A bit more on bluefin tuna

Andy Revkin's DotEarth had a post about bluefin tuna:

Tuna tragedy of the commons

A few pithy comments struck me, both in the article and in the comments. Herewith:

"At the latest meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, created under a treaty 42 years ago to manage shared fisheries in that ocean, European governments ignored a strong recommendation from the group’s own scientific advisers for deep cuts in some harvests of the Atlantic bluefin tuna."

Great. But wait, there's more, quoted from Carl Safina:

"I.C.C.A.T. has always been broken, and the tradition of ignoring the science and insisting on higher quotas was set 25 years ago by Western fishing interests. That tradition remains alive on BOTH sides of the ocean, and the indignant rhetoric by the Western fishing interests masks their own hypocrisy."

and, echoing the late Ransom Myers:

"The big runs of autumn, the “tuna fever,” the great herds of fish thundering across the blue prairies as they rounded Montauk, that’s all gone."

Think about it. We're happy that there are still bison in the West. But are the herds now anything like they were before they were nearly hunted to extinction? OBVIOUSLY not. Will bluefin tuna go the way of the bison; a few remnant schools? I doubt it; the oceans don't belong to anyone, so everyone exploits them. "Tragedy of the commons", indeed. The bluefin tuna should be the symbol of a new World Sealife Foundation -- if indeed it's not too late. If it isn't, it's damn close.

Quotes from the commenters:

"As this is a global (or at least trans-Atlantic) tragedy of the commons, regional institutions will not solve the problem. USA and EU must sit together and negotiate tough limits (=0 catch) on tuna. This probably can only come top-down from the very highest levels as intermediate agencies have too much vested interests. It may be part of a bigger deal of the even more relevant global tragedy of the commons, speak climate change."

and

"Why is it that no one is willing to go on record to discuss the real problem with our planet? Overpopulation is the root of every environmental issue we face, yet the focus of the dialog remains stuck on tuna catch, carbon credits, etc." (When I get a real chance to write something, I'm going to comment on this.)

and

"As we approach the top of the population logistic growth curve, where the number of births equal the number of deaths in an ever more brutal economy limited by scarcity and depletion of resources, we can’t continue speak casually about “sustainability” without also addressing human population growth, for without a stable steady-state population a “sustainable” harvest of any natural resource is a moving target."

and

"The problem, inevitably, whether it be the fisheries the atmosphere, or the rain forests is that there are too many humans consuming too few resources. As long as the human population continues to increase, the world, its wildlife and its environment will be at risk. The human population of the planet in 1750 was 1/10th what it is now - 700 million."

(Do you sense a theme developing?) A couple more:

"The problem of overfishing is a very good illustration to the whole host of other problems that we are either already having or are going to have soon enough. It's simple: too many people, too few resources (in this case tuna)."

and

"You would think, at some point, that the lesson would be learned. We've been dealing with these depletion issues for decades, and yet the next generation makes the same mistake."

Exactly right. And that will get me to my main point, eventually, which I'll preview here: economic growth is a recipe for environmental disaster.

I'll leave it at that for now. Still gotta get to that Dessler paper, too.