Left Behinds

The anti-andrewsullivan.com. Or, the Robin Hood (Maid Marian?) of bright pink Blogger blogs.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Usually it takes more than a month to be proved right

Okay, half right. I said there would be no quick treaty action to halt the disappearance of the world's fish, that part I got.

United Nations negotiations on fisheries have ended without a global ban on trawling methods which destroy coral reefs and fish nurseries.

Conservation groups and some governments had argued for a ban on bottom-trawling, which drags heavy nets and crushing rollers on the sea floor.

Negotiators could only agree on a limited set of precautionary measures.

Last month, leading scientists warned there would be no sea fish left in 50 years if current practices continued.
In 2004, a report compiled for the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and other environmental groups concluded that bottom-trawling was "...highly destructive to the biodiversity associated with seamounts and deep-sea coral ecosystems and... likely to pose significant risks to this biodiversity, including the risk of species extinction."

In the same year, 1,100 scientists put their names to a petition supporting the demand for a moratorium.

All this scientific evidence could not convince enough UN delegates that a moratorium was needed.

The eventual deal which goes forward to the General Assembly mandates governments to adopt unilateral "precautionary measures" to ensure their bottom-trawlers do not cause significant damage to marine ecosystems.

On the other hand I said it would be the fault of the United States, and that part I didn't get.

Conservation groups accused Iceland in particular of blocking further protection. Iceland is already under fire from the conservation lobby over its recent decision to resume commercial whaling.

"The international community should be outraged that Iceland could almost single-handedly sink deep-sea protection and the food security of future generations," said Ms Sack.

Not that the fish care whose fault it is.


  • At 11:42 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    My friend was just in Iceland, and apparently everything costs 10 to 20 times what it costs in NYC, because they have to import almost everything. Their entire economy is based on a bit of tourism and a lot of questionable marine activities.

    Why do people insist on unsustainably large populations in countries with almost zero natural resources? Icelanders should just get the fuck off that rock and move to Sweden or something.

  • At 12:57 AM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    On the other hand, Iceland gets some ridiculous percentage of its energy from emission-free geothermal sources. I wonder whether we really need to move away from these single-issue treaties to more comprehensive environmental frameworks, so that Iceland gets something (like a global commitment to fix the warming that's melting their lovely glaciers) in return for not scotching fishing agreements. That might be more practical than convincing 200,000 or so people to move.

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger onNYTurf said…

    Iceland? How does that little island get that much say? However these treaty negotiations are set up they clearly do not seem to make any sense. China, the US, and the EU could make an agreement and then if Iceland wants to ignore the rules we can just introduce them to the USS Eisenhower. We won't put up with Saddam, but we'll put up with this crap from Iceland? Iceland couldn't block a rowboat.

  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Heh. I dunno, Bjork went kind of buckwild on those paparazzi a couple years back. Don't underestimate the Fightin' Icelandics.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com