Monday, April 16, 2007

Marine Life Environmentalists vs. the Fishing Industry

California has just passed legislation that will preserve an amount of ocean space from human activity, including fishing. At this point the area, which I believe is not one continuous area but is broken up into sections, totals about 200 miles, the project is expected to be complete in 2011 which at that point will include more than just 200 miles. For this total area, there will be portions that completely restrict human activity to a 0 level and some portions will allow a limited amount of activity to take place, such as sport and commercial fishing.
The fishing industry argues that they are not the only perpetrators of ocean degredation that should be targeted, there are a lot of other sources and industries that degrade ocean quality that will not be effected by this new legislation. From an economic standpoint it seems that the fishing industry is arguing that the abatement costs are being mostly felt by them and that other companies are getting away with the damages they are causing. The fishing industry is arguing that the equimarginal principle is not being met. The abatement cost should be set at a number where it will be equal for all polluters...
From a Sam Dahler point of view, it's good in the long run because at least an aspect of the damages are being taken care of, in the end the ocean will be a little better off, and that is better than issues not being addressed at all. The Marine Life community seems to be pleased by this legislation; however, thats not to say that they wouldn't be pleased with stricter legislation.
Perhaps the question is whether or not the optimum level of ocean quality and ocean exploitation is being met. If the fishing industry is the easiest and cheapest industry to regulate, then maybe, from sociaty's point of view, they are the ones to regulate.

2 comments:

JoshOffy said...

One task at a time. It is the smartest way to bring about change. Although it may not be fair it certainly is the more efficient way to do things. If I were to ask you to say the numbers 1 through 10 it would be easy. If I asked you to say the letters A through J it would also be pretty easy. However, if I asked you to say 1, A, 2, B and so on. This would be a little harder and not so efficient. Also from a political point of view it's a lot easier to pass one thing then to pass four or five things. Due to the fact that one issue could get you off track of another. It is simply a logical way to approach the problem.

Rob Phillips said...

Im sure the source of most fish dying is commercial fishing and then pollution in that order, so who should abatement costs hit? commericial fishing hardest and then polluters