SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Total global fish production, including both wild capture fish and aquaculture, reached an all-time high of 154 million tons in 2011, and aquaculture is set to top 60 percent of production by 2020, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) for its Vital Signs Online service. Wild capture was 90.4 million tons in 2011, up 2 percent from 2010. Aquaculture, in contrast, has been expanding steadily for the last 25 years and saw a rise of 6.2 percent in 2011, write report authors Danielle Nierenberg and Katie Spoden.
"Growth in fish farming can be a double-edged sword," said Nierenberg, co-author of the report and Director of Worldwatch's Nourishing the Planet project. "Despite its potential to affordably feed an ever-growing global population, it can also contribute to problems of habitat destruction, waste disposal, invasions of exotic species and pathogens, and depletion of wild fish stock."
Humans ate 130.8 million tons of fish in 2011. The remaining 23.2 million tons of fish went to non-food uses such as fishmeal, fish oil, culture, bait, and pharmaceuticals. The human consumption figure has increased 14.4 percent over the last five years. And consumption of farmed fish has risen tenfold since 1970, at an annual average of 6.6 percent per year. Asia consumes two thirds of the fish caught or grown for consumption.
The fish sector is a source of income and sustenance for millions of people worldwide. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, for every one job in the fish sector, three to four additional jobs are produced in secondary activities, such as fish processing, marketing, maintenance of fishing equipment, and other related industries. And on average each person working in the fish sector is financially responsible for three dependents. In combination, then, jobs in the primary and secondary fish sectors support the livelihoods of 660 million to 820 million people----10-12 percent of global population.
Although Africa is only the fourth largest producer of fish in the world, its water resources are highly sought after by larger, more-competitive fishing trawlers. Extreme overfishing occurs when foreign trawlers buy fishing licenses from African countries for marine water use. In West African waters, foreign trawlers pose a threat because factory ships from the United Kingdom, other countries within the European Union, Russia, and Saudi Arabia can outcompete the technologies used by local fishers. In Senegal, for example, a local fisher can catch a few tons of fish each day in the typical 30-foot pirogue. In contrast, factory ships from industrial countries catch hundreds of tons daily in their 10,000-ton factory ships.
Wild fish stocks are at a dangerously unsustainable level. As of 2009 (the most recent year with data), 57.4 percent of fisheries were estimated to be fully exploited----meaning current catches were at or close to their maximum sustainable yield, with no room for further expansion. Of the remaining fisheries in jeopardy, around 30 percent were deemed overexploited, while a little less than 13 percent were considered to be not fully exploited.
A number of government initiatives give some hope to a future of sustainable fishing. In the United States, the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated that overfished stocks be restored; as of 2012, two-thirds of U.S. stocks are fished sustainably and only 17 percent are fished at overexploited levels. In New Zealand, 69 percent of stocks are above management targets, but Australia only reports 12 percent of stocks at overexploitation levels due to increased government fishery standards.
To maintain the current level of fish consumption in the world, aquaculture will need to provide an additional 23 million tons of farmed fish by 2020. To produce this additional amount, fish farming will also have to provide the necessary feed to grow the omnivorous and carnivorous fish that people want. Aquaculture is being pressured to provide both food and feed because of the oceans' overexploited fisheries.
Continually increasing fish production, from both aquaculture and fisheries, raises many environmental concerns. If aquaculture continues to grow without constraints, it could lead to degradation of land and marine habitats, chemical pollution from fertilizers and antibiotics, the negative impacts of invasive species, and a lessened fish resistance to disease due to close proximity and intensive farming practices. To prevent these problems, policymakers, fishers, and consumers need to find alternative sources for fish feed, combat illegal fishing, encourage more-sustainable practices in aquaculture, acknowledge the potential effects of climate change on the oceans, and think critically about what and how much fish to consume.
Further highlights from the report:
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
"We're here for you and your children," one campaigner told a police officer who was arresting her. "We're here for our world."
Closing out a "historic" summer of civil disobedience—but with no plans to back off their demands that Wall Street divest from planet-heating fossil fuels—the "Summer of Heat" campaign blockaded the entrance of Citibank's headquarters in New York for an hour on Thursday.
At the 32nd protest held by Stop the Money Pipeline, New York Communities for Change, and other groups since June 10, organizers said 50 people were arrested, including climate scientists and an advocate dressed as an orca—a reference to numerous cases of whales ramming and sinking luxury yachts in recent years.
"The water is too damn hot!" said the costumed protester. "Stop funding fossil fuels."
Summer of Heat has targeted Citibank due to its status as Wall Street's largest funder of methane gas extraction since 2016 and the second-worst funder of oil, coal, and gas projects in recent years, spending $396.3 billion from 2016-23.
For an hour, roughly 1,000 Citibank employees were barred from entering the building as protesters blocked the doors.
"I've been studying climate change since 1982 and no one is listening to the data," said biologist and anti-fracking advocate Sandra Steingraber—who has joined multiple Summer of Heat actions—as she was arrested. "So today they're going to have to listen to my body blocking the doors of the world's largest funder of new fossil fuel projects."
More than 5,000 people have joined Summer of Heat protests since June, and there have been more than 600 arrests. Citibank's response to the demonstrators has escalated to violence at times, with a security guard punching one protester in the building's lobby last month.
One woman told police arresting her on Thursday that her grandson suffers from asthma resulting from wildfire smoke, which climate scientists have linked to fossil fuel extraction and planetary heating.
"We're here for you and your children," she told an officer. "We're here for our world."
As the campaigners blocked the Citibank entrance, cellist John Mark Rozendaal and Stop the Money Pipeline director Alec Connon were preparing to attend a court hearing on Friday regarding assault and criminal contempt charges. Connon has said he was "falsely accused of assault by Citibank security so they could get a restraining order" keeping him from returning to protests at the headquarters.
Mary Lawlor, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights defenders, expressed "strong concern at the charges" and said she would be "closely following" the trial.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond."
The fossil fuel industry seeks to obstruct climate action by using money to influence research and establish ties at Western universities, raising concerns about academic independence and the integrity of scientific inquiry, according to a study published Thursday.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal WIREs Climate Change, was authored by researchers at six universities who conducted the first-ever literature review of academic papers and civil society investigations into Big Oil's links to higher education.
"We find that universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry," the authors wrote.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond," they concluded.
"Everything that's been done so far by researchers on this indicates an emerging consensus... that this is a really serious and significant problem that needs to be taken a lot more seriously," Geoffrey Supran, director of the Climate Accountability Lab at the University of Miami and a co-author of the review, toldFinancial Times.
Jennie Stephens, a professor at the ICARUS Climate Research Center at Maynooth University in Ireland who also co-authored the study, toldDeSmog that "when you pull it all together, you realize how pervasive a strategy this has been."
"The science has been telling us that fossil fuel phaseout is the number one thing that we need to focus on, but within our universities, there's very little research on how to do fossil fuel phaseout," Stephens toldThe Guardian. "This provides some explanation for why society has been so ineffective and inadequate in our responses to the climate crisis."
NEW: In @WIREs_Reviews today, our latest peer-reviewed research shows fossil fuel companies have systematically infiltrated academia, threatening to bias research and undermine meaningful climate action. THREAD.
📰Open access: https://t.co/S2Kzaq6HGt
— Geoffrey Supran (@GeoffreySupran) September 5, 2024
Research on the links between Big Oil and universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia has indeed been limited. The authors could only find 14 peer-reviewed papers and 21 civil society reports published in English between 2003 and 2023.
The studies they did find document the strong influence of the industry on institutions of higher education. They cite a number of examples, many of which are from elite universities. BP contributed between $2.1 million and $2.6 million to Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative between 2012 and 2017 and remains a sponsor. In 2017, a public relations firm working with BP wrote in an internal memo that partnership with Princeton was a way of "authenticating BP's commitment to low carbon."
An influential 2011 study by industry-linked researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative helped persuade policymakers that natural gas was a helpful "bridge" fuel—which effectively became Obama administration policy. Lead author Ernest Moniz became the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 2013.
These outcomes indicated the success of an industry strategy to influence university research and debate. A leaked 1998 internal memo from American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, the subject matter of which was "build[ing] a case against precipitous action on climate change," recommended fostering "cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position."
These are a few of the examples of Big Oil's links to universities cited in a study in WIREs Climate Change published on September 5, 2024.
Fossil fuel industry influence hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as other potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias in the research process, the authors wrote. Their literature review found that many academics had drawn comparisons to tobacco and pharmaceutical meddling in academia. They wrote:
The studies reviewed here revealed parallels between fossil fuel industry strategies and those of industries like tobacco and pharmaceuticals. For example, fossil fuel companies have supported research that had commercial applications (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) or was otherwise favorable to their legal and policy positions (e.g., anti-punitive-damages law review articles)... Previous [conflict of interest] research has noted how the pharmaceutical industry stands out for arguing that it produces beneficial products, whereas industries like tobacco and lead seek to minimize the apparent harms of their products. The fossil fuel industry today appears to do both, and notably positions itself as an innovator of purportedly beneficial climate solutions, such as natural gas and carbon capture and storage.
The authors of the review also drew attention to universities' opacity in dealings with Big Oil, writing that there's a "widespread lack of transparency on funding ties, amounts, and contract details."
They wrote that, though academics have not devoted much attention to industry influence on higher education, some activists and NGOs have long tried to raise the issue. Campaigners seconded that fact in responding to the study on Thursday.
"This literature review confirms what students in our movement have known for years," said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, told The Guardian. "Big Oil has infiltrated academia in order to gain undue credibility and obstruct climate action."
Lowe's group is one of many that's calling for universities to "dissociate" from fossil fuel interests—a movement that Supran, the Miami professor, called "basically divestment 2.0."
The problem is by no means limited to English-speaking countries. An investigation by Investigate Europe and openDemocracy last year found that European universities are also rife with Big Oil influence.
"One way to convince the country that a Trump-Musk commission could identify trillions of federal programs to cut would be to publicly identify... any of them?" said one journalist.
During his interview with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump last month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk suggested he could serve in a potential Trump administration on a "government efficiency commission" that would be tasked with cutting government spending.
On Thursday, the former president publicly said he would give Musk what he'd asked for, announcing at the New York Economic Club that he would set up a commission that would conduct "a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms."
He said Musk had agreed to lead the commission "if he has the time," and added that the panel would develop plans to eliminate "fraud" and "wasteful" spending.
Trump detailed several other economic proposals—including drastically lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% after cutting it to 21% from 35% in his first term—and eliminating 10 existing federal regulations for every regulation his administration introduced.
But the former president didn't provide specifics about how the government efficiency commission would identify inefficiencies and waste, or determine what government spending needed to be cut.
Trump suggested the commission would provide a course correction following President Joe Biden's administration, saying, "We have an economy in crisis, a failing nation, and a nation in serious decline under the radical policies of my former opponent, Joe Biden, and my new opponent, [Vice President] Kamala Harris."
Biden's signature actions including the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act, which has provided 3.4 million Americans with $8.4 million in tax credits to lower the cost of clean energy; negotiated down the costs of popular medications for Medicare beneficiaries; and recovered over $1 billion from wealthy people who had avoided paying their taxes. The administration has also recently invested $76 million in cleaning up pollution and $7.3 billion in electrifying rural communities.
Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that budget experts across the political spectrum have expressed skepticism that Trump could cut "trillions" of dollars in government spending "without hurting millions of Americans."
"If Trump is so confident he can do this," said Stein, "why punt to a commission that only gets formed after the election? One way to convince the country that a Trump-Musk commission could identify trillions of federal programs to cut would be to publicly identify... any of them? Trump has been running for election or president for eight years. Where are the trillions of dollars in 'waste' to cut that he believes exist?"
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the real goal of Trump and Musk—a major backer of the former president's campaign—is to "get rid of the apolitical civil service, fire hundreds of thousands of dedicated public servants, and replace them with a corrupt spoils system where government workers are hired and fired based on their loyalty to Donald Trump."
“Elon Musk and Donald Trump care about one thing: lining their own pockets. Not government efficiency, and certainly not making things better for everyday Americans," said Kelley, noting that Musk has been found guilty of violating federal labor laws at Tesla and that both men in their recent interview "bragged about firing striking Americans fighting for a better life."
Musk and other billionaires are backing Trump, said the pro-labor media organization More Perfect Union, because "he plans to give them what they want."