The other day I told you how there's a good chance we could see an end to commercial overfishing subsidies through WTO negotiations. And my organization is not alone in making the case to the World Trade Organization. At least 125 scientists from 27 countries feel the same way and sent a letter to the WTO making it clear that "an ambitious outcome in the ongoing WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations is vital to the future of the world's fisheries."
The scientists who signed the letter are a who's who of ocean fisheries scientists, including Daniel Pauly, Boris Worm, Jeremy B.C. Jackson, Andrew Rosenberg, Carl Safina, Callum Roberts, Larry Crowder, and Wallace "J" Nichols. These leading experts made the stakes clear: "Fisheries subsidies," they note in the letter, "produce such strong economic incentives to overfish that reducing them is one of the most significant actions that can be taken to combat global overfishing." How's that for pressure?
You can see the full letter here (PDF).
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?
Comments
View as Flat
ffletcher Posted 2:40 pm
01 Jun 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:39 pm
02 Jun 2007
On the other hand, in an age when the word of scientists counts for only so much, we unfortunately cannot be too hopeful, as we await the results.
Carl Safina I have heard of, of course. Boris Worm, never. But I love that name.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:02 am
03 Jun 2007
This comment I have made in several threads and lots of other places, and it is appropriate in many many more (both Aristotle and George Orwell say that politics is everything) but the ends of ending subsidies will only be achieved through the means of reforming three laws in the U.S.: Campaign Finance, Lobbying, and Elections. "Reform" may be too mild, in fact--"reversal" of these laws rings more true.
There is a "chicken and egg" paradox here, though, granted. How do we reverse these laws whose protection is in the hands of and benefits the current corruption- and greed-driven political system? With grass-roots, populist action. Howard Dean was among the first to really organize support with the Web. NRA and the Republican Fundies do it quietly, and their obedient servants, victims-of-ideologues act. Maybe MoveOn has mixed success against the Neo-Cons, and maybe some here don't like their politics, but they are the best-known, most successful current model.
We need to have a much better structured, two-way, organization that will embrace a great range of interests which have at their core concern for the environment. The number of potential supporters is immense, and if we work together we can achieve with this organization a veto-proof bi-partisan majority among whose first missions (oops, there's that word again!) will be to end these subsidies that result in ecosystem damage.
But first folks (as they say) reverse The Big three.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:53 am
04 Jun 2007
Read his report at
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/FoodForThought_v2.pdf
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:18 am
04 Jun 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink