Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
9. Could be one of several reasons.
Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:27 AM
Mar 2013

Taking the Environmental Defense Fund at their word: they think fisheries would be better cared for and maintained under the system. Yes, fisheries were collapsing. But a for-profit food conglomerate can't have anymore commitment to maintenance than their shareholders do. If maintenance is too expensive and eats into profits, shareholders will cash out and invest in a company that has higher profits.

Now, maybe they believe it will be different because they've been taken, maybe they believe it because they've sold out, or another possibility is, they are just desperate that something will be done. Fisheries were collapsing. Those layoffs cited probably would have occurred anyway, if not by now, then in a few years.

Therefore, maybe the EDF saw that nothing was being done under the previous system. And it makes some sense (not enough) to work with the people who actually have the power to do something.

Or, the EDF has been subverted. They're taking corporate money, above or beneath the table.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Who owns the fish?»Reply #9