Ban Bottom Trawling

[Jamie in Chile]

According to a new study, the finishing method bottom trawling causes between 600 million and 1500 million tonnes of CO2 per year by disturbing and dragging up and releasing carbon from the sea floor. For context, that, if correct, is about 1%-3% of all global heating / climate change.

This appears to be perhaps the first study on this area (that I know of anyway), and unclear how accurate it likely is. It looks pretty rough to me and wasn't based on field work.

The study really challenges the claim that fish is a low carbon product, and reinforces the idea that only a vegan diet is low carbon, since we already know that meat and dairy are high carbon.

Of course, if you were eating fish that you know is a type of fish not obtained from bottom trawling, then it can still be low carbon. And local fishermen in poor countries just sailing out of their harbour and putting a net in the sea is almost zero carbon. Whereas if you are eating fish that you know is gained from bottom trawling, who knows - that might be as destructive as eating beef produced on land where they had to destroy the rainforest in order to get started.

I also think we should support calls for a ban to bottom trawling. Regardless of whether this study is correct, it is very destructive killing.

PS Ignore the clickbait headline about air travel. That is misleading since they have only considered the CO2 effects of air travel, and not the other effects like contrails. Air travel is currently around 5% of global heating (pre COVID).

Bottom trawling releases as much carbon as air travel, landmark study finds

Dragging heavy nets across seabed disturbs marine sediments, world’s largest carbon sink, scientists report

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lou]

We ought to have a petition.

Can you spare a minute to help Louis Hamerman?

Ban Bottom Trawling

chng.it

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Ok, signed, I think there is the start of some momentum on bottom trawling. I could see really see it getting banned in the coming years.

 

[Lou]

I think the whole fishing thing is getting some good attention lately. We've been paying attention to cows, chickens, and pigs and have been sort of ignoring the fishies.

 

[Lou]

Seaspiracy is coming to Netflix next week.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Thanks Lou. I'll have a look and see if it arrives in Chile.

It's going to be worth watching.

However keep in mind that I suspect these people present these videos like "I was just an ordinary Joe minding my own business when I happened to stumble on this info" when infact I suspect there is a vegan agenda behind these videos before they start researching them. I am assuming here that some of the producers and directors or funders or presenters were the same across the three movies?

With Cowspiracy, they were making the case that veganism was better for the environment, which it turns out was a slam dunk case so they didn't have to exaggerate that much.

With What the Health they were making the case that veganism was better for your health, which may be true, but less of a slam dunk argument for sure, so they had to exaggerate a bit more.

If they want to argue against fish from an ethical perspective, that should be a slam dunk as well but knowing them it wouldn't be a surprise if they needless exaggerate for dramatic effect, and make it out like there is a giant conspiracy but let's see.

I see this guy being interviewed in the trailer

Stop eating fish. It’s the only way to save the life in our seas | George Monbiot

If governments won’t take on the lethal fishing industry, we must, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I watched Seaspiracy. It's worth watching. It's also worth trying to get other people to watch, especially people that currently eat fish.

It does a good job of covering many problem aspects of the fishing industry, and is basically an anti fishing movie made with the purpose of trying to get people to eat fish (which is great!). The argument against fish is overwhelming, so it's not difficult. I think this movie will help the vegan cause and do a lot of good.

It actually shines a light on bottom trawling which is what I started this thread with, but that is a minor part of the movie. It also touches on unsustainable practices. The dark side of the fishing industry, including human slavery and illegal fishing, is also a key part of the movie. It doesn't contain many brand new ideas or findings, and is more of a high level documentary. They chose to focus on most of the anti-fish arguments briefly rather than focus on some briefly and jet set all over the world as if they think they are in a Bond movie covering all sorts of different themes in the 90 minutes.

It will be interesting to see what criticism the film gets. After a 5-minute google I didn't find any. But it's pretty early. There are very few reviews, the film is getting disappointingly little coverage so far. Maybe the timing is a problem. Telling people to stop doing things they like is hard at the best of times but the pandemic could make people less receptive than ever to these kind of depressing arguments.

This is basically the third in a trilogy of Kip Anderson films following Cowspiracy and What the Health. As usual, they act like they were just your average joe who just happened upon the vegan truth as they went along, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the whole thing was already loosely scripted. I suspect the makers were vegan from the start and create this narrative so that people watching can relate to an emotional journey of the person in the film. That way, it doesn't come across as a vegan preachy film from the start. It may work psychologically, but it's fundamentally dishonest without being explicitly dishonest.

They mostly interview people who will agree with them already, except when they are out to get someone and then they just try and deliberately trip them up. The New York times has said that "“the film’s rhetorical style often feels like a cheap imitation of hard-hitting investigative journalism”. Harsh but true. I wondered if that was why Kip himself wasn't on screen this time. Maybe he figured out that they would figure out his game if they recognized him and he'd never get his foot past the front door.

After focusing for most of the movie on sustainability issues, the latter part briefly presents what is essentially a vegan argument based on things such as fishes ability to feel pain, and pretty much says that this is the core argument against eating fish. So this movie is ultimately closer to being explicitly vegan than its two predecessors. This could be a change of tactic, but it could also be because they judged that animal rights are a much more known issue than fish rights.

I guess that these film makers are ethical vegans but focus on sustainability and health issues because they think that these are more winnable arguments or perhaps because they think the ethical arguments are already focused on elsewhere.

As art, the film deserves a 7/10 but if it helps create a vegan world in a way it should be 10/10. In spite of my criticisms of the film I fully recognize these film makers are doing far more for the vegan cause than I ever have so good for them.

 

[Emma JC]

we watched it last night and it was sad and horrid and interesting and informative and really helped to put a lot of things into perspective, especially the dishonesty of the "dolphin free" and "sustainable fishing" myths - spoiler *** there isn't either

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

 

[Lou]

It does a good job of covering many problem aspects of the fishing industry, and is basically an anti fishing movie made with the purpose of trying to get people to eat fish (which is great!).

I assume you meant "get people to not eat fish".

The argument against fish is overwhelming, so it's not difficult. I think this movie will help the vegan cause and do a lot of good.

Yes. Totally

It will be interesting to see what criticism the film gets. After a 5-minute google I didn't find any.

Google again. Lots of criticism. One of the reoccurring themes is how the doc spends most of its time in Asia. while there are plenty of Western countries that have bad fishing practices as well. One of the criticisms that has stuck with me is that showing Asians in such a negative light was really bad timing with all the Anti Asian stuff going on right now.

But it's pretty early. There are very few reviews, the film is getting disappointingly little coverage so far.

#10 on Netflix right now. I think it was higher earlier in the week.

This is basically the third in a trilogy of Kip Anderson films following Cowspiracy and What the Health. As usual, they act like they were just your average joe who just happened upon the vegan truth as they went along, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the whole thing was already loosely scripted.

Of course it was. All the best docs have some sort of gimmicks and I do like this one. However, after three in a row, its getting a little worn.

This could be a change of tactic, but it could also be because they judged that animal rights are a much more known issue than fish rights.

that was my take on it.

I guess that these film makers are ethical vegans but focus on sustainability and health issues because they think that these are more winnable arguments or perhaps because they think the ethical arguments are already focused on elsewhere.

yes, I think so too.

In spite of my criticisms of the film I fully recognize these film makers are doing far more for the vegan cause than I ever have so good for them.

Yes. but you know like the predecessors I don't think it is meant to be - what did you call it- High Documentary.
I think it is meant to be sort of Edutainment. Interesting and not heavy handed. or maybe not too heavy handed.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Hi Lou, thanks for correcting my mistake. Yes I missed out a “not”.

Funny, when I watched the movie and googled for criticisms and reviews later there was nothing, I guess I might have watched it on the first or second day. Yes, a lot more now!

However, I think most of it is from the industry itself, or is correct criticism but just challenges specific things not the central anti-fish message.

This was the best one I found so far. Might be worth a look for anyone who has watched the movie and are looking for some balance:
Seaspiracy debunked by a marine biologist

 

[Lou]

Just saw this. Maybe the most damning criticism of Seaspiracy .

Don't Watch Netflix's Seaspiracy

The buds are coming out on the trees, the sun is shining, and birds are chirping outside my window. It’s a stupidly perfect day, and I had to go ruin it all by watching Seaspiracy.

earther.gizmodo.com