euronews.com
Bottom Trawling's €10.8 Billion Cost to European Society
A new study reveals bottom trawling in European waters costs society €330 million to €10.8 billion annually due to CO2 emissions from disturbed seabed sediments, exceeding economic benefits and highlighting the need for policy changes.
- How do government subsidies influence the profitability of bottom trawling and its overall societal impact?
- The high cost of bottom trawling stems from its environmental impact, including CO2 emissions comparable to global aviation and habitat destruction. Government subsidies of €1.3 billion annually further exacerbate the issue, making the practice profitable for industry despite societal losses.
- What is the total societal cost of bottom trawling in European waters, and what are the primary contributing factors?
- The study finds that bottom trawling in European waters costs society between €330 million and €10.8 billion annually, primarily due to CO2 emissions from disturbed seabed sediments. This cost significantly outweighs the economic benefits, impacting taxpayers and small-scale fishermen.
- What policy changes are needed to mitigate the negative impacts of bottom trawling, ensuring a just transition for the fishing industry while safeguarding marine ecosystems?
- The future of bottom trawling hinges on policy changes. Redirecting subsidies away from the practice and enforcing existing bans within marine protected areas could promote a fairer transition for the fishing industry and protect marine ecosystems. Failure to act risks further environmental damage and economic losses.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introductory paragraphs immediately establish the high cost of bottom trawling, setting a negative tone. The sequencing of information prioritizes the negative impacts (environmental damage, economic costs to society) before presenting the industry's arguments. This framing influences the reader to perceive bottom trawling primarily as harmful.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotive language to describe bottom trawling, such as "destructive fishing practice," "bulldozed by weighted nets," and "ripped away." While accurate descriptions, the consistent use of negative terms shapes reader perception. More neutral alternatives could include "impactful fishing method," "removed by nets," and "affected."
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of bottom trawling, quoting sources critical of the practice. While it mentions the industry's arguments about jobs and economic benefits, it doesn't delve deeply into these counterarguments or provide specific data to counter the cost figures presented. This omission could leave the reader with a one-sided view, neglecting the potential complexities of the issue and the perspectives of those who support bottom trawling.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between bottom trawling and its cessation. It doesn't sufficiently explore the possibility of regulation or alternative sustainable fishing practices that could mitigate the negative impacts without a complete ban. The focus on an outright ban simplifies a complex issue.
Sustainable Development Goals
Bottom trawling is causing significant damage to marine ecosystems, including destruction of habitats, bycatch of non-target species, and release of CO2 from disturbed sediments. The practice undermines efforts to protect marine biodiversity and achieve sustainable fisheries.