EU bans 'misleading' environmental claims that rely on offsetting
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In another project I heard about, fishing communities were provided with better access to contraception on the hope that smaller families would reduce consumption pressure. A PhD researcher uncovered that actually smaller families increased their fishing activity as they wanted to boost the life chances of their fewer offspring. (Those results were swept under a carpet apparently).
I’m happy about this law reported on here as it will force some honesty about environmental trade-offs, and also hopefully apply to environmental organisations which have in the past been misleading in their claims about environmental benefits of their work.
Genuinely interested: what environmental problem did you solve there?
> A PhD researcher uncovered that actually smaller families increased their fishing activity as they wanted to boost the life chances of their fewer offspring.
Are "fishing families" really the problem with fishing? I would have thought that the industrial fishing boats are not "family businesses"...
Soil erosion.
> Are "fishing families" really the problem with fishing? I would have thought that the industrial fishing boats are not "family businesses"...
They fish different zones. Big trawlers offshore/deep sea. Artisanal fishers inshore. The inshore fisheries catch has declined 75% in 30 years in some areas.
Factory trawlers don’t fish inshore reefs where artisanal fishermen tend to be active. You’re conflating two different activities in two different marine resources.