Let's move backward to move forward

On the heels of this fascinating discussion prompted by Ray Hilborn's controversial op-ed in the NY Times last month*, I see that a New Zealand fishing executive decided to unload his thoughts on fishing and environmentalism on the world. I don't think I could add much to the extensive debate over at SeaMonster, so I'll stick to analyzing the Kiwi's remarks.

First, I'll just say right off that I think that picking the best country in terms of fisheries management is like picking the least painful way to get your finger chopped off. There's really no ideal option. New Zealand's management has some good points but also continues to fish for orange roughy, a fish that can live for well over 100 years and, as you might expect, grows pretty slowly. Bonus: it's caught by bottom trawling. Orange roughy is one of New Zealand's most profitable fisheries, although the fishery has experienced some tough times as managers realized (stop me if you've heard this story before) they didn't understand the fish well and had set catches too high. New Zealand also continues to fish for toothfish in the Ross Sea, although that area has far more value to the world as an unparalleled natural laboratory to study a (relatively) untouched ecosystem.

So in many ways I'm not surprised to hear a NZ fish executive passing off terrible, retro ideas as fresh and insightful. What is really LOL-worthy is his assertion that:

"We need a new balanced approach to environmentalism, one that recognises sustainable extraction, and one that recognises a higher ranking of mankind, that should rightfully be placed well above the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees."

This is revolutionary, and so perceptive, because if there's one thing that is clear from humankind's history of trying to manage nature, it's that it can be done, and that we're smart enough to do it. It's not as if our plans to redirect rivers or harvest large numbers of wild species ever go awry, and all we have to do to continue this happy state of affairs is claim our rightful place in nature, i.e., in charge of it. That's why we have so many environmental challenges! We have just never acted arrogantly enough with respect to the environment.

Humans keep trying to figure out ways to rise above the vicissitudes of nature. In that sense our big brains and dextrous limbs are a curse, because most creatures don't have the capacity to avoid the consequences of their actions like we do. Strip out all the fish near the coast? Invent gear that can fish in deeper waters! Humans have made great scientific strides in the last few centuries, but if you think that we know so much about how nature works that we should be confident in our ability to "manage" it, I'd like to treat you to a dinner of fresh Newfoundland cod.

*The discussion was on SeaMonster, an awesome new blog you should totally read.

Not this again

Periodically we get wind of rumblings of interest in putting all those pesky, useless icebergs floating around to good use. But most of these ideas seem pretty outlandish and are easy to dismiss. Now we hear about a plan credible enough to be reported on by a New York Times blogger. According to the article, many of these icebergs eventually find their way to warmer waters and melt, so why not extract them for human consumption? Maybe. I suppose it's possible that the "billions of gallons" supposedly contained in these 'bergs wouldn't be missed. Plus, humans have such a great track record when it comes to removing things from ecosystems, right?

My recommendation would be that humans put that same mental energy currently being used to plot how to bring icebergs to hot climates towards how to conserve water and ensure we have enough for truly important things. It is a finite resource and we don't always use it intelligently. Whether it's farmers using cheap water to grow crops in areas the plants aren't really suited to, or cities draining rivers to support large populations in dry areas, or (a personal pet peeve of mine) people dumping gallons of water onto lawns to keep them green in the peak of summer, it's clear we don't have our priorities straight. So many people on this planet still don't have clean water to drink and yet the world's wealthy have all the water they require, for whatever frivolous purpose they desire.

Take India for example. Many Indians don't have access to the water they need - not because India doesn't have enough water, but because it's not well managed. And in many places in the U.S., despite the widespread availability of safe tap water, people insist on buying bottled water, which requires water for its production! In many cases, we already know of strategies that can reduce waste, and policies that encourage responsible water use. With sufficient political will, we can invest in infrastructure to deliver safe water to the poor and eliminate incentives for the well-off to use as much water as they like. We don't need to waste time dragging icebergs around the ocean.

Rewarding bad behavior

The commissioner of the IWC announced a compromise proposal yesterday that somehow both allows commercial whaling and keeps the moratorium on commercial whaling. Confused? I am. What's happening is that whaling happening under the auspices of Iceland, Norway, and Japan will be brought under IWC control (if you can call it control when their governments are really calling the shots) while whaling remains prohibited for all other countries. The idea is that by making some compromises and getting these whaling nations to agree to IWC regulation, there's a better chance they'll reduce their catches and ensure that catches are not causing undue harm to whale populations. To which I have to rely, a la Gob Bluth "COME ON!" These countries have been skirting international norms through various means for a long time - Norway lodged a formal reservation to the moratorium on commercial whaling, Iceland left the IWC and upon returning also lodged a reservation, and Japan pretends that it is whaling for scientific purposes. Before the moratorium, Norway refused to acknowledge scientific data showing that northern minke whale stocks were in decline and instead insisted on arbitrary catch limits based on the needs of whalers rather than on facts. The situation is no different today. The catch limits proposed in the compromise aren't based on data reviewed by IWC's scientific committee but rather science provided by the whaling countries. Oh, and though the compromise deletes the regulations that currently keep all catch limits at zero, it does not eliminate the provision designating the Southern Ocean as a whale sanctuary. Yet somehow it also allows whaling in the sanctuary. All in the expectation that this will give the IWC more "control." Have they read anything about any international marine resource issues ever? Did they notice that Japan helped torpedo scientifically warranted protections for endangered species at CITES? Have they noticed the sharp decline in fish populations in the North Sea? Yet they expect that these countries will behave themselves when it comes to whaling, listen to scientific advice, and maybe even agree to phase it out? Even though widespread, well-publicized fishery collapses have failed to convince governments to manage resources responsibly?

I'm not holding my breath.