Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

oceana.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#61

Post by squidsoup »

tedk-42 wrote: post #34
Nursie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tasmania produces a lot of caged salmon. It’s bad for the salmon (in terms of animal welfare) and it’s wrecking the local ecosystems. It’s not any sort of panacea. We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at.

> We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at. You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species.

The solution for both preservation of ecosystems _and_ fisheries is creating marine reserves like Papahānaumokuākea.

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#63

Post by goku12 »

endianswap wrote: post #9
blargthorwars wrote: post #3

And it does so on seas that aren't even remotely close to China. They're looting the entire Pacific Ocean.

They export tens of billions of dollars in seafood every year, why does it matter where they're fishing if they're selling it worldwide?

How does the worldwide sales address the damage they cause to marine ecosystems? That too when many countries regulate their own fisheries industry to avoid the same issue? This is like strip mining public property or someone else's private property without any authorization. Essentially, China makes money at everybody's expense.

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#64

Post by lijok »

Retric wrote: post #28
lijok wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuance is required. Would you impose a 2 Sea Bass over 42cm limit per person on the residents of North Sentinel Island? It’s all a spectrum. One nation cannot leapfrog the rest in its advancements then demand the rest follow its new norms, unless they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is.

There’s zero nuance required for China, it’s a modern economy and should definitely be held to modern standards.

There’s more to a peoples than the economy

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#65

Post by Larrikin »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #54
tedk-42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to stop destroying ocean ecosystems, not just shift the damage around. Overfishing of wild stock, habitat destruction through bottom-trawling and intensive fish farming all need to be properly looked at. You criticise, yet don't provide any suitable recommendations or alternatives. People like to eat fish and have done so since the beginning of our species.

The solution to overfishing, over consumption of fossil fuels, over consumption of beef etc is all the same in the current system. Impose appropriate taxes that adequately capture the impact of the negative externalities. Living in unsustainable ways is ... well not sustainable. If people have liked to eat fish since the start, then maybe we should leave some for the next generations.

When should the tax stop being raised? The solution is not to make it so only the rich can eat fish, beef, etc. This idea is only ever proposed by people who think they will always be able to afford it or people who think no one should be able to enjoy animal meat.

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#67

Post by JackYoustra »

maxglute wrote: post #49
JackYoustra wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean pollution is bad, regardless of who does it? China is also fairly unique with the brazenness that her (flagged) vessels violate other EEZ waters to fish.

JP/SKR/TW all does it brazenly (i.e. pacific / south american EEZs), SKR/TW also with their share of slave labor. They just don't get reported on, or analysis will include them but MSM that inevitably regurgitates these "analysis" will downplay / leave them out. And relative to other DWF / wild catch, PRC catches less per capita... so they're poluting less. See approaching 80% agraculture share. PRC basically the mos…

Sorry - the thing that comes to the front of my mind is trawling all the way in Ecuador, a world over. You’re saying Japan does that as well?

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#68

Post by maxglute »

dottjt wrote: post #57
cavisne wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem that confusing, they import most of their hydrocarbons so its a domestic security risk if/when they invade Taiwan. The US navy can blockade oil tankers but they arent going to be chasing fishing vessels around the ocean trying to stop fishing.

What I'm describing is much broader: Food security i.e. running out of fish to extract from the seas.

60/75m (~80%) metric tons of PRC seafood is from domestic aquaculture. That's one of the highest % of aquaculture share out of total fisheries of any country. 60% of global aquashare total. It's not urgent because it's already addressed, like EV, food security was literally Xi's first priority when he entered office with reduce food waste program.

People bitching about PRC fishing is like people bitching about PRC coal, i.e. most of coal use has stablized, with renewable making up new energy production. PRC DWF has also mostly stablized with seafood increase via aquaculture.

Except with coal as % of energy mix is way higher than PRC DWF as % of fisheries. AKA it's a made up problem, it so much as PRC is unique bad behaviour.

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#69

Post by energy123 »

Larrikin wrote: post #65
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to overfishing, over consumption of fossil fuels, over consumption of beef etc is all the same in the current system. Impose appropriate taxes that adequately capture the impact of the negative externalities. Living in unsustainable ways is ... well not sustainable. If people have liked to eat fish since the start, then maybe we should leave some for the next generations.

When should the tax stop being raised? The solution is not to make it so only the rich can eat fish, beef, etc. This idea is only ever proposed by people who think they will always be able to afford it or people who think no one should be able to enjoy animal meat.

You give the tax back to people so they're no worse off on average, and are better off if they don't overly engage in destroying the commons.

As for the actual tax rate, I will defer to the economic literature on this subject, but the answer will invariably be a pragmatic one.

Re: China Dominates 44% of Visible Fishing Activity Worldwide

#70

Post by nothrabannosir »

Larrikin wrote: post #65
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to overfishing, over consumption of fossil fuels, over consumption of beef etc is all the same in the current system. Impose appropriate taxes that adequately capture the impact of the negative externalities. Living in unsustainable ways is ... well not sustainable. If people have liked to eat fish since the start, then maybe we should leave some for the next generations.

When should the tax stop being raised? The solution is not to make it so only the rich can eat fish, beef, etc. This idea is only ever proposed by people who think they will always be able to afford it or people who think no one should be able to enjoy animal meat.

When it has reached the cost of renewing the resource.

Taxing externalities isn't about "guaranteeing everyone can have access to the resource": that's circular. Taxing externalities is about ensuring that those who profit from a public good, also pay the public for the value of that good.

Hypothetical: If tomorrow it turns out that eating beef is somehow the ultimate cause of environmental destruction, and every cow fart requires $1MM in cleanup fees or humanity goes extinct, then we should tax cows at $1MM per fart, full stop. "But not everyone will be able to eat beef!" is not an argument, unless you want to say "We would rather all eat beef than survive as a species."

Of course: in reality it's not so clear cut. But the principle remains.

Of course: once you've determined a price for the good and levied taxes, you can then either use that price to clean up / renew the resource, or just distribute the money directly to citizens (see canada's "carbon price") to effectively pay people not to consume the resource. Same difference.

Post reply on HN