Smart Environmentalists Pick Fights They Can Win
show comments
  • Mrs. Davis

    Over fishing is a tragedy of the commons problem; economic, not environmental. The Cyans cannot admit the solution of private control, whether by lease or ownership, as it offends both their green and blue sensibilities.

  • Understanding the environmentalist movement as a cult, and an anti-human utopian cult at that, is the key to understanding what seem to be the repeated and obvious missteps from a political perspective. The goals of the movement do not originate or end in any kind of coherent or achievable political resolution. People who actually care about the environment have to jettison the entire existing activist apparatus. I have long thought that a sane, centrist movement could make great progress. There is even a good term for it: Conservation. It is a term that is currently lying on the sidewalk waiting for someone to pick it up.

  • Scott

    How I wish self-identified greens would read essays such as this and do something more than just get mad. Your advice is as good as it is probably unwanted by those who need it the most. Thank you for trying.

  • Mark1971

    More fish = more food = more humans = more carbon emissions

  • raf

    It is important for a “movement” organization to NOT have an achievable objective, otherwise they could someday face having no purpose, anymore. If your objective is power and riches, it is necessary to have a never-ending goal that you can use to inspire and control your mass followers.

  • Sorry, but the previous commenters are right: few if any of the self-identified “greens” actually care about improving the environment. The are either “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside) who value destroying private enterprise far more than they value saving the environment, or religious cultists who worship “nature”, which they’ve defined as “not human”. “Sustained fisheries” would just mean that humans got to continue “raping” Mother Earth for their own economic advantage. Much better to have an environmental catastrophe that makes private enterprise look bad.

    “By their works you shall know them.” Greens don’t focus on “global climate change” because they want to make the world a better place, they focus on it because it lets them feel morally superior without actually having to do anything.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    The Enviro-Misanthropes follow the money just like everyone else, which means donations go up when they scream that the sky is falling, and fall when they scream save the orange roughy and chillean seabass. That’s why it’s always something life threatening or cute, it’s the money!

  • Mark1971

    More fish = more food = more humans = more carbon emissions.

  • TwoDogs

    Good point, raf. Look what’s happening to MADD – having gotten everything they wanted, they’ve turned to prohibitionists.

  • Jim.

    Ah, but concentrating on fisheries wouldn’t let them indulge in a hatred of George W Bush, who created massive marine preserves.

  • Toni

    More red than green, I’m ecologically correct only in eschewing ocean seafood. And turning off the faucet while I brush.

    This is a “tragedy of the commons” challenge. Is there any international precedent or template for rescuing food fish species?

    A very relevant and fascinating book is Cod: A History of the Fish That Changed the World.

  • The only trick is that few people are immediately impacted by deep-sea fisheries decline, while everyone is impacted by climate change. This means it may well be harder to advocate for proper deep-sea protections, and there is a great need to advocate for sensible climate policy.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.