EU’s fishing policy is a disaster. Yhe page you link to says “Bornholm fishermen, just like their counterparts around Europe, are legally bound to tight restrictions under the Common Fisheries Policy that establishes how many fish of which kind can be caught where.”

Yet, the catch is controlled when the boat comes back, and whilee at sea they can catch and dump ass much as they want. This results in plenty of fish being cought, and then thrwn over board, in order for the fishermen to meet quotas… No science at all in this thinking.

I don’t think politicians have a problem with science as such - what they have a problem with are certain sciences like ecology. Other sciences like economics, or medical research are listened to I belive.

You’re right, of course. Political leaders do indeed act on medical science and other sciences.

The problem is with environmental science, and a serious lack of true acceptance of the fact that damages to the environment/climate impact our economies, our health… (the fisheries case is a good example of bad environmental policies leading to bad long-term economics even if it results in short-term economic benefits).

There’s actually a lot of study of fisheries in the field of institutional economics, following the frames of Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action and Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons, in one way or the other.

Stating that the government should follow science more may be true enough, but it is not necessarily a realistic prospect. Governments follow electoral, monetary and interest group pressures and rarely act as enlightened technocratic dictators when it poses them significant short term costs. The issues are not going to be solved as long as there is no pressure from the majority to counteract stronger minority mobilisation.

The fishing industry is probably ideal for this kind of studies. And I think it is very valuable as an example in ecological thinking. Fish populations have faced, and will most likely face ecological collapses similar in some way to what we could do if we keep heating the climate.

The links were very interesting I am familiar with “the free rider” problematic, but will definitely into the the books mentioned.

I think a major problem with fishing is that the technical development moves faster than peoples minds. People fish with big boats in the same way as they used to do whith small… and what wasn’t a problem becomes one. Much like we get fat from eating what our grandparents ate, because we don’t work corporally.

You have a very important point Nanne - the point of democracy is that the people decide, not the experts. The politicians should listen, of course, but not even science could dictate what should happen.

This is very relevant in the climate change debate - no matter how much scientific evidence we have, what we need is to build political pressure on our leaders.

Nanne - thanks for your comment and links. The tragedy of the commons is precisely what I hope we can avoid, given the catastrophic consequences for the entire planet in the case of climate change.

Of course governments are interested in electoral processes etc. I see this as a loss for the environment that such is the case. How often environmental policy has played second fiddle (at best!) to economic priorities? I would still like to remain optimistic, however, especially when I think of how cross-party consensus on climate issues can be reached in countries (and has been reached in some already, such as the UK).

I guess the conclusion is that: Good science + strong democratic mobilisation + a bit of sense = attentive climate-friendly governments.

@Claire I guess one thing ecological science (and bloggers) could do more to stress that also the economy is dependent on the ecological factors below it. Agriculture and fishing are two obvious example, but in the long run every industry needs to be sustainable, and choosing between economy and ecology seems odd in this perspective.

On the other hand… the fishing example shows how difficult it is to convince with ecological facs, in spite of an obvious economic disaster due to overfishing.

The problem it is that the scientists do not understand anything with the communication.
Crowd reacts like the unconscious one to the level of a person.
To speak with unconscious it is necessary to address positively formulated messages to him.
If you wish to understand this phenomenon you can read the presentation of Milton Erickson.
If you can to make the experiment of a meeting of hypnosis, it would be perfect.
You move like one hung!
If you want to understand this phenomenon you can read the presentation of Milton Erickson. If on top of that you can make the experience of a session of hypnosis, it would be perfect. You move as one hung!