Anonymous
By Harrison Tasoff, UC Santa Barbara
A fish that dies naturally in the ocean sinks to the depths, taking with it all the carbon it contains. Yet, when a fish is caught, most of this carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2.
An international research consortium including scientists from UC Santa Barbara has estimated that because of this overlooked phenomenon, carbon emissions from fishing are actually 25% higher than what up to now was considered from fuel consumption alone. What’s more, part of the carbon extracted from the oceans comes from areas where fishing is not economically profitable in the absence of government subsidies. This study is published in Science Advances.
Carbon is a major component in the molecules that make up living tissue. Large fish like tuna, sharks and swordfish are composed of 10 to 15% carbon. When they die, they quickly sink to the deep sea. As a result, most of the carbon they contain is locked away for thousands or even millions of years. They are therefore literal carbon sinks, the size of which has never been estimated before.
This natural phenomenon, a blue carbon pump, has been greatly disrupted by industrial fishing.
“When we catch fish for our consumption, we also extract the carbon in their bodies, a fraction of which would have naturally sunk to the bottom of the ocean where it would have otherwise stayed, sequestered for many years,” said coauthor Juan Mayorga, a marine data scientist at UC Santa Barbara’s Environmental Market Solutions Lab.
Scientists had never estimated the amount of carbon extracted and released into the atmosphere as a result of fishing. “This is a step forward toward more holistic, science-based assessments of the status of fisheries management,” Mayorga said, “and opens the door to innovative financing models including tapping into carbon markets.”
Industrial fishing would therefore emit a double amount of CO2 into the atmosphere: not only do the boats massively emit greenhouse gases by consuming fuel oil, but in addition, by extracting fish from the sea, they release CO2 which would otherwise remain captive in the ocean.
“This is the first time that we have estimated the quantity of this ‘blue carbon’ that is released into the atmosphere by fishing,” explained coauthor David Mouillot, a professor at the University of Montpellier. This estimate is far from negligible since researchers consider this carbon sequestration deficit in the deep ocean would represent more than 25% of the previous carbon balance of industrial fishing activities.
The researchers’ findings imply that estimates of carbon emissions from industrial fishing should be revised upwards. “Three quarters of these real emissions are related to fuel consumption, and one quarter comes from the fact that the carbon contained in the fish caught is released as CO2 into the atmosphere instead of remaining buried in the seabed,” the researchers said.
For the authors of the study, these new data bring another strong argument in favor of more reasoned fishing: “The annihilation of the blue carbon pump represented by these large fish suggests that new protection and management measures must be put in place, so that more large fish can remain a carbon sink and no longer become an additional CO2 source,” said lead author Gaël Mariani, a doctoral student at the University of Montpellier.
Above all, we need to fish better, added Mouillot. Fishing boats sometimes go to very remote areas, which causes enormous fuel consumption, even though the fish caught in these areas are not profitable and fishing is only viable thanks to subsidies. Researchers estimate that 43.5% of this “blue carbon” extracted by fishing comes from such areas.
“We do not have to stop fishing to regain many of these carbon sequestration benefits,” said coauthor Steve Gaines, director of UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. “If we fish in the right places and at sustainable rates, we can rebuild a significant amount of this natural blue carbon sink.”
Hahahaha. This has to be a joke.
Clearly you don’t give a damn about climate change and/or have no concept or understanding science. Every “little bit” of increased knowledge of what are our impacts on the planet gives us one little additional tool to maybe, just maybe allow our grandchildren to have a planet upon which to live.
The joke’s on you
Edhat : you jumped the gun and posted this too Early… this was obviously meant to be posted April 1st!!!
Good one, Duke.
Ginger, if you believe fishing has any effect on climate change then the joke is on you.
Here. Allow me to boil (or broil, or bake) this down for you: Using diesel-fueled/fossil-fueled boats to travel hundreds of miles out to sea to catch a few dozen large fish (or even a larger catch of smaller fish) is not cost-effective, fuel efficient and produces greenhouse gases and excess carbon far in excess of any benefits, along with the reality that sequestering that carbon at the bottom of the sea is better than releasing the from your barbecue.
No one is saying to not eat fish, just to gather them more sustainably. Which in this case is also generally more profitable in the end. In so many ways. Simple enough?
Bravo Duke 🙂
The philosophy behind “climate change” is to play on the guilt and insecurities that are inherent in human nature. The idea is to make people feel guilty for all that they enjoy in life. This guilt can then be exploited by governments to seize additional power and by businesses to make profits. The example of this article addresses seafood, which helps those who enjoy seafood feel guilty about it. However, a similar approach could be applied to anything. CO2 is a very carefully chosen “toxin” to focus on, because virtually everything related to life on earth releases or absorbs it. Think of something that you enjoy doing in life, and I bet I could articulate a reason why it contributes to the release of CO2. The endgame is that you are supposed to feel guilty whenever you experience pleasure. I see things a bit differently, so I will make a point of enjoying a delicious wild-caught fish this evening. And I won’t even feel guilty about it…
Title should read “UCSB’s Hidden Carbon Footprint.” All these global warming publications must have a huge carbon footprint.
That’s for sure! And beyond that, think of how much good could be done addressing real environmental and humanitarian challenges around the world if we were not wasting so much effort on our Quixotic pursuit of CO2.
““We do not have to stop fishing to regain many of these carbon sequestration benefits,” said coauthor Steve Gaines, director of UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. “If we fish in the right places and at sustainable rates, we can rebuild a significant amount of this natural blue carbon sink.””
Where is the guilt in this?
This is exactly what I was driving at Thomas. More regulations (government power) will be required to save us from the quixotic CO2 menace. Some businesses will naturally profit from the new regulations (typically larger more politically connected businesses). Other businesses will suffer (likely small ones, or your local fisherman). At the end of the day, the government will have more control over another aspect of life, large corporations will expand their dominance in another sector of the economy, and you will have to pay more for yet another product than you used to. But, as long as you go along with all that I guess you can feel a little less guilty…
“Yet, when a fish is caught, most of this carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2.” Sure, if you put the fish in an oxygen furnace and incinerate it. The truth is that someone will eat that fish and the carbon in that fish will be used to fuel the person who ate it and help to rebuild their carbon-rich tissues. What is not used is excreted as solid and liquid waste, not CO2. During metabolism (Kreb’s cycle) some of those carbon units (acetyl groups) will be released as CO2 units and exhaled from the lungs as gas. I suppose denying the person this fish and starving them to death would put an end to this CO2 release. I wonder if these same scientists will do a similar study on the consumption of plants. Each plant that is harvested for food and materials is also a loss of a carbon sink. Think of all those carbon units in cellulose and starch can potentially be released into the atmosphere…. Where does the madness end?
Whataboutism.
More whataboutism.
Yet more whataboutism.
Whataboutism and freedumbism.
Mere ignorance, such as repeatedly misspelling a word, isn’t too offensive, because it can presumably be corrected by education. Willful ignorance however, such as denying the reality of AGW by ignoring an overwhelming body of facts, is worse than stupidity. Unfortunately, we’re witnessing how that behavior has become widespread in an age where people don’t apply critical analysis to what they are told by politicians, even when it is absent any evidence at all.
Another anti-fishing paper by Gaines et al outta UCSB. So…eat more beef??
Dead people sink. I would sink… but then gasses. And then I would be a floater, unless the yellow tuna ate me first, and then we would both be sinkers? I’m not sure how that works.
Natural death for fish in the ocean is that fish being preyed oppon. Flawed models,
flawed science. These “science” papers are just ways to perpetuate their ideology.