SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If we proactively implement effective fisheries management and limit global temperature rise, the world's oceans still have the potential to be significantly more plentiful in the future than today, despite climate change. This finding is among several that appear in a first-of-its kind study, "Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change," that appears today in the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences' journal Science Advances.
"The expected global effects of climate change on our oceans are broadly negative," said Steve Gaines, the study's lead author and dean of UC Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, "but we still have the fortunate opportunity to turn the tide and create a more bountiful future."
The study finds that with concerted and adaptive responses to climate change, the world's oceans could actually create more abundant fish populations, more food for human consumption and more profit for fishermen despite the negative impacts of climate change. Conversely, the study cautions, inaction on fisheries management and climate change will mean even more dramatic losses of fish and the benefits they provide to people.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 01 2018, @09:39PM (2 children)
Habitat destruction and total harvesting are both very real problems and from the 1960s through the 2000s we turned the corner from nibbling at the edges of the oceans' bounty to wholesale excavation of their ecosystems like a non-renewable resource.
Catch the fish, eat the fish, sure. Just don't catch ALL the fish. Oh, and try to not completely destroy their habitat in the process, too - m'kay?
As to the article - lots of fish will survive "catastrophic" global warming, lots won't. I think I read recently that ~45 dolphin have turned up dead in this year's red tide bloom in south-west Florida, that's not ALL the dolphin, but we do get pretty upset when 45 humans are killed by a chemical spill, don't we? And chemical spills are a hell of a lot easier to clean up than red tide or global warming.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @01:43AM (1 child)
Right there with ya, Joe. I'm a fisherman, so I'm first in line to back anything that protects or improves my favorite pastime. I just don't want folks I'm trying to agree with being hysterical liars and fools. Think how you'd feel if Sean Hannity agreed with you on something and got picked to speak for your cause.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:56PM
Yep - there's plenty of hysteria on both sides of a lot of important issues and that really pisses me off.
If you haven't seen: Netflix: Chasing Coral. Only watch if you are ready to be seriously depressed.
Also, I love to plug these guys: http://www.half-earthproject.org/ [half-earthproject.org]
I think that if we would "give back" every other lat-lon square (like: if the sum of the lat+lon is even: keep using it like we do today, if it's odd: nature preserve, zero harvesting) that would be a nice, easily enforced, easily understood, highly beneficial scheme for habitat preservation, immune to political jockeying and favor swapping, maybe less than perfectly ideal, but efficient enough to actually get it done and start benefiting as opposed to decades of study and debate at a time when we're already decades past the "oops" point.
🌻🌻 [google.com]