Earth matters

[pettertb]

I agree, proper regulation on fishing is very important. Killing fish stocks is very very bad, no argument about that.

How about we decommission the boats of people fishing illegally? That would make them quite unable to go on.

I hear the US have a lot of rapid-decommissioning-of-boats-gear

[Montegriffo]

I agree, proper regulation on fishing is very important. Killing fish stocks is very very bad, no argument about that.

How about we decommission the boats of people fishing illegally? That would make them quite unable to go on.

I hear the US have a lot of rapid-decommissioning-of-boats-gear

Trouble with fishing is as the stocks reduce the price goes up (same with oil)
Also it is hard to target individual fish especially when scraping the seabed for flatfish.
More line fishing and fewer massive nets would be a good start.

Doesn't help that they are tasty and good for you.

[Otern]

The "stahp eating meat, think of global change" is obviously a stand-in argument from the PETA "animals have feelings too"-crowd. I always get a bad taste in my mouth when the people that want to ban the keeping of livestock for ethical reasons push the climate in front of them. First I think the metric isn't CO2 per kg, calorie or m2. Its CO2 per dollar. After all, you'll spend that dollar on something else, right? And that something else probably pollutes. But once you start going excessively after meat, because the climate wasn't what you care about after all, then a solid "fuck you" is warranted

This is so damn right.

Really, the most efficient thing we could do for the climate would be to go full DSL, and make every woman a housewife, and every household single income, just to decrease spending on all kinds of stuff.

Also, glad to see you made the jump too.

[Otern]

I agree, proper regulation on fishing is very important. Killing fish stocks is very very bad, no argument about that.

How about we decommission the boats of people fishing illegally? That would make them quite unable to go on.

I hear the US have a lot of rapid-decommissioning-of-boats-gear

Trouble with fishing is as the stocks reduce the price goes up (same with oil)
Also it is hard to target individual fish especially when scraping the seabed for flatfish.
More line fishing and fewer massive nets would be a good start.

Doesn't help that they are tasty and good for you.

Fishing needs to be heavily regulated. This is why it's a great thing the crumpetmunchers lost the Cod War. Iceland got control over large territories, which meant less power to the big pan-European corporations, and the fish stocks went up again. Compare this to the waters controlled by the EU. The EU is too weak, and too easily influenced by large corporations to exploit the waters, which makes exploitation inevitable.

I don't think a full stop on fishing is the right path. Just simply because people will still fish, they'll find loopholes, fish illegally, and evade the regulations. Especially in areas not under control of some nation state. This was the whole problem with Somalia. A weak government made the Somalian waters way too easily accessible for illegal European, Asian and American fishing. And now the sea is dead there.

An independent Scotland would probably manage their fishing in a great way, as long as they were able to keep agriculture and fishing outside EU influence, like we do.

[Montegriffo]

Trouble with that argument is the Brexit campaign stated it would return the quotas to the British parliament hinting that they would increase them to save the fishing industry, I would rather just let the industry fade away. I rarely put fish on my menus and will go into a long rant when someone suggests tinned tuna.

[Otern]

Trouble with that argument is the Brexit campaign stated it would return the quotas to the British parliament hinting that they would increase them to save the fishing industry, I would rather just let the industry fade away. I rarely put fish on my menus and will go into a long rant when someone suggests tinned tuna.

The industry shouldn't fade away. There's lots of cheap food out there, as long as it's managed the right way. But the British parliament are not the right people to manage such a thing. And neither is the European parliament. I have faith in the Scottish though.

Or maybe Iceland should just go Cod War part III, and just annex the North Atlantic

This is also a reason why Shetland and the Faroese should go back to Norway, as not even the Danes can't be trusted with such a responsibility. And Greenland should go back to Iceland. There, North Atlantic solved.

But we're not totally without sin either. As Petter has mentioned, the whole fish farming thing is pretty awful, but it's also exporting more than we're pulling out of the sea. Fish farming could've been solved pretty easily though, by constructing the farms inland, not in contact with the ocean, and managing the waste in a better way than just dumping it in the sea. It could be managed as fertilizer or something. But it will cost more than the way we're doing it now.

[Montegriffo]

The "stahp eating meat, think of global change" is obviously a stand-in argument from the PETA "animals have feelings too"-crowd. I always get a bad taste in my mouth when the people that want to ban the keeping of livestock for ethical reasons push the climate in front of them. First I think the metric isn't CO2 per kg, calorie or m2. Its CO2 per dollar. After all, you'll spend that dollar on something else, right? And that something else probably pollutes. But once you start going excessively after meat, because the climate wasn't what you care about after all, then a solid "fuck you" is warranted

This is so damn right.

Really, the most efficient thing we could do for the climate would be to go full DSL, and make every woman a housewife, and every household single income, just to decrease spending on all kinds of stuff.

Also, glad to see you made the jump too.

Sure, if people ate less meat money saved would be spent on other pollutants. But that's not an argument in favour of meat just one against the skill of environmentalists to get the message over properly.

[Otern]

Sure, if people ate less meat money saved would be spent on other pollutants. But that's not an argument in favour of meat just one against the skill of environmentalists to get the message over properly.

Sorry if this is an inappropriate question, but are you a vegetarian, because of the environmental aspect of meat?

Or did I miss something?

[Montegriffo]

The industry shouldn't fade away. There's lots of cheap food out there, as long as it's managed the right way. But the British parliament are not the right people to manage such a thing. And neither is the European parliament. I have faith in the Scottish though.

Are we still talking about fish or is that an argument about Brexit, if the Scottish leave the UK both halves will be poorer for it.

[Montegriffo]

Sure, if people ate less meat money saved would be spent on other pollutants. But that's not an argument in favour of meat just one against the skill of environmentalists to get the message over properly.

Sorry if this is an inappropriate question, but are you a vegetarian, because of the environmental aspect of meat?

Or did I miss something?

For many reasons but that is definitely one of them. I hate inhumane farming practises but occasionally eat a mouthful of muntjak because I can find no moral reason not to.