Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEurope is propping up an unsustainable industry in an extreme example of short-termism that our children will pay for
All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they've sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?
The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world's fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan, and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets. It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt indifference.
Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No east Asian government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can't afford to sail. The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen - who trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that their industry could collapse within a year. Hurray to that too.
It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The EU has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service - the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999 - but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.
The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry €3.8bn. Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen; but the rest is used to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and landing sites; and to promote and market the catch. Except for the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement, there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue - often falsely - that they are the "stewards of the countryside". But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?
The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it's a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.
But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's Fishing News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government's refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse strings". He also insists that new money is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words no more boats should be taken off the water. Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most short-sighted members?
I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss on Thursday. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more money (€100,000 instead of €30,000 per boat) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking the ecosystem with them.
What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While Spanish, French and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing - knowing that if they are allowed to fish now this will be the last season ever - around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.
Prompted by Young's seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught. Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening of the industry.
Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one.
monbiot.com
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
43 Comments so far
Show Allfishing = killing
Pisces
One bright spot from Peak Oil: With no trawlers or factory ships prowling the world's oceans seeking dwindling stocks, the oceans may ACTUALLY have a chance at recovery...
Killing whales for dogfood. Is nothing sacred?
I love fish but I haven't eaten it for years for this reason.
Why should *I* stop trawling? If I don't do it, everyone else will, anyway - so it will make no difference and I'm the one to go broke. Make all *them* stop trawling first, then talk to me.
I for one, though dismayed, have finally realized what can save us.
Even at our current level of consumption, conservative estimates register at 990 years, without taking into account recycling of resources.
ColdWarBaby47, Nice writing and message.
Even though bees have minimal to do with fish there are very few where i am in Australia,I was also forced to wear a jumper at christmas (middle of summer when its normally in the high 30 degrees).
Real scary sh*t
People are showing few signs of changing their behaviors to more sustainable ways. Despite the warnings, things are still mostly the same. I never lose hope but I believe that it is already too late. It's time to make our peace and live our last days well.
Each morning, weather permitting, sometime between the hours of six and nine I take my morning coffee and sit on the cement slab that passes for a patio in my back yard. The presumptive purpose for this action is to capture a few moments of peace and solitude before the rest of the family rises and the daily activity begins. It is intended to be a brief interlude of freedom from the crass material world of humanity, a moment to commune with nature. I have continued to do this in spite of believing it to be an exercise in futility.
Since my dwelling is less than a mile from a main thoroughfare in the midst of a small but rapidly growing city, the decibel level produced by the ceaseless, ant-like activity of the concrete hive seems to increase daily. Because the neighborhood is an older one, from before the mindless sprawl began, it seems quite a bit more rural than it is. The homes, even though they are duplexes, are spaced a modest distance apart rather than following the new trend of being so close that one needs to turn sideways to walk between. There are a few trees in some yards and, if the house is fortuitously positioned, one can even catch a glimpse of the Sandia mountains on the other side of Albuquerque across the Rio Grande.
Unfortunately, the illusion of rural living ends there. A walk of less than five minutes brings one to the edge of an asphalt river clogged with schools of cacophonous steel fish of every size, color and description. They vomit a continuous torrent of poisonous excreta as they rush and threaten each other with metal-ripping, bone-crushing mass and momentum. Each seems to be utterly consumed by a mission, as salmon fighting the current knowing that reaching their destination is a matter of life and death.
Sitting on a rickety lawn chair, on my humble concrete slab, I must struggle to isolate the forlorn chirping of a few birds hoping to find a full feeder or the frustrated sigh of the mourning, morning breeze trying in vain to replace the noxious fumes with a breath of fresh air.
I was beginning to think I must be insane since I was doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping for a different result. Well, EUREKA, today that hope was realized! Instead of the usual frustration and dismay at the continued, rapid destruction of the world around me, I was presented with something utterly unexpected.
A memory of another morning, distant in time but as vivid as it was unbidden, flooded into my consciousness with a clarity and understanding far greater than I had experienced at the time of the original incident.
Let me take you there.
It was perhaps forty years ago, maybe more, in the last hours before dawn as I walked across a frozen Candlewood Lake in New Milford, Connecticut. My feet swooshed through almost two feet of fresh powder snow, which continued to fall, thick and soft, filling the troughs created by my passage. My breath plumed into the clean, frigid air as large snowflakes touched my face with their cold, moist kisses.
The falling snow whispered sweetly of peace and tranquility, telling me of the world as it had once been, and would one day be again. Except for the gentle sigh of snow caressing the surface of the lake as it fell, I was surrounded by complete silence. Except for the radiance of an incredibly full moon breaking sporadically through the clouds, I was surrounded by primal darkness.
As far as my feeble human senses could reach, the world had been restored to its rightful state. A simple act of nature, a moderate New England snowstorm, had utterly stopped and silenced all the trivial, manic human commotion that usually never ends. For that brief time, in that one place, the Earth commanded the respect that it truly deserves at all times.
In that moment, Earth spoke to me and I understood.
"Respect me," said Earth. "Respect me and I will provide for you. If you fail to do so, if you harm and abuse me, I will stop you."
There was no threat in the tone of that voice. There was only the gentle but implacable certainty of a completely neutral, emotionless, immeasurable power. This power does not judge. It does not punish. It does not reward. It simply is.
I have come to understand what "primitive' peoples experience in their relationship with nature. I can grasp the concept of the Native American who could "hear" what Earth had to say.
Some of us cling to dogmatic religious cults. We use them as a crutch, an excuse for ignoring evil that is being done all around us. We simply shrug our shoulders and leave it to god.
If we would only spend half the reverence, the devotion, on LIFE, on EARTH, that we waste on imagined, fantastical deities of our own creation we would make a quantum leap in awareness, take a huge step toward freedom from our prison of greed and ego.
Some of us worship a material master. We believe that wealth and power to subject others will elevate us to some special place of superiority. We actually imagine that oppression and domination of "lesser" individuals will raise us to godlike status with the power of life and death to be wielded indiscriminately and without conscience.
In both personae, we seem to think that we can consume our Earth with reckless abandon and, somehow, everything will be just fine. There will be no consequences. Either our celestial master will save us from ourselves through divine intervention or our material master will enable us to buy our way out of the fate we have created for ourselves.
Wrong.
FLASH! Late breaking bulletin.
Gaia has announced that further abuse and neglect will no longer be tolerated. If we continue to rape and mindlessly exploit our world we WILL be stopped. We may pray most fervently to our mythical god. We may throw mountains of wealth at a desperate, last-ditch techno-fix. All will be for naught.
Gaia will take, has in fact taken, the poison, filth and destruction we have wrought to use against us and soon we will be no more. No amount of pleading prayer will be heard. No amount of desperate bribery will be accepted.
I think it would be good to find a quiet place, assuming you can, to sit and contemplate what we have done, what we have allowed to be done and what we are NOT doing. Although this is unlikely to affect the outcome of our failure as a species, it may help us to reconcile our fate, to accept it with a degree of grace that might have saved us had we found it sooner.
This much is certain; as we slide into oblivion we must admit the blame is ours alone.
Gaia hypothesis - an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism
http://hubpages.com/_37pula8qw5jpo/hub/A-TIME-FOR-EVERY-SEASON
Dear Huck July 8th, 2008 3:32 pm:
How right you are.
"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin - June 22, 2008 - Rest in peace.
I re-experience the old commercial wherein the Native American (Indian) cries as he takes in the visible trashing of the environment.
That "Indian" was an Italian ........ absolutely no Native American blood in Iron Eyes Cody whatsoever.
Probably there is some lesson in that?
CITIZEN BLOG: I couldn't agree more about the trees!
FRANK1569: I recently bought an old sailboat and with the help of my nature-boy pal (a natural sailor) we've been going off shore (in the Gulf). There are inlets on offshore islands with mangroves and these are literally ABUZZ with bees. He and I laughed at the thought that perhaps the bees have elected to hide off shore to evade their being taken into captivity and slave-labored by so many "bee keepers" that take them from agricultural site to agricultural site, their labors (the fruit thereof) stolen. This assumption that all of the elemental beings of nature exist to serve human beings, and of late, insatiable capitalistic somewhat human beings, is not only erroneous. It's lethal.
Oh it's going to get ugly here on Planet Kapital....
Excerpting from the last paragraph of the article:
"If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one."
Not all human beings - just the "takers" among us: primarily non-tribal, so-called "civilized" humans. It doesn't apply to the old tribal ("leaver") cultures, most of which we have systematically wiped out. Read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" and other books. I cannot recommend them highly enough. They give a really big picture of what's going on with the human condition and how we started down a perilous path some 10,000 years ago, at the dawn of the agricultural revolution, and how we got ourselves into the present situation. All of this represents the same pattern of controlling and dominating nature - taking, taking, taking from it without any moderation or limits. It will take nothing less than a complete change in our way of thinking about how we relate to the Earth to return to our tribal roots as "leavers". Quinn eloquently and powerfully states why this is the only possible conclusion that will keep us from going extinct.
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse. Despite bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003. Freshwater fish stocks have declined by up to 90% in many of the world's largest rivers. The rate of population collapses has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5% of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially. At the current rate of decline global fishing stocks will completely and irreversibly collapse by 2048. Today, 1 billion people rely upon seafood as their only source of protein. The world's population grows at an estimated 1.14% annually; the number of humans increases by 203,800 every day, while 9 million children starve to death annually. The imperative to feed this population will result in the oceans being swept clean of virtually every edible organism from krill to blue whales within the next 50 years. That is provided that there continues to be adequate fuel for the fishing fleets, which appears to be highly unlikely.
For those who eat fish, you can get a guide to sustainable choices, by region at this site:
http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch.asp
Carry one with you and send the link to your friends.
FROM THE ARTICLE: ". But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?"
It could be the 'WTO/ Nafta-ized system' that answers that question. The divide and conquer battle, by cutthroat competitors is the usual prerequisite to collapse of any modern industry. Typically led by non-union labor, with the aid of the many corrupt officials, guided by the smell of greed and unsound management. Amidst a flood of lies and dainty vanities, creating an industrial void that will be filled by a few giant corporate 'leaders of the industry'. Domination goes by many names. Comes in subtle. This is an ancient story, have you read it?
wild
I agree, Kelmer: don't eat fish. Remove the demand, and the fishing boats will vanish. Maybe some of the species would be able to recover...
what gets me is the waste. the waste i have seen (and still see) in markets around the world. the skips of dead fish at the end of the day that hasn't been sold. this has been going on for years and years. and the creatures laid out on slabs that no-one in their right mind would want to eat. greed, greed and more greed. that will be the undoing of us all..........
Strange, isn't it. We saw the miners as enemies and closed down the mines regardless. Easy enough when they are sinister, working class troglodytes with ideas above their lowly station. What, equal rights in a democracy? Not when you work for a wage underground. But trawlermen, like lorry drivers, fox hunters, farmers - they have the glamour of feudal tradition behind them, icons of right wing ideology, the tough individualists who could not give a damn about anyone else and who make their own way, crushing nature when it stands in their path. We can be sure of one thing - the macho pillars of the libertarian right won't be denied. The Spirit of the Nation demands both land and sea be drained of lifeblood till they run dry.
Humm, the dinosaur spieces whose energy was by and large a herd of consumers....constantly devouring forests, and other spieces in their path....now that we are using oil for energy we have become imbued with the same energy...consume, destroy....
My children want to live in a world where there is sustainable forestry
no clear cuts
there are sustainable fishing practices
no trawlers
there is sustainable food production
no pesticides/ more bees/more songbirds
there is abundance of clean energy
solar/wind/wave
there is viable transportation using the above energy...
it can be done...
Another gasping (such an appropriate word) of ecosystems along with trawling of fish is the clearcutting of trees.
gdebs is incorrect, this is not an example of the tragedy of the commons, it is an example of governments failing to take action. Using the metaphor of the commons implies that no action is possible and this is clearly incorrect. Governments have chosen to support their constituents, for a short-term benefit that will have long-term negative consequences, both for the fish, and for the trawlermen that depend on them. How to manage fish has been clear from at least the 1930s, restrict fishing so that only larger fish are caught, minimizing costs and maximizing profits for fishermen. Unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of what it is politically easy to do.
again as I say 'sheeples'
any and all Chink, jap, russian mafia trawlers off Central America will be taken or sunk
only beach launched boats allowed
www.fairtradefish.org
from serious mf 'el gringo'
china japan, stay on your side of pacific and when bushidiots are gone, then you will no longer be allowed to rape USA oceans
I re-experience the old commercial wherein the Native American (Indian) cries as he takes in the visible trashing of the environment. I re-live this experience all of the time. I lived in the country in the early 50s, and was around actual Nature. The contrast is sickening. I am so ashamed of our species!
A hundred years after that rock killed all the dinosaurs things were sustainable as all heck. There were ecological niches all over the place free for the taking by any small mammal that happened to wander by.
It appears to be raining ash here in N. California. D'ya suppose that's a clue?
Them fish is ours; them trees is ours; that oil is ours. Giddyup!
Tragedy of the commons. Since grazing is free, I'll just slip in another cow.
Monbiot's piece is the morality tale of our era--the self interest that (apparently) served us so well in the past is now our undoing. Are we going to get it or descend into chaos?
Unsustainability begets sustainability--imagine that!
and that even before unsustainability makes the dictionary--as someone mentioned above, it is going to be a wild ride!
What is astonishing to me is that a insightful article like this gets scant attention while the rest of the herd supporting Obama offer up the typical Democratic apologetic. Our Earth is being diminished leaving ourselves to ask what will be left for future generations. And the sheeple carry on as if all is well as Obama and the Democratic Party are their personal Saviours. But as this article clearly demonstrates, the Signs of the Times are pointing to a future that will usher in nightmare scenarios, yet know one wants to believe or even acknowledge the sad truth.
The addicts continue to think their habits will be fed and go on without pain. Man, a rude awakening is almost upon us...
Scuttle the fleet. The worlds fisheries should be limited to wooden boats, sail power, hemp lines and sails only and catch by line or dip net only. Bottom trawling should be a reason to have your boat scuttled in such a way as it presents the most hazard to the next trawler.
In ten years there would be more fish than we've seen in the last thirty years in the oceans.
Who says we have to give fishermen free fuel? Do hummer drivers get free fuel too? Farmers? Limo drivers? Mommies with small kids that they need to take to day care in their quad-cab F-250?
MarkMarshall, you are funny, as long as you're serious.
I bet Monbiot gets a LOT of hate mail. (I like to eat fish, but it is too expensive these days, and a lot of the species like orange roughy and swordfish are just in too much danger for me to eat anymore.)
I think Monbiot is precisely correct. The fishing industry would rather destroy the world's fisheries than slow down its extraction of resources. Of course, that is pretty much the same as every other industry out there, isn't it?
Wasn't there some kind of fable about a goose that laid golden eggs?
frank1569: "here in Dallas we have not seen a bee - I mean, not a single, solitary bee - for the second year in a row."
Not one? Wow dude... that's REALLY REALLY bad. If there's no bees, we're screwed.
It really is simply too impossible for most humans to wrap their little minds around the fact that Earth's resources are running out across the board. That only happens in the movies, right?
Not that anyone is paying attention, but here in Dallas we have not seen a bee - I mean, not a single, solitary bee - for the second year in a row. And, of course, there are no flowers to speak of, either, naturally.
Probably no reason to worry...
Dont eat fish,.
Its simple
healthy
let ocean creatures eat from the ocean.
Nuff said.
According to Jevons paradox, there is nothing we can do to prevent the terminal utilization of resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Get ready. It's going to be a rough ride:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
The problem is these oceans ain't been privitised! You gotta get guvment out of it.
Here's an idea: fishers go back to using rowboats and sailboats. And fishing with hooks and lines, and no sonar or spotter-planes to find schools of fish. That would give the fish a fair chance, and it would be affordable regardless of the price of oil. No irony intended. I propose this in all seriousness.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Some campers (and politicians) never learn....don't feed the bears.
As the spigots get turned off, the addicts will thrash and kick with greater vigor.