Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




General: Bring back Moby Dick

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 20

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2021 edited
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/17/trawling-for-fish-releases-as-much-carbon-as-air-travel-report-finds-climate-crisis

    Bottom trawling releases 1 gigaton of carbon every year, as much as air travel, landmark study finds.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2021
     
    Posted By: fostertomBottom trawling releases 1 gigaton of carbon every year

    Not to mention destroying all the habitat.

    Bottom trawling should be banned. Now. End of.
  3.  
    Posted By: djhNot to mention destroying all the habitat.

    Bottom trawling should be banned. Now. End of.


    +1
    Having seen the destruction of bottom trawling fist hand there was nothing left of the area, an absolute desert, just wholesale destruction with not a living thing in sight.

    If it was banned tomorrow it would not be soon enough.

    Oh and where was the place.... Torbay
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021 edited
     
    Above the waves, The English Riviera; below, a desert.
    • CommentAuthorJeff B
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    Posted By: fostertomhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/17/trawling-for-fish-releases-as-much-carbon-as-air-travel-report-finds-climate-crisis" rel="nofollow" >https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/17/trawling-for-fish-releases-as-much-carbon-as-air-travel-report-finds-climate-crisis

    Bottom trawling releases 1 gigaton of carbon every year, as much as air travel, landmark study finds.


    Thanks for the link. I had no idea about this - gob-smacking!
  6.  
    If you feel strongly, then boycott eating cod and haddock and plaice and scampi, which are caught by this method because they live near the seabed.

    Eat mackerel and herring instead which live nearer the surface.

    Edit: and mussels. Next time you are in the chip shop, miss the cod-n-chips or haddock-supper, ask if they do Dutch style haring-met-frites.
    • CommentAuthorLF
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    Wow. I had no idea of the destruction. I guess the clue is in the name ... trawlers.
    There must be another way to fish, this is mindless vandalism.
    Perhaps now the CO2 emissions aspect is being highlighted changes must me made.
    • CommentAuthorJonti
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    It is so sad that this is still allowed. I would have thought that if it would be stopped in UK fishing waters then it would not only improve the oceans around us in the long term but would also add a bit to the reduction in carbon emissions.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: djh</cite>
    Bottom trawling should be banned. Now. End of.</blockquote>

    AFAIK the UK could legally do it under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), within our EEZ, (200 nm).
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    Posted By: owlman
    Posted By: djh
    Bottom trawling should be banned. Now. End of.


    AFAIK the UK could legally do it under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), within our EEZ, (200 nm).

    Subject to whatever treaties with other states we have. But certainly the UK government isn't doing anywhere near enough on this subject.
    • CommentAuthorJeff B
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2021
     
    Posted By: WillInAberdeenIf you feel strongly, then boycott eating cod and haddock and plaice and scampi, which are caught by this method because they live near the seabed.

    Eat mackerel and herring instead which live nearer the surface.

    Edit: and mussels. Next time you are in the chip shop, miss the cod-n-chips or haddock-supper, ask if they do Dutch style haring-met-frites.


    Do you mean that ALL haddock and cod is caught this way?
    • CommentAuthorLF
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021
     
    Can you get haddock and cod sustainably caught? Seems yes but costs a bit more.

    https://www.seafish.org/responsible-sourcing/fishing-gear-database/gear/long-line/
    Long line fishing. Seems Norway does some.
    Also electric targeting stunning on trawl type nets. Dutch
    About 20% more expensive I read somewhere else.

    BBC article today has video if Greenpeace dropping huge bolders on sea bed to stop trawlers.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56430542
    The study found that eliminating 90% of the present risk of greenhouse gas release due to bottom trawling would require protecting only about 4% of the ocean, mostly within national waters.
  13.  
    I doubt all haddock and cod is caught by bottom trawlers, but much/most is AIUI.

    The problems are that when you buy a portion of fish, there's no reliable way to know how it was caught*, try asking in the supermarket! And if you did manage to buy some not-trawled haddock, they'd just sell the trawled cod to the next punter that came along.

    At least if you ask for mackerel or trout, you can be sure it wasn't bottom trawled.

    I'm not claimed to be blameless here, I do like a fish supper now and again, but like all these diet choices, if you know what destructive practices your purchase is paying for, then you can make a few better choices. But no point complaining about destructive bottom trawling if you are the one buying the product that pays for it.

    I learned yesterday that some trawlers deliberately drag chains across the seabed called 'ticklers', to scare fish from the seabed up into the trawl net.

    Unfortunately you can buy 'sustainable' fish, but the 'sustainable' label often refers to the stocks of the species that you are eating, not to the practices involved in catching it.

    * Our local chip shop can tell you exactly where they got that day's catch from, they have framed pictures of each of the bottom trawlers that they buy from 🙄

    Edit to add: the wholesale habitat destruction involved in growing potatoes to make the chips is much worse, and don't ask what ecosystem was cleared away to grow the mushy peas...if you think too hard about this stuff you'd never eat again! Trawled haddock is free range and organic so possibly better than a soya-fed-battery-chicken curry or a dirty burger.

    Further edit: longline fishing is not necessarily a good alternative
    https://oceanbites.org/untangling-the-issues-with-longline-fishing/
  14.  
    Lamb is not too bad as it is pastured on land unsuitable for other types of agriculture with minimum chemical input and small amounts of grain/cereal input. Sheep have changed the UK landscape by their grazing over centuries and the continued grazing maintains the land the way it is. Sheep IMO are one of the more benign forms of agriculture but it comes at a price - lamb is expensive in the shops as industrialization has mostly past them by.

    Grass fed beef is not too bad if extensively grown on pastures which like sheep pastures are largely unsuitable for other types of agriculture. Unfortunately the modern beef breeds require substantial cereal input which is bad so care has to be taken to choose non-intensive breeds for you beef, not always an easy thing to do. Product cost in the shop is also an issue with grass fed extensive beef.

    Chicken - what can you say about this other than modern chicken (all poultry) production is an environmental disaster.

    Potatoes for your chips are grown on land that is already in agricultural production so no new destruction there but the chemicals and fertilizers involved are bad news, organic tats avoid this problem.

    The same can't be said about soya which does involve the continued destruction of new land areas and if it is not new land then high quantities of (chemical) fertilizer is needed to get production rates so IMO best to avoid soya based food products which includes animal products where soya is used.

    Oh an when you have finished your fish and chips or kebab and you tuck into the ice cream then choose the dairy based one because what ever you think about the modern dairy industry it is better than the cheaper ice creams based on HPKO 'cos palm oil production is causing big environmental problems.

    Mackerel is OK and as an oily fish has health benefits but has problems with over fishing and trout is mostly farmed with soya based feed often used.

    No easy choices and the environmental options generally cost (much) more.

    Just my observations as an extensive beef farmer, diver and hobby sea fisherman
    • CommentAuthorLF
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021
     
    I love good fish (Haddock or Cod) and chips but IF bottom trawling is kicking out the same order of CO2 as air travel something has got to change. Mackerel is just not the same, much as I enjoy it.

    Non CO2 emission trawling will put up price so it has to be driven my Governments phasing out the emissions from ploughing the sea beds like this.

    Growing spuds does not emit this level of CO2 my several orders of magnitude, so it is bad in different other ways.

    Last time I looked at meat footprint numbers Lamb was horrendous for CO2 emissions, I think because of methane emissions. Beef is only a bit better but only if from dairy heard.

    Meat and dairy specifically accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). from link below

    Big changes need to happen, what will things look like by 2030 ?

    https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/#:~:text=Meat%20and%20dairy%20specifically%20accounts,will%20be%20necessary%2C%20scientists%20say.
    • CommentAuthorrevor
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021
     
    We were looking for some frozen fish as due to lockdown and having deliveries could not get fresh. Horrified to find 2 major British supermarkets selling frozen fish packed in China. Supposedly North Atlantic caught. Chinese factory ships no doubt at sea for months. Why are we allowing this to happen. Needles to say we did not buy. Thought it was also a bit ironic seeing China has been blaming imported frozen salmon for the pandemic.
    • CommentAuthorMike1
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: Peter_in_HungaryLamb is not too bad as it is pastured on land unsuitable for other types of agriculture
    but often very suitable for trees.

    At least slaughtering them young stops them being as damaging as sheep:
    http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16952&page=1#Comment_287865
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021 edited
     
    Posted By: Mike1
    Lamb is not too bad as it is pastured on land unsuitable for other types of agriculture
    but often very suitable for trees.
    Indeed it's the sheep that prevent the 'suitable' original forests re-growing.

    Posted By: Mike1At least slaughtering them young stops them being as damaging as sheep
    Don't try this on the kids!
  19.  
    Sheep pasture with hundreds of wildflowers and polinators, is certainly more bio diverse than potato fields! But not as good as native meadow woodland.

    Even the worst seabed trawling doesn't result in total removal of the natural ecosystem, to be replaced by a single non-native species for half of the year and sterile the other half, like potatoes and most other plant crops. The original wood/heath land might have been cleared for potatoes two hundred years ago, but in biological/climate terms that's as bad as clearing it today.

    To add insult to injury, the 'organic' farm down the road from us are covering the entire potato field in acres (literally) of single-use polyethylene sheet, which destroys all the residual ecology as effectively as herbicide, but doesn't cost them their 'organic' certificate.

    LF, thanks for the interesting link. I am surprised that the carbon impact of deforestation is so little. For example, if someone clears a native UK birch woodland to grow monoculture potatoes as happened round here, it suggests the carbon impact of the potatoes is very low, compared to keeping cattle on wildflower meadow, which is shown as very damaging in carbon terms. This implies there's little carbon benefit in returning agri crop land to forestry, which doesn't seem quite right?

    The most successful conservation seems to be to keep large herbivores at a more natural stocking level - worth looking up the Knepp example.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2021
     
    Posted By: WillInAberdeen

    ................ covering the entire field in acres (literally) of single-use polyethylene sheet, which destroys all the residual ecology as effectively as herbicide, but doesn't cost them their 'organic' certificate.




    In a similar vein I heard that the 1000s of acres of Solar panels in the US deserts were displacing the native desert species, some quite rare.

1 to 20 of 20

  1.  
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press