I'm not an overbearing tree hugger,

[jamtoday]

and some information has been posted before. This however seems to tie things up and gives a view of the size and capacity of these super trawlers that should be of concern to us all. They are going to decimate the oceans.

As mentioned I'm more of a political than environmental animal but the two do impinge on areas of concern to us all so I thought I would bring this film to the attention of those more informed about environmental issues.

[riverbendviewgal]

1. Overfishing with big trawlers

I read the You Tube comments...and I will watch later.

it is 30 minutes

The problem is not the super trawler, it's simply so we are too many people on this planet, what ever we do impacts on all living species on this planet, and the more we are the greater the impact.
If a super trawler can catch more fish for every gallon/litre of fuel used the math is simple, but of course they have to solve the problem with the net so dolphins etc can escape.
Why do we use big trucks instead of many small cars to freight goods, because it uses less fuel per kilo freighted.

[NoOneMan]

3. "it's simply so we are too many people on this planet"

I don't think its that simple. What is the maximum amount of people that should live here? How do we know this? Is every extra life as much of a problem as another? What scientific formula can we use to create population caps, per region?

The reason I don't think it is simple is because if I had a magic person eraser and could eliminate a billion people from Africa, our CO2 emissions might drop by 3 percent or so. If I could do the same and eliminate a billion from North America and the EU, our emissions would drop to levels we haven't seen in a hundred years.

We primarily have an over-consumption problem. It isn't even a homogeneous problem. Until we address this, we likely have little inkling on how many people can coexist in a sustainable manner with the earth.

[GliderGuider]

5. We're talking here about food consumption.

From that point of view yes, every extra life is as much of a problem as another. Our caloric requirements are all the same. We can do things to improve the impact of food production, but each of us (all 7 billion of us) need to consume 2500 calories a day to live. The ecological damage inflicted an average African's 2500 calories and mine are much closer than our carbon footprints would suggest.

We're not talking about CO2 here, this is another part of the clusterfuck.

[NoOneMan]

7. This presumes the generation of each calorie results in the same amount of ecological destruction

And it also presumes people eat the same amount. The last time I checked, we have near a billion people on the cusp of starvation and another 15% of the population overweight or obese (meaning the overweight now outnumber the hungry). Over-consumption again is a problem in the food question, along with our methods of generating such calories. Im not even sure where we should prioritize the problem of having too many mouths to feed.

Im not saying that we don't have too many people. I just don't think our "problem" is not as simple as that. We eat more than we need (probably to compensate for food that isn't nourishing) and we create it the most stupid of ways (in terms of the environmental impact). You take care of these issues, and who knows have many people can actually coexist here

The statement that "there are too many people" is sometimes loaded to really mean, "there are too many people on this earth to allow this amount of Americans to live our lifestyle without an issue". Often these people are not willing to eliminate the over-consumers to strike balance, but the other masses who compete for resources and threaten their way of life. Sure, if "Americans" are the baseline level of consumption one wishes to preserve, then damn right there are too many people.

[GliderGuider]

9. I'm not saying they are "the same"

Just that they are far more similar than the impact of other aspects of consumption.

I can't imagine that there are 6.5 billion obese people in the world - that would be most of the planet's population.

I don't usually say "There are too many people" - that invites the question, "Too many for what, and by whose measure?" Instread I usually say, "There are a whole lot more people around today than there will be in a century."

Overall the problem is one of consumption. When the knock-on effects of over-consumption turn around and bite us, overpopulation will rapidly cease to be a problem.

[NoOneMan]

10. Typo....

one in six, near 15% of population. 7 in 10 Americans

"Too many for what" is basically where I am coming from, and I do agree there are too many for us to all be well-fed, ostentatious technophiles that dominate the globe.

And yes, overpopulation may soon cease to be an issue.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Super trawlers are a special problem

http://www.marine-conservation.org/what-we-do/program-areas/how-we-fish/destructive-fishing/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Destructive Fishing[/font]

[font size=3]…

Among all the fishing methods, bottom trawling, a fishing method that drags a large net across the sea floor, is the most destructive to our oceans. To protect the ocean ecosystems from the impacts of bottom trawling, Marine Conservation Institute has been a world leader in providing solutions to policy makers in the US and abroad.[/font]

[font size=4]What is bottom trawling?[/font]

[font size=3] Bottom trawling is an industrial fishing method where a large net with heavy weights is dragged across the seafloor, scooping up everything in its path – from the targeted fish to the incidentally caught centuries-old corals. Bottom trawls are used in catching marine life that live on the seafloor, like shrimp, cod, sole and flounder. In the US, bottom trawling occurs on the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, capturing more than 800,000,000 pounds of marine life in 2007. Bottom trawls are also commonly used by other fishing nations and on the high seas.[/font]

[font size=4]Why is it a problem?[/font]

[font size=3]Bottom trawling is unselective and severely damaging to benthic ecosystems. The net indiscriminately catches every life and object it encounters. Thus, many creatures end up mistakenly caught and thrown overboard dead or dying, including endangered fish and even vulnerable deep-sea corals which can live for several hundred years. This collateral damage, called bycatch, can amount to 90% of a trawl’s total catch. In addition, the weight and width of a bottom trawl can destroy large areas of seafloor habitats that give marine species food and shelter. Such habitat destructions can leave the marine ecosystem permanently damaged.[/font]

…[/font]

[immoderate]

2. Consider that with the earth uninhabitable, there will be few places for politics.

Just sayin'.

--imm

[glowing]

4. Why on earth does anyone think even building

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

a large fisheries factory for massive catch, kill, and processing on the sea is even something that man should invest money into building or creating in the first place?

Just because "man" can build it, doesn't mean that it should be built. The continued saga of hubris of the human species and our "Towers of Babel" syndrome continue throughout history. It seems that there is little consideration or thought to the past and problems that our hubris eventually brings. And it's the dreamed up thoughts, normally, by people at the top and the convinced/ cowed people who follow or help to create.

It seems that humans continue to dream up and build destructive items. It's like we have a "death wish" for humanity and the earth we call home.

[riverbendviewgal]

6. It is all about Capitalism

more money....is a right.

[NoOneMan]

8. Do you think socialists wouldn't try and build the most efficient means to generate food and wealth

For the people to share?

[riverbendviewgal]

11. YOu used the word share

They could very possibly do that...Look at the Scandinavian countries

[NoOneMan]

12. Isn't that the purpose of socialism?

To share the exploits of the earth rather than to funnel those exploits to the elite?

Production and labor are still fundamental tenants to the economic philosophy, adopted without question from previous models that socialism is supposed to be a revolt to. Socialism may have been conceived in a cultural context that will soon grow completely irrelevant to us and increasingly archaic.

[riverbendviewgal]

13. This trawler is overfishing..

and for profit.

I don't approve of overfishing

[NoOneMan]

14. Nor do I

Whether the profits are shared or hoarded, its killing our globe

[riverbendviewgal]

15. exactly.