I can haz, renewable energyz?
November 9, 2012 7:42 PM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's request. -- restless_nomad
Huh... Even the cat food eh.... Wait one of my kitties is allergic to fish. Oh well factory sourced bovine meat will always be available.
posted by mrgroweler at 8:03 PM on November 9, 2012
posted by mrgroweler at 8:03 PM on November 9, 2012
Overexploitation of fish stocks is legitimately a huge problem. As far as we know, 75% of all fish stocks in the world are overfished, meaning that they either have already collapsed or are in the process of collapsing due to unsustainable exploitation. If we had adequate data on all stocks, which we don't, we'd probably find it's closer to 90%.
It's actually nice to see a major grocery chain committing to stocking only sustainably fished seafood, though I wonder what definition of "sustainable" they're using. There's actually a lot of fudging that often goes on during the translation from research to policy. For instance, in the United States shrimpers are required to install Turtle Excluder Devices in their nets to prevent them from accidentally killing endangered sea turtles. Bycatch is a form of incidental exploitation in conservation science, but does Loblaw take that into account? Also, here in Louisiana marine enforcement is prohibited by law from enforcing the federal law requiring TEDs. (Isn't that fucked up?) Does Loblaw take that into account? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see them making any kind of commitment to sustainable fishing whatsoever, but I'm curious as to the specifics.
Also cats are actually pretty terrible for the environment, much as I love 'em. They are a serious invasive predator in most places. It's a bit ironic to use one as a conservation mascot when they'll happily slaughter any moving thing that's small enough for them to grab.
posted by Scientist at 8:08 PM on November 9, 2012
It's actually nice to see a major grocery chain committing to stocking only sustainably fished seafood, though I wonder what definition of "sustainable" they're using. There's actually a lot of fudging that often goes on during the translation from research to policy. For instance, in the United States shrimpers are required to install Turtle Excluder Devices in their nets to prevent them from accidentally killing endangered sea turtles. Bycatch is a form of incidental exploitation in conservation science, but does Loblaw take that into account? Also, here in Louisiana marine enforcement is prohibited by law from enforcing the federal law requiring TEDs. (Isn't that fucked up?) Does Loblaw take that into account? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see them making any kind of commitment to sustainable fishing whatsoever, but I'm curious as to the specifics.
Also cats are actually pretty terrible for the environment, much as I love 'em. They are a serious invasive predator in most places. It's a bit ironic to use one as a conservation mascot when they'll happily slaughter any moving thing that's small enough for them to grab.
posted by Scientist at 8:08 PM on November 9, 2012
« Older stumbles | I love a sun-powered country, A land of deepening... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:52 PM on November 9, 2012