The consequences of buying fish

poisonated

I like eating cod personally speaking.

Your Face

Netflix documentaries I take with a grain of sea salt.
However I agree assertion that our oceans are being ravaged by massive over-fishing by big business. Those factory ships are grotesque.
Also there no doubt that these type practices have a negative effect on the livelihoods of small local fishermen.

Low cost food is built into the model of the EU. We subsidise the production and delivery of it. If you want to see what food would actually cost if we weren't into mass production, optimised supply chains, and downward pressure on producers then visit your local farmers market, artisan deli, or even the posh food in Dunnes. A chicken should never cost 2.99, 500g of prawns should never cost the same, and you really shouldn't be eating smoked salmon that's farmed in Scotland.

Widdensushi

fullstop wrote: »

Jesus Christ if that’s your takeaway from that I despair.

It's a mishmash of an article, he says they saw a monofilament net so he wants bigger boats banned, I doubt if he saw a monofilament net inshore it has anything to do with an over fifty foot boat, he probably knows that but strategically left it out to push an agenda.

fullstop

Widdensushi wrote: »

It's a mishmash of an article, he says they saw a monofilament net so he wants bigger boats banned, I doubt if he saw a monofilament net inshore it has anything to do with an over fifty foot boat, he probably knows that but strategically left it out to push an agenda.

The agenda of highlighting that the oceans are being cleaned out? Yeah, awful agenda.

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

Low cost food is built into the model of the EU. We subsidise the production and delivery of it. If you want to see what food would actually cost if we weren't into mass production, optimised supply chains, and downward pressure on producers then visit your local farmers market, artisan deli, or even the posh food in Dunnes. A chicken should never cost 2.99, 500g of prawns should never cost the same, and you really shouldn't be eating smoked salmon that's farmed in Scotland.

I dont eat those things for the sake of my own health, let alone the environmental damage and the animal ethics it violates, I would absolutely devour a bullock or a lamb though.

malinheader

Watched seaspiracy yesterday and coming from a fishing background nothing much about the way the sustainable fishing or dolphin friendly labels were being misused surprised me. Also watching the show I could see alot of resemblance to what is happening in my own area. Truth is that there will be nothing done until it's to late.

suicide_circus

We have 10 years to stop global warming

The next 2 weeks are crucial

The end is nigh

grassylawn

I imagine that at some point eating fish will become uncommon because of increasing exposure to dangerous substances and possibly financial cost. Mercury and plastic contaminate fish we eat. If we deplete fish stocks then they will be scarcer and therefore cost more.

fiacha

jcon1913 wrote: »

Has anyone watched ‘Seaspiracy’ on Netflix? Its a very interesting documentary about the oceans and specifically about fish and the damage the commercial fishing industry is doing

I gave up after 25 minutes. It reminded me of the trashy reality tv shows you get on Discovery channel nowadays (Deadliest Catch / Gold rush etc). Peaking around corners and sneaking out of hotels, constant danger... Staged rubbish.

The shock TV angle really took away from what could have been a very informative documentary.

Gradius

An interesting debate I had centred on the following; why should countries not share everything?

One the one side, you had the argument that it's unfair that X country is mostly desert, while Y country is lush and has everything. Therefore, they should be happy to share everything, even if it's really unbalanced.

The winning argument, by a country mile, was that each country should make do with what they have. It seems unfair at first, and there must be certain exceptions, but it is the very cornerstone of sustainability.

In terms of fish, the likes of Thailand and China wouldn't be setting up those ridiculous disease incubators of multi farms, where animals in kept in cages over fish farms, shyt down into the water where the fish eat it. Lovely, but a lot of that is based on export.

You know what, this is too long to explain. Short version: fish don't have fingers.

kildare lad

Gradius wrote: »

An interesting debate I had centred on the following; why should countries not share everything?

One the one side, you had the argument that it's unfair that X country is mostly desert, while Y country is lush and has everything. Therefore, they should be happy to share everything, even if it's really unbalanced.

The winning argument, by a country mile, was that each country should make do with what they have. It seems unfair at first, and there must be certain exceptions, but it is the very cornerstone of sustainability.

In terms of fish, the likes of Thailand and China wouldn't be setting up those ridiculous disease incubators of multi farms, where animals in kept in cages over fish farms, shyt down into the water where the fish eat it. Lovely, but a lot of that is based on export.

You know what, this is too long to explain. Short version: fish don't have fingers.

We're not to environmentally sound either with salmon farms off our own coast . Not only is it detrimental to our wild salmon stocks returned to spawn , which end up covered in lice from the farmed fish . They take thousands of tonnes of wild fish and turn them into pellets to feed the farmed fish. Resulting in less fish for wild fish to feed on . Farmed salmon are fed antibiotics and colourings to make their flesh look like wild salmon , and yet they try and pass salmon off as some healthy wonder food . I wouldn't eat it if you paid me . They need to ban trawling for fish for 4 years and let fish stocks return . Then ban supertrawlers , make the quotas smaller and fish slightly more expensive . When you see 5 cormorants on your local canal everyday during winter you know something's seriously wrong at sea

Dyr

jcon1913 wrote: »

Has anyone watched ‘Seaspiracy’ on Netflix? Its a very interesting documentary about the oceans and specifically about fish and the damage the commercial fishing industry is doing

Do you get your information on topics from Netflix documentarys?

The cartoon channel would be a better bet.

CosmicFool

Bambi wrote: »

Do you get your information on topics from Netflix documentarys?

The cartoon channel would be a better bet.

The facts don't lie. Over fishing is going to destroy our oceans but I'm guessing you don't care.

malinheader

kildare lad wrote: »

We're not to environmentally sound either with salmon farms off our own coast . Not only is it detrimental to our wild salmon stocks returned to spawn , which end up covered in lice from the farmed fish . They take thousands of tonnes of wild fish and turn them into pellets to feed the farmed fish. Resulting in less fish for wild fish to feed on . Farmed salmon are fed antibiotics and colourings to make their flesh look like wild salmon , and yet they try and pass salmon off as some healthy wonder food . I wouldn't eat it if you paid me . They need to ban trawling for fish for 4 years and let fish stocks return . Then ban supertrawlers , make the quotas smaller and fish slightly more expensive . When you see 5 cormorants on your local canal everyday during winter you know something's seriously wrong at sea

Totally agree about the salmon farming but not a hope in hell of trawling being banned for even 1 week. Quotas are a farce and are not even a guide of how much fish is taken.
I would say 4 times as much fish are dumped at sea as is recorded. I myself think the only way to have any chance of stocks replenishing is special closed areas where fish can spawn and habitat remains untouched. This might even be to late. But another big thing is the areas that need protecting are the spawning grounds.

Gradius

kildare lad wrote: »

We're not to environmentally sound either with salmon farms off our own coast . Not only is it detrimental to our wild salmon stocks returned to spawn , which end up covered in lice from the farmed fish . They take thousands of tonnes of wild fish and turn them into pellets to feed the farmed fish. Resulting in less fish for wild fish to feed on . Farmed salmon are fed antibiotics and colourings to make their flesh look like wild salmon , and yet they try and pass salmon off as some healthy wonder food . I wouldn't eat it if you paid me . They need to ban trawling for fish for 4 years and let fish stocks return . Then ban supertrawlers , make the quotas smaller and fish slightly more expensive . When you see 5 cormorants on your local canal everyday during winter you know something's seriously wrong at sea

If the sea borders of Ireland were kept to Ireland, no problems in sustainability.

It's the idea that some dude in a volcano in honduras has a "right" to a Dublin prawn.

The idea of equality in a finite world is very much flawed. It has been paired with globalism, basically, like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Destructive.

If there are 1 billion people in a country that can only sustain 200 million people, you know what needs to happen.

There shouldn't be an automatic expectation that an Indonesian can go frollicking with the goats of Connemara just because it's there.

Just so, I can't go scuba-diving in carribbean blue waters kicking the mickey off clownfish anytime I feel like it, and that's life.

A severe reeling in of ordinary expectations is the only way forward. Its not all negatives and losses to achieve it, plenty of improvements go hand in hand too.

kildare lad

malinheader wrote: »

Totally agree about the salmon farming but not a hope in hell of trawling being banned for even 1 week. Quotas are a farce and are not even a guide of how much fish is taken.
I would say 4 times as much fish are dumped at sea as is recorded. I myself think the only way to have any chance of stocks replenishing is special closed areas where fish can spawn and habitat remains untouched. This might even be to late. But another big thing is the areas that need protecting are the spawning grounds.

It needs to be done though . You've the chinese Hoovering everything up now aswell even in protected waters , we've hundreds of boats raping our own waters. It's nothing but pure greed. Fish stocks can replenish quick enough if they're left alone for a few years. You'd think with all the technology they have on boats they'd be able to bring a fish rod or an underwater camera and see what type of fish it before they net them out if the water only to dump them cos theyre worthless. Sure 2 million tonnes of fish every year goes towards the cat food industry . It's a joke. Then you've cod liver oil , krill oil, fish pellets to feed farmed fish, everything marine life needs to survive were hoovering it up quicker than they reproduce


https://www.smh.com.au/environment/cats-eating-into-world-fish-stocks-20080825-425x.html

My uncle told me that in the 50s , the sea would be black with mackerel , shoal 2 miles long. It kept everyone going in the local community when money was scare. I went up to the sea 2 years ago and caught 2 mackerel over 3 days . Imagine if mackerel went extinct , it's not that far fetched when you see what's going on.

kildare lad

Gradius wrote: »

If the sea borders of Ireland were kept to Ireland, no problems in sustainability.

It's the idea that some dude in a volcano in honduras has a "right" to a Dublin prawn.

The idea of equality in a finite world is very much flawed. It has been paired with globalism, basically, like a sheep in wolf's clothing. Destructive.

If there are 1 billion people in a country that can only sustain 200 million people, you know what needs to happen.

There shouldn't be an automatic expectation that an Indonesian can go frollicking with the goats of Connemara just because it's there.

Just so, I can't go scuba-diving in carribbean blue waters kicking the mickey off clownfish anytime I feel like it, and that's life.

A severe reeling in of ordinary expectations is the only way forward. Its not all negatives and losses to achieve it, plenty of improvements go hand in hand too.

As we're part of the EU so they're allowed to fish our waters. Sure they caught a spanish trawler with a tonne of shark fins a few years ago . I dread to think of all the ones they don't catch .

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/naval-service-detains-vessel-with-tonne-of-shark-fins-on-board-1.3617293

Eric Cartman

CosmicFool wrote: »

The facts don't lie. Over fishing is going to destroy our oceans but I'm guessing you don't care.

absolutely, which is why we need to ban super trawlers from Irish waters and restore exclusive fishing rights for countries in the EU , countries should stick to their own waters to support the industry.

whisky_galore

CosmicFool wrote: »

Wondering how many people making jokes on here have actually watched it? If life in our oceans depletes we're ****ed. 85% of the world's oxegen comes from the oceans.

Ffs there's enough depressing shyte going on without adding to it.

NIMAN

I watched that documentary on Netflix last night, and despite the guy and the style being incredibly grating, if 5% of what he says is true, fishing is a MAJOR issue.

Funny it never seems to be raised much, but we hear about the plastic straws all the time.

kildare lad

The funny thing is most people will complain and say it's cruel that someone could shoot a deer or a pheasant to eat . Whereas they're ok with eating fish that are squashed together as it's netted out of the water. Then left to asphyxiate and die on the boat.

malinheader

kildare lad wrote: »

It needs to be done though . You've the chinese Hoovering everything up now aswell even in protected waters , we've hundreds of boats raping our own waters. It's nothing but pure greed. Fish stocks can replenish quick enough if they're left alone for a few years. You'd think with all the technology they have on boats they'd be able to bring a fish rod or an underwater camera and see what type of fish it before they net them out if the water only to dump them cos theyre worthless. Sure 2 million tonnes of fish every year goes towards the cat food industry . It's a joke. Then you've cod liver oil , krill oil, fish pellets to feed farmed fish, everything marine life needs to survive were hoovering it up quicker than they reproduce


https://www.smh.com.au/environment/cats-eating-into-world-fish-stocks-20080825-425x.html

My uncle told me that in the 50s , the sea would be black with mackerel , shoal 2 miles long. It kept everyone going in the local community when money was scare. I went up to the sea 2 years ago and caught 2 mackerel over 3 days . Imagine if mackerel went extinct , it's not that far fetched when you see what's going on.

Sadly everyone knows what needs to be done but sadly even our own government and fishing industry representatives are all happy to turn a blind eye.
In my own area the stocks have depleted 90% since the 80s. I went to numerous meetings to see what could be implemented to help conserve stocks but sadly getting fishermen to agree on regulations is a non runner and as for our industry representatives, well to tell you the truth alot of them couldn't tell a cod from a haddock let alone understand how much of a decline has happened in 40 years.

kildare lad

malinheader wrote: »

Sadly everyone knows what needs to be done but sadly even our own government and fishing industry representatives are all happy to turn a blind eye.
In my own area the stocks have depleted 90% since the 80s. I went to numerous meetings to see what could be implemented to help conserve stocks but sadly getting fishermen to agree on regulations is a non runner and as for our industry representatives, well to tell you the truth alot of them couldn't tell a cod from a haddock let alone understand how much of a decline has happened in 40 years.

That doesn't surprise me , but they'll have no business in 10 or 20 years time unless we start eating jellyfish whose numbers are exploding lol . Over population, over consumption, greed , pollution is what's killing the planet . It's gonna be some planet in 50 years time . Maybe the film Mad Max isn't that far fetched ... lol

Great thread OP. Just because it is depressing to hear does not mean we shouldn't hear it - as a species we are selfish, short-sighted and willfully ignorant. People in the recent past blocked out thoughts about the external consequences of endless economic growth ie. using up finite fossil fuels, environmental damage, destruction of ecosystems, species extinction, permanent loss of topsoil. We've already overshot the population - the current population can only be sustained using temporarily available energy sources and loss of topsoil coupled with climate change will make it harder to grow food.

What do we expect? To sustain a population in the billions indefinitely? .. or how long? Thousands of years, hundreds? World population of our ancestors was in the low hundreds of thousands for tens of thousands of years - think a few centimetres versus 780 metres (representing 7.8 billion people).

So imagine having time on the x-axis, with centuries measured by centimeters (with 10,000 years being a metre) and population on the y-axis (with 1 cm = 100,000 people).
Start 10 metres back at 100,000 years ago and proceed forward through the centuries.
The population of hominins as you proceed through the centuries on the x-axis fluctuates in the first few cm on the y-axis, gradually increasing to about 5 cm on the y-axis by 20,000 years ago (500,000 people) and 60 cm by 10,000 years ago (6 million). Proceeding through the final 10,000 years towards today sees the population rise from 6 cm to 30 metres (300 million people) by 1000 AD.
This then baloons up to 780 metres over the final 10 cm on the x-axis and is still growing today

Our population has been absolutely consuming this planet in the past few centuries and in the past few decades especially. We are a mass extinction event observing itself. How many more cm on that x-axis can we continue "economic growth" by extracting resources from planet and causing extremely undesirable knock-on effects which damage us, our descendants and other life. Another century or two of billions of human beings demanding a high standard of living will punish our species for our inability to rein in our appetites. Also, it doesn't seem as if people seem happier in proportion to their consumption of resources - once people have a certain material standard of living assured, the presence of absence of other factors serve to determine how content they are with life.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Great thread OP. Just because it is depressing to hear does not mean we shouldn't hear it - as a species we are selfish, short-sighted and willfully ignorant. People in the recent past blocked out thoughts about the external consequences of endless economic growth ie. using up finite fossil fuels, environmental damage, destruction of ecosystems, species extinction, permanent loss of topsoil. We've already overshot the population - the current population can only be sustained using temporarily available energy sources and loss of topsoil coupled with climate change will make it harder to grow food.

What do we expect? To sustain a population in the billions indefinitely? .. or how long? Thousands of years, hundreds? World population of our ancestors was in the low hundreds of thousands for tens of thousands of years - think a few centimetres versus 780 metres (representing 7.8 billion people).

Best of luck lecturing people to stop riding and squeezing out babies.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Best of luck lecturing people to stop riding and squeezing out babies.

I personally try not to worry about it all. Each of us is one person out of 7.8 billion - Like 1 milimetre compared to 7,800 km (distance from Dublin to China). Even people in the positions of highest influence don't have that much power to turn the tide on all of this. It is a disaster already unfolding and all we can do to feel any sense of agency to mitigate the situation is rein in our own levels of consumption and wastage of energy and resources as much as we feel willing to. It's becoming uneconomical to have children now in any case - hard to tell if this state of affairs is an intended goal from some supranational authority or just a coincidence; either way, the planet needs to see the birth rate continue to decline for the next few centuries.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's becoming uneconomical to have children now in any case

For middle Ireland it is, not the case for everyone everywhere.
And even when it is uneconomical they have a heap of kids anyway. Because tradition.

Gradius

whisky_galore wrote: »

For middle Ireland it is, not the case for everyone everywhere.
And even when it is uneconomical they have a heap of kids anyway. Because tradition.

Not to belittle Irish environmental efforts, but it is all a bit silly on the scale of things.

We pay for plastic bags and are busy sorting jars from cans and fuel taxes and....MEANWHILE the United States and China are essentially pumping out enough shyte that every year of Irish effort is negated in 1 second by them.

There's a powerful argument to be had about the use of nuclear weapons on overpopulated, unsustainable countries. The effect of the fallout would likely be far more beneficial than not using them.

Countries with more than 100 million people need reducing, not miniscule countries with 4 million.

kildare lad

Gradius wrote: »

Not to belittle Irish environmental efforts, but it is all a bit silly on the scale of things.

We pay for plastic bags and are busy sorting jars from cans and fuel taxes and....MEANWHILE the United States and China are essentially pumping out enough shyte that every year of Irish effort is negated in 1 second by them.

There's a powerful argument to be had about the use of nuclear weapons on overpopulated, unsustainable countries. The effect of the fallout would likely be far more beneficial than not using them.

Countries with more than 100 million people need reducing, not miniscule countries with 4 million.

I was watching the NBA last year and the ads came on . This lovely ford pick up truck was being advertised. It was a 6 litre truck . I couldn't believe it who needs a 6 litre pick up . And a shxt load of americans drive big pick ups . No wonder they invade everywhere looking for oil. The top two polluters are the yanks and china. Maybe if the two of them went to war they'd be doing the planet a favour

kildare lad

whisky_galore wrote: »

Best of luck lecturing people to stop riding and squeezing out babies.

Cut the mickey money down to zero and no free apartment/ gaf and it might

whisky_galore

Gradius wrote: »

Not to belittle Irish environmental efforts, but it is all a bit silly on the scale of things.

We pay for plastic bags and are busy sorting jars from cans and fuel taxes and....MEANWHILE the United States and China are essentially pumping out enough shyte that every year of Irish effort is negated in 1 second

I think it's backwards we are going here.
So-called green wave and all the kiddies Greta cheerleading has been forgotten, I see rubbish being fcuked out of peoples' cars everyday.
I see the rubbish left by the "Greta generation" after every weekend. People have learned nothing.

Thelonious Monk

Gradius wrote: »

Not to belittle Irish environmental efforts, but it is all a bit silly on the scale of things.

We pay for plastic bags and are busy sorting jars from cans and fuel taxes and....MEANWHILE the United States and China are essentially pumping out enough shyte that every year of Irish effort is negated in 1 second by them.

There's a powerful argument to be had about the use of nuclear weapons on overpopulated, unsustainable countries. The effect of the fallout would likely be far more beneficial than not using them.

Countries with more than 100 million people need reducing, not miniscule countries with 4 million.

Well really it's a global problem so it's per capita that matters. Currently Ireland pollutes more per capita than China, and your average European. For now, the world would be in a better place if rich countries stopped having babies, as we are the ones fuelling Chinese tat factories and consuming crazy amounts of stuff per person.
I read somewhere that one American consumes as much as 300 Bangladeshis, so we can't just put our heads in the sand and say "Blah blah India China" when we're consuming stuff from all over the planet.

Thelonious Monk

whisky_galore wrote: »

I think it's backwards we are going here.
So-called green wave and all the kiddies Greta cheerleading has been forgotten, I see rubbish being fcuked out of peoples' cars everyday.
I see the rubbish left by the "Greta generation" after every weekend. People have learned nothing.

I very much doubt it is kids interested in green issues that are the ones throwing rubbish around, not all kids are idiots.

grassylawn

Bangladesh has the worst air pollution in the world, which equates to substantial emissions surely. Their low levels of consumption is driven by the fact that they are generally poor. Bangladesh isn't a model for living.

I don't like litter, but the excessive focus on it at the expense of things like air pollution annoys me. Where I live littering is seen as a massive sin, while burning rubbish goes without comment, along with smoky fuel and backyard burning of garden waste.

Some litter can be recycled, and that is where the environmental impact ends. It is not in the same ballpark as burning rubbish. But people care more about litter because makes the place look less respectable.

Gradius

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well really it's a global problem so it's per capita that matters. Currently Ireland pollutes more per capita than China, and your average European. For now, the world would be in a better place if rich countries stopped having babies, as we are the ones fuelling Chinese tat factories and consuming crazy amounts of stuff per person.
I read somewhere that one American consumes as much as 300 Bangladeshis, so we can't just put our heads in the sand and say "Blah blah India China" when we're consuming stuff from all over the planet.

Per capital doesn't matter when you're talking about millions versus billions of people.

Ireland, roughly, produces about 14 tonnes per capital.

China produces about 9 tonnes per capital.

Looking at just per capita it doesn't look so bad. But that's mad.

China has, what, 300 times as many people. Let's equalise that...

Ireland is at 13 tonnes per person, while China's equivalent number of people is producing 3900 tonnes. 4 million chinese people in the world is plenty. Same for every other country.

In other words...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xqO4QZGZok

jimmycrackcorm

grassylawn wrote: »

Bangladesh has the worst air pollution in the world, which equates to substantial emissions surely. Their low levels of consumption is driven by the fact that they are generally poor. Bangladesh isn't a model for living.

I don't like litter, but the excessive focus on it at the expense of things like air pollution annoys me. Where I live littering is seen as a massive sin, while burning rubbish goes without comment, along with smoky fuel and backyard burning of garden waste.

Some litter can be recycled, and that is where the environmental impact ends. It is not in the same ballpark as burning rubbish. But people care more about litter because makes the place look less respectable.

If you burn stuff then a lot will get recycled via C02 absorption (obviously not in an environment where there is an excess such as in Bangladesh), but littering doesn't go away like that.

Light a fire while camping - it'll get absorbed - leave your litter - it stays.

Thelonious Monk

Gradius wrote: »

Per capital doesn't matter when you're talking about millions versus billions of people.

Ireland, roughly, produces about 14 tonnes per capital.

China produces about 9 tonnes per capital.

Looking at just per capita it doesn't look so bad. But that's mad.

Well if the whole world needs to get the act together, the average Irish person will have to give up a lot more than the average Chinese person. We are part of the EU which is 500 million people, surely all EU citizens needs to reduce their footprint greatly, regardless of what China does?

Gradius

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well if the whole world needs to get the act together, the average Irish person will have to give up a lot more than the average Chinese person. We are part of the EU which is 500 million people, surely all EU citizens needs to reduce their footprint greatly, regardless of what China does?

Grand job. Lose around 800 million chinese people and they'll be tied with Europe, then we can go from there.

What are they all doing anyway?

Actually, make that 900 million people. And that's just to equal the population of the EU, in essentially the same size landmass.

Thelonious Monk

Gradius wrote: »

Grand job. Lose around 800 million chinese people and they'll be tied with Europe, then we can go from there.

What are they all doing anyway?

Actually, make that 900 million people. And that's just to equal the population of the EU, in essentially the same size landmass.

well I think a lot of what they're doing is producing stuff for the Western market that is outsourced to them by Western countries for cheap labour and resources.

Gradius

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

well I think a lot of what they're doing is producing stuff for the Western market that is outsourced to them by Western countries for cheap labour and resources.

I'm sure they'll get on just fine with 900 million less people.

Less cheaply made crap is good for the environment, less people is good for the environment,.

I, personally, could do with one less global pandemic right now too, and even less so in the future.

Win, win, win.

Thelonious Monk

I'm not really following you with the reduction of 900 million people.
Of course less crap is better for the environment, but we'd have to do with a lot less that costs a lot more if we kept our business in Europe instead. Which really is how we should be doing things, for environmental reasons and security.

grassylawn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you burn stuff then a lot will get recycled via C02 absorption (obviously not in an environment where there is an excess such as in Bangladesh), but littering doesn't go away like that.

Light a fire while camping - it'll get absorbed - leave your litter - it stays.

You don't seem to understand the term carbon emissions. It refers to the release of carbon into the atmosphere. This is literally what you are doing when you burn something - you are releasing its carbon into the atmosphere.

Yes litter stays - that is exactly my point - it is not necessarily doing any actual harm beyond looking untidy.

Now someone will respond without the context of my previous post and tell me that littering isn't nice.

fullstop

Gradius wrote: »

I'm sure they'll get on just fine with 900 million less people.

Less cheaply made crap is good for the environment, less people is good for the environment,.

I, personally, could do with one less global pandemic right now too, and even less so in the future.

Win, win, win.

So do we just organise a cull, and once 900 million of them are dead we get on with things, or what? What’s the proposed method of execution? 900 million bullets would be costly

malinheader

Not surprising that conservation or sustainability measures are seldom achieved. Observing the way this thread has gone it reminds me of how alot of meetings ended as one side state unless someone else in a different sector does something were going to do nothing so it's back to square one and nothing is done.

grassylawn

malinheader wrote: »

Not surprising that conservation or sustainability measures are seldom achieved. Observing the way this thread has gone it reminds me of how alot of meetings ended as one side state unless someone else in a different sector does something were going to do nothing so it's back to square one and nothing is done.

That's why states signing up to agreements like the Kyoto Protocol is fundamental. It doesn't go far enough, but it is the only type of thing that will work. State-level regulation is the only realistic solution because there is an obvious conflict of interest in expecting industries to be self-regulating. International agreements are the only realistic way to get states to regulate their own industry instead of viewing such a thing as putting themselves at competitive disadvantage.

But it's not working. The common problem is that business has too much influence over the state and the state is too corrupt.

How can that be changed on a massive scale in a relatively short time-frame? I imagine only calamity would have enough impact to cause it.

Getting humans to stop eating animal, bird, and fish based proteins is a waste of time. Not going to happen for the majority of people. Mainly because it's utterly delicious, and secondly because people don't like being lectured to by extremists.

What is achievable is getting people to eat less of it, eating better quality meat, and putting an emphasis on eating locally grown food. That currently costs more to do, so we need to make it cheaper.

jcon1913

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Getting humans to stop eating animal, bird, and fish based proteins is a waste of time. Not going to happen for the majority of people. Mainly because it's utterly delicious, and secondly because people don't like being lectured to by extremists.

What is achievable is getting people to eat less of it, eating better quality meat, and putting an emphasis on eating locally grown food. That currently costs more to do, so we need to make it cheaper.

Well said. EDIT I was on the phone so coming back for a second bite of the cherry.

Many previous posters are adopting the position that its too much to ask people to stop eating fish so lets do nothing.

Its impossible to stop the fishing industry so lets do nothing.

Lets execute people.

Oh what are they telling us is not good for us now? Oh lets do nothing. Oh lets eat cake then.

But change can happen if enough people put pressure on these industries. There are many examples of consumer power forcing changes.

Ideally govts would force changes - like plastic bags disappeared overnight because there was a charge of 20 cents to take one - but thats not going to happen so if people are well-informed and think 'I'm not having that'' then they can, by dint of spending power, force some change.

Widdensushi

World population has gone from 1.8 million in 1918 to 7.8 million in 2018 but we are now forsaking our major food sources, honestly, the best thing that we could do for the planet is wear a condom.

malinheader

A very big problem here is as stated "business funding states and states are corrupt " is a massive problem. Everyone is out to see what is in it for them.

As persuading people to eat local produce is very hard where fish is concerned. Take a crab for example we will say €1per kilo sold locally. €2per kilo exported to France and anywhere from 4 to €6per kilo exported to China. So getting local people to buy crab at 4 times the price doesn't work and the consumption of seafood is very limited in this country compared to say Spain, Italy, China etc.

Another massive problem is people who are making decisions about quotas and regulations should be people with an understanding of how the marine sector works and ideally have experience in this sector. Also the marine sector is split into numerous different sectors ie. Pelagic. Demersal, shellfish and so on so one set of rules won't fit all.

As I have said a massive problem is people making big decisions about fishing matters wouldn't know the first thing about the fishing sector and worse don't care about it either.