5 ms·

> If the bee is placed under federal protection, farmers or developers who harm the insects could face up to $13,000 in fines each time one is killed, Live Scie

by abeppu 5y ago

> If the bee is placed under federal protection, farmers or developers who harm the insects could face up to $13,000 in fines each time one is killed, Live Science reports. Note that the article identifies systemic causes (use of neonicotinoids, habitat loss) as causes, and correlational evidence ("States with the most significant dip in bee numbers have the largest increase in the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids, insecticides, and fungicides"), but the enforcement mechanism they mention is centered around individual actors after specific killed insects where it's presumed that attribution is clear. Does this make any kind of sense? 1. Would we know when bees are killed? The evidence that we know how to gather, so far as I can tell, is mostly counting live bees, not finding dead ones. Are there examples of small, highly mobile insects with ESA protection where we're actively seeking out and finding dead individuals? 2. Is it typically possible to attribute bee deaths to single actors? If a bumblebee is found at location X, we might guess that it would have ranged over an area with radius r around that (but we're not sure what its actual territory would have been) which includes N properties, N_d of which have been developed and N_p of which use pesticides, who is responsible? 3. And if the best scientific understanding is about broad practices (habitat destruction, pesticide use, ...) am I correct in my belief that we don't have any real mechanism of holding a class of individuals (e.g. Maine farmers who used neonicotinoids during a given time period) responsible for an impact to a bee population (e.g. it's estimated by experts to decline 5% in a given year) in the absence of a specific pile of dead bees? With this, as with a number of other large issues, I think we need new concepts around group responsibility. We have a concept of class action lawsuits, where a large group identified by a criteria (e.g. people whose data was exposed by Equifax) can be plaintiffs, because individuals meeting that criteria can elect (or not) to be represented in that group. We do _not_ have a concept of a large group of people identified by a criteria (farms using particular pesticides, developers of properties in the urban-wildland interface) being held responsible for harms that proceed from that criteria.

tinco 5y ago
In The Netherlands there is an area that is a key part of the lifecycle of a specific bird called the "Grutto". It is not really endangered, but it is at risk, and if The Netherlands did nothing to protect it, then we would be the cause of its extinction. The way we protect it is that all farmers can report a Grutto nest on their land. Then the government sends volunteers to find the nest. If the volunteer finds the nest, the farmer gets 1200 euro. It's a simple scheme but I think it's very effective. It's a significant amount of money, the farmer will be looking out for the nests, and will make sure they don't get caught in their machinery. I'm not entirely sure what the economics would be for bee hives. 1200 euro to put some stakes in the ground and make a small detour with your tractor, sacrificing maybe 10m2 of harvest makes sense. Not treating an entire field with insecticides might not.
- jounker 5y ago
  The four most dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned in The Netherlands since February 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...
- admax88qqq 5y ago
  If the insecticides are what's killing with the bees though, staking out a 10 m2 section of your field will do nothing to preserve them.
  - tinco 5y ago
    Exactly, the incentive would have to be much larger to get farmers take the risk and save the bees.
- geysersam 5y ago
  We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees, and let consumers pay the higher prices on agricultural products.
  - gumby 5y ago
    That is not the way things work in the US. The mfrs will cry “job losses” due to discontinuing production. Farmers will cry poor. Nothing will happen.
    - riffraff 5y ago
      I'm aware of the power of corporations in the US and elsewhere, but didn't they manage to forbid a lot of things over the years anyways? Lead paint, freon refrigerators etc.
      - gumby 5y ago
        I’m talking about the USA of the last 20 years. Some things like an international ban on CFCs was, in retrospect the last gasp of the old order.
pempem 5y ago
My observation is that issues requiring a true shake-up of those currently in power or strong financial holding (usually correlated) leads to actions being individualized. This includes: climate - shake up of industrial winners if new policy is introduced so its on us to 'buy smart' rather than collectively 'produce smart' schools and their performance - shake up of privilege funnels, tax bases, positions etc. if an equal division of funds is introduced so its on each family to find school and support rather than a system wide effort to make sure every kid has an educational experience that sets them up for success and participation in our democracy immigration - shaking this up would have economic impacts we don't understand as the entire US economy is at least partially dependent on affordable/cheap labor or some form of second class worker to support supremely variable industries like farming. so its on you to immigrate correctly and complain about off-shored jobs instead of on the people who are offshoring them or hiring people without the 'correct' papers.
- coliveira 5y ago
  The oldest ruse in capitalism is to individualize responsibilities for systemic issues. So, it is aways responsibility of the individual to avoid problems that were caused by capitalism as a system, for profit. It always tries to protect the environment that created the problem and criminalize the victims.
  - pempem 5y ago
    Fully agreed I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles. People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it? Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.
Woberto 5y ago
I don't understand why they're not fining the developers/manufacturers/sellers of products that harm the insects. Isn't it easiest to stop this at the source? How likely is it that individual farmers will make their own? I guess there's such thing as moonshine but I don't know how similar this case is... Regardless, this seems like another instance of putting the responsibility on consumers/individuals, and not on companies that introduce these products with no regard to the potential downstream side effects. Guess it maybe ties into to "regulation" and "individual rights", like how instead of regulating fast food companies, it's been decided that it's the consumer's choice whether to eat fast food. I'm getting off on tangents that maybe aren't related, and I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.
- dnautics 5y ago
  I think that you'll find that in many cases the move to adopt those things like insecticides was incentivized by the government at many levels (ag grants, research grants, etc). So you now have conflicting messages by the government. "do this!" "don't do this!".
  - destitude 5y ago
    Also corruption. Insecticides are big business and there is already evidence of corruption within EPA to placate industry.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sk2020 5y ago
Urbanites in their concrete jungles inflicting punishment on farmers for having destroyed bee habitat is so absurd on its face that it’s completely plausible.

by abeppu 5y ago

tinco 5y ago

In The Netherlands there is an area that is a key part of the lifecycle of a specific bird called the "Grutto". It is not really endangered, but it is at risk, and if The Netherlands did nothing to protect it, then we would be the cause of its extinction. The way we protect it is that all farmers can report a Grutto nest on their land. Then the government sends volunteers to find the nest. If the volunteer finds the nest, the farmer gets 1200 euro. It's a simple scheme but I think it's very effective. It's a significant amount of money, the farmer will be looking out for the nests, and will make sure they don't get caught in their machinery. I'm not entirely sure what the economics would be for bee hives. 1200 euro to put some stakes in the ground and make a small detour with your tractor, sacrificing maybe 10m2 of harvest makes sense. Not treating an entire field with insecticides might not.

jounker 5y ago
The four most dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned in The Netherlands since February 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...
admax88qqq 5y ago
If the insecticides are what's killing with the bees though, staking out a 10 m2 section of your field will do nothing to preserve them.
- tinco 5y ago
  Exactly, the incentive would have to be much larger to get farmers take the risk and save the bees.
geysersam 5y ago
We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees, and let consumers pay the higher prices on agricultural products.
- gumby 5y ago
  That is not the way things work in the US. The mfrs will cry “job losses” due to discontinuing production. Farmers will cry poor. Nothing will happen.
  - riffraff 5y ago
    I'm aware of the power of corporations in the US and elsewhere, but didn't they manage to forbid a lot of things over the years anyways? Lead paint, freon refrigerators etc.
    - gumby 5y ago
      I’m talking about the USA of the last 20 years. Some things like an international ban on CFCs was, in retrospect the last gasp of the old order.

pempem 5y ago

My observation is that issues requiring a true shake-up of those currently in power or strong financial holding (usually correlated) leads to actions being individualized. This includes: climate - shake up of industrial winners if new policy is introduced so its on us to 'buy smart' rather than collectively 'produce smart' schools and their performance - shake up of privilege funnels, tax bases, positions etc. if an equal division of funds is introduced so its on each family to find school and support rather than a system wide effort to make sure every kid has an educational experience that sets them up for success and participation in our democracy immigration - shaking this up would have economic impacts we don't understand as the entire US economy is at least partially dependent on affordable/cheap labor or some form of second class worker to support supremely variable industries like farming. so its on you to immigrate correctly and complain about off-shored jobs instead of on the people who are offshoring them or hiring people without the 'correct' papers.

coliveira 5y ago
The oldest ruse in capitalism is to individualize responsibilities for systemic issues. So, it is aways responsibility of the individual to avoid problems that were caused by capitalism as a system, for profit. It always tries to protect the environment that created the problem and criminalize the victims.
- pempem 5y ago
  Fully agreed I just hope we can find enough energy to overcome that inertia as we stare down unavoidable consequences.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  The oldest flaw in collectivism is the assumption that people will collectively care about something they don't individually care about. The bees are dying. Is taking action on this enough to change your vote from the party you ordinarily vote for to the alternative? If not, and that means your representative can benefit in taking money from the insecticide companies without losing your vote, what result? Notice how big a factor polarization is in this. The more people who have chosen a team and won't be dissuaded from supporting their side no matter what, the less politicians have to care what people think because it won't change enough votes to affect the outcome. Which is why everything is currently a shambles. People individually have to take responsibility for their part in a systemic problem. It's a serious cultural problem to tell everybody that they don't need to do this unless someone is holding a gun to their head. Because the same culture says that doing the selfish thing is reasonable and good, and if that's true, why should they vote to ban it? Meanwhile if people individually accept that they have to make some personal sacrifices to avoid doing harm then you barely need legislation at all, and to the extent that you do it can be a minimal fine with minimal enforcement that only acts as an anchor point. Because a culture where individuals are trying not to do collective harm only needs some notice that a given thing does collective harm, not jackboots with billy clubs. The opposite culture is doomed either way.

Woberto 5y ago

I don't understand why they're not fining the developers/manufacturers/sellers of products that harm the insects. Isn't it easiest to stop this at the source? How likely is it that individual farmers will make their own? I guess there's such thing as moonshine but I don't know how similar this case is... Regardless, this seems like another instance of putting the responsibility on consumers/individuals, and not on companies that introduce these products with no regard to the potential downstream side effects. Guess it maybe ties into to "regulation" and "individual rights", like how instead of regulating fast food companies, it's been decided that it's the consumer's choice whether to eat fast food. I'm getting off on tangents that maybe aren't related, and I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.

dnautics 5y ago
I think that you'll find that in many cases the move to adopt those things like insecticides was incentivized by the government at many levels (ag grants, research grants, etc). So you now have conflicting messages by the government. "do this!" "don't do this!".
- destitude 5y ago
  Also corruption. Insecticides are big business and there is already evidence of corruption within EPA to placate industry.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sk2020 5y ago

Urbanites in their concrete jungles inflicting punishment on farmers for having destroyed bee habitat is so absurd on its face that it’s completely plausible.