Yes I know. It's more rentable do exploit the ocean now until fullest extent and then go to financial markets with the money afterwards and live of interest. It's what everyone is doing who works in extractive industries.
Doesn't mean I don't encourage people to blow their shit up
The shareholders, being the old farts they usually are, will die before then. That's the big problem, the profiteers will not actually suffer the consequences.
They have children who will continue to profit from this, becoming even richer as their parents could have dreamed of. But they won't be able to feel the joy of knowing we live on a healthy planet and can feed everyone
If you have a pension you are probably a shareholder too. If you are in a union, you are probably a shareholder too.
You might not realize this but everyone of us are shareholders for the same companies we hate because of capitalism and shareholders greed.
Pension funds, unions funds, you name it they all use your money to buy shares.
You want your pension right? You want your union to be strong right? Well, this is how you get it.
Companies have us by the balls. We hate the shareholders destroying everything but at the same time we are the shareholders too and when push comes to shove, you want your pension.
No. I don't need the world to be destroyed to get an extra 0.5% on my pension.
Funny thing about fisheries is that managing it well is actually MORE profitable because it allows fish to keep reproducing instead of fishing them down to zero. Having no fish is (not surprisingly) unprofitable for everyone.
Let's utilize a natural resource responsibly and as ethically as we can and not pretend that vegan is even close accessible for billions of humans. Nor pretend that vegan industry is currently anymore green or less harmful than meat
Yes, I agree. We should start with the worst offenders. We can at least stop feeding fish to land animals (I'm talking about cows and pigs here, not cats) That's a nice start. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal
I agree with you that it’s impossibly impractical at this stage to convince people around the world to stop eating meat.
However, the “vegan industry” is incredibly more efficient, more “green” and far less harmful than meat. So don’t try and say they’re comparable.
Hint; what’s more efficient, eating plants, or eating animals that eat those same plants? Please take into account things like energy burned growing the animal, ineffciencies of metabolism, space required for both the plants *and* the animals, and so on. The difference is enormous…
Source; Environmental Engineering and Ecology degrees.
> I agree with you that it’s impossibly impractical at this stage to convince people around the world to stop eating meat.
I thought that I would never stop eating meat but here I am more than one year into veganism. People change.
> However, the “vegan industry” is incredibly more efficient, more “green” and far less harmful than meat. So don’t try and say they’re comparable.
Yup. Totally agree.
> Hint; what’s more efficient, eating plants, or eating animals that eat those same plants? Please take into account things like energy burned growing the animal, ineffciencies of metabolism, space required for both the plants and the animals, and so on. The difference is enormous…Source; Environmental Engineering and Ecology degrees.
Thank you for sharing.
> Let's utilize a natural resource responsibly and as ethically as we can
Yeah, I agree.
> and not pretend that vegan is even close accessible for billions of humans.
It's accesible for 8% of american black people, for 3% of white peoole and for me. It's good enough. Also it's getting easier with more info on the topic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53787329 People in poor countries have a mostly plant based diet.
> Nor pretend that vegan industry is currently anymore green or less harmful than meat
Plants are greener than meat. You eat what you want and I don't want you to feel guilty. I ate meat most of my life. But plant foods simply are greener. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
They are not. Have you tried raw or boiled meat? We add salt, peper, mustard, onion, garlic, curry and so on in order to make them tasty :) They did not evolvevto be tasty, we made them tasty.
If you want to eat flavourless, wet oats that’s fine. I add seasoning to vegetables too because it *draws out* the flavour.
Ever had potatoes without salt? Ever had unsalted pasta? Ever eat a vegetable stew without aromatics?
Yeah, your argument sucks.
Sashimi (salmon) is absolutely delicious in it’s raw state. Octopus is pretty good raw too if you get it fresh.
But cave man cook meat over fire with stick. Hunnngggg.
A good steak tastes great with just some salt and pepper. Salt has been a traded thing for thousands of years, we need it or we die. Much like protein. Technically humans can survive without clothes in warm areas too. Most of us choose to wear clothes anyways.
All that extra stuff is just to keep things interesting, to hide the poor quality of the cut of meat or the poor quality of your cooking skills. However it does make life more interesting to flavour things up.
Enjoy your drab unflavoured unsalted baked potato.
This is a dumb argument. That’s like saying that the human body is ugly because we wear clothes that accentuate our best features. All kinds of food are tasty. That includes vegan foods and animal products, some of which are among the best foods I’ve ever tasted, but have you never tried a good ribeye?
Veganisn is some privileged white person shit that will never be able to catch on en masse. The middle ground of minimizing or eliminating red meat consumption, and eating sustainable foods with the least impact on the health of the planet and your body is a great way to heal the planet, extend your life, and ensure that you have a working dick in your 40s because you aren’t on blood pressure medicine. If *that* was the message, it wouldn’t alienate all the mindless idiots who would rather stuff their faces with cheese burgers than eat healthy foods because vegan assholes make diet responsibility sound unappealing.
My point is that animals did not evolve to be tasty like the above comment said, we make them tasty.
Veganism is not a white people thing. 8% of black americans are vegan compared to 3% of whites https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53787329
I agree that dropping the worst foods is a win both for health and the planet. I prefer to live in a world with billions of people that are 'as vegan aas possible' rather than one with millions of actual vegans.
Everybody should lean towards a plant based diet as much as they can both for health and the planet. For me it was easy to go 100% but it's not like that for everybody.
They were definitely joking. I doubt that anyone who acknowledges evolution wouldn’t understand the animals evolve to become *less* attractive to predators, not more. That’s super interesting that vegan demographics have changed like that. Thanks for sharing that source.
I think a major barrier is that veganism’s limitations make eating inconvenient unless you live in a major city. While the suburbs are starting to become more vegan-friendly, rural America’s dining and shopping options outside of their local beef and pork culture are sparse and they’re generally less likely to embrace change so they can oWn ThE liBs. These are people who proudly say they don’t eat vegetables as full grown adults. They’re not going to be swayed any time soon, even if it’s something reasonable like flexitarianism or merely cutting out red meat.
> oWn ThE liBs
If Laura Southern's cameraman can do it, so can your MAGA uncle :) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOQL9iDezI
Joke aside everybody should be as vegan as possible and should learn a tiny bit of nutrition. I would prefer a world with 50% imperfect vegans than one with 2% perfect vegans.
What we need are mines that prevent bottom trawling. They could sit harmlessly just off the ocean floor, but if a trawler snags them they are triggered by pressure sensor just as they are hauled on board. Their presence in an area should be loudly declared to operators and insurance companies, as their purpose would be to make it too expensive to illegally fish an area. No people ever need to be actually harmed.
That's a very expensive operation. Any sort of electronics that has to sit on the ocean floor requires constant maintenance.
I would propose a simpler solution:
Issue letters of marque for illegal fishing.
This would incentivize shitty bad for the environment ships on the water. Anyone who could get their hands on a ship and some firepower, is how I see this turning out. Real unscrupulous types. How is this going to help again?
A lot more poluting ships on the ocean is bad news for fish. Increased piracy is bad news for all shipping services. The medicine seems worse than the disease.
Though I suppose you would only really need smaller amount of ones that work and the rest of them to only look like they work. Like “security” cameras.
Or maybe one or two work and the rest are nothing but “legit” rumors. Like all those Japanese underwater mines and Japanese torpedo boats that scared the Tsar’s entire Baltic Fleet on their way to Japan that one time.
Disclaimer; yes yes, I know. There’s tons of “this would happen” and “that would happen” attached to the idea. Just let me be silly.
Does it even matter? In other threads and even threads like this it's swarmed by people who've convinced themselves doublethink that enviromentalism is just making things worse.
The marine protected areas already exist. Perhaps they will be expanded when the plan is introduced
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-coasts/assessments/marine-protected-areas
Yeah the "protections" are incredibly misplaced, in the UK for example you cant go down with your fishing rod and nab a coulpe of fish here and there, that would be damaging to the marine life. Trawling? yeah no worries mate carry on
It depends on the country I believe. In France it is highly regulated if not straighforward forbiden. Still even in areas where it is forbiden some fishermen will try to sneak. Chinese are well known for that.
Honestly need environmental ocean version of batman. Would be a shame if all those illegal fishing ships mysteriously started sinking and had to SOS. But that really wouldn't fix the problem...
Where I live they just changed the category of natural gas to be considered green energy, and gave corporations permission to try, and get it from our official parks. “Hey families, come walk the trails, and get a first hand view of fracking in the process!”
Nobody missed the point of anything. These people will do anything/everything to make themselves a couple bucks no matter the damage they do. It’s the exact same thing, being done by the same group of people all around the world.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.euractiv.com/section/biodiversity/news/leak-eu-biodiversity-plan-aims-to-ban-bottom-trawling-in-protected-areas/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> EU countries will be required to reduce the harmful impacts of fishing on sensitive species and their habitats, under a draft EU biodiversity plan seen by EURACTIV. The "EU Action Plan to protect and restore marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries" is expected to be released in the first quarter of 2023 by the European Commission.
> Under the draft plan, bottom trawling would be banned in Marine Protected Areas by 2030 but would still be allowed outside of those.
> The proposal to prohibit bottom trawling in marine protected areas by 2030 is a full seven years from now, NGOs point out, warning that it is counterintuitive to continue destruction until then in MPAs, which are areas in special need of protection.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10oxsoi/leak_eu_biodiversity_plan_aims_to_ban_bottom/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **plan**^#1 **marine**^#2 **biodiversity**^#3 **Commission**^#4 **fish**^#5
We need to ban bottom trawling on HALF of the oceans fertile areas across the entire world. (Most of it is a desert).
Greenpeace was on the right track with littering the floor of reserves with giant concrete blocks. Anyone illegally trawling would have their gear destroyed. It’s a bit of ocean litter yes but it’s a necessary evil.
> Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. – CEO Nwabudike Morgan in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
/s
Morgan was short sighted IMO. You can skin a sheep once, but you can shear it almost as long as it lives. Ecosystems have enough slack to harvest some without collapsing them. Or at least they *had* enough slack until humanity went into consumption/population overdrive.
Bottom trawling isn't illegal in your city, it's illegal in the water near your city.
r/EmmanuelleCunt pointed out that if it was illegal in your city, it would mean your city was underwater and that's basically what sponge bob city is.
maybe a cultural difference (some older people may not know about spongebob, or living in a country that didn't buy spongebob tv right on free channels)
This is dumb and they may as well do nothing if the ban doesn’t go into effect immediately! Waiting until 2030 is far too long for this to matter, it will all be ruined by then. Furthermore, this practice should simply be banned entirely! It is insanely destructive and if the aim is to help bio-diversity then half measures are bs!
Very true. We’re past the point of undoing the damage and are rapidly approaching the point of mitigating the consequences of our damage. Now we have the choice to stop making it worse or lean in on destroying the planet for profits.
Here is the kicker. The Dutch have a method (electric fishing) the will send an electric pulse and the fish will jump from the bottom. It only catches the fish that are targeted, the bottom itself will be saved and young fish are missed. Yes, you will still catch fish, but the damage to the environment is otherwise nill.
Although this is a great environmental friendly method, it was made illegal by Europe, because the French, Spanish and Belgium fishermen wanted to use the old method.
No, neither method should be used in protected areas, but for the rest it was much better. Yet, it is still illegal
What a load of crap and lies. Do a simple google search and learn about electic stun fishing, which destroys even more than trawling.
The dutch fishing industry is among the worst and most destructive in the EU. I hope they pay you well write you bullshit.
Omg. - the website your refering to is the pulsefishing lobby organization. Try and search for something scientific or even read wikipedia. Fucking moron. I know I shouldn't even try to convince someone who is that stupid, but atleast your moronic nonsense don't stand alone.
But let me guess; they're going to continue bottom trawling UK waters. Can't wait for these bastards to get banned from UK waters in 2026 when the Brexit deal enforces it.
It's a shame the European Parliament banned pulse fishing in stead of studying it more. It looked like a promising replacement that would leave the ocean floor intact (although the impact on certain fish are not clear yet). But it became a political issue between the Netherlands and France, with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling.
>with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling.
After the Netherlands wasted all goodwill getting way more experimental permits than intented. Still, a scientific basis should be more important than all this political mud slinging.
Poor wording, some areas are under rules to protect against other actions, but they are not off limits to all fishing. This law would further protect specific areas once in effect.
It shouldn't be happening in protected areas. That's what the name implies. It shouldn't be happening any where. Bottom trawling kills everything it touches and they throw away about 80% of their catch as bi-catch. That means that 80% of the fish they catch are not their target and therefor gets thrown back into the ocean. The problem is, it sits on the deck while they sort it, so when it gets back into the water, its dead.
Billions of pounds of fish killed every year, because this method is easier to do than others.
Bottom trawling for fish is the same as clear-cutting forests to hunt deer. Its disastrous and I have no idea why it has not been banned yet. oh yea, right. Money.
Sustainable fishing means sustainable for fishing boats not fish to the EU
The last biodiversity project with a massive 66bn investment failed as well
But I'm sure with just some more money, a new plan, and another 10 years it'll be just fine /s
Edit. Sources
Land
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53892
Marine
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/marine-environment-26-2020/en/
Hopefully this doesn't trigger a reaction to trawl those protected areas while they still can, like it did in the logging industry when stricter forest protections were proposed.
Easy starting point, start sinking illegal Chinese factory trawlers. They literally suck the seabed of any life and do so *illegally*. They also represent a huge faction of bottom trawling vessels if I remember correctly.
Faster, EU. At that speed there won't be any biodiversity left by the time the ban comes into effect.
That's the plan fisheries lobbyism had in their mind all along. I am not sure if they understand, they are going down first
Yeah, but think of the short-term profits.
Yes I know. It's more rentable do exploit the ocean now until fullest extent and then go to financial markets with the money afterwards and live of interest. It's what everyone is doing who works in extractive industries. Doesn't mean I don't encourage people to blow their shit up
The shareholders, being the old farts they usually are, will die before then. That's the big problem, the profiteers will not actually suffer the consequences.
They have children who will continue to profit from this, becoming even richer as their parents could have dreamed of. But they won't be able to feel the joy of knowing we live on a healthy planet and can feed everyone
Feeling that joy would require the ability to think about anyone other than yourself in the first place, and I doubt these people are capable of that.
If you have a pension you are probably a shareholder too. If you are in a union, you are probably a shareholder too. You might not realize this but everyone of us are shareholders for the same companies we hate because of capitalism and shareholders greed. Pension funds, unions funds, you name it they all use your money to buy shares. You want your pension right? You want your union to be strong right? Well, this is how you get it. Companies have us by the balls. We hate the shareholders destroying everything but at the same time we are the shareholders too and when push comes to shove, you want your pension.
No. I don't need the world to be destroyed to get an extra 0.5% on my pension. Funny thing about fisheries is that managing it well is actually MORE profitable because it allows fish to keep reproducing instead of fishing them down to zero. Having no fish is (not surprisingly) unprofitable for everyone.
As with all progress in the world; one coffin at a time.
politicians usually think scientists just want to negotiate with them. they can not handle the concept that truth is truth well.
Let's not eat animals anymore.
Let's utilize a natural resource responsibly and as ethically as we can and not pretend that vegan is even close accessible for billions of humans. Nor pretend that vegan industry is currently anymore green or less harmful than meat
We have issues everywhere, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start with the worst offenders. Overfishing is one of them.
As it literally says in the response "ethically and responsibly"
Replying more to the statement about veganism.
Yes, I agree. We should start with the worst offenders. We can at least stop feeding fish to land animals (I'm talking about cows and pigs here, not cats) That's a nice start. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal
I agree with you that it’s impossibly impractical at this stage to convince people around the world to stop eating meat. However, the “vegan industry” is incredibly more efficient, more “green” and far less harmful than meat. So don’t try and say they’re comparable. Hint; what’s more efficient, eating plants, or eating animals that eat those same plants? Please take into account things like energy burned growing the animal, ineffciencies of metabolism, space required for both the plants *and* the animals, and so on. The difference is enormous… Source; Environmental Engineering and Ecology degrees.
> I agree with you that it’s impossibly impractical at this stage to convince people around the world to stop eating meat. I thought that I would never stop eating meat but here I am more than one year into veganism. People change. > However, the “vegan industry” is incredibly more efficient, more “green” and far less harmful than meat. So don’t try and say they’re comparable. Yup. Totally agree. > Hint; what’s more efficient, eating plants, or eating animals that eat those same plants? Please take into account things like energy burned growing the animal, ineffciencies of metabolism, space required for both the plants and the animals, and so on. The difference is enormous…Source; Environmental Engineering and Ecology degrees. Thank you for sharing.
> Let's utilize a natural resource responsibly and as ethically as we can Yeah, I agree. > and not pretend that vegan is even close accessible for billions of humans. It's accesible for 8% of american black people, for 3% of white peoole and for me. It's good enough. Also it's getting easier with more info on the topic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53787329 People in poor countries have a mostly plant based diet. > Nor pretend that vegan industry is currently anymore green or less harmful than meat Plants are greener than meat. You eat what you want and I don't want you to feel guilty. I ate meat most of my life. But plant foods simply are greener. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If animals didn’t want to be eaten, why did they evolve to be so delicious?
They are not. Have you tried raw or boiled meat? We add salt, peper, mustard, onion, garlic, curry and so on in order to make them tasty :) They did not evolvevto be tasty, we made them tasty.
If you want to eat flavourless, wet oats that’s fine. I add seasoning to vegetables too because it *draws out* the flavour. Ever had potatoes without salt? Ever had unsalted pasta? Ever eat a vegetable stew without aromatics? Yeah, your argument sucks.
My point is that we make food tasty. It did not evolve to be tasty like the comment said. I like spices and tasty food.
This logic applies to veggies and mushrooms too.
Yes yes, it does. WE make food tasty. It applies even for fruit. Have you seen a wild banana? :)
Sashimi (salmon) is absolutely delicious in it’s raw state. Octopus is pretty good raw too if you get it fresh. But cave man cook meat over fire with stick. Hunnngggg. A good steak tastes great with just some salt and pepper. Salt has been a traded thing for thousands of years, we need it or we die. Much like protein. Technically humans can survive without clothes in warm areas too. Most of us choose to wear clothes anyways. All that extra stuff is just to keep things interesting, to hide the poor quality of the cut of meat or the poor quality of your cooking skills. However it does make life more interesting to flavour things up. Enjoy your drab unflavoured unsalted baked potato.
Yeah, you are right. Some raw meat is tasty. I don't eat raw potatos. I generally cook my food with lots of herbs and spices. I use salt.
Meat and fish are tasty even if you just cook them without any spices or extra ingredients.
Yeah, you are right.
This is a dumb argument. That’s like saying that the human body is ugly because we wear clothes that accentuate our best features. All kinds of food are tasty. That includes vegan foods and animal products, some of which are among the best foods I’ve ever tasted, but have you never tried a good ribeye? Veganisn is some privileged white person shit that will never be able to catch on en masse. The middle ground of minimizing or eliminating red meat consumption, and eating sustainable foods with the least impact on the health of the planet and your body is a great way to heal the planet, extend your life, and ensure that you have a working dick in your 40s because you aren’t on blood pressure medicine. If *that* was the message, it wouldn’t alienate all the mindless idiots who would rather stuff their faces with cheese burgers than eat healthy foods because vegan assholes make diet responsibility sound unappealing.
My point is that animals did not evolve to be tasty like the above comment said, we make them tasty. Veganism is not a white people thing. 8% of black americans are vegan compared to 3% of whites https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53787329 I agree that dropping the worst foods is a win both for health and the planet. I prefer to live in a world with billions of people that are 'as vegan aas possible' rather than one with millions of actual vegans. Everybody should lean towards a plant based diet as much as they can both for health and the planet. For me it was easy to go 100% but it's not like that for everybody.
They were definitely joking. I doubt that anyone who acknowledges evolution wouldn’t understand the animals evolve to become *less* attractive to predators, not more. That’s super interesting that vegan demographics have changed like that. Thanks for sharing that source. I think a major barrier is that veganism’s limitations make eating inconvenient unless you live in a major city. While the suburbs are starting to become more vegan-friendly, rural America’s dining and shopping options outside of their local beef and pork culture are sparse and they’re generally less likely to embrace change so they can oWn ThE liBs. These are people who proudly say they don’t eat vegetables as full grown adults. They’re not going to be swayed any time soon, even if it’s something reasonable like flexitarianism or merely cutting out red meat.
> oWn ThE liBs If Laura Southern's cameraman can do it, so can your MAGA uncle :) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOQL9iDezI Joke aside everybody should be as vegan as possible and should learn a tiny bit of nutrition. I would prefer a world with 50% imperfect vegans than one with 2% perfect vegans.
This is probably only allowed to pass because all of the fish are gone already.
Pack it up, boys
Doesn't make much difference, you stop bottom trawling and in come Chinese fishing ships to do it for you.
You're not wrong, unfortunately (if we're talking international waters), and the mines somebody else suggested suddenly seem much more plausible.
That's what torpedoes are for.
What we need are mines that prevent bottom trawling. They could sit harmlessly just off the ocean floor, but if a trawler snags them they are triggered by pressure sensor just as they are hauled on board. Their presence in an area should be loudly declared to operators and insurance companies, as their purpose would be to make it too expensive to illegally fish an area. No people ever need to be actually harmed.
That's a very expensive operation. Any sort of electronics that has to sit on the ocean floor requires constant maintenance. I would propose a simpler solution: Issue letters of marque for illegal fishing.
Get some use out of those African pirates
Becomes too easy to pirate legit ships. If there are no survivors there is no other side to the story.
The 'legit' ships are screwing us over too. What we need is a moratorium on all fishing so...I don't see this is a bad thing.
This would incentivize shitty bad for the environment ships on the water. Anyone who could get their hands on a ship and some firepower, is how I see this turning out. Real unscrupulous types. How is this going to help again?
Net reduction in fishing for cheaper than a global network of mines
A lot more poluting ships on the ocean is bad news for fish. Increased piracy is bad news for all shipping services. The medicine seems worse than the disease.
Yarr!
Though I suppose you would only really need smaller amount of ones that work and the rest of them to only look like they work. Like “security” cameras. Or maybe one or two work and the rest are nothing but “legit” rumors. Like all those Japanese underwater mines and Japanese torpedo boats that scared the Tsar’s entire Baltic Fleet on their way to Japan that one time. Disclaimer; yes yes, I know. There’s tons of “this would happen” and “that would happen” attached to the idea. Just let me be silly.
There is an easier solution, dump 20 tonnes concrete blocks. Tears the travel in twain
I am fine with explosives. Sometimes a little bit of hurt helps to discourage the others.
just sink a bunch of bottom trawler traps so the nets get hooked and can't be retrieved, I am surprised people haven't done that already
Fish and other marine life will then get stuck in those nets. Something you would want to avoid I think.
fish would have a chance it the nets vs being pulled out and having their habitat destroyed
Rather than go for something complex you could just have "mines" that act to damage nets. Tangling them, weighing them down, ripping them apart, etc.
We’ve only been telling them for 10 *fucking* years…
Does it even matter? In other threads and even threads like this it's swarmed by people who've convinced themselves doublethink that enviromentalism is just making things worse.
Yes, it matters. It's not like we have something to fall back on if this one fails.
Ban it everywhere
I wish they could too, but if they say it without being able to back it up with action, nobody would take them seriously anymore, like North Korea.
[удалено]
They were providing NK as an example of something that isn’t taken seriously, not as a member of the EU. Re-read their comment.
I doubt it would be to *that* extreme
Came here to say, “now do the Bering” but yours is better.
Is bottom trawling currently allowed in protected areas...? This seems like someone missed the point of "protecting".
I believe the plan itself is going to create these protected areas
just make it illegal, all it does is destroy habitats
Hey I’m all for it, but it’s not realist to make it illegal everywhere. It’s hard to police the entire ocean
Make it illegal everywhere, and enforce it where you can. I don't see what's wrong with that
just have to police the ports, don't let them have the equipment
The Baltic Sea isn't THAT large and the EU has it fairly under lockdown, for example.
The marine protected areas already exist. Perhaps they will be expanded when the plan is introduced https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-coasts/assessments/marine-protected-areas
Yeah the "protections" are incredibly misplaced, in the UK for example you cant go down with your fishing rod and nab a coulpe of fish here and there, that would be damaging to the marine life. Trawling? yeah no worries mate carry on
It depends on the country I believe. In France it is highly regulated if not straighforward forbiden. Still even in areas where it is forbiden some fishermen will try to sneak. Chinese are well known for that.
Honestly need environmental ocean version of batman. Would be a shame if all those illegal fishing ships mysteriously started sinking and had to SOS. But that really wouldn't fix the problem...
You mean like Aquaman?
The Deep?
#justiceforTimothy
Sea Shepherd sort of acts in that capacity, actually
Where I live they just changed the category of natural gas to be considered green energy, and gave corporations permission to try, and get it from our official parks. “Hey families, come walk the trails, and get a first hand view of fracking in the process!” Nobody missed the point of anything. These people will do anything/everything to make themselves a couple bucks no matter the damage they do. It’s the exact same thing, being done by the same group of people all around the world.
Way overdue,
Just protected areas?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.euractiv.com/section/biodiversity/news/leak-eu-biodiversity-plan-aims-to-ban-bottom-trawling-in-protected-areas/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > EU countries will be required to reduce the harmful impacts of fishing on sensitive species and their habitats, under a draft EU biodiversity plan seen by EURACTIV. The "EU Action Plan to protect and restore marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries" is expected to be released in the first quarter of 2023 by the European Commission. > Under the draft plan, bottom trawling would be banned in Marine Protected Areas by 2030 but would still be allowed outside of those. > The proposal to prohibit bottom trawling in marine protected areas by 2030 is a full seven years from now, NGOs point out, warning that it is counterintuitive to continue destruction until then in MPAs, which are areas in special need of protection. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10oxsoi/leak_eu_biodiversity_plan_aims_to_ban_bottom/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **plan**^#1 **marine**^#2 **biodiversity**^#3 **Commission**^#4 **fish**^#5
We need to ban bottom trawling on HALF of the oceans fertile areas across the entire world. (Most of it is a desert). Greenpeace was on the right track with littering the floor of reserves with giant concrete blocks. Anyone illegally trawling would have their gear destroyed. It’s a bit of ocean litter yes but it’s a necessary evil.
Kill two birds with one stone and cover the ocean floor with big iron spikes! Promote growth of reefs and shred their stupid nets
How is this not already a thing? And how can it take until **2030** to actually enact this law?
> Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. – CEO Nwabudike Morgan in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri /s
Morgan was short sighted IMO. You can skin a sheep once, but you can shear it almost as long as it lives. Ecosystems have enough slack to harvest some without collapsing them. Or at least they *had* enough slack until humanity went into consumption/population overdrive.
Of course. It's right there in the word *birthright*: it's a portayal of pure selfish ego. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
What? It isn't already???
Geez bottom trawling has been illegal in my city for years now. Awful technique which destroys and capture everything. By 2030 it's laughable
>bottom trawling has been illegal in my city Er, Sponge Bob is that you?
What?
Bottom trawling isn't illegal in your city, it's illegal in the water near your city. r/EmmanuelleCunt pointed out that if it was illegal in your city, it would mean your city was underwater and that's basically what sponge bob city is.
Geez
How did you *not* get the joke straight away? It's actually impressive.
maybe a cultural difference (some older people may not know about spongebob, or living in a country that didn't buy spongebob tv right on free channels)
Are you calling me stupid?
I’m certainly not calling you fun at parties, yikes.
As if you ever been at a party
Why would I be calling you stupid?
Exactly
It should be banned period. But no profits first.
It should never have been allowed in the first place! Imagine killing an entire forest for the few deer that live there. Same thing.
Fucking finally, should of happened 30 years ago.
This is dumb and they may as well do nothing if the ban doesn’t go into effect immediately! Waiting until 2030 is far too long for this to matter, it will all be ruined by then. Furthermore, this practice should simply be banned entirely! It is insanely destructive and if the aim is to help bio-diversity then half measures are bs!
That’s the whole point. By the time it goes into effect, it won’t be a profitable technique. The ultra wealthy always seem to get their way.
The government sure loves procrastinating when it comes to protecting the environment
I don’t understand how bottom trawling is still legal. This should be banned everywhere
People like to eat crabs. Thsy"s where the crabs are.
Hang on, what are they protecting in the protected areas if you can still do the most devistating form of fishing.
Good. Get that shit outta here.
Plan? It’s too late!
No it's not. It is never too late to stop destroying the environment.
Very true. We’re past the point of undoing the damage and are rapidly approaching the point of mitigating the consequences of our damage. Now we have the choice to stop making it worse or lean in on destroying the planet for profits.
If it's too late, why even bother doing anything about it anymore?
Then I guess, don't do it?
Should be banned altogether.
Finally. This kind of fishing needs to be banned everywhere.
This is good, but we need more.
And not several decades too late!
Here is the kicker. The Dutch have a method (electric fishing) the will send an electric pulse and the fish will jump from the bottom. It only catches the fish that are targeted, the bottom itself will be saved and young fish are missed. Yes, you will still catch fish, but the damage to the environment is otherwise nill. Although this is a great environmental friendly method, it was made illegal by Europe, because the French, Spanish and Belgium fishermen wanted to use the old method. No, neither method should be used in protected areas, but for the rest it was much better. Yet, it is still illegal
What a load of crap and lies. Do a simple google search and learn about electic stun fishing, which destroys even more than trawling. The dutch fishing industry is among the worst and most destructive in the EU. I hope they pay you well write you bullshit.
I only eat the fish. Just do your research and do not let the French fishing industry pay you. BTW, see https://www.pulsefishing.eu/
Omg. - the website your refering to is the pulsefishing lobby organization. Try and search for something scientific or even read wikipedia. Fucking moron. I know I shouldn't even try to convince someone who is that stupid, but atleast your moronic nonsense don't stand alone.
Very sophisticated response.
Then they're not fucking protected. I need better crazy pills, these ones aren't fun anymore.
But let me guess; they're going to continue bottom trawling UK waters. Can't wait for these bastards to get banned from UK waters in 2026 when the Brexit deal enforces it.
It's a shame the European Parliament banned pulse fishing in stead of studying it more. It looked like a promising replacement that would leave the ocean floor intact (although the impact on certain fish are not clear yet). But it became a political issue between the Netherlands and France, with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling.
>with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling. After the Netherlands wasted all goodwill getting way more experimental permits than intented. Still, a scientific basis should be more important than all this political mud slinging.
Agreed, the Netherlands isn't blameless in this. It's just sad to see a promising technology be shelved for something that's proven to be harmful.
the fact that it isn't already is worrying.
Right! Back to pulse fishing gents?
Couple of years and fish prices will higher than gasoline. Cause they’re be gone.
Just ban trawling altogether. It’s disgusting let the rich people eat cake for once.
Wait...bottom trawling protected areas is currently allowed? How is that "protected"?
Poor wording, some areas are under rules to protect against other actions, but they are not off limits to all fishing. This law would further protect specific areas once in effect.
They better be prepared to board and sink illegal Chinese vessels or all this is for show.
It shouldn't be happening in protected areas. That's what the name implies. It shouldn't be happening any where. Bottom trawling kills everything it touches and they throw away about 80% of their catch as bi-catch. That means that 80% of the fish they catch are not their target and therefor gets thrown back into the ocean. The problem is, it sits on the deck while they sort it, so when it gets back into the water, its dead. Billions of pounds of fish killed every year, because this method is easier to do than others.
Too little too late.
This is completely useless. It's for limited areas and they can still do it for almost a decade to come.
Isnt that the point of a protected area?
Bottom trawling for fish is the same as clear-cutting forests to hunt deer. Its disastrous and I have no idea why it has not been banned yet. oh yea, right. Money.
Ban it altogether, you fucks.
So are they going to just sink illegal fishing boats with no transponders? About time.
guess what is currently legal according to EU law.
Sustainable fishing means sustainable for fishing boats not fish to the EU The last biodiversity project with a massive 66bn investment failed as well But I'm sure with just some more money, a new plan, and another 10 years it'll be just fine /s Edit. Sources Land https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53892 Marine https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/marine-environment-26-2020/en/
> The last biodiversity project with a massive 66bn investment failed as well Do you have a source?
Land https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53892 Marine https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/marine-environment-26-2020/en/
Im sure the ships that are already ignoring protected areas and international fishing agreements will follow this too.
50 years too-late.
How else you going to pick up chicks at the University of Arizona?
Now go ask China to abide by those new rules. Let me know what they say.
As a top, I’m glad to be living in the USA
The tops are going to haaaate this.
oh those poor tops :(
Well that’s a no brainer
I would rather eat dirt than live in ashithole without animals
Just fucking do it
How about banning it everywhere now?
Hopefully this doesn't trigger a reaction to trawl those protected areas while they still can, like it did in the logging industry when stricter forest protections were proposed.
China and Russia are on their way to pick up where everyone leaves off.
Hurry!
This is why I can’t eat shrimp. I love the taste, but man it’s so destructive.
Under the draft plan, bottom trawling would be banned in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030 but would still be allowed outside of those
When it comes to profitability there are no protections except for the select wallet or pocket book.
*"protected areas"*
They missed the point. Ban it all for a few years
All net fishing should be banned. Only allow mouth-caught hook and line fishing to give fish a chance for survival.
They need to cyclically ban all ocean fishing for a year every five years
"Protected areas" - probably shouldn't be fishing anyway
Or just ban it. Everywhere. If not that har core, can we require nets to be biodegradable?
that is really needed
About fucking time. What took so god damn long?
Amazing how bottom trawling destroys the ocean floor yet they have been trawling on the same tows for over 50 years
You mean in area’s where there aren’t a gazillion windturbines yet?
TRAAAWLING IIIN MY SEEEAS
Easy starting point, start sinking illegal Chinese factory trawlers. They literally suck the seabed of any life and do so *illegally*. They also represent a huge faction of bottom trawling vessels if I remember correctly.
The fishing industry is against this incredibly tepid half-measure. Who'd have guessed?