DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

We have failed to achieve this by now, because we started with an act locally policy.

A major disaster to a cute species should do it. Is there any other way ? I cant see any.

It will, sadly, need to be disaster of such serious magnitude, to directly affect the lives of many ordinary people (probably in affluent countries, because the reality is that affluent countries, rightly or wrongly, have the most influence at this point in time). What that disaster might actually be, I don't even want to speculate about. I don't know, I can only guess. But one in which ordinary people will all be shocked enough out of our complacency into taking these issues a lot more seriously.

First of all the "cute species" argument is pretty irrelevant to me & most likely to most people with any sort of commitment to conservation issues. (Do you think the Tasmanian Devil, for example, is cute? Yet we are supporting the desperate efforts to save it from extinction despite it being incredibly ugly & ornery to boot! )

Name the animals you want to save..top ten...

I thought you were the one who was desperately keen to discuss the overfishing issue.

Export ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna rejected

The Associated Press

DOHA, Qatar " Fishing nations won a victory over environmentalists Thursday when a U.S.-backed proposal to ban export of the Atlantic bluefin tuna was overwhelmingly rejected at a U.N. wildlife meeting.

Japan won over scores of poorer nations with a campaign that played on fears that a ban would devastate their economies. Tokyo also raised doubts that such a radical move was scientifically sound.

In another blow to conservationists, a proposal at the meeting to ban the international sale of polar bear skins failed to pass.

With stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna down 75 percent due to the rapacious appetites of Japanese sushi lovers, the defeat of the proposal was a stunning setback for the Americans, Europeans and their conservationist allies who had hoped the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, would protect the fish.

"Let's take science and throw it out the door," Susan Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group in Washington, said sarcastically.....................

With stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna down 75 percent due to the rapacious appetites of Japanese sushi lovers,

Top 5 facts on US Military Oil Consumption

4) The Department of Defense (DoD) per capita energy consumption of 524 trillion Btu is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Only three countries consume more oil per capita then the DoD.

3) In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945). The mighty B52 bomber (pictured above) consumes 3300 gallons per hour, the F16 Falcon burns 800 gallons per hour and the KC-135 Statotanker an aerial refueling tanker aircraft consumes 2650 gallons per hour.

2) The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S and the US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. In 2006 the US Military consumed 117 million barrels or 320,000 barrels per day.

1) With upto 15 gallons per day per deployed soldier in January 2007 the American GI is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war.

http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_5_facts_on_us_military_oil_consumption.php

US military energy consumption- facts and figures
by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don't confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD's total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006.

...

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD. Guess how many countries consume more oil per capita than the DoD? Only three.[13]


http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

the shares of a reputable international bank

Countries at the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) in Qatar voted down a proposal from Monaco to grant the fish stronger protection. The plan drew little support, with developing countries joining Japan in opposing a measure they feared would hit fishing economies.

It is understood that the UK, the Netherlands and possibly other European nations voted in favour of the Monaco proposal, against the EU's official position.

Campaigners complained that debate on the fate of the Atlantic bluefin fishery was cut short and an immediate vote pushed through by Libya. Seventy-two out of 129 Cites members voted against the trade ban and 43 voted in favour, with 14 abstentions.

Dr Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean, said: "After overwhelming scientific justification and growing political support in past months, with backing from the majority of catch quota holders on both sides of the Atlantic, it is scandalous that governments did not even get the chance to engage in meaningful debate about the international trade ban proposal for Atlantic bluefin tuna."

The UK environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "As we have long argued, bluefin tuna must be afforded protection if we are to avoid losing it forever. Today the UK has shown its commitment to bluefin tuna. We are disappointed that proposals to list bluefin tuna on appendix I of Cites were defeated."

Monaco introduced the proposal because it said only extreme measures can save stocks of the iconic migratory fish, which have fallen by 75% due to widespread overfishing. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that implementation be delayed until May 2011 to give authorities time to respond to concerns about overfishing. It's official position was to abstain in the vote on the Monaco proposal.

Japan, which imports 80% of Atlantic bluefin and had led the opposition to the ban, restated its position that Cites should not regulate tuna and other marine species. It said it would accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna, but said they should come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which currently regulates the trade.

A US-backed proposal to ban the international trade of polar bear skins, teeth and claws was defeated today at a UN wildlife meeting over concerns it would hurt indigenous economies and arguments the practice didn't pose a significant threat to the animals.