Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/10/17 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Alaska cancels snow crab season due to population collapse, raising concerns on economic impact and urging a shift towards considering the costs of inaction on climate change.
Climate activists, policymakers, seafood industry workers
The full transcript provides a detailed analysis of the economic and environmental impacts of the snow crab population collapse and serves as a reminder to prioritize action on climate change to prevent further consequences.
#ClimateChange #EconomicImpact #SeafoodIndustry #EnvironmentalConservation #ActionNeeded
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Bo again.
So today we are going to talk about snow crabs and Alaska
and economic impacts and the way we do talk about things
and maybe the way we should talk about things.
So if you missed the news, Alaska
has canceled the snow crab season.
It's not happening.
The boats aren't going out.
If you look at the reporting, you're
seeing the term overfished.
That doesn't mean that that's what caused the population
to collapse.
That's a term that allows the government
to spring into action and say, oh, we're not having a season.
It's the first time they've ever done it with snow crab.
In 2018, there were 8 billion crabs.
2021, 1 billion.
It wasn't fishing that caused the population collapse.
Snow crab, as the name implies, they like it cold.
I want to say that they are most prevalent in areas that
are below 2 degrees Celsius.
They like it cold, cold.
And as most people know, the water is getting warmer.
This could have caused it.
It could be disease, or they could have just
moved to somewhere where it is cooler.
That isn't unheard of.
In fact, there have been multiple populations
since the 1980s that have moved 19 miles or more.
But as it stands, there's billions of this species gone.
The focus right now for most coverage
is on the economic impact of the fishermen.
Not really.
They mention climate change.
Probably not as much as they should.
And they should probably tie climate change
to the economic impact of the fishermen.
The economic impact.
Because when we talk about what it's going to take
to mitigate climate change, we often
talk about the cost of mitigating
and how much it's going to take, the investment it's
going to take to transition, to safeguard,
to put the pieces in place to try to slow climate change.
Maybe we should be talking about how much it's
going to cost if we don't.
If we don't mitigate.
This, it's not going to be the last time
something like this happens.
Early estimates are saying it's going to be years
before the population rebounds.
If that's the case, there's a whole bunch
of fishermen who aren't fishermen anymore.
They have to go find new jobs, new industries.
Somebody recently asked about climate refugees
within the United States.
Do economic refugees count?
Because if they do, that's starting now.
We're focused on the money and what
it's going to cost to mitigate.
Since the United States is a country that
tends to focus on money, it might be more persuasive
if we talk about how much it's going to cost
if we don't mitigate.
Because it's a lot.
It is a lot.
You have fishermen.
Families have been doing this for generations.
They may not be doing it anymore.
And this is on top of the fact that we
are talking about billions of a species disappearing,
which should factor into this in some way.
But it's the US and we care about money.
This is a warning.
This is a warning as if we haven't had just constant
warnings over the last 10 years.
This is something that might continue to get coverage.
And when we talk about it, we need
to talk about the economic impact that
occurred because we didn't act.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}