Blogs and Stories
'An Inconvenient Truth' for Fish
Those indifferent or ignorant to the plight on their plates now often run a gauntlet of environmentalists monitoring their dining habits.
A Greenpeace activist outside Nobu recently blogged about visits by a member of the Sugababes pop group and Little Britain comedy star Matt Lucas, urging them to stay away until a bluefin ban is imposed.
The pressure appears to be working: The Pret a Manger sandwich chain recently announced it will stop serving all tuna, and managers have been sent to watch the film.
Clover denies charges that eco-documentaries like End of the Line may overstate or exaggerate their case to raise awareness.
"This is meticulously researched: We can stand by every statement it." His only disappointment is that Al Gore would not endorse the film. "We asked him to give us a one-line statement of support. For some reason, that didn't happen."
Anne McElvoy writes the main weekly political column on domestic and international issues at the London Evening Standard. She has published two books on Germany, The Saddled Cow: East Germany’s Life & Legacy in 1992 and she was co-author of the memoirs of the spymaster Markus Wolf, Man Without a Face.









the real celebrity is the fish.
salmon/trout , beautiful creature, amazing life cycle.
can't find a better food source.
supported cultures and lifestyles.
we were warned by Chief Sealth-
poor management caused
west coast fisheries to be destroyed in 100 years.
this isn't a canary in the coal mine.
it's a town crier shouting a warning call.
Living in New England and watching the old fishing villages pretty much die off, realizing when you buy some Cod at the market it is usually FAS Cod and was most likely caught far away, understanding that Haddock enjoys some kind of protective measures, all this leaves me with the feeling that this documentary is probably right on the mark. I really want to see this thing.
I hope the film helps wake everybody up to the simple fact that you can't keep taking more fish out of the sea faster than the fish can repopulate it. It reminds me of how everyone used to throw trash out car windows, not considering that it would stay rather than magically disappear.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
So Mr. Sarcasm, do you have proof that these claims are untrue or do you just not give a sh!t??
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
He hit his head when he was little, please forgive him.
So then where does this great professor say all the fish are hiding in the remaining 90%? I highly doubt this professor would really agree with you on this subject.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
God god, it's not about pollutants, it's about numbers. Maybe we have only discovered 10% of the sea life, but we're eating too much of what is discovered. So what, after we eat all the salmon and tuna out of existense, we just dive deeper and eat the sea slugs from the ocean floor?!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
...or breed fewer humans. This, like nearly every other problem we're having on this planet, is rooted in overpopulation. But we only address the symptoms not the disease. The second anyone mentions birth control, the Pope and all the religious folks go nuts. No 3rd rail in politics holds a candle to condoms. Yet if they got used, fish would stand a chance.
I think we should make sushi out of you but then again who wants to eat bitter, cynical, faux news watching fish? Not me.....Where is it snowing in mid-June by the way (are you talking about the HAIL in Jersey? Because hail is not snow.....I did not go to Harvard but you can still take my word on that.)and how sad you are still spouting the slow-witted "carbon is not a pollutant" slop. I think you should go far away until we call on you for your opinion...don't wake up. By the way, how wonderful that you are quoting the educational elite from Harvard...I thought you folks did not believe in the book learnin'
It's about time this got some attention.
Why is it always "environmental campaigners," and "actors" who come up with these doomsday "conclusions."
Do any of these people actually consult with scientists?
There is debate even among scientists as to the rock solid validity of global warming.
Is Al Gore really the face and voice environmentalists want to look up to? Doesn't he own a private jet, and a few enormous energy hogging homes?
If People want to look up to someone who is truly an environmentalist, someone who can be trusted, someone who walks the walk,
look no further than Ed Begley, Jr.
No, there is not any debate among credible, valid scientists as to the validity of global warming. Your statement is a lie. The only "scientists" who debate it are ones who either 1) want to get air time or 2) are on the payroll of big oil/coal/gas. Honestly. Try learning some science before trying to debate it.
If it's 2048, then who cares? If the last eight years has taught us anything, it's that we should never look ahead when things are good right now.
I quit eating sushi about a year and a half ago, after a couple decades of it being a daily habit for me because the chemical pollutions in the water (mercury) were fogging my brain.
At the fish market ( I use to buy salmon all the time) now looks skinny and sickly, so there are two issues, we are running out and what we have isn't the healthy alternative it use to be.
Oh goody, another crisis.
So which group of "scientists" are going to cash in on this one?
A crisis claim of 2048 is simply preposterous and irresponsible. They don't have the data to make such a claim.
No.
You're the one lacking data.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/global-fi sh-crisis.html
Excellent article.
Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 135 million years.
I wonder how long homosapien will last.
Hahahahahaha, is that Sting? It looks like one of my neighbors after returning from a fishing trip.....lol. You'll be glad to know that I throw mine back...except for the Bullhead. That I just had to try for the first time. Pretty tasty.
I quit eating sushi about a year and a half ago after two decades
of it being a daily treat because my mind was getting foggy from the chemical pollution (mercury) So there are two issues, fishes being caught before their time and so much pollution in the oceans from chemical dumping. The fish at the market look so skinny and sickly that I don't buy salmon anymore.
Over-fishing of fish stocks has been going on for generations and it is catching up on us. 500 years ago you could drop a net off the coast of England and pull it up full, now.....virtually nothing. This is happening all over the world as the fishing trawlers go further and further to get their fill with fishing techniques that destroy the habitat and whole schools of fish for the sake of profits, instead of fishing in a way that will help the fish sustain themselves. There needs to be international controls on how fish are harvested, even though this will put the price up.....but in the end it will be worth it as the oceans make a come back and it becomes easier to fish again more locally. When you hunt land mammals you don't kill the young and mothers, but with fish they are all slaughtered. I sorry if this is not very eloquent, but it is the gist of the problem.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.