Is there a single country in Asia that doesn't practice distant water fishing?
Regulation. Chinese boats fish in ways we block our own boats from. Those exports thus represent a regulatory workaround, victim the oceans, and a tool with which buyers can demand reciprocal regulation.
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/10/new-evidence-suggests-chin...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-19/how-china-is-plunderi...
https://time.com/6328528/investigation-chinese-fishing-fleet...
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2017/08/how-data-can-heal-ou...
All energy on earth derives from 1) the sun or 2) geothermal
Energy is lost as you move further from those sources. Plants converting sunlight directly to usable energy are more efficient than a higher order animal eating another animal that ate another animal that ate a plant.
Now nature normally balances this hierarchy in a myriad of ways that you can go read about yourself.
The problem is humans have rapidly expanded and want to consume more than nature can provide and restock. We have exceeded the capacity for people surviving off animal products.
Attempts to produce more animal products is one of the major drivers of climate change, alongside things like concrete.
ignore the marble sclupture, it's only a few of them deployed for attraction and attention.
Most of the ocean is practically a desert. The only productive places are near land, where deep water up wells and returns sunken nutrients back to the surface.
I'm sure we could study and engineer some sort of nutrient dumping and cycling scheme. I bet you could make vastly more food while leaving a lot of ocean alone.
There are places famous for it, and there are other places like French Polynesia where they use existing atols as places to do it.
It's not easy, but it can be very productive.
While China dominates the fisheries, Japan is still whaling. The oceanic deserts are getting worse every day.
Another recent discovery is that although we've damaged our fisheries significantly, oceanic ecosystems apparently recover much faster than terrestrial ecosystems if left untouched, within several years.
There was a story [0] that ran in the New Yorker a year ago that detailed how North Koreans are sent to Chinese seafood plants in forced labor.
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.
should be obv.
also, ever heard of the asian concept of "face"?
it exists at country level too, not just individual level.
Can clearly see from empty perimeter in the heat map PRC fishing largely stays clear of SKR, JP EEZ. Reason DC thinktank "report" try to play up 12m hours in SKR is likely that hotspot just south of SKR peninsula, aka disputed Socotra rock EEZ. And I surmise majority of JP 1.5m "hours" are over disputed Senkaku EEZ. 4.5m TW hours, obviously PRC considers TW waters part of her territorial/EEZ waters. About another 1m hours from SCS EEZ disputes. AKA 18/21m hours are basically DC think tank doing customary China bad funny stats from disputed maritime delimitations. Incidentally using said delimitations to extrapolate 3000k PRC distant fishing fleet into 30k+ in 5 years... somehow.
PRC has largest absolute DWF fleet size, but per capita she's underfishing, especially relative to TW, SKR, JP, who're at only 30-50% aquaculture. Spain and Russia also up there. Also fraction of SKR/TW subsidies per capita, about on par with JP. Of course you don't see DC thinktanks hitpieces telling these actors to kill their DWF fishing industries. For PRC's DWF fleet to match other top DWF fleet's capita fishing efforts, she would have to fish something like 3-9x+ more. Unless one thinks PRC fishermen and citizens shouldn't have the same opportunities or access to seafood. Ecuador & Peru, two countries with ~1/30th population of China, together captures about about ~1/2 of China, who also has 1/2 the EEZ of these countries, which incidentally means China has to fish more in international waters.
The only reason PRC IUU fishing got media play / propaganda push in the last few years is US wanted to beef up influence of pacific nations playing up PRC IUU fishing so they can drive the issue to forward deploy coast guard and build influence. It's geopolitical lawfare, and it's unlikely to do anything substantive because any agreement by PRC on curtailing distant fishing would be on per capita basis which would first involve everyone else (JP,SKR,TW etc) to essentially kill their entire DWF industry before PRC would even need to make any cuts.
Again, let's stress how absolutely batshit stupid these new numbers are:
SKR, ~500-700 DWF fleet, 300-400k metric tons per year.
JP ~1200-1500 DWF fleet, 600-900k metric tons per year.
TW ~1000 DWF fleet, 400-600k metric tons per year.
AVG 400-800 tons per ship.
PRC... 32000 DWF fleet, 3000k metric tons per year.
AVG 90 tons per ship.
Or... avg 400-800 tons per ship
PRC ~3750-7500 DWF fleet
PRC official report is like ~2700 in ~2020, add 25% for 25% by 2025 increase catch and you get ~3400. It's underestimation (and while PRC wanted to cap to 3000 in last 5 year plan), but it's underestimate by 100s, not over estimation by 10000s. Like tag on highest maritime militia estimates of ~10k, and it's still almost ~20k over.
E: or just look at estimates of global seafood market growth... ~5% CAGR, ~+50B over past 5 years. Like 35B of that from PRC aquaculture growth. What's the 29000 new DWF doing? Global DWF size for major fishing nations is like 6000... so PRC adds... 500% that and somehow global fishing market grows by... 30%. US thinktank innumeracy.
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 most sustainable seafood producer with more than 10m people. Scale it per capita, PRC isn't even in the same level as US partners who don't get the annual smear campaign.
Bad apples usually measured by AIS disabling events... in which case, pre US propaganda drive against PRC I think worst culprits (highest proportion of ships/time) was Spain, something like 15% of activity obscured, then US with high single digits, then TW, slightly higher than PRC, I think 5%. US gets a pass because it's mostly in North West Atlantic aka, US backyard... which well, US just has a big ass EEZ backyard vs PRC has essentially smallest EEZ relative to country size, so PRC _has_ to fish on commons/highseas/international waters (including near countries EEZs where the catch is). Not much info on JP or SKR except SKR is in all the places PRC/TW/SP is in, and have all the shady forced labour issues, so hard to believe they don't also have AIS misbehavior. IIRC some other interesting tidbits is AIS disabling behaviour also sorted by ship type... and the types of ships that have worst/longest AIS disabling are tuna longliner... implicating JP.
But the otherwise TLDR is ever since US thinktanks decided to hammer PRC IUU to the exclusin of everyone else (read US allies/partners), PRC DWF somehow grew 10x and AIS behavior exploded... but even then it's dumb shit like PRC is 80% of fleet off XYZ country EEZ but responsible for 90% of AIS anomolies, i.e. marginally worse.
It is kinda scary how effective these Washington think tanks are manufacturing consent for a naval confrontation with China.
Anyway, she was yet another casualty of MAGA! She was forced out on Trump's first day because of DEI, presumably because she was the first woman to run a service. For now, the program still survives, both funding and personnel-wise (modulo a few hull-days spent running around the southern border and the... uh, gulf of ~america~ mexico?), but man.
To learn more, I'd listen to war on the rocks! They have great guests.
I worry that I live in a time when commercial fishing is not sufficiently regulated so that rather than being outlawed, it will simply become infeasible, with the attendant knock-on affects of countries which depend on the oceans for a significant portion of their protein.
There are now a greater tonnage of ships in the ocean than bony fish:
What will be the next marker to be dropped?
Makes one wish that we could manage something like to Hal Clement's "Raindrop":
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/939760.Music_of_Many_Sph...
They will approach a protected ecosystem, which is thriving with fish like that of the galapagos islands, for example. They will hang out right at the limit of the maritime nautical border with the native country.
Then they will shut down naval GPS transponders (disabling of AIS - Automatic Identification System) and during the night, all at the same time, cross into the country's maritime space and quickly get out before its caught by the local patrols. [1][2]
This happens a lot with smaller countries which cannot fight back.
There are other techniques that haven't been yet discussed, like, altering vessel measurements (Changing draft and length to obscure activity, e.g., during transshipment or EEZ entry) , and meeting with refrigerated cargo ships to transfer catch which is likely illegal.
These are the only ways they can sustain a 44% of fishing worldwide. If they did this in their home turf, their waters would be empty of life
[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/pesca-ile...
[2] https://usa.oceana.org/press-releases/oceana-analysis-shows-...
profsummergig•6h ago
The rich, everywhere in the world, will continue to seek wild-caught though. (While they publicly rail against the poor eating wild-caught. Such is how the wheels turn.).
tedk-42•5h ago
andsoitis•5h ago
Example?
overfeed•2m ago
Nursie•4h ago
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.
tedk-42•4h ago
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.
Nursie•4h ago
Onshore fish-farming is being developed. I don’t know enough about it to have any idea whether it can be made compatible with animal welfare or environmental responsibility.
But it also doesn’t matter. Sometimes you’re just going to need to stop wrecking the place.
Bjartr•3h ago
I have always hated this take in any context I've seen it. Refusing to even acknowledge a problem as a problem unless presented with a solution is such an infuriating way to be dismissed.
abdullahkhalids•2h ago
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.
Larrikin•1h ago
energy123•45m ago
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.
nothrabannosir•32m ago
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.
squidsoup•1h ago
spookie•16m ago
Unless you're landlocked and your rivers have gone to shit too.