Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: No oil = No fish
Hi there.
All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they've sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?
The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world's fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan, and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets. It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt indifference.
Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No east Asian government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can't afford to sail. The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen - who trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that their industry could collapse within a year. Hurray to that too.
It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The EU has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service - the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999 - but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.
The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry €3.8bn. Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen; but the rest is used to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and landing sites; and to promote and market the catch. Except for the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement, there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue - often falsely - that they are the "stewards of the countryside". But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?
The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it's a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.
But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's Fishing News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government's refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse strings". He also insists that new money is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words no more boats should be taken off the water. Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most short-sighted members?
I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss on Thursday. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more money (€100,000 instead of €30,000 per boat) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking the ecosystem with them.
What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While Spanish, French and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing - knowing that if they are allowed to fish now this will be the last season ever - around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.
Prompted by Young's seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught. Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening of the industry.
Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one. link
Fixed link. Please use the hyperlink function (instructions in the 'How To Get Around This Site..." thread in the Welcome Forum.) Thank you.-FL
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
I haven't read any news yet stating that fishermen are considering using wind power (i.e. boats propelled by sails) again. Wouldn't that be the next logical step? Retrofit your fleet and hope that your sailors and fishermen can learn a lost art? Then they wouldn't have to beg the government for handouts and subsidies.
I don't know much about commercial fishing, so perhaps there are some limitations to sail-powered commercial fishing that I'm not aware of?
The other thing that has me scratching my head is the fishermen in Thailand burning their boats in protest. That would be like if the hauliers in Europe set fire to their rigs. If the government does listen and subsidizes your fuel, you've already burned your boat, so now what are you going to do?
Joined: Nov 08, 2005 Posts: 261 Location: The Maple State
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
basil_hayden wrote:
See, there is a bright side to peak oil; humans can't destroy the oceans fast enough with out oil.
I was just listening to a BC fisherman say a similar thing, that with the depleted fish stocks and price of fuel, it is about a 50-50 gamble that fish caught will pay for expenses.
Thank God! PO just in time to prevent total collapse with 90% of the commercial resource already fished out.
I've read the EU is one of the biggest open ocean fishers. With the smaller boats would overexploitation of resources be concentrated closer to home, thus limiting the EU damage?
Fish weirs at river entrances will work well for any remaining salmon stocks.
If we go back to sailing ships I guess this would also mean salted (not frozen) fish as well.
Last edited by keehah on Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
I think we are a fair bit away from going back to sail for fishing. While diesel is expensive, they can go to compressed natural gas, triple expansion reciporicating engines using heavy oil or even back to coal.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1798 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
Wow... and I was on the verge of thinking that was the best first post I'd ever read. Thanks for including the link. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: May 07, 2007 Posts: 434 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
dorlomin wrote:
triple expansion reciporicating engines
The modern uniflow steam engine proves to be efficient over it's entire rpm range, whereas the triple expansion loses efficiency at high RPM. Plus, the uniflow engine can be scaled to any number of cylinders. It all depends on the application though I guess. _________________ "That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top, well I say, <censored by peakoil.com> floats"
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
"We are running out of oil" in the first paragraph of major UK media. Very doomerish. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
Sorry to burst the bubble here, but there are ways to fish without oil.
You can fish ('phish') with computers. You can fish also with solar- or seaweed-powered autonomous aquatic robots (SAAR, SAQUAR) equipped with harpoons. Finally, in cities you can build fish towers which thrive on urban waste.
Aquaculturalists from all over the world are feverishly designing such systems. And if oil keeps this high, which it will, we will see these automated, low-energy systems appear everywhere.
Finally, and this is no joke either, we will soon be able to print fish meat, with the obvious meat-printer (techno-minded people know that the technology is progressing very well).
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
Lorenzo the cod fishery recently collapsed. The salmon fishery is collapsing. Most other ocean fisheries are very seriously declining.
Most of the fish you now eat are grown in pens, eat Purina Brand fish chow (I kid you not) and so depend on petroleum.
You can fish without oil from a dock on the bay. la de da de da. But you will not feed the earth's billions that way.
You can fish without oil on your native skiff or blow your sail out among the salty depths. But you will not feed the earth's billions that way.
Lorenzo you remain a techtopian, a Cargo-Cultist awaiting the Great Gadget God (GGG) to descend from the sky and lead you to Gimmick Heaven (GH). Sorry. He is not coming. There is no virtual paradise. We are alone with our mess. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Jun 05, 2005 Posts: 357 Location: Portland Oregon, USA
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
I'll cry for the fishermen about as hard as I cried for the loggers here in Oregon who wanted to cut down the last 4% of old growth timber. Like the fishermen, they wanted to be the ones to destroy their own livelihood. Clinton and Gore beat them to it and now we still have some of our natural heritage left. I hope we can all wake up and stop ravaging the oceans in the same way.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
IanC wrote:
I'll cry for the fishermen about as hard as I cried for the loggers here in Oregon who wanted to cut down the last 4% of old growth timber. Like the fishermen, they wanted to be the ones to destroy their own livelihood. Clinton and Gore beat them to it and now we still have some of our natural heritage left. I hope we can all wake up and stop ravaging the oceans in the same way.
-IanC
The fisherman are just doing our bidding.
Who doesn't believe they are healthier and more environmentally conscious choosing fish over red meat? Most people I know would rather eat a wild fish over 'disgusting' feedlot livestock.
It's too late to stop savaging the oceans or the forests. Anything not made of natural ingredients is made from oil and that is running out. So where else will 6 billion go for their food, fuel, and housing?
It'll be a good day if humanity misses some little corners of the planet. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
No oil = no fish? Seems more oil = less fish _________________ "Life is merely an orderly decay of energy states, and survival requires the continual discovery of new energy to pump into the system. He who controls the sources of energy controls the means of survival. "
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: No oil = No fish
Forester wrote:
Retrofit your fleet and hope that your sailors and fishermen can learn a lost art?
Sailing is hardly a lost art. Fishing techniques have shifted over the years, but there are plenty of fisherman who utilize more traditional means to catch fish. Catches will be of a more sustainable size for the fish populations, for the human populations however.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
