It's good to see efforts at adaptation. This is an important aspect of dealing with climate change. There's simply no preventative measures that can be implemented at this point. So if we can get Alaskans and the fishing industry in general to adapt to the new realities and transition them to industries more productive to conservation and carbon drawdown that will be a huge win.
Meanwhile, ConocoPhillips just got permission to drill out an estimated 600 million barrels over the next 30 years in Alaska. It’s very hard to not feel hopeless and pessimistic about the future.
For what it’s worth, I have worked in the Arctic a lot, and Conoco was the most responsible business from an environmental standpoint that I’ve ever been around.
I know that sounds ridiculous, but compared to many of the other actors up on the Slope, Conoco was pretty damn good.
It’s still sucking hydrocarbons out of the earth, but if someone is going to do it anyway I’d rather it was Conoco than Exxon or Hillcorp.
They can be as clean as they want (and sure, many people have probably worked a lot to achieve that), but in the end, the oil will become CO2 and our problem will become worse.
The U.S. produces a massive amount of emissions itself, especially considering its much smaller population compared to China and India. The U.S. government has the ability to set energy policy (e.g. not allowing new oil exploration, phasing out use of fossil fuels), which could reduce global emissions significantly.
The U.S. can’t control what China and India’s energy policies are (although it certainly can greatly influence world energy markets), but it can control its own energy policy and should do that. That the U.S. is not is just making things worse.
It's about #10 overall, but most of the countries above it are tiny, and their overall production is negligible.
Canada and Australia do appear above the US on the list, though not radically so. They are somewhat smaller than the US.
Although the US is not literally #1, either overall or per capita, it's one of the best targets for reducing CO2. Its per-capita consumption is so much higher than most that it should be able to look to other developed countries for ways to reduce it, and its overall consumption is so high that any small change will have a disproportionate effect on the total.
That's a lot more words than saying "The US is the largest per-capita producer", but arguing that it isn't is really just arguing over details. The important question is "Who should be taking the biggest steps to reduce CO2" and the answer is unambiguously "The US", followed by China and the developed Western countries.
I get where you are coming from but its best to not to frame it that way. This planet is now in flux. It will never be the same again. We are far, far past the point of preserving some sort of status quo on ecology. The Willow Oil project is located in an ecology that simple is going to be gone. Its not salvageable. We have already made that choice. Its at nearly the northern most point on earth so the type of ecosystem there would need to migrate north and theres nothing above them. So yeah that sucks. And the oil drilling project itself (the capital, labor, materials, etc) is definitely a waste of human effort -- no doubt about that.
However, its hardly large enough to move the needle on carbon emissions. I mean compared to the really big forces at work that is nothing. They wont get 30 years of oil out of there, and they know it. So its just rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic -- a project that wont meet its expectations, going into a place that was going to be massively disturbed anyways. In fact, the project may not even get built because they would need to build on permafrost and turns out that is super difficult to do properly especially when its melting. There are many reasons to be pessimistic about the future but the reality is that wether or not this drilling project goes forward does not make any difference in what the future will be like.
There are however a ton of important things we can do as a society to make a better future for ourselves and those who come after us. We can do those things now, even as the death cult around fossil fuels continues its business as usual. In fact, by doing those things we make them less powerful. So while its good to recognize that things are changing irrevocably, its not like we are helpless. The important thing is to find alternatives to the status quo, find ideas that make us more resilient and then support those initiatives.
In 100yrs or even 1000yrs, do you think people, if they still exist, will look back and say "wow we're amazed at the hard work of those men and women who drilled the last hydrocarbons"?
Chances are they will have a lot of really mean things to say instead about our reticence, and how little intact ecology we left them to work with.
> In 100yrs or even 1000yrs, do you think people, if they still exist, will look back and say "wow we're amazed at the hard work of those men and women who drilled the last hydrocarbons"?
Sure. I am amazed at the hard work of the men who cut timber and cut road and railway track through mountains and mined and hunted whales and trapped animals hundreds of years ago despite that they irrevocably destroyed ecosystems.
> Chances are they will have a lot of really mean things to say instead about our reticence, and how little intact ecology we left them to work with.
I'd say the chances are the situation would be quite recognizable, with most people wishing things were better but unwilling to sacrifice much of their own, and the most comfortable and well off who benefit most from and have the largest environmental footprints denouncing others and shifting blame, so some thought will be spared for the whalers of today, but not a great deal.
You can say this because their environmental destruction wasn't enough for you personally to be worse of than them. If that's the case for future generations, they will almost certainly be angry.
Being angry doesn't necessarily equate to being right or rational. A lot of people are really pissed off about climate change and ecological harm and blame previous generations for drilling, mining, polluting, etc... then they happily board a plane to some exotic locale to get a few good shots to post to Instagram.
Which is why i advocate for ecological transplants. Take a snippet of a warmer zone and transfer it in a greenhouse with a open door, to a "new" candidate zone. Spread existing diversity and keep it, instead of reinventing it after a million years.
Saving for retirement does not mean doing nothing fun until you retire.
The world is in a transition. That transition needs to happen. However, two things are currently true:
* There is a huge demand for oil. Having friendly control (compared to hostile nations) over that flow is likely beneficial to many people in the world.
* Even with more electric vehicles, petro is used in many every day products. It will still be needed.
Six hundred million barrels is one week's worth of global oil production. Spread over 30 years.
It's OK to be concerned about the future -- hell, I am. But a lot of hopelessness these days is an the after-effect of doomscrolling through headlines and fitting them into our current biases.
Training your brain to let every contra-worldview headline release T H E B A D C H E M I C A L S is a tough way to get through life.
Made the same comment earlier, copped the down vote but I agree, I absolutely cannot believe it. I also read they will need to artificially freeze the sea bed to make it possible, which will require a huge amount of energy and therefor emissions.
All of the concern about this project is fundamentally speculative. That doesn't mean the speculation is wrong, but little factoids like that about thermosiphons seem to be thrown into the mix to insinuate more substance and impending doom than can otherwise be fairly shown (at least shown in a popular news article).
If coal is any indication, it's entirely possible that extraction at Willow would become unprofitable long before the lease expires.
It's not that big of a deal, consider the thermal difference between the ground and air. Also, consider it is not using any input energy to do it, simply the evaporation of ammonia!
Net energy is the crucial difference. One generates carbon emissions to make carbon based infrastructure last longer, further generating emissions, while the other actually displaces them.
I had to re-read several paragraphs to make sure my eyes weren't failing me. It seems either AI generated or needlessly extended, to the point where reading has become a chore. I gave up halfway through without understanding much of *how* they are able to return if the fisheries are still closed.
There’s little love for Douglas Firs further down the coast as they burn and die off in Oregon and Northern California, and I wonder what’s going to happen by 2080 or so, as the climate transitions to Mediterranean. Half the places that used to be productive forest turn into not-so-productive oak chaparral, and productive farmland turns into not-so-productive ranch land. The existing ranch land is already becoming desert.
Man, so sad. There is no sympathy for the invertebrates or other canary-in-a-coal-mine species from the average consumer but they are extremely loud alarms sounding all around us.
I do recall this sentiment on HN once before -- regarding whether Alaska should add a road for medical extraction or not. Seemingly strong divide between Alaskans and others.
To be honest, this has very little to do with fishing practices. It's more about the temperature of the ocean.
There are some folks who think by catch (a very destructive externality from ocean floor trawling) has an impact on this fishery but unfortunately that's more of a guess. The science certainly shows that the temperature anomaly literally preempts reproduction. So heat waves eviscerated an entire generation, perhaps multiple generations.
So can you affect the temperature of the ocean? Not anymore than you can stop global warming. Even if you did everything to become carbon negative, it's gonna be getting warmer before it gets back to normal temperatures.
But stopping eating seafood would be a good start. Lowering demand for them means that they have a chance of surviving through to a time when climate change could be reigned in, maybe in several decades.
What an oddly narrow comment. Many types of seafood are farmed and very few have the environmental concerns that Salmon has when it is farmed adjacent to natural waters. It's almost like you lead with cynicism and then leave no room for facts.
Not only that, its meat is much lower quality / health benefits compared to wild salmon, much closer to pork. Eating BIO variant won't help that much with that
That's interesting; when searched there seems to be very little mainstream media coverage of the concept. What are some of the disadvantages of the insect feed approach for aquaculture?
The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a program called Seafood Watch that publishes consumer guides. I used to carry around a business-card sized version. Now they have versions for different US regions and one for sushi...
The best thing we can do is to eat less fish. There is no ethical way to fish from an overfished ocean. A distant second is to eat fish like sardines which are further down the food chain than, say, tuna.
Sorry but I'm jaded on the whole "we can do" part. I think it's a joke to think any amount of laypeople involvement will solve the problem in any measurable amount.
These are corporations and factories and rich folks fucking it up for the rest of us.
Rich folk alone can't eat enough fish to deplete the stock. Unless of course you count everybody in a developed nation as "rich". In any case, I agree that policy change is required, but I have less influence on policy than on my personal actions.
Abstinence is not a good policy, but it's pretty much the best thing you can do personally unless you're somehow in charge of your country's fishing policy. By the way, as far as I know, fish farming is not much better.
This actually isn't true for some types of farmed fish, like Norwegian salmon, but it varies by area and by company.
The industry is looking into alternatives like insects, and typically 30-40% of the feed now comes from vegetable proteins and oils.
On the other hand, farmed Faroese salmon (just next door) has a much higher % of wild-caught fish in its feed, which contributes to the high omega 3 content of Faroese salmon.
They are scooping up entire ecosystems from the sea floor and grinding them up to feed farmed fish. With rare exception, fish farming should be viewed as a way to allow humans to (inefficiently) eat the entire marine ecosystem.
It was news to me until recently, but the shifting of blame for destructive business practices onto the consumer is extremely well documented to be greenwashing. i.e.:
It's not inconsistent to boycott destructive products as an individual, but political pressure should focus on flat out banning destructive business practices. The electoral system failed to prevent another oil-drilling president from entering office, but it's still possible his administration will be successfully sued in court under USA's (admittedly weak looking) version of Duty of Care laws. The TLDR is that ~some democracies have it baked into the constitution that the government must act in the interests of the citizens, and are getting successfully sued in court to do so, despite regulatory capture and corrupt politicians.
I have read this argument many times and I still don't understand it.
You can attack emissions by limiting supply (stopping new oil drilling projects) or by limiting demand (flying less / driving less etc.). Both should work, since supply and demand are generally balanced. Reducing supply without reducing demand (what you seem to be proposing) will lead to massive price increases and energy poverty. This is confirmed by the energy crisis in Europe this winter, which was the result of a sudden decrease in supply. Reducing demand without reducing supply will lead to massive price decreases, which should increase demand from those that are less worried about climate change.
The transition to renewables can only be done by reducing both supply (less oil drilling) and demand (consumers and industry). I don't see how advocating for flying less, eating less meat, buying heat pumps etc. constitutes greenwashing, even if it oil companies co-opt it to deflect attention from themselves.
They don't have a choice to eat more plant based protein? They don't have a choice to drive smaller cars?
I get that change needs to happen at government/ industry levels to see the level of change required, but individuals can (and should) be the change they want to see.
To not make changes to your own life whilst wanting government to force the same changes on all of society seems pretty hypocritical.
> They don't have a choice to eat more plant based protein?
This isn't going to do much at all in the grand scheme of things
> They don't have a choice to drive smaller cars?
Most people aren't driving dualies. Usually they're driving sedans. I'd wager, anecdotally, most people cannot afford new, more efficient cars. If they need to get to work to feed their families, and they're strapped for cash, they'll buy an emissions ridden piece of crap just to get there.
People can't hardly live for themselves and you expect them to shoulder all of the burden that the manufacturing and oil industries are causing.
> To not make changes to your own life whilst wanting government to force the same changes on all of society seems pretty hypocritical.
I'd much rather governments ban net-positive carbon emissions by the major offenders entirely and force all further major offenders to shut down, but that doesn't make our government officials rich does it?
> I'd much rather governments ban net-positive carbon emissions by the major offenders entirely and force all further major offenders to shut down, but that doesn't make our government officials rich does it?
What do you think happens if governments do this? On one hand you are saying most people don't have the option to change, but then quickly followup with saying governments should force massive change.
> you expect them to shoulder all of the burden that the manufacturing and oil industries are causing
Ultimately, the issue is that industry is not bearing costs of their activity. We want them to pay for the externalities, so that someone can be paid to cleanup after them, or more likely that they change behaviour to some alternative that has become cost effective.
But these costs will be passed onto the general population. Now instead of having the unrecognised costs loaded onto people through climate change, we will do it explicity. This will be the oil companies, or via whatever replaces that industry. I think that is a good thing, because it will make people vote with their wallets, to change their consumption patterns.
But they'll still have to pay, or change their behaviour. They'll end up eating less meat, more plants. They'll drive smaller cars, buy electric, take public transport, live in smaller houses, fly less.
I agree with needing to do this for us. Externalities should never be unaccounted for, it distorts everything. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for an individual to campaign for governments to step in and force everyone to adapt enmasse, if they're not prepared to proactively change their behaviour to match the world that they are wanting everyone else to live in.
Eat less of it and buy the expensive stuff. Expensive = better margin = less fish needed to pay the wages, and 99% of the time expensive = high end sustainable
It's not bulletproof but it's a good rule of thumb, I eat fish once in a blue moon, last time it was a can of "traditionally hand fished" tuna, 40 euros a kilo
If it's cheap as fuck there is no way it's sustainable, you're either abusing nature or fellow humans, or both
My intuition is that small fish are more sustainable than large fish. It's harder to overfish sardines than tuna because their lifecycle is short and there are a whole bunch of them. Not sure if my intuition holds up really.
A quick google top result check shows: "all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations"
I dare say that's the way it was used and intended so semantics doesn't really bring anyone forward here.
I'm also not really sure what you're alluding to with the "us vs then" bit.
There is no shortage of humans. Arguably too many.
There is a shortage of nature. On top of that, the ecosystems are changing, and once they're gone they're probably not coming back.
We could lose half of the population tomorrow and still, eventually, hit that predicted 10 billion souls -- it would just take a lil longer. If WA and BC turn into chaparral things like Salmon and Snow Crab ain't gonna live there any more, and never live there again.
You make it sound like it's a maths problem, and that we have to abuse humans or nature but must chose at least one
All I'm saying is if you stop eating cheap sea food we won't have to send underpaid humans to risk their lives to catch them. Put you money where your mouth is
Can we not admit we’re fucked and any effort at this point is to take the edge off the pain we’re going to experience globally over the next century or two?
And to sum it up: basically the entire sustainability accreditations have been taken over by corporate interests. So the label itself on every seafood item is super inaccurate and doesn't actually save the planet or the fish population at all. Not even a dent.
And his opposition party would do that, plus vastly expand offshore drilling, plus scrap every cent of federal spending intended to reduce carbon emissions. The political situation in the US is not and has never been compatible with combating climate change.
You should be happy with your representation, not forced to rationalize how they're less awful than the alternative. The argument against this is itself also disingenuous. It generally entails suggesting that if you vote e.g. Green (if they happen to be who you would be happy with) then "the other side" will win, so you must vote for somebody you don't like.
That outcome is indeed reasonable to expect, but what matters is what happens next. If e.g. the DNC did start losing elections because environmentally minded individuals started voting Green, they're not just going to shrug and keep losing every election. Instead, it would force them to genuinely shift their platform to regain these votes.
The whole lesser of two evils nonsense is just a remarkably effective 'social exploit' to get tens of millions of people to vote not only for people they don't like, but even against their own self interest - in a democracy, in the age of the internet.
If most people in your community you are opposed to what you want, you're not going to be happy with your representation and are going to have to make do with the less awful alternative.
This applies especially for the Green platform - if you're going to advocate for people to meaningfully limit their consumption now in favor of the future of the planet, in a winner-takes-all election system you're not going to get any representation because no politician can gain your vote without losing more votes from the people around you.
Currently 94% of those on the left, 83% of those on the center, and 45% on the right would be willing to make "some" or "a lot" of changes to work against climate change [1]. Politicians aren't choosing not to act for the sake of votes, they're choosing not to act precisely because they no longer have to worry about votes. Just demonize the other side endlessly and people will clearly turn out en masse. The politicians get their votes and corporate dollars, corporations get their perpetuated status quo, and society gets ever more polarized.
People do say they're willing to make "some" changes, however they overwhelmingly vote against any specific meaningful changes that affect them. For most (though not all) those survey answers are empty words for feel-good political posturing that don't match their actual actions afterwards. For morally-loaded things like this one, it's worthless asking people about what they "would" do, you have to measure what they actually do.
For example, when fuel costs rise sufficiently that people would actually have to reduce driving instead of just paying more (to a MUCH smaller extent that would be required to make a dent in climate change, i.e. where MUCH larger price increases would be needed to reduce consumption) people will literally riot to get tax adjustments or subsidies to keep consuming fuel in the previous rates - e.g. last year's protests in Argentina, Peru, Haiti; earlier Gilets Jaunes riots; and in places where the politicians can afford it, they just concede that without a fight because that gets them votes - e.g. California gas tax rebate.
Sure, people will say anything while its just talk, and they will agree (grumpily!) to meaningless changes like paper straws, however, when the push comes to shove and it would actually result in some significant reduction of consumption by the masses, those people will not only vote against that but actually fight tooth and nail to prevent any such measures from being enacted.
Do a survey on whether people are willing to have a carbon tax that's high enough to actually reduce their consumption, where they would sometimes not drive somewhere or not buy something because it's too expensive due to its effect on the climate - you won't get many positive answers. People would be willing to take "some action" like this survey https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... which determined that ~$15/month would be the limit for most, i.e. a token amount that "takes some action" but does not actually require to change behavior and reduce consumption.
I don't disagree, but I'd emphasize that there are countless things states could do that don't directly affect the consumer. For instance net metering - if you generate 5kWh (probably through something like solar) you get compensated for 5kWh. It's a simple, fair, and great way to encourage people to adopt technologies like solar. It helps the systems rapidly pay for themselves, motivates utility companies to pursue technologies requisite to widespread clean energy use (like energy storage methods), encourages people to use electric vehicles with "free gas", and more. There are also the immense benefits in terms of system integrity and more that decentralized energy production can offer.
But some places like California are now actively working against this. The argument is that electric retail rates charged to consumers are dramatically higher than the real cost of that energy, so it's not fair for utilities to have to pay retail rates to consumers who contribute to the grid. So the new policy being pushed through will have you receive credit for a tiny fraction of the retail rate for energy you generate. And now all those benefits get reversed.
Actions like this aren't being taken because of voters, to say the least. The reality is that at all levels of politics, corporations are kings and voters are peasants. The irony is that the peasants, exactly like in times of yore, absolutely have the ability to change this - but cannot organize themselves efficiently enough to do so. Even when all it would take in modern times is ticking a different checkbox.
> started voting Green, they're not just going to shrug and keep losing every election. Instead, it would force them to genuinely shift their platform to regain these votes.
Yes, in the limited sense that this is a massive known problem with the USA's electoral system, and better democracies than the United States have been formed since then that are less vulnerable to the spoiler effects that resulted in the USA's pathological two party system. Here in Belgium, you can vote for greens, socialists, (thinly veiled) nazis... and they might gain a seat or two in the legislative bodies.
thanks for the reply, i suppose my question was not specific enough.... i agree that without the spoiler effect (first past the post system) 3rd party voting would be an option...
what i was curious though was in the u.s context (where there is spoiler effect) has it been known historically to work?
It's tough to look to historic examples because the polarization in current times is unlike any other time in modern history. In the past people were much more inclined to swap between parties, depending upon the merit of the respective candidates. For instance in 1984 Reagan would take 28% of the liberal vote [1], and win 49 states. He nearly took all 50, but lost his opponent's home state by a 0.18% margin.
In that sort of situation you have the same effect as a strong third party. Politicians had to concern themselves with the interests of voters, or they could actually lose them. Now all they need to do is simply show up on the ballot, and spend the rest of their time making sure people hate and fear "the other side" enough. Accountability is being effectively minimized through this, and civil society destroyed in the process.
This style of politicking is not new, and has countless historic examples demonstrating where it leads. The interests of the voter no longer mattering is but scratching the surface.
> Now all they need to do is simply show up on the ballot, and spend the rest of their time making sure people hate and fear "the other side" enough.
yea, i feel like in some way gerrymandering is a big component in this?
like if you dont ever need to actually need to convince voters in other parties and just appeal to people in your safe district.... doesn't that invite/encourage partisanship even more?
I think a lot of it probably stems from our specific voting system. Gerrymandering is only possible in a system without any sort of proportional representation. And it's these same systems which also tend to lend themselves towards "strategic voting" which motivates to vote for people they don't like, or even against their own self interest.
But this is something I don't tend really think about especially much simply because changing this would require both parties to cooperate to make major constitutional changes, that would result in both those parties losing power. The odds of this happening are probably literally zero. By contrast people dropping strategic voting is something that is at least viable to imagine, and could reasonably be expected to help move things in a positive direction. Thanks to the fact elections are basically 50/50 electorally, it doesn't even have to be many people to have a really meaningful impact.
> Gerrymandering is only possible in a system without any sort of proportional representation.
interesting, so gerrymandering being a second-order effect and the main cause being first-past-the-post/non-proportional representation... interesting.
> You should be happy with your representation, not forced to rationalize how they're less awful than the alternative.
Welcome to politics. The hard fact is that the Republican right-wing of the US is the roadblock to the US tackling emissions and climate change. The reality is that if the Democrats don't appease the center-right of the US with low gas prices and other climate change causing policies, the Republicans will win the votes and usher in an even worse destructive policy. The Democrats are trying to make as much progress as they can without losing the ball; pulling towards what you want while Republicans are pulling the opposite. If you don't balance as much as you can, it gets worse. Such is uninformed democracy.
But even that’s broken, as it may be true of one issue, but most people care about more than one thing and the US system doesn’t really allow for that. It’s a pretty crude democracy by current standards.
Wouldn't it be good if neither party did stupid crap like that? We've lost our minds at this stage.
The only hopes younger people have is technology and the fact a lot of older politicians support base is dying faster than it can be replaced, so hopefully some newer blood in politics is on the horizon to make some smarter choices.
People have been saying this for three generations now. And each new generation of rulers is more radically anti-human and pro-exploitation than the last. I hope you're ready for plan B.
What do you mean new generations? The people leading congress right now were also working in congress with JFK! Multiple generations of Americans have basically ignored political participation.
> The people leading congress right now were also working in congress with JFK!
JFK was last in Congress in 63 years ago, and last alive 60 years ago; the longest serving member of Congress served for 59 years and retired in 2019.
Chuck Schumer was first elected to Congress in 1980, Mitch McConnell in 1984, Kevin McCarthy in 2006, and Hakeem Jeffries in 2012. Only one of them was even in Congress within 20 years of Kennedy’s assassination, much less all of them being in Congress with him.
Maybe metaverse is the answer to climate change? If managers could stand behind workers' backs in virtual 3D, peek over their shoulders and give valuable motivational feedback, maybe they would be more open to remote work, thus saving all that commute.
Because a 200 million dollars industry vanishing overnight is an interesting question. The snow crab population collapsed between 2018 and 2021. We could start assuming that something triggered this collapse. Right?
So we could wonder what event happened in 2019 to explain the collapse? Climate change? Predators? Fishermen going crazy?
Wrong. The most probable answer is: "nothing happened"... and the second candidate to the pole position is "nobody happened".
Fisheries aren't the present, they show a snapshot of the past. Fishes need time to grow and cold water crustaceans in particular need a lot of time. Snow crabs mature slowly and can live until 20 years old.
Females produce eggs in spring and, as in other crustaceans they have a pelagic cycle. After a while the larvae carried by currents settle in soft sediments and moult into tiny crabs. If they can pass those first years their survival rate boosts. The pelagic larvae known to be difficult to keep alive
The snow crabs are 9 years old on average when fished. This means that the crabs that we are missing in 2020 and 2021 would had been born in (2020 - 9) = 2011!. 2011 and 2012.
What happened in 2011 in the same area? A tsunami in March and a nuclear power plant accident releasing radioactive water to the sea for several months
What we are seeing (In My Arrogant Opinion) is not climate change, or not only this; Is the effect of a mass die-off of >80% of the crab larvae in Alaska by Fukushima water, that happened nine years before but went unnoticed.
The Japanese water traveled to Alaska probably just in time to meet the crab reproductive season and hit the eggs or the larvae in their zoea phase.
Or maybe the scavenger crabs accumulated radioactive stuff after eating fishes and died later.
Of course there was a tsunami also that could have killed some of the adult crabs but didn't happened in Alaska. And the lack of fishermen in the Covid years maybe add a "nobody came to feed the crabs with bycatch" effect.
The populations will recover, as long as Japanese will stop trowing garbage to the sea in the crab reproductive season.
