rational thinking, etc...
Does that not sound familiar?
Is that not the problem?
The most important book I have ever read was Weston Price's "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration."
It seems that we harm ourselves in unexpected ways. If Dr. Price is at all correct in his long and personal observations of the intact human being, sans civilization, then a good non-civilized human being prepares both woman and man for conception long before nuptuals, and takes special care of woman and child during the several years of nursing which necessarily follow.
Thus, this not being the way we 'civilizeds' do it, we harm ourselves not only from birth, but from conception.
There are startling implications if this is indeed true - we are thus constrained, most of us, from conception, to playing our game without a full deck of cards!
And then there is the rest of one's life! Do we even know how to feed ourselves properly? Obviously not - just look around.
Remember how struck I was, there's that word again, by the difference I noted between my village raised African friends and 'us.'
Well, there you have it. Food for thought, or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Thunder_(person)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #49: "Food for thought"
Message received. I'll be back; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #43. I agree we should not cast care aside. I was too brisk in my comment. Thanks for prompting.
Manysunmmits #49. Thought provoking piece. Hit a few spots which I shall be taking with me today.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Thoughts on the Last Weekend of the Northern Summer
There is too much inertia. "Starship Earth" is going to collide with something big and ugly.
The purpose of our blogging is then preparation - to sow what seeds for thought we can, while we are able.
I sincerely hope I am wrong. Luckily, I have been wrong enough times in the past to make this a good possibility!
Hasta Luego & Salaam - to celebrate the end of Ramadaam,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #49: "Food for thought"
Re: quote from 'Rolling Thunder'; "Too many people don't realize that when they harm the earth they harm themselves..."
Instant reaction; that 'those harming the Earth' are actually taking care of themselves, but harming the future...
Re: "uneasy feeling, despite their erudition, that both were suffering from what I hesitate to call, but will nonetheless, 'ivory-tower' syndrome."
I envy the amount of reading you are able to do. My time for such seems so limited (some would say bad planning), but I made some progress through the James Lovelock series. There I noticed from the start that he is not "one of us"; he lives on another "plane" of existence. I liked his ideas, but there we several 'mannerisms' in his writing which kept me at a distance from him.
Re: "Is that not the problem?"
I believe so. It must be important to 'know your audience' and I admit I could have trouble explaining things to certain types of people. But I would make the utmost effort to reach out on their level.
Re: "...we are thus constrained, most of us, from conception..."
In more ways than one.
I see ourselves as 'victims' of our societies. Brought up in the 'local' manner, which the child automatically accepts as 'right'.
We, for some reason seem to acquire dawning awareness of inconsistencies and strive to find alternative ways; but find ourselves constrained by our 'dependence' on the 'normal way'.
Re: "Do we even know how to feed ourselves properly?"
That was one of my first concerns years ago. Limited progress so far.
Re: "...difference I noted between my village raised African friends and 'us.'"
I wonder; do some of them come to question their situation? Or do they all conform? Are we unusual or typical? Do they have a stronger 'constraint' or a life that doesn't need to be questioned?
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #51: "Thanks for prompting"
You're welcome; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #53:
You wrote:
"Re: "...difference I noted between my village raised African friends and 'us.'"
I wonder; do some of them come to question their situation? Or do they all conform? Are we unusual or typical? Do they have a stronger 'constraint' or a life that doesn't need to be questioned?"
--------------
Good questions - I don't know. I'll ask 'wunarik' on Monday.
My impression was based on their 'naturalness', in that they are all naturally empathetic, and lightning quick learners. Their eyes sparkle, they smile and laugh easily, despite, or because of their difficult life experiences. And they have an extremely strong sense of social justice.
No doubt my observations are biased, and personal. But I have learned to trust my instincts and feelings, and I hope Cloudrunner is more like my African friends than my 'civilized' friends.
I use this example because of my pilot training.
I once asked my flight instructor how he decided if one was ready to be granted his license. He said, "It's simple. If I would send my children up with you, you get your license. If not - you don't."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Up until last week I had no idea of the true meaning of 'squaring the circle.' Apparently it is a derogatory term for wasting time attempting to solve a problem that cannot be solved. Having said that, I believe that squaring the circle can be achieved by the use of my elastic tape measure. Again I am using a metaphor in an attempt to explain 'give and take.'
Until a moment ago I did not know the meaning of the word erudite (knowledgeable, learned or scholarly) There are many erudite contributions to this blog and each has their own stance as to what they believe is right.
Perhaps the american indians and the african tribal people are the ones the population of the planet should be turning to for advice because their knowledge and learning is born out of hardship. Their answers might be simpler and more relevant. You get a license to fly planet earth if you are safe with our children.
Complain about this comment
Further to #46, on the unequal distribution of impacts of, for example, climate change…
In the Economist of 17th September there appears an article which touches on similar themes (“Developing countries and global warming: A bad climate for development”).
It notes that: “… global warming does far more damage to poor countries than they do to the climate. In a report in 2006 Nicholas (now Lord) Stern calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP. But the World Bank, in its new World Development Report, now says the cost to Africa will be more like 4% of GDP and to India, 5%. Even if environmental costs were distributed equally to every person on earth, developing countries would still bear 80% of the burden (because they account for 80% of world population).”
For the Economist piece, see: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14447171
For a link to the World Bank’s “World Development 2010: Development and Climate Change” report, see: http://go.worldbank.org/FTD88BBDV0
Complain about this comment
simon-swede
Thank you for your links. The second document is very long but informative and I found it easier to read the abstract first, then the ending where there was a good glossary followed by hunt and peck for bits of info.
Although the document seems altruistic I still wonder how many institutions and industries stand to gain a disproportionate amount of financial gain from environmental development. I hope that these groups are genuine in their attempt to mitigate the effects of environmental events. It is much easier to believe and follow our leaders if they are truly attempting to benefit mankind.
Complain about this comment
#58
Thanks grannie. Maybe it would be an idea to add to two flip-sides to your question, namely who stands to benefit from the status quo and who beras the cost of the status quo? It seems to me that in many cases of environmental damage, the benefits are private in the form of profits, and the costs are public in the sense that they are externalities that are borne by society as a whole. Inequitable at best, surely?
Complain about this comment
Enlighten me simon, I want to know who stands to benefit from the status quo. If you can't point the finger anagrams or hints will do.
I know that one of the unfair 'externalities' is landfill tax which becomes a financial burden for all of us because inadequate systems are in place to enable the population to dispose of waste effectively.
Complain about this comment
Climate deal in peril, says Brown
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst
"Greenpeace welcomed the prime minister's initiative to go to Copenhagen.
Director John Sauven said: "Gordon Brown has injected a note of urgency into the Copenhagen talks by agreeing to attend. At the moment there is a huge gap between what needs to be done and what world leaders are promising to do."
---------------------
"You get a license to fly planet earth if you are safe with our children."
- 'sensibleoldgrannie' #56
- Manysummits - http://www.peaceoneday.org/en/welcome -
Complain about this comment
Hi bloggers !
All these people who think Africa is so great and wonderful.
Why not arrange some kind of exchange - you go and live there for maybe 5 years and an African family can live in your house and do your job ?
Well what are you waiting for...
[Clue - I have been to Africa and seen what it is really like]
Complain about this comment
#59
Hi grannie.
I was referring to economic activities which give rise to an environmental cost, let's say emissions of greenhouse gases. At present, any damage created by that is borne by society at large. However, the benefits of that economic activity are received by provate persons or companies.
I would suggest that a landfill tax is not an externality per se, but a recognition that disposal of waste in landflls creates additional external costs. An externality is a negative effect of production or consumption the cost of which is not paid for by the producer but is imposed on others. From an environmental policy perspective, such a tax as you refer to would be imposed in recognition that there are external environmental costs of disposing of wastes in landfills.
Complain about this comment
Hi manysummits !
I hope Brown isn't f-f-f-flying to Copenhagen ?
That would be just too ironic. I'm not sure how this bit works - I mean Al Gore flies round the world explaining just how bad and sinful flying is. George Monbiot has recently bought a car so he can get to the anti-car demos.
What's your take ?
Complain about this comment
Jack
I would be more likely to believe someone who says I have seen Africa and been what it is really like. District 9 film is an interesting change from the normal cheesy smile. I understand some of the issues from regular discussions from people who lived and breathed Africa for a lifetime. I have interesting perspectives from film, real life views of the elite, real life views from the middle class but as yet, no real life views from the poor, (other than from the media).
Complain about this comment
Re: quote from 'Rolling Thunder'; "Too many people don't realize that when they harm the earth they harm themselves..."
Re: Instant reaction; that 'those harming the Earth' are actually taking care of themselves, but harming the future...
There's a line Dan Dennett uses repeatedly in his books about consciousness: "If you make yourself small enough you can externalize almost anything; if you make yourself large enough you can internalize almost anything".
He's talking about the faculties of the brain and such, but heck...
Complain about this comment
The world is simply more competitive now. The rise of the East has placed added demands on all stocks. The rising standard of living and urbanization in India and China creates demand for fish and other goods and energy. The West must adjust to a more competitive world. There is a certain resentment in the East for the Western views of control over resources that the West accessed without limitations for many years and now that the East has developed the means to also access these resources the proposal is to restrict access. It is not just too many people, it is more about people with the resources to purchase products that once they could not afford and the industrial capacity to distribute these goods on a larger scale. Families that are but a generation from true poverty are very proud to be able to provide a fish diner for family and friends and proud that their children do not know hunger. One has to be of a certain economic condition to think about conservation on a large scale as the hungry just want to eat. In the West many families have included more fish in the diet and reduced red meat. I am taking a woman from Wuhan fishing next week, she has only fished once, to try to catch a meal as the larger fish begin to migrate as the seasons change. She is an excellent cook.
Complain about this comment
I'm disappointed in the BBC News Front Page.
Unless I missed an earlier version we have "Renault handed suspended F1 ban" and "Highlights from US TV awards" but no coverage of the "UN Peace Day".
Selecting "Asia Pacific", "Middle East", and "South Asia" showed nothing either.
Resorting to the "Search" tool, I found just an item from the 19th September; "Jude Law makes Afghan peace visit" and from today "'Tree of life' planted for peace" about a tree being planted at a Surrey school.
Hardly extensive coverage of a worldwide event.
Was it a flop?
I shall search elsewhere.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
I see that one day was too much to hope for; at least for some...
Villagers killed in Sudan clashes
It can't help that the media ignores the "UN Peace Day".
I checked several news sites. Nothing.
In fact, seeing the kind of things making the top headlines saddened me even more. I won't even grace them my mentioning them.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Not much to celebrate on UN Peace Day. I guess symbolism is still the rage. Peace Day may have been overshadowed by Honest Banker Day, both still looking for examples.
Complain about this comment
There are some reports on the "United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)" page. At least for Afghanistan; but what about the rest?
Even on...
UN News Centre Mon 21 Sep 2009.
...it's hard to find mention of "UN Peace Day"
Is it an "un-newsworthy" event?
Peace (even just one day); not news.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
My peace effort was to debate with city planners to save a particular piece of art from being sold in exchange for commercial profit to develop the city's cultural space. There are three works of art at risk of being sold. Two of the pieces are the antithesis of the third piece. Two pieces represent the frailty of the human condition and the third piece represents money and success. I think the pieces that show the frailty of the human condition should be saved to remind us of who we really are. The third piece could sit very nicely on the wall of a rich man's castle.
Complain about this comment
What activity have you bloggers done today in public, which has taken you out of your comfort zone, to save what you believe represents what is human and right? Save the day from disappointment.
Complain about this comment
I feel like I've stepped into a parallel world where everyone has gone mad.
Today was the day, when concerned people have striven to ensure just one day of respite, a day of peace, in the waring nations around the entire world.
Newsworthy or not. Sells papers or not?
It should have been the one headline from every media source; with reports from around the globe. All other news could have been shelved. Instead I see the reverse. News as usual, mixed with the inevitable trivia.
Why haven't the world leaders come forward and publicly voiced support for "UN Peace Day" and encouraged other to follow suit.
Why hasn't the UN "engaged" their support?
Have I really stepped into the wrong world?
I thought we were better than this.
Does anyone care about peace at all; or do they only care about business?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Haven't spent the day imposing my sense of art on other people. Amazing the value people place on such things. Doing more by doing less. Need to check with the fish concerning the frailty of human condition. We box culture like we box fish.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan,
sorry to disappoint ;o) It just seems like everyone is moaning and no-one is doing. I would have loved to have done something that you might have considered 'worthy' but there were no 'worthy' causes within a £4.00 bus ride. I did stop and talk to the people who have been made redundant from the wind farm factory the other day, but I could not save their jobs. I did download and keep the sustainable fish list from the website so that I do not eat unsustainable fish. I care very much about peace in the world but as an individual all I can do is to be kind and respectful to everyone and help them where I can. If you can suggest other things I could have done to help the world within my £4.00 bus ticket journey, tell me.
davblo2
The world has gone mad and I was also looking for our great leaders to show the way of peace on the grot box this evening. Perhaps it has been raining, hence the damp squib. The only thing mentioned were more deaths and reports that the war is not going according to plan ;o(
I was hoping that someone here on the blog had done something exciting towards world peace today, those with access to travel or those who have the attention of world leaders.
I am nothing, you wouldn't even notice me in the street, therefore whatever I do, can only be a tiny drop ;o)
Complain about this comment
I found there is a "livestream" broadcast, viewable here...
24 Hour Peace Day Global Broadcast
It seems to be a mix of prerecorded and live items from around the world.
Not entirely to my liking, it has sponsors and adverts (groan) but hopefully some reports from the real world. See what you think.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie #76: "I was hoping that someone here on the blog had done something exciting towards world peace today...I am nothing, you wouldn't even notice me in the street"
I have long accepted my "smallness" and insignificance in the way of things.
The reason I am complaining so bitterly is that the BBC and the other news media companies are not "insignificant". There are up there in the public eye. They have had their "red nose days" and they "live aids". So why oh why have they completely ignored a genuine (UN based) attempt to take one small step in the direction of peace?
Try the "livetream" on 24 Hour Peace Day Global Broadcast
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2
Thank you
It is like a birthday that nearly everyone has chosen to forget, a kind someone has brought us a little present, to help make everything alright again ;o)
Complain about this comment
This blog has clearly changed direction, however I would like to speak my piece. To start, the author mentioned that international governments claim “if we don't have any information to say that's not sustainable, we'll presume it's okay to continue". Has anyone considered providing transparent information to fishermen? Perhaps there is an education barrier here. Also, why would a fisherman want to cut his daily profit and potentially lose his livlihood because of a new rule? What do these ecosystems mean to him? Perhaps thorough education can teach restraint and respect for the seas. The article mentioned how most fishing countries have agreed to protecting one seamount, when in reality many seamounts are home to thousands of species in an ecosystem. Perhaps some type of program that could positively engage fishermen/people in the fragility of their income/food source could work. Some type of incentives should be created for the fishermen as a way to facilitate in the process of steering clear of these precious species on the bottom. Many bloggers mentioned monitoring systems, however, I do not think that would be enough. Transparency, education, and an overall ban on the obnoxious trawling nets would be a good place to start. Clearly this is easier said than done, especially because we do not have an international government to enforce these magical policies we often design. We need enforcement, and countries can reach their targets if they can stick to what they promise. As several others mentioned, perhaps a drive in oil prices will slow down the harvesting, but that is definitely not enough. The problem needs to be addressed.
Also, I noticed the discussion of religion, as a means to appeal to the masses. Yes, it is hard for some to relate to scientists and politicians, but I too often find that religion in itself has a political agenda.I agree with Rick McDaniel, in that there is little hope in achieving awareness via religion. I think that it is relatively cultish and may not appeal to all those who participate in the religion. The truth is that this case is highly political, and if people want to learn about it, they are going to hear it from the direct sources who have the most accurate information on the topic. Finally, on the note of overpopulation, it is obvious that we are growing and expanding at what appears to be an unsustainable rate. Responding to davblo “When the human population was much lower, we could do pretty much as we liked, wherever we liked, and however much we liked, (good, bad, or distasteful as some of it may seem to us now); but the best part was that 99% of the rest of the global inhabitants could go their merry way undisturbed.”
I disagree. Just because the population was smaller doesn’t mean it was correct to do as we liked. Our generation is concerned that overpopulation is contributing to our unsustainable extraction of natural resources, but overpopulation is not the main reason to be wary. Again, the only “fair” approach I can envision for the issue of overpopulation is more education and family planning programs. There are hundreds of volunteers through a variety of programs, particularly ones from universities, who have dedicated their time to help inform people. I think this approach is key. On the other hand, how do you tell a mother in a third world country to not conceive children, when she views it as a means of survival because her other children may never see the age of 5?
To bring this conversation full circle, my case in point is transparency and incentives are the best way for governments to stick to their promise of preserving precious ecosystems for some time to come. Maybe people need education on what it means to be sustainable before we start expecting that they start practicing such methods.
Complain about this comment
Happy Peace Day!
Doesn't sound right, does it?
'Davblo2', the link you posted on casualties in the Sudan may be closer to home than we think.
'Wunarik' was telling me today that he and another 'Lost Boy' were up half the night phoning their people in the Sudan, because there had been fighting. Apparently it was not about normal inter-tribal matters, but as your link suggested, about a power struggle. It's the right area.
Southern Sudan is trying to gain independece in the next year or two, as the north is dominated by Khartoum et al...
I have emailed your link on the Sudan violence to 'Wunarik.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8267308.stm
-----------------------------------------------
To 'ghostofsichuan':
Yes, a more competitive world. And yes, the 'affluent society' of John Kenneth Galbraith is alive, but I think 'not' well.
I hope that you and your lady-friend from Wuhan catch a tasty fish, and that you both enjoy it afterwards. I have not forgotten your post concerning your quiet village. I was just wondering, on the way to the lbrary to post this, if I was spending too much time on the computer. I could be playing with Cloudrunner. I have no real answer to this, I just do what feels right.
-------------------------
The news right now is bleak. Peace Day is a non-event, perhaps that is not as bad as it looks davblo!
Kenya is in drought, the US commander wants more troops in Afghanistan; the Copenhagen Climate Conference is having difficulties - but there too, if the world leaders go instead of their ministers, that would be a big step forward.
Autumn is expected to come to Calgary with record heat - thirty to thirty-one degrees C predicted for Wednesday. Autumn seems to me, an avid weather watcher, to last longer and longer, and to be unusually warm. Is this the lag, or sloppiness, in a climate approaching a change of state?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
hiker6 #60: "Just because the population was smaller doesn't mean it was correct to do as we liked."
I didn't say it was "correct". I said it allowed 99% of the rest of the global inhabitants could go their merry way undisturbed. Which has some merit from a survival point of view.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie, a question concerning something in #34
Hi grannie!
A while back, you wrote soemthing that puzzled me and has been nagging away at the back of my mind! Perhaps you can clarif it for me?
You wrote:
"The withdrawal method increases the likelyhood of birth defects and unplanned pregnancy..."
I get the unplanned pregnancy bit, as itäs easy to see why the method is er, umm unreliable at best!
But I can't figure out why it should have an increased likelihood of birth defects associated with it. It seems to me that either it works, no pregnancy; or it doesn't, pregnancy. So where does the increased risk for birth defects come from?
Complain about this comment
hiker6 at #80
You mention providing information to fishermen and what their reactions might be to measures to reduce catches.
A study was conducted recently for commercial cod fishing in the Baltic sea. This study showed that their biggest concern was not so much teh rules themselves but the fact that they felt that compliance was weak (so why bother following the rules if everyone else is breaking them). The central proposals for regulation from fishermen were a combination of regulation limiting of the number of days-at-sea (fishing effort) and an effective control system for fish caught (landings) for all fleets that exploit cod stocks in the Baltic Sea. These measures, they felt, would better motivate fishermen for mutual rule compliance, which is a prerequisite for a sustainable cod fishery.
The study is to be reported in Marine Policy, as
Complain about this comment
Sorry! The reference is: Suuronen, P., et al. Fishermen responses on marine protected areas in the Baltic cod fishery, Marine Policy (2009), doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.001 (in press)
Complain about this comment
simon-swede,
I feel I have a massive responsibility to get this right now and so I have gathered as much info as I can from a variety of sources on a google search: temperature controlled birth control.
Sorry, perhaps I was tired when I blogged about the birth control issue and I didn't explain properly.
The withdrawal method (coitus interruptus) is often used as a method of attempting to reduce the likelyhood of pregnancy by people who are not permitted to use mechanical devices or chemical control. It is an unreliable method with a high risk of a pregnancy outcome if not used in a precise way.
Studies suggest that the pre-ejaculate fluid which is alkaline, shows little evidence of containing sperm.
This alkaline fluid neutralizes the acid vaginal environment to make safe passage for the sperm (which does not like acid conditions)
However there is a possibility of sperm remaining from a recent previous ejaculation, still viable, contaminating the next batch of pre-ejaculate with live sperm.
The Billings ovulation method was developed as a method of birth control, monitoring hormone levels through blood, urine and vaginal discharge samples.
It was observed that discharge levels increased when the woman was at the most fertile and decreased when she was less fertile. This fact was known by generations of Bantu East African women, who passed the secret to each generation of women. (Imperialism destroyed the Matriarch system and women lost their autonomy to control their own bodies)
(Roughly interpreted from Helen Holmes)
The rhythm method/sympto-thermal method/basal body temperature method has a failure rate of about 15% which is improved to 2% for those who use it correctly.
The method relies on charting the core body temperature with a specially adapted thermometer with 0.05 deg c
increments. The core body temperature is taken at the same time each day, the thermometer reading also has to be taken from the same part of the anatomy to get accurate recordings.
A chart is made up of the temperature recordings each day for the whole of the woman's menstrual cycle of 28 days.
The aim is to find the days which have a sustained temperature rise of about 1 degree c, which is when the progesterone is at its highest and the woman is at her most fertile.
The egg has about a 24 hour window of viability
The sperm has about up to 7 days viability
The post ovulation method
The trick is to only copulate 1 week (about seven days) BEFORE the temperature spike indicating raised progesterone and increased fertility. This method is reputed to be 99% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy if done correctly.
The issue with the temperature control method is that because it is controlling the meeting of viable egg and viable sperm, if they do meet and fertilization takes place, both the egg and the sperm are no longer in prime condition and defects can occur. There is also the issue of very much younger and older women becoming pregnant accidently, where there is a known risk of increase egg defect. The female reproductive cycle can also alter duration during illness.
I hope I have explained this whole issue more thoroughly and if you want to know more, google it ;o)
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
I was reading over our 'Mayday Declaration' just now, and thought to post our fourth 'fundamental argument,' as it bears on 'Peace Day.'
4) "The Peoples of the World, when fully aware of the current state of affairs on this planet, will do the right thing."
-------------------------------------------------
I noted this morning that the UK's rivers are improving, but that the European Union's river standards have not been met except in some UK rivers.
This means there are high standards, and people are trying, and even succeeding in some cases.
Peace Day was a flop because of the Internet, our worldwide neural network and public conscience.
We all know there is so far to go on this one that it would be shameful to actually celebrate or pretend. That is a positive - an accurate assessment made possible by the world wide web!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #87: "Peace Day was a flop because of the Internet"
I think I need more explanation of your logic on that one.
-------------
Apparently 1.2 million children found it was a partial success...
Peace Day polio immunization drive reaches almost 1.2 million children
"21 September 2009 - Almost 1.2 million Afghan children have benefited from polio immunization that was conducted for the International Day of Peace in eight provinces, including some of the country's hardest to reach areas such as Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Helmand."
...but still no mention of it in our news media.
On the other hand "Australian 'naked police run' investigated" concerning just 2 men is at this moment on the front page of BBC News. (I don't recommend you follow the link; I show it only in case you need proof of the trivia that can make front page news.)
Maybe reporting on aid in Afghanistan doesn't fit with the recent requests for more troops. Would talk of Peace upset the justification of the war?
Still waiting for some explanation of the madness, davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #87: "Mayday Declaration"
...and to all...
I haven't had time yet myself, but relating our earlier discussion about the "UN", I thought this my be worth listening to...
From the BBC World Service -Analysis, "UN reform"
"The United Nations is one of the world's most recognisable brands. But it's been dogged for years by criticism that it's too slow, too bloated, too inefficient. Reform has often been talked about --- less often done. Lucy Williamson asks why is it so hard to reform the UN?"
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Individual citizens abdicate their significance and equality on many levels. Your existence is enough, no justification is needed and the bureaucrat or politician actually works for you and therefore your opinion is valid. It may be incorrect or counter to the intentions of those in power but valid in that you have a right to express your views. The governmental processes have taken on a courtly aura with some expectation that the citizen should kow tow to those in power. Because an issue may be complex does not mean that we can not understand the basic problems or solutions, when told the truth. When the luster is cut away the basic issues are always the same: It is about money, it is about influence and it is about maintaining power and the impact on the citizens is down the list of rationales. Dishonesty in speech and action is no longer considered negative, there is a mixing of words and terms that always leaves people wondering exactly what is being said or meant. Climate Change, Healthcare and Banking all suffer from the same fate. Individuals seeking personal gain at a cost to others. I think the most difficult part of the process is that as we watch the political processes proceed we can clearly see that the accepted alternatives are costly and with minimum impacts, though touted as solutions. The issue of Climate Change has been discussed since the 70's and no real progress has been made. The banking industry destroyed the financial base with selfish greed and coal and oil have the same level of political influence and a crisis will need to ensue before any action will be developed and as with the banks the solution will be maintaining the status quo. As with all social change the process must be bottom up not top down. I have been attempting to have a group of scientist, environmental groups and advocates develop a regional climate change organization for a little over a year. The issues of land use, commercial interest, tax revenues and governmental priorities need to be addressed. The steps from problem recognition to mitgation are slippery and the powerful never feel that fairness is required in the discussion. Citizens have been beaten down into believing that they need permission from the government to take action or form an organization to address a concern. It is not about money as every government has a budget and that budget usually contains a lot of money, it is about priorities. The target of 8% reduction of emissions by 2020 or 2050 is pitiful as technology and more efficient autos will provide that reduction and the politicians will stand up and cheer and say "look what I did for you." As the socialist countries become more captialistic and captialistic countries become more socialist they are combining the worst of both systems. When disaffectation is the general feeling of the people the forces of change begin to move. Such situations produce dictators or have given birth to democracies. Climate change may have more impact on political systems than environmental systems in the end. When asked about the impact of the French Revolution, Deng Xiaoping replied, "It's too early to tell."
Complain about this comment
To those who are down heartened about the lack of peace initiatives yesterday:
How do you reconcile this with how we are cautioned to live from lesson of history like:
“In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected.”
Sun Tzu quotes (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)
Some of the most horrific events in history have been the result of offering peace to be taken off guard to be over run by war.
In the current mood we would be reneging on our responsibilities to afford even for this one day of peace. It does not appear how we are presupposed to be.
Complain about this comment
I am #15...
#80 pointed out what I was seeing/realizing/thinking:
This blog has taken some turns and twists...
#80 mentioned bringing the conversation full circle.
Well, it came 'full circle' and is going around again.
This blog is a painfully clear microcosm of why the bigger
picture is allowed to carry on with business a usual.
More to the point: Why the fishing industry continues
with 'business-as-usual'...
With 'everyone' busy stroking themselves and each other,
with their 'big brains', how can there possibly be time
for anything else?
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #91: "To those who are down heartened about the lack of peace initiatives yesterday"
(a) it isn't so much the initiative; it's the media coverage. Attempts were made I am sure; what right do the media have to obscure something so important and instead present so much mundane trivia?
(b) we have the ability to "rise above" killing each other. In fact most of us on this blog us now live such "protective" conditions. Is it too much to ask that the remaining "killers" stop; just for one day?
Are you so heartless?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #91: "Sun Tzu quotes (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)"
Another thing; this is 2009 AD not 500 BC.
Haven't we made any progress?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan:
"Individual citizens abdicate their significance and equality on many levels. Your existence is enough..." (ghostofsichuan)
I was wondering what to say to 'sensibleoldgrannie.'
Now I don't have to - beautifully said!!!
As for the rest of your post - you may enjoy a few remarks I will make to davblo following this?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #91: "Some of the most horrific events in history have been the result of offering peace to be taken off guard to be over run by war."
I repeat "21 September 2009 - Almost 1.2 million Afghan children have benefited from polio immunization that was conducted for the International Day of Peace..."
Would you have denied them that for fear of being "over run".
Wondering why I'm on my own here; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
Peace:
We're used to battling the 'climate denialists.'
I think 'timjenvey' is just pointing out that peace-longing is a form of denial right now, as history is in many ways one long catalogue of war and conflict.
As for the Media - Accurate!
The media is a strange business, because it is a business, but in the business also of 'sensing' the public mood - a very artistic endeavor.
Suppose we stop the killing for one day? Then it's OK to kill for the remaining 364 1/4 days??
No - this is more honest. People do want peace; we don't have it; it doesn't look like it's coming; so let's do something more constructive than pretend. As Ian Tyson sings, "Wishin' don't make it so.!"
Here is what I suggest:
In our Mayday Declaration, we mentioned that we might send it to the UN. Didn't happen. That's OK - we would be side by side with the gentleman who inititiated Peace Day, but it wouldn't change the world.
Plan 'B' was always my favorite, and I want to suggest we do this - you or me, or maybe we can get jr4412 back.
Let's post the 'Mayday Declaration' on it's own website?
So Google et al can find it quickly, we'll maybe put the folllowing right in the 'title', and in the 'header':
Mayday Declaration - Limits to Growth - from, "A Planet United."
We might include pratar.org as a forum, but I think we might also leave a big space at the end of the declaration and it's amendments (?) for people to sign on, possibly with a short comment appended.
I'd like it in XHTML 1.o, and validated to that standard.
We'll update periodically, to keep it current - I've got a few ideas already.
Maybe word will get around - why not try?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@simonswede & hiker6
I agree very much that fishers find a great deal of problem with varying degrees of enforcement and I think that is actually just one sub-problem within a major issue. Fishers want to be on a level playing field when it comes to regulation (and indeed enforecement of that regulation).
You look at Ireland at the moment and some of the fishers are probably over-fishing resources. Some of the fishers certainly admit this and would like fishing effort reduced. However, due to the nature of the CFP currently, Some nations boats are allowed to catch more fish in Irish waters than the Irish themselves. The Irish fishers see this as unfair and are unwilling to decrease their fishing activities as they don't want to lose a competetive advantage in comparison to other fishers, which is probably fair enough. Enforcement as you say is also then an issue. An Irish fisher is much more liklely to be stopped and searched by the Irish navy than a foreign fisher, as legal issues become a lot more complicated for the navy when they board a foreign boat. They risk being sued and I am unaware of a great number of convictions against foreign boats.
Thus, this element of the CFP is a huge problem I think, but I am no fool. I realise de-centralised fisheries management may also favour some fishers above others. What we really need is greater representation in the policy process for a wider spectrum of fisheries interest. Only with inclusion of the stakeholder in the debate will the debate yield results that stakeholders and policy makers are happy with. If people aren't happy they will ignore regulation.
Complain about this comment
#davblo
whatever happened to hippies (unfortunately i just missed the 60s). we could do with giving peace a chance again.
motivations for violence are hugely varied. roughly 2% of the population are verging on psychotic (startling stat i remeber from studying psychology and i recall it being verified in a war study....those 2% are heroes in battle!!) and don't care about peace and never will.
of the other 98% i would say, given the conditions most people live in that we're a pretty peaceable species. stick 30 rats in an office with one rat permanently hacking the rest off and you'll soon have a fight :o)
most people fight for a cause, usually race, religion or nation state. i'm really hoping that in the 21st century we can dissolve or blur the differences so that we all come together to deal with the fact that we're on a pretty small spaceship and rapidly trashing the life support systems. maybe the internet and air travel (it has its uses!!) is making this possible since the next generation will have a real sense of how similar we are as a species.
that said, some people fight because they're hungry or thirsty. i have no doubt that fighting will get worse.
still on a brighter note, the un is pushing to totally ban nuclear weapons....that is a goal worth fighting for (in a non-violent way of course).
Complain about this comment
rossglory,
A total ban on nuclear weapons will save a truck load of money for every country concerned. Excuse me for being a bit cynical but what better, cheaper option have they replaced the nukes with?????
Complain about this comment
Granny at #100
But why does it have to be an either/or? Or to put it another way, do you really think the UK is safer with them?
Complain about this comment
On 15 September there was a 'World Summit on Fisheries Sustainability', organized by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, in collaboration with the Imperial College London and FAO in Baiona, Pontevedra, Spain.
This was a Ministerial gathering of 47 countries from the five continents and in their concluding statement they emphasize the ministers' recognition that "a new scenario for the seas and the oceans" is urgently needed and that the chronic overcapacity of fishing fleets worldwide must be eliminated.
While welcoming the recognition that action is needed to stop further destruction of ocean life, a number of environmental organizations present were concerned that though the conference statement did not indicate if and when this new commitment will be turned into effective action as concrete measures and a time-table are missing.
The environmental groups issue dtheir own declaration, which emphasises that Governments will be successful in preserving and restoring ocean life and the well being of coastal fishing communities only if their action includes the following steps:
1.- Eliminate overcapacity of the fishing fleets as well as harmful subsidies which are key drivers for the current unsustainable situation
2.- Establish and maintain an international network of interconnected representative Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
3.- Follow the best available scientific advice and implement the precautionary approach.
4.- Eliminate destructive fishing gear and practices, including bycatches and wasteful discards
5.- Ensure full traceability of fisheries products in order to allow consumers to make informed choices, as well as to ensure that no IUU caught fish enters the market
6.- Effectively combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, among others by strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance, implementing existing international agreements and regulations and removing financial contributions, assistance and government support to vessels, companies and nationals failing to meet their obligations.
7.- Fill remaining gaps in high seas governance, including through the adoption of an effective international regime which ensures the conservation of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
8.- Ensure that in applying the above measures the needs and rights of small scale fishing communities are taken into account.
Complain about this comment
Simon swede-thanks for the information. it's a relief to know that there has actually been a summit to address this problem. I think that these 8 points are ambitious, but possible.
Hopefully, international politicians can put this optimistic outline into effect and somehow come up with more details/organization to get the ball rolling. The hardest part will probably be number 6- combatting illegal and unregulated fishing. That would require more "water police" to patrol waters, and a lot of money into reforming regulations/operations of the sea. Also, number 8-with all of these large scale reforms, it will certainly be a huge challenge to meet the needs and rights of small scale fishing communities. However, 47 countries is a LOT of countries, this could be the start of something great.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede,
I do not think Britain is 'safer' with Nuclear weapons. The ones who win wars are the ones with the highest tech weapons. Trident is expensive old technology.
Complain about this comment
#104
I disagree that its axiomatic that its the sides with the highest tech weapons which win wars - look at what happened in Vietnam, for one example. Asymmetric warfare has a long history.
My point is more general, namely that attaining security involves more than obtaining weapons. Moreover, increased weaponisation may decrease security by heightening tensions.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede,
First get global government right. Until good government is achieved we are no better than our prehistoric ancestors who had to use weapons to survive. I love your idea of reducing weapons but unfortunately others do not have the same idea as you and will take it as a sign of weakness. Macrocosm, microcosm, study the politics of the alley and the school playground to get an idea of what I am talking about.
Complain about this comment
#106 Grannie, if you only study conflicts then you'll conclude that their is only one way to be safe. If you look beyond your alley and playing fields, you will discover that there are other ways as well.
Complain about this comment
I forgot to say...I do not think it is 'worthy' to have weapons of mass destruction, rather the antithesis.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede,
When you refer to "your alley and playing fields" should you not refer to them as "our" alleys and playing fields because as far as I am aware, we are from the same planet? If what you are suggesting is that of narrow peripheral vision, the supposition would be incorrect, as we are here to learn from each other, are we not?
We both agree that increasing weaponry is abhorrent but what do you suggest as an alternative pathway away from this state? Which literature would you propose that we read?
Complain about this comment
#109 Grannie, I'm suggesting a different frame of reference.
You were addressing the issue from one of weapons and warfare. I prefer to approach it from the perspective of security. One aspect of security is armed conflict, but that is just one aspect.
If you'll pardon the analogy, its a bit like health and illness. If I study illness, I'll focus on disease and disease processes as well as medical interventions. If I focus on health, then disease and medical interventions are only one part of a much broader picture.
There are literally masses of material around, but if I was going to do a search using internet I'd recommend using "security" as a key-word, rather than "war" or "conflict" or "weapons".
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie - nothing wrong with cynicism :o) i don;t think cost has much to do with disarming...in the short term not much to be saved. but whatever the motive, i do believe fewer weapons = more security. the 21st century threats cannot be faced with nuclear weapons, in fact it doesn't matter who has the best technology, in nuclear war everyone loses!
and what are the weapons defending? our right to carry on dismantling the life support systems of the planet, either way we'd lose. if we can't create what Edward W. Said called 'global humanism' it makes little difference and with global humanism we won;t need weapons.....unless we find some aliens to shoot up :o(
i think i may be a pessimistic idealist!
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #110: "I'm suggesting a different frame of reference."
Interesting.
My instant reaction was; where should that stop?
"Security" and "health" are both parts of "well being"
"Well being" is part of "life in general".
"life in general" is part of "civilisation"
"civilisation" is part of "the history of earth"
etc...
A bit extreme maybe.
I agree we should not have "too narrow a scope" but where should we draw the boundaries?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede,
Thank you for that, I will try. As far as I am aware I have NEVER googled WC words. Security suggests cuddly blankets and cute fluffy bunnies. Its all a matter of verisimilitude and I have a habit of being a bit of an iconoclast when it comes to believing contemporary social construct.
Complain about this comment
A strange word just 'popped' into my head. I had no idea of the meaning of the word, but brains being what brains are, chose it out of a lifetime of stimulus to be retrieved to explain something. The word verisimilitude is directly associated with Karl Popper and if I had been asked to be directed to a reliable philosophical mind, it would be Karl Popper.
Complain about this comment
#102 simon-swede, "While welcoming the recognition that action is needed...did not indicate if and when this new commitment will be turned into effective action as concrete measures and a time-table are missing."
International conferences, treaties, goals, etc. are wonderful in their intention, but there is a complete lack of international enforcement. I'm sorry to be pessimistic, but you could have 100 countries agree to such terms and still not see any serious action.
It is simply good, smart politics for any nation to agree to some "green" standards these days. And even if many of those countries sincerely want to initiate some change, the high cost of such measures, and precedence of other, more pressing issues to the people will render their good intentions fruitless.
Complain about this comment
#80 hiker6, thank you for your insightful, practical response. I believe that an education barrier is the seminal obstruction in seeing serious global change with environmental issues. The fact remains that for most of the developing world, protecting the environment is not a priority- rather, there is a daily struggle for people to find food and water for their families. Education through volunteer organizations and NGOs about sustainable farming, birth control methods, etc. is our greatest potential tool in beginning to address global environmental issues.
For those of us with the means to do so, we should begin with reforming ourselves. The only entity you can guarantee control over is yourself, so before you look to change things on a larger scale, make sure you are doing everything in your power to live as sustainably as you can.
Complain about this comment
#116 steveforchange
I don't fully agree with you when you write "for most of the developing world, protecting the environment is not a priority".
If you mean "protecting the environment" in a narrow sense - conservation, for example - then yes, I think you are right.
However, there is intense effort and considerable concern in developing countries about environmental protection, except it might not be called that. This relates to concerns about such things as access to water, timber, food, etc; and the impacts of development (e.g. on water, air quality, control over access to natural resources, degradation of agricultural land, etc). There is increasing concern in places like China too over the ecological costs of rapid development. There are concerns that are more regional or international in scope also, such as control over natural resurces coupled to international trade (mining, fishing, timber). Many of these debates take place in the context the sectors they concern (urban development, farming, fisheries, forestry, power/water) rather than "environment", or are framed in political/rights or economic debates, but this does not make them any less "environmental" issues.
Complain about this comment
#115 steveforchange, I agree in part. What I think you are missing is that the dynamic chnages when countries realise that lack of enforcement of international standards is causing them to "suffer". In fisheries, there is increasing recognition, for example, that overfishing in general is causing enormous economic losses (in addition to the direct threat it poses to fish stocks). IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing is a particular example where states may be willing to enact and enforce rules that actually make a difference.
Complain about this comment
#117 simon-swede, it is true what you say about there being intense concern in developing countries about environmental issues such as access to water, timber, and food. In fact, that was precisely my point. However, concern is one thing, and actual effective problem solving is quite another. What separate the former and latter are education and capital, which so many people in developing countries lack. If people knew how to preserve local fresh water sources or farm sustainably while achieving the same yields as using cheap pesticides, and had the funds and equipment to do these things, they would. The fact of the matter is that day to day survival is a priority, so it is common for the environment to suffer in the long run for short term utilization.
Of course, there is also the problem of corruption and lack of representation of the public concern in governments of developing nations. That is why NGOs and volunteer organizations are so imperative to helping people in developing nations sustain their livelihoods in ways that are environmentally friendly and cost effective.
As for China...it is saddening that it wasn't until the Beijing Olympics in the context of a "green" international political climate that China began to consider environmental concerns like air quality. For generations before that, millions of Chinese suffered in Beijing and surrounding areas because of poor air quality, but nothing was done until the health of international athletes was at stake, in a global spotlight.
Complain about this comment
117 simon-swede—you had it right on the ball when you disagreed with the environmental problems being neglected in developing countries. The environment can be studied in its relation social justice perspectives. Steveforchange think about it…If a developing country was able to start fixing its social injustices, its environmental problems would also start to become better. With access to quality food and water, there is a prerequisite to sustainably manage water and food resources, as well as keep them safeguarded against pollutants.
In China, there is the issue of the Three Gorges Dam. One probable reason of canceling the project is due to environmental social injustice. Along with extreme sedimentation upstream and erosion downstream, over 5 million people suffer displacement issues because of this electricity generating plant. This is an environmental concern that takes the form of a social injustice. The environment is looked at in its relation to humans. This may not satisfy the deep ecologists of the world, but it is a realistic approach.
118 simon-swede—I enjoyed this post. There are economic losses and crisises beyond our wildest thoughts that will occur if bottom trawling continues to happen. I am fairly surprised that overfishing and the extreme problems with bottom trawling we not emphasized more in this article. Trawling destroys the ocean floor! Here is an excerpt from an essay that I read that the Patagonia Company published a few years ago.
“…The issue of bottom trawling. The practice of dragging heavy nets across the seafloor in order to maximize a catch of fish kills many organisms and damages habitats. Boulders, encrusted with living organisms that in turn provide habitat for smaller, more delicate species, are often overturned or buried. Mud bottoms are plowed up, disturbing the incredible variety of filter-feeding and burrowing creatures that inhabit them. One study shows that bottom trawling reduces biodiversity by 50 percent. Some of the impact is short-lived, but much of it, such as damage to slow-growing cold-water corals, may last for decades.”
To read the rest of the essay and learn about the campaign, visit http://www.patagonia.com/web/eu/patagonia.go?assetid=9131.
A few years ago I talked to Kathleen Frith from Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment about the vast problems that will occur as a result of overfishing. What happened to the precautionary principle? Tuna stocks have been depleted 90% over the last 50 years. Read an article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6108414.stm to learn that it is estimated that we only have 50 years worth of seafood left to eat. Not only do the economies of entire countries depend on the fishing industry, but so do the diets of all those people. The nutritional qualities of fish not only sustain these people but seafood promotes brain development and helps to treat heart diseases, depression, anxiety, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, eye disorders, and acne. What will happen to people when there is no more seafood? I think that governments need to step up and set some overfishing laws, ban bottom trawling, and stop the subsidizing of the fishing industry!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS