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.
