Environmentalism Reconsidered - Fish Farms Promise & Peril

First Draft - June 6

Global News Video - Petition to Halt Expansion 

http://globalnews.ca/video/2024428/petition-to-halt-expansion-of-open-net-salmon-farms-presented-in-bc-legislature

As I understand the challenge with the Salmon Farms, as defined by the environmental movement, the wild stocks are being impacted by the Salmon Farms location vis-à-vis the migration route of Salmon Smolt and the location of the farms, and the resulting transfer of parasites and disease. Additionally, there have been the inadvertent release of “Atlantic Salmon” into the west coast fishery, with some concern of implanting an “invasive” species.

There is a paradox at play with fish farming, at once fish farming offers the solution to the overuse of wild stocks and yet the operation of fish farms comes with some reported damaging externalities. The curtailment of fish farms on the coast of British Columbia seems to negate the promise of relief of harvest of wild stocks, fish consumption is growing and will grow at a greater rate. Perhaps there is a management solution, by way of example, the facilitation of the relocation or reconfiguration of fish farming operations.

One realizes there is economics at play, fish farm operators have found the most “efficient” means to raise fish; open nets, floats and present feeding modalities generate a circumstance that answers market realities.  The question becomes, to what extent has their license to function impacted other operations – eg. Wild fish stocks. Of course, there is a greater question than a mere partial budget on pounds of fish raised, there is the general stewardship of the ecosystem at play.  

What has emerged out of the debate is polarization and confrontation,  it seems in British Columbia “polarization” is never far away – as issues like this invariably become politicized. If only one could look at the issue in a pristine state and let judgment rule, the challenge of course is that at some point science ends and then it is the eye of the master that fattens the cattle – in a polarized circumstance when the science ends – well it never ends – people always find ways of distorting the numbers.  

My instincts tell me there is a way to do fish farming, and maintain and enhance wild stocks, it is my instinct that the future of wild stocks is dependent on fish farming. There are a plethora of potential solutions, from closed farming systems to deep water farming solutions. Perhaps there could be put in place a transitional process to cox the “damaging” operations to “bluer” waters. Here is what I do know, it was government indecision and consternation that let the Cod fishery fall, we can do better here.

In responding to the challenge the key is to make policy around an honest assessment of facts and respond in accord with the facts - stating the obvious it seems - it rarely happens quite this way. There is strong data to support the environmentalists in this case - or at least the "non-fish farming" perspective, the challenge I have is, I've heard the environmental movement cry wolf so often - grossly overstating the risk. We need to be prepared to use our natural environment, there is throughout the province example after example of projects being obstructed. There is legitimate environmentalism and there is preservation/obstruction - one worries that valid points get muted by the chronic deployment of heated rhetoric.

More Thoughts on Environmentalism Reconsidered 

Lessons from the Cod Fishery  

The problem with Carbon Tax

$30 / tonne may translate to more or less than 2% at the point of consumption - the concept holds true.

The problem with Carbon Taxes is that they are implemented with a critical misperception – that, as in British Columbia’s case, a 2% Carbon Tax will deter fossil fuel use. When attempting to deter use of fossil fuel by increasing price, a large percentage - like 20% - will deter use, but only to a point because very soon demand for fossil fuel hardens or becomes “inelastic”; there is really a very small amount of discretionary fossil fuel consumption in society as a whole. We know this is true because there is a hundred years of price sensitivity data that shows it to be true. British Petroleum did extensive price sensitive analysis in England, drawing on data from the energy crisis era. In a country, that at the time had food costs at nearly 40% of disposable income, gas prices doubled and demand only for gas degraded slightly, but in the main held steady. Carbon Tax is a very weak deterrent to consumption and to be used as a deterrent to consumption would require economy slaying prices to work.

If Carbon Tax is being implemented as a means to manage the negative externalities that flow from fossil fuel use, the Carbon Tax is a means to garner funds, in the same way that we tax liquor to manage negative externalities flowing to society from its use. If the Carbon Tax is a means to finance transition from a Fossil Fuel regime to another energy regime, then it works. The important point here is that Carbon Tax is just another way to get money, linking the funds collection for Carbon mitigation activities to fossil fuel use really has no rational basis, given that the tax has very little affect on consumption.    

Climate Change - New York Times - Comment

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?comments#permid=11013209

The entire climate change movement is focused on “obstructing” the use of fossil fuels, there is no other viable option at the moment. The Stone Age never ended because we ran out of stones, it ended because we found a better way. If indeed, global warming has as its primary cause the burning of fossil fuels, and, as is fact, there is no economically viable replacement for fossil fuels – the solution lies in developing a viable energy source. I submit, if all the people mentioned in this article and all the other brain power and influence that has gone to “obstruct” fossil fuel use directed their actions in a positive way, that is to say DEVELOP A SOLUTION, we would have a solution very quickly. It is important to note as well, there has been global warming on earth in pre-industrial times, one would be a fool to believe there is not anthropogenic effect on climate change, one does need to ponder degree however, we may freeze in the dark and the earth may carry on without us – a strong thought process to support adaption and or a two pronged approach.