5 ms·

There is a frustrating catch-22 with "sustainable" fishing methods. Methods that are more careful about bycatch in generally lead to less fish per gallon of die

There is a frustrating catch-22 with "sustainable" fishing methods. Methods that are more careful about bycatch in generally lead to less fish per gallon of diesel, which is the primary driver of CO2 emissions for fisheries. MSC certified line-caught fish will on average have double the CO2 emissions of seine caught fish, see: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/estimating_the_carbon_footprint_of_tuna_fisheries_9may2009.pdf http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/estimating_the_carbon_f... It is confusing to me that MSC is fine with being the forcing function to double carbon emissions - which is expected to have large effects on ocean habitats - while ostensibly being interested in ocean habitat. I guess the complexity is that.. there doesn't seem to be a good answer, currently.

dathos 6y ago
It seems to me there is a good answer, just not a popular one, which is to stop fishing all together.
hnusrv8 6y ago
> I guess the complexity is that.. there doesn't seem to be a good answer, currently. Encouraging people to eat less fish might be the easiest (and thereby best) solution. I'm not saying humans should eat /no/ fish – indeed there are many human communities which rely on fishing, and for which fishing plays a key role in their culture. Similarly, some people may need to eat fish for health reasons. However, it seems to me that /reducing/ consumption by cutting consumption of fish for pleasure/taste would likely benefit both the environment and people; for example, indigeneous groups which traditionally rely on fishing would face less competition from industrial-scale fishing. From an environmental standpoint, most things, even whaling it seems, are inherently sustainable in smaller scales. Again, I don't mean to say that everyone needs to comsume zero fish. But if those of us who can, which likely includes many HN readers, cut down our consumption it may benefit everyone at quite a small cost to ourselves; as a middle class Northern European, I can testify that me not having consumed fish in the last 5 years has had 0 immediate impact on my health or happiness levels. Note: Of course this is all assuming that there are more eco-friendly alternative protein/fat/omegas sources available. Again, I do not mean to say that this is applicable for everyone.
- jakewins 6y ago
  Agree. This is what we do. Try to opt for species that have low impact (trout and farmed arctic char, for instance) and otherwise treat fish the way we do beef: As a luxury saved for special occasions.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I was under impression that it was a green policy to recommend people eat more fish, acting as a replacement for e.g. beef which (if I recall correctly, I'm not certain) has more harmful environmental effects than fishing.
  - jamil7 6y ago
    Maybe it's marketed that way by some but it doesn't really make sense given the current state of our oceans.
  - distances 6y ago
    Those are not conflicting statements. Reducing fish for environmental reasons should not come with increased animal consumption.
  - masklinn 6y ago
    It often feels like we think fishing is less environmentally harmful but we don't actually know it, because the ocean is extremely opaque to us, and has very high buffers both ways. Numerous stocks have crashed and most times the collapse has been extremely brutal, similar to the passenger pigeon, going from "it's everywhere" to "it's nowhere" in a few years. And even with what we know at least 1/3rd of current stocks are being overfished.
- lizknope 6y ago
  I've eaten less than 10 fish in my entire life. I don't like it at all. I haven't eaten any meat in 15 years. I don't miss it at all. I also don't miss any of the health problems that went away after I stopped eating meat.
sc4les 6y ago
there's an obvious and easy way. but we value sushi all you can eat over that one
jabl 6y ago
I've understood that long-line fishing produces quite a lot of bycatch of sensitive or endangered species like sharks and albatros? I'm not really sure what is considered a good fishing method that minimizes bycatch? That being said, long-line fishing can be done entirely CO2-neutrally, with sails like they did back in the day. ;)
shirakawasuna 6y ago
There's an out for the Catch-22: don't eat fish. Except for a very small few, it's unnecessary to eat fish at all, and is more of a convenience or form of entertainment (it tastes good).

dathos 6y ago

It seems to me there is a good answer, just not a popular one, which is to stop fishing all together.

hnusrv8 6y ago

> I guess the complexity is that.. there doesn't seem to be a good answer, currently. Encouraging people to eat less fish might be the easiest (and thereby best) solution. I'm not saying humans should eat /no/ fish – indeed there are many human communities which rely on fishing, and for which fishing plays a key role in their culture. Similarly, some people may need to eat fish for health reasons. However, it seems to me that /reducing/ consumption by cutting consumption of fish for pleasure/taste would likely benefit both the environment and people; for example, indigeneous groups which traditionally rely on fishing would face less competition from industrial-scale fishing. From an environmental standpoint, most things, even whaling it seems, are inherently sustainable in smaller scales. Again, I don't mean to say that everyone needs to comsume zero fish. But if those of us who can, which likely includes many HN readers, cut down our consumption it may benefit everyone at quite a small cost to ourselves; as a middle class Northern European, I can testify that me not having consumed fish in the last 5 years has had 0 immediate impact on my health or happiness levels. Note: Of course this is all assuming that there are more eco-friendly alternative protein/fat/omegas sources available. Again, I do not mean to say that this is applicable for everyone.

jakewins 6y ago
Agree. This is what we do. Try to opt for species that have low impact (trout and farmed arctic char, for instance) and otherwise treat fish the way we do beef: As a luxury saved for special occasions.
PeterisP 6y ago
I was under impression that it was a green policy to recommend people eat more fish, acting as a replacement for e.g. beef which (if I recall correctly, I'm not certain) has more harmful environmental effects than fishing.
- jamil7 6y ago
  Maybe it's marketed that way by some but it doesn't really make sense given the current state of our oceans.
- distances 6y ago
  Those are not conflicting statements. Reducing fish for environmental reasons should not come with increased animal consumption.
- masklinn 6y ago
  It often feels like we think fishing is less environmentally harmful but we don't actually know it, because the ocean is extremely opaque to us, and has very high buffers both ways. Numerous stocks have crashed and most times the collapse has been extremely brutal, similar to the passenger pigeon, going from "it's everywhere" to "it's nowhere" in a few years. And even with what we know at least 1/3rd of current stocks are being overfished.
lizknope 6y ago
I've eaten less than 10 fish in my entire life. I don't like it at all. I haven't eaten any meat in 15 years. I don't miss it at all. I also don't miss any of the health problems that went away after I stopped eating meat.

sc4les 6y ago

there's an obvious and easy way. but we value sushi all you can eat over that one

jabl 6y ago

I've understood that long-line fishing produces quite a lot of bycatch of sensitive or endangered species like sharks and albatros? I'm not really sure what is considered a good fishing method that minimizes bycatch? That being said, long-line fishing can be done entirely CO2-neutrally, with sails like they did back in the day. ;)

shirakawasuna 6y ago

There's an out for the Catch-22: don't eat fish. Except for a very small few, it's unnecessary to eat fish at all, and is more of a convenience or form of entertainment (it tastes good).