Maryland like California send out tons of PROPAGANDA by far-right wing Clinton neo-liberals pretending they are passing ENVIRONMENTAL policy that is simply GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY policy. When Clinton era Congress expanded the terms of what US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES can do----they tied that status FTZ----to the entire US coastline----including West Coast and East Coast. Doing that told 99% WE THE PEOPLE our coastlines were in the hands of global corporations-----not sovereign state and local government. CA and MD state assemblies have been working since 1990s to hand offshore real estate to global energy corporations via FTZ policies and are STILL PRETENDING they are fighting to stop oil and natural gas drilling offshore. CA is being fracked to death as these state and local global banking 1% and 5% FAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS fight the wrong policies.
'International Trade and Logistics | Key Industries | City of...
Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) facilitate trade and increase the global competitiveness of U.S.-based companies. Oakland is home to one of the largest FTZs on the West Coast. The City of Oakland, as the Grantee to FTZ #56 since 1980, is embarking on a federal application to expand its FTZ allowance to the " Alternative Site ...'
CA was one of the earliest to install carbon trading pretending they were saving the rain forests.
We see CA in OAKLAND has the strongest US Foreign Economic Zone development policies----they are also the location pretending to push SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE/SOCIAL JUSTICE-----as they install DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE MASSIVE GLOBAL CORPORATE FACTORY AND OFFSHORE DRILLING.
'•Implementing California's climate policies, the centerpiece of which is a cap-and-trade program, with the goal of expanding and extending the program beyond 2020.
•Fast tracking emissions reductions to benefit public health through policies that work in concert with cap and trade'.
This is NPR knowingly creating propaganda over activism and FAKE LEFT policies -----"A coastal wall of resistance". Not one mention of ending US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE status behind MOVING FORWARD offshore drilling---no mention of carbon trading selling ownership of offshore real estate to these global energy corporations----just pretend FAKE environmental policies.
California May Have A Way To Block Trump's Offshore Drilling Push
California May Have A Way To Block Trump's Offshore Drilling Push
February 8, 20185:03 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
More than a dozen states oppose the Trump administration's proposal to open up nearly the entire U.S. coastline to offshore oil leasing. Federal officials will get public feedback on the plan in Sacramento on Thursday. The Interior Department says it takes local concerns into account — as happened in a recent controversial move with Florida — but states have no direct say, since the leasing would take place in federally controlled waters.
California thinks it may have found a way around. In fact, it's a strategy used the last time the West Coast was open for offshore oil drilling, in the 1980's, when President Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt was leading the push.
"We have enough energy to meet America's needs for thousands of years," said Watt at the time, "if we will have a government that will allow for its reasonable development."
INDEED-----NO POLS IN CA WORKING FOR THIS CONSERVATION----CA LEADS IN EXPORT TERMINALS.
It was not welcome news for many coastal cities in California. They were still spooked by a 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, in which some three million gallons of oil leaked from an offshore drilling operation and coated local beaches.
"We had to respond in kind," recalls John Laird, who's now California's secretary of Natural Resources, but was then mayor of Santa Cruz, a small coastal city south of San Francisco.
Laird called a meeting with drilling opponents and everyone agreed: their response had to have some teeth.
"And I really struggled, thinking: teeth?" Laird says. "We're a city, and this is a federal government wanting to do this with the tacit approval of the state government."
Article continues after sponsorshipThen something occurred to him. When oil companies drill offshore, they still need to build infrastructure onshore, things like pipelines and helicopter pads. And it's cities who control the zoning and building permits that allow that, not the federal government.
"A coastal wall of resistance"
Santa Cruz proposed a ballot measure that said if an oil company wanted to build facilities on land, residents would have to vote on it first. It passed. The measure also designated funds to spread the idea, so Santa Cruz hired Dan Haifley to be an anti-oil Johnny Appleseed.
SAN CRUZ IS A US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE AND THESE LAWS WILL NOT STAND IN GLOBAL TRIBUNAL COURT AND THESE POLS KNOW THIS.
"I would sleep on couches and I would travel the state in my little car, tiny little thing," Haifley says.
He visited local officials along the coast, slide projector in hand. "It was grassroots democracy and grassroots activism at its best," he says.
Workmen in small boats gather oil-soaked hay from the water in Santa Barbara, Calif., on Feb. 8, 1969. Officials announced they had finally capped an underwater oil well which had been leaking oil into the ocean for 12 days, fouling harbors and beaches.
In all, Haifley convinced 26 coastal cities and counties to adopt similar policies. They were challenged by the oil industry, but upheld by a federal court.
Even today, oil companies can't build new infrastructure without voter approval in most of those places. The zoning rules create what Haifley calls "a coastal wall of resistance" against offshore drilling.
But Would It Work Today?
The idea has reemerged, now that the Trump administration is proposing a dramatic expansion of oil leasing. California legislators are considering a bill that would ban new oil pipelines and piers in state-controlled waters, which extend up to three miles offshore. California's lieutenant governor, who chairs the State Lands Commission, has also threatened to block any pipeline permits to transport oil.
So, would that give an oil company pause?
"Absolutely," says Bob Fryklund with IHS Markit, which does research and consulting for the oil industry. "The companies look at that. They look at the ease of operation."
But California's policies may not work as well as they once did. Fryklund says technology has improved and now companies can get oil without having to build a pipeline to shore. Just they use floating oil rigs, known as FPSOs.
"You have a giant ship that fills up full of oil and then goes off to a nearby port or refinery within that country or off somewhere else," he says. "That's pretty standard operations around the world."
That method is more expensive. So, oil companies would have to be enticed by large oil reserves and high oil prices to make that worth it. Since many offshore areas in the Pacific and Atlantic haven't been surveyed for oil in decades, for now, the oil industry is waiting and seeing.
And here is that graduate of GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE far-right wing neo-conservative STANFORD always global banking 1% media sold as far-leftist----GOVERNOR BROWN-----indeed, he is partnered with CHINA in expanding these global banking financial instruments inside China now that the American real estate ready to be devastated are all tied to these carbon trading fraudulent instruments.
GLOBAL BANKING 1% FIGHTING HARD AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE AS CALIFORNIA THESE FEW DECADES AS TOP ROBBER BARON STATE FILLED WITH GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES, GLOBAL ENERGY CORPORATIONS -----tops in wanting to build ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY/ENERGY GRID. All the worst of environmental policies.
California plans to take the lead in fighting climate
change and discuss merging carbon trading markets with China
- Peter Henderson, Reuters
- Jun. 1, 2017, 10:21 PM
Brown discussed his plans in a telephone interview after US President Donald Trump announced he would exit the Paris international climate accord. Brown vigorously opposes the withdrawal and has been working with states and provinces around the world to set voluntary agreements to address global warming.
The governor heads to China on Friday for meetings focused on climate change.
California has the largest US carbon trading system and frequently has hosted officials from China. China has launched seven pilot regional trading schemes and plans to roll out a nationwide market this year. However the launch faces delays amid unreliable data and other regulatory problems, a government researcher said recently.
California's system, which is known as "cap and trade" already is linked to Canada's Quebec market.
"I think that is a heavy lift to include Chinese provinces but we are definitely taking that possibility very seriously," Brown said.
"We want to make sure it has full integrity and know exactly what’s going on. And we can’t say that today," he said. "Maybe we don’t put it right in the same cap and trade regime, maybe some parallel regime," he added. "I am going to discuss that with the highest officials in China this week."
Here is more of the same from our neck of the woods----Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia---we knew back in 1990s development policies placed offshore drilling along the East Coast-----whether Wallops or Willis Wharf------the global banking 1% pols have passed all the policies to MOVE FORWARD offshore drilling/export terminals----exploration AND have tied UNITED NATIONS carbon trading to deep water drilling real estate.
Any media pretending this is all TRUMP'S FAULT without explaining all this history is not journalism---it is propaganda as we see here in DELMARVANOW.COM.
First, for those US citizens not caring about devastating our West and East Coasts just as was done to Gulf of Mexico---and globally-----because it creates JOBS, JOBS, JOBS-----one of the industries installing robotics and artificial intelligence fastest---is the energy/drilling sector. These are already almost fully automatic----no JOBS, JOBS, JOBS----just pollution, spills, leaks, explosions and ending of all coastal beach resorts.
Clinton era 1990s installed CARBON TRADING to assure all offshore real estate went to global 1% selling through Bush-era----OBAMA opened offshore exploration during his terms----and media wants us to believe the fight is against TRUMP.
'Virginia's oil and gas industry is applauding the renewed study of the state's waters, saying the Mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf could produce up to 2.4 billion barrels of oil and 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas'.
We can BET those business and political leaders if not shouting loudly in 1990s----are 5% players pretending to fight MOVING FORWARD.
Critics: Trump offshore oil plan threatens Wallops, beaches
Jeremy Cox, firstname.lastname@example.org Published 1:15 p.m. ET Jan. 9, 2018 | Updated 3:59 p.m. ET Jan. 9, 2018
Eastern Shore of Virginia residents gathered at Willis Wharf, Virginia, home of several aquaculture businesses, on Saturday, May 20, 2017 to protest the federal government's attempts to do allow oil drilling off the Virginia coast. Carol Vaughn video
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke unveiled preliminary plans last week that would provide lease sales for 90 percent of the outer continental shelf for potential oil and gas drilling.
A Trump administration proposal to open virtually all U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas exploration is encountering deep resistance in many Atlantic states, including Maryland and Virginia....
A Trump administration proposal to open virtually all U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas exploration is encountering deep resistance in many Atlantic states, including Maryland and Virginia.
Under the five-year plan, the federal government would begin selling leases in 2020 in the Mid-Atlantic, an area extending from Delaware Bay south to the North Carolina-South Carolina border. One sale would take place that year followed by one sale each in 2022 and 2024.
Drilling would be allowed as close as 3 miles offshore, a prospect some in the region describe as a nightmare scenario.
"Expanding offshore drilling unnecessarily jeopardizes our economy, environment, national security, and the health and safety of our residents," said Virginia Gov.-elect and Eastern Shore native Ralph Northam. "All it takes is one exploration gone wrong to do immeasurable harm to major economic drivers including tourism, fishing, aquaculture and our military installations."
WONDER WHY RALPH NORTHAM HASN'T SHOUTED THESE FEW DECADES WHILE ALL PLANS WERE PUT IN PLACE?
Democrats such as Northam were quick to condemn the move. But opposition also sprang from within Trump's own party.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, sent the state's Democratic attorney general, Brian Frosh, a letter Jan. 4 directing him to investigate the U.S. Interior Department’s plan, which was announced earlier in the day.
Hogan called for “any viable legal claims, actions or suits against the U.S. government to prevent” offshore drilling in Maryland’s coastal waters.
HMMM, IT WAS HOGAN'S FATHER PASSING ALL THESE POLICIES DURING CLINTON ERA!
To the south, U.S. Rep. Scott Taylor, the Republican who represents the Eastern Shore of Virginia and the Norfolk area, told The Washington Post on Monday he opposes the plan. Offshore drilling is opposed by coastal communities and industries in his district, and could interfere with military training, he said.
His fellow Republican on Maryland's portion of the Shore has come out in favor of exploration and drilling — under two conditions. Rep. Andy Harris, through a spokeswoman, said it must be done in an "environmentally safe manner," and any rigs must not be visible from Maryland's shoreline.
While it is technically possible that rigs could be built 3 miles from the shore, it is highly unlikely they would rise so close to Maryland and Virginia's coast, according to petroleum industry experts. The Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling would likely occur, lies more than 50 miles offshore.
The Trump administration's action comes less than two years after the Obama administration nixed its own plan to open up drilling sites 50 miles off Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia by 2021.
The decision came after scores of coastal communities along the Atlantic, including Delaware and Maryland, formally protested the move.
U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the revised National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program will offer the largest number of lease sales ever proposed and put America on the path toward energy independence.
“This is a start on looking at American energy dominance and looking at our offshore assets and the beginning of a dialogue of when, how, where and how fast those offshore assets should be or could be developed,” Zinke said. “This is a clear difference between energy weakness and energy dominance.”
Bill Mastyl, left, with Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper Jay Ford, right, carries signs protesting offshore oil and gas drilling after an event held Saturday, May 20, 2017 at Willis Wharf, Virginia. (Photo: Staff photo by Carol Vaughn)
The plan includes 25 of 26 available planning areas in the U.S., with 47 potential lease sales. The only planning area excluded in the new plan is the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska.
Zinke said the proposal is in its early stages and will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has scheduled several public hearings on the leasing plan, including separate meetings next week in Annapolis, Dover and Richmond.
Virginia's oil and gas industry is applauding the renewed study of the state's waters, saying the Mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf could produce up to 2.4 billion barrels of oil and 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
"These resources could help keep energy costs low and benefit our commonwealth for decades to come," said Virginia Petroleum Council Executive Director Miles Morin.
Environmental groups along the Shore are reassembling the lobbying machines they used to defeat the Obama-era proposal. Plans included online letter-writing campaigns and shuttling activists to the government's public hearings.
“Oil doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for state lines, so there’s bound to be impact to our coastal waters even if drilling weren’t to take place off the Delmarva coast," said Matt Heim, outreach director for the Assateague Coastal Trust. "Even a small spill could end up off Assateague, Ocean City, Fenwick (Island), any of our beaches.”
Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper Jay Ford warned that, among other consequences, the placement of oil rigs off Virginia's coast could impede future activity at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. The space center could lose its competitive edge in the high-stakes world of government and private contracts, he said.
Any exploration or drilling could pose a threat to ocean-dependent tourism, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management acknowledges in its report. In Virginia, that industry is worth $2.9 billion; in Maryland, $2.5 billion.
Denny Riordan, owner of the Assateague Island Surf Shop, dreads the idea of oil rigs cropping up in his view of the ocean. About the only thing he fears more is the sight of spilled oil.
"God forbid if anything happened, they could just ruin the beaches here," he said. "If you can’t get in (the ocean), people are going to go elsewhere.”
Oil-drilling structures could be a boon to one segment of Ocean City tourism industry. The pilings would almost certainly became a haven for fish and, by extension, recreational fishermen, said Jeremy Blunt, a commercial chart boat captain based in the resort.
“Drill here, drill now. I’m all for it," he said.
Blunt has a blunt message for the industry's critics: Oil is already present on Delmarva's coast. Instead of being drilled, it is being ferried in tankers heading up the shore toward Delaware Bay.
The rigs would be well offshore anyway, he added.
“You won’t even know what’s going on," Blunt said.
We shouted a decade ago when Congress and global banking 1% neo-liberals started to PRETEND they were environmental by throwing billions of dollars into CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY projects like fish/clam/oyster farming. We said those billions went to building overseas massive farms off Foreign Economic Zones----while only a few million were thrown at 5% players as small businesses that would not last.
We are Eastern Shore----Chesapeake Bay watermen family----had our own oyster beds ---we LOVE our local seafood industry. What MOVING FORWARD does is kill that wild industry AND this farm-raise industry. Think offshore oil and natural gas is a BOOM for WHOM?
What will happen if we continue to MOVE FOWARD OFFSHORE DRILLING EAST AND WEST COAST----is the farm-raise fish/seafood located along the coast because they need access to that sea water----will die for the same reasons our wild industry died. Even with no pollutants---no spills---no leaks---which NEVER OCCURS----the activity of industry will float to shore making that water polluted and those farms unable to sustain water environments.
Who gets the revenue from all this offshore drilling and processing? Global 1%-----what happens to local families and businesses? They are pushed out. These small business farm-raised seafood families earning a few million these few decades will be forced out of business very soon.
So, we see US citizens rushing to cash in on a farm-raised seafood industry putting all that work into development and we already know that industry is being attacked by 1990s offshore drilling and carbon trading real estate grabs by global corporations.
How do you farm-raise clams and oysters? A trip to Virginia answers the question
By Debbi Snook, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer
on September 26, 2014 at 8:02 AM, updated September 30, 2014 at 2:26 PM
Boy, do we love clams and oysters.
But such natural shellfish populations on the East Coast have taken a nosedive since the birth of our country. We got near water and ate everything we could find. Then we built near it, dumped into it, let our fertilizers and pesticide run into it, filled it with our sewage.
We've taken some steps to clean up the water, but a lot of the natural clam and oyster beds have been displaced by development.
Today, we're growing our own. Farm-raised clams comprise some 80 percent of sales in this country. Many of the clams in clambakes and oysters served on the half-shell were created by three years of hatching and seeding. The oysters are also turned regularly so they don't cluster, something they do in the wild.
What a difference a century can make.
Mike McGee McGee, a lifelong oyster distributor in the Chesapeake Bay area, drives his boat and talks about shellfish he sells to the Cleveland market.Oysters were so plentiful when Europeans arrived, they were considered the lungs of New York, writes Mark Kurlansky in his book "The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell." Oysters and clams filtered out extra nutrients and kept the water clear.
Once railroads arrived, shellfish could be iced or canned and shipped west. Were they, ever.
Waters were overfished in order to satisfy markets such as Cleveland. Then came another hit to the industry: Typhoid fever. Oysters sitting in untreated sewage waters became a carrier. The clean water movement started to bubble up.
Oysters in Chesapeake Bay held on for several decades until the 1980s when two new diseases popped up. Neither was a danger to humans, but the oyster beds collapsed.
In a few ways, the Chesapeake Bay can be compared to Lake Erie. It's a big, shallow body of water with millions of people living around it – a risky situation. Because the bay is part salt-water and tidal, it's also the ideal home for shellfish. Before the blue crab population started plummeting (from 190 million pounds three years ago to 68 million this year) due to overfishing and habitat loss, before the clam depletion crisis of the 1980s in New England, and before oyster business in the bay started tanking, scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, part of William and Mary, started researching the idea of farming clams there.
Chad Ballard's grandfather father was one of the converts. Ballard Fish & Oyster Co. in Cheriton, Va., way down at the tip of the Delmarva Peninsula (Del for Delaware, Mar for Maryland and Va for Virginia) is now a major player in clam farming, selling more than 100 million each year. In addition to being the largest East Coast clam farmer, Chad Ballard said he's the largest employer in Northampton County, the poorest jurisdiction in the state.
On an overcast day, Ballard's staff pilots a Cleveland contingent out to a clam harvest. Three principals from Catanese Classic Seafood, two Cleveland chefs (Shawn Cline of Blue Point Grille and Andy Dombrowski of Zack Bruell's group), and Marty Gaul, the seafood buyer for Heinen's, have come to witness where their clams come from.
They watch from the boat as workers reach down to the bay floor, move rope-shaped sandbags out of the way, lift a thick rectangular mesh and run a water-propelled machine through the silt to lift and gather the clams. They dump the collected basket into a wire bushel, give it a few washing-machine turns in the water and load it onto a boat.
They are strong men with sun-darkened skin and a good attitude.
"It's one of the better jobs on the shore," said box-harvester operator Victor Taylor, 38. He says he loves working outdoors. Jobs like his used to run only 3 months of the year. With farming, harvesting work is continuous.
Taylor's predecessors worked it and, now, so does his son. Christopher Lewis, 18, signed on for a part-time job that pays $10-$15 an hour. He's heading to welding school in the fall.
"It's hard work here," says Lewis, "but I enjoy it. Plus, I can work with my dad."
In the oyster fields, workers turn heavy bags of young shellfish to keep them from attaching to each other or getting smothered by growing plant matter.
In the sorting rooms, workers run the clatter of packing machines. About three dozen of them shuck oysters overnight so that shipments can be made the next day.
It was once a business that moved with the ebb and flow and what could be found in the water. Now it's about what you put there.
Few know the old ways better than Mike McGee, 69, who works out of Chincoteague Island, home of the famous wild ponies. McGee takes the Cleveland group on a boat tour of his property along the Atlantic side of the peninsula, pointing out where his family first settled on the shore. He started working at the age of six.
McGee motors 24 miles north, passing new beachfront homes, an osprey nest, and a wild horse grazing with her foal. He navigates a maze of water trails through sea grass islands without the help of directional signs. With water barely two feet deep, you have to know where you're going.
"Sometimes I do this at night," McGee says, explaining his vigils for poachers. Remote cameras continuously scan his oyster beds, and he owns a "watch house" on stilts where he can keep his own eye on things.
"I'd live out here if I could, but my wife won't let me," he said.
"This is God's country."
McGee seems old-school, but he's not completely. He recently sold his company to Chad Ballard, which means he's not just a shellfish harvester and distributor but also a shellfish farmer. The deal gave McGee the opportunity to keep running his original company. It gave Ballard the underwater rights to the lion's share of prime shellfish-growing land in the region.
That may seem like a big leap for a crusty waterman, but it made sense to McGee.
"After all I built, none of my kids were interested," he said.
Ballard, 31, said by phone (his wife was having a child during the Cleveland visit) that the deal brought him diversified land and the wisdom of a bay-area veteran. Ballard's father died about 10 years ago, while Chad was still in college. Knowledge of the family business went with him.
"Mike's a one-of-a-kind-guy," said Ballard. "They don't make him like that anymore."
Now they are doing things the old way and the new way.
Starting from seed
Wild-caught clams are still sold in Cleveland. St. Mary's got theirs from Lobster Brothers in Westlake who got theirs from a Rhode Island clam company. Sean Sullivan of Euro USA prefers the Prince Edward Island products from Canada, believing they have more flavor, and that their native cold waters help keep them healthier than clams from warm-water regions.
But most clams sold in Cleveland are farmed. And when clambakers look down into their bowl of shells, they are seeing the product of lots of science and husbandry.
In the Willis Wharf oceanside area of the Delmarva Peninsula, Kari Rapine runs Ballard's clam and oyster laboratory. She oversees the raising of those 100 million clams each year, which are one-inch-wide "seeds" when they are sprinkled into the bay's waters.
Water is always running in the short clapboard building, carrying sperm to meet the eggs of hand-selected broodstock, bringing nutrients to larvae and lentil-sized young clams, and flushing away what they leave behind.
Brown, green and tan water also fills the clear plastic tanks where she and her crew raise various strains of algae as food for the clams. It's an operation of precision in time, temperature and measure. (See a video at www.clamandoyster.com.)
"One mistake can really set you back many months," she says. "The worst thing would be to have all these growing clams and nothing to feed them."
Rapine is from science world, but has grown fond of aquaculture.
"It's nice to know all your work turns into something," she says.
99% WE THE PEOPLE must remember the far-right wing global banking 1% policies of CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY only mean--creating products and markets ------and is the OPPOSITE of 99% SUSTAINABILITY in long-term business-ownership and environmental justice/food stability.
First, global banking 1% stripped our oceans of what was a wildly populous seafood population---then they polluted our local fisheries with offshore drilling----now they are pretending to create sustainable seafood while MOVING FORWARD as fast as they can the environment to kill those small farm-raised seafood businesses.
ALL THAT IS OK BECAUSE THEY SOLD GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PRODUCTS------KILLING OUR EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT----KILLING FOOD STABILITY----KILLING OUR ABILITY TO HAVE SMALL, FAMILY BUSINESSES.
The amount of work in building and developing a stable small farm-raised seafood business is tremendous. We only have to think from where will these coastal businesses get water needing constant flux. Oh, they will create another product for that.....the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will not be affording these technology very soon.
FARM-RAISED CLAMS AND OYSTERS LITTLE OR NO AFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT? OH, REALLY? PLEASE STOP ALLOWING ALL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS TO BUSINESS BE TEMPORARY AND ELIMINATED IN THESE FAKE SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES.
The Best Farmed Shellfish Options
by Berkeley Wellness
Shrimp is America’s favorite seafood. About half of it is farmed—and much, if not most, of that comes from Asia. But as we’ve reported, overseas shrimp farms, with some exceptions, leave a lot to be desired. Though they’ve made shrimp very cheap in recent years (think “all you can eat” shrimp deals) and provide a tasty and excellent source of protein, problems of uncontrolled or illegal use of antibiotics, fungicides, and pesticides are rampant in industrialized shrimp aquaculture. Plus, the farms are infamous for polluting waterways, destroying natural habitats, and having high disease rates, among other problems.
What about the farming of other types of shellfish—notably clams, oysters, and mussels? Are such operations any better? Yes, a lot. In fact, these shellfish are in many ways the ideal seafood to farm because they have little, if any, impact on the environment.
A sustainable option
Farmed clams, oysters, and mussels are typically raised in suspension systems in the open ocean or bays (they hang in the water on ropes or plastic trays, or in mesh bags), with few or no chemicals used. And because farmed shellfish eat plankton naturally found in the water, rather than fishmeal, they don’t deplete wild fish populations.
What’s more, because they are filter feeders, they can actually reduce water pollution. There’s also little or no risk of a clam, oyster, or mussel escaping its pen and interbreeding with its wild counterparts—a common occurrence in other types of aquaculture, notably salmon farming.
About 90 percent or more of the oysters, mussels, and clams consumed worldwide are farmed. Most scallops and other types of shellfish, however, are still wild-caught.
Finding Better Shrimp
Finding Better ShrimpIf you’re willing to do a little detective work, you can seek out responsibly raised or sustainably sourced shrimp using these tips and resources.
Farmed oysters, clams, and mussels get lots of thumbs-up ratings from seafood-sustainability guides, such as those from Monterey Bay Aquarium and Environmental Defense Fund. Importantly, the ratings generally apply to both domestic and imported sources, since these types of shellfish farms tend to be well managed worldwide. (In contrast, most farmed shrimp make “avoid” lists.) So it’s no surprise that some farmed shellfish also carry certification from such organizations as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, and the Denmark-based group Naturland, as well as from the Canadian government (Canada Organic), which ensures that they meet certain criteria for being farmed in ecologically responsible ways.
Moreover, mussels and oysters have respectable levels of heart-healthy omega-3 fats—500 to 1,000 milligrams per 3 ounces, versus less than 200 milligrams in shrimp. Clams have 200 to 500 milligrams. (By comparison, salmon has anywhere from 500 to 1,500 milligrams of omega-3s per serving.)
The safety angle
A potential downside of any shellfish is that, as filter feeders, they can concentrate marine bacteria and viruses (such as Vibrio and hepatitis A), which can cause potentially serious illness if shellfish is eaten raw or partially cooked. Pregnant women and young children should eat only fully cooked shellfish, as should anyone who is immunocompromised, has certain medical conditions (including liver or chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, or stomach disorders), or is otherwise in frail health.
News RepublicPublished January 12, 2016
We are focusing on farm-raised sustainability policies just because they are tied to these same offshore drilling and coastal pollution and devastation policies MOVING FORWARD. All kinds of Federal, state, and local taxpayer subsidies going to buy all those NEW PRODUCTS---all that work by local 99% of citizens to build these industries -----all will fail in only a decade or so.
This is the other side of these FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT corporate sustainability policies-----these small farm-raised seafood businesses are being insured under the FARM BILL just as field crops. The Obama and Clinton neo-liberals passed policy to subsidize mid-west BIG AG as climate change and aquifer loss of fresh water ends---but these CROP INSURANCE only go to BIG AG-----so too will be the case for the now FARM-RAISED clam, oyster industries. Our 99% of citizens thinking they are hedging losses with these FARM BILL insurances----will be great big losers as global corporations build offshore massive seafood platforms just beyond those offshore oil and gas rigs---killing any ability of local citizens to have these businesses or our 99% of citizens to have that LOCAL food source.
It's always those right wing politicians hating TAXES and SUBSIDIES behind all these TAXATION AND CORPORATE SUBSIDY policies--------------------CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---NOW TRUMP---the 99% never win folks
'The highly subsidized federal program covering everything from almonds to oysters cost taxpayers a record $14 billion last year and is projected to cost $90 billion over the next decade'.
Harvesting Even More from Crop Insurance
Agriculture, Budget & Tax | Quick Take
May 24, 2013 | 6 min read | Print ArticleVolume XVIII No. 21:
This week’s Wastebasket is part two of two. Last week, we analyzed the “Rear View Farm Bill” being considered in the U.S. Senate. This week, we dive into the federal crop insurance program to show how taxpayer dollars can be saved.
Crop insurance – the most expensive taxpayer support in Washington’s bloated agriculture policy – was placed in the hot seat this week. As the Senate began to consider a new trillion dollar farm bill, amendments from lawmakers across the political spectrum sprang up. Whether they represented states with an abundance of corn or coal, crop insurance was a popular focus.
It’s not surprising crop insurance is under the microscope. The highly subsidized federal program covering everything from almonds to oysters cost taxpayers a record $14 billion last year and is projected to cost $90 billion over the next decade. On a basic catastrophic policy, covering a 50 percent loss, Uncle Sam picks up 100 percent of the cost. Most farm businesses “buy-up” to higher levels of coverage, and taxpayers generously cover an average 62 cents out of each dollar of these farmers' insurance premium costs. And policies pay not only on a loss of crops, but the revenue agribusinesses expected. Hence, taxpayer dollars end up propping up incomes even after bountiful harvests, if prices dip.
Thankfully, a few brave Senators stood up to the agribusiness and crop insurance lobbies this week offering ways to reduce crop insurance’s out-of-control cost while shifting unnecessary risks off taxpayers’ backs. Some of these improvements include:
- Sens. Durbin (D-IL) and Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment to slightly reduce (by 15 percent) subsidies for any farm business with more than $750,000 in income, not counting the value of land and after taking into account write-offs and other adjustments.
- Sens. Feinstein (D-CA) and McCain’s (R-AZ) amendment to eliminate crop insurance subsidies for Joe Camel (tobacco growers).
- Sens. Toomey (R-PA) and Shaheen’s (D-NH) amendment to – for the first time in history – place a limitation on the amount of subsidies any one person can receive.
Unfortunately, crop insurance isn’t the only elephant in the room. Evidently the current generous subsidies aren’t enough for the farm lobby, so they crafted crop insurance on steroids. New potentially budget-busting entitlement programs called “shallow loss” will put salt on the taxpayer wound. They’re stacked on top of the free catastrophic and subsidized buy-up crop insurance, essentially ensuring that agribusinesses never experience more than a five to ten percent loss in expected revenue. This subsidy sandwich is a business cash guarantee unparalleled in any other industry. Sen. Flake (R-AZ) offered common sense amendments to eliminate two of the most egregious “shallow loss” programs – one for cotton and another targeted at more than 120 crops – that would increase the footprint of Washington in agriculture. Guaranteeing profits of agribusinesses was something the U.S. Department of Agriculture rejected nearly ten years ago for obvious reasons, but leave it to the crop insurance lobby to manufacture something just as distorting and pound it into law.
Even if these and other pro-reform amendments pass, we’ll still be behind the curve in eliminating other special interest goodies that were added to the bill. Before the farm bill hit the floor, Senate Agriculture Committee members piled on more carve-outs for their special someones. Some of last year’s biggest winners were popcorn, peanuts, and poultry producers. They’re all still in the taxpayers-will-guarantee-your-expected-revenue club. And now they’re joined by businesses harvesting or raising seafood, Santa’s reindeer (farm-raised deer and elk), and sweet sorghum. So instead of just subsidizing the collection, storage, harvest and every other aspect of sweet sorghum production for biofuels, taxpayers will also cover the cost of production. Sweet indeed.
Considering the lavish largesse already larded on agribusiness, Congress has to be ever more creative at finding ways to shovel cash to politically-popular farm country. If they instead directed half as much energy into developing a cost-effective, transparent, accountable, and responsive safety net, they’d still have enough time to do something about the $16.7 trillion debt and fix that pesky $1.2 trillion sequestration. Just sayin’.
Offshore fish farming globally has decades of history being environmentally devastating as well as impossible to produce healthy seafood products. It is NOT SUSTAINABLE----it is NOT a healthy source of food ---AND global banking 1% are pushing as hard as they can to build these MASSIVE OFFSHORE SEAFOOD FARMS off East and West US coasts. They are doing this knowing they will be floating among offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms ---and they know the waste from these fisheries will kill coastal small business operations. These global farm raised fish corporations are not AMERICAN---they are the most enslaving of industries----and they do not create JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Our local 99% of citizens finding themselves winners bringing in $0.49 cents for a tiny nick clam-----going, going, gone in a decade or two.
As our 5% to the 1% push all these FAKE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY policies as environmental-----our local 99% wanting simply to have a small business are being killed. So, all those small farm-raised clam businesses along East Coast as off Virginia Maryland Eastern Shore will be killed by global fish-farm platforms built with drilling platforms.
The Feds Just Approved Offshore Fish Farming
Maddie OatmanJan. 15, 2016 1:06 AM
If you eat seafood, you’ve likely swallowed some farmed fish: These days, the whale’s share of shrimp, tilapia, mussels, and increasingly salmon sold at American restaurants and seafood counters comes from the hands of aquaculturists rather than local fishermen.
Yet while fish farmers have pretty much mastered the art of raising tilapia in ponds and shellfish next to coastlines, raising marine fin fish—think all the best kinds of sushi, like tuna, yellowtail, kampachi—presents some headaches. The closed saltwater tanks needed to house these species on-land are costly and energy intensive. When they’re raised in nets right by the coasts, waste can build up and damage nearby ecosystems.
That’s why many seafood entrepreneurs are applauding this week’s announcement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The agency will now allow the large-scale farming of fish in cages deep in the ocean, in waters regulated by the federal government.
The new rule, effective February 12, will allow American seafood farmers to apply for a permit to operate an offshore aquaculture farm in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA, the move will help the US, which raises only 20 percent of its seafood in native waters, catch up with the rest of the world in terms of seafood output. Gulf offshore farms will produce up to 64 million pounds of seafood a year. “Marine aquaculture creates jobs, supports resilient working waterfronts and coastal communities, and provides international trade opportunities,” NOAA stated in a press release.
But not everyone is excited about these future offshore operations.
HMMM, WHERE IS MOST OF THOSE TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM OIL AND CLEANUP LOCATED? AT THOSE DEEP WATER LEVELS.
Gulf fishermen will have to compete with the new offshore ventures, and some worry that creatures that escape from deep underwater cages could breed or mess with their wild stocks. And while the farms will be several miles away from the coastline, some conservationists say that we still don’t know the long term effect such outfits could have on marine ecosystems. According to Politico‘s Morning Agriculture newsletter, several organizations, including the Center for Food Safety and Food and Water Watch, are “analyzing legal options” in regards to the new rule out of concern for the environment.
The announcement paves the way for offshore ventures in other regions of the US to acquire permits. Rose Canyon Fisheries has been waiting since 2014 for approval of its project, which will raise yellowtail jack, white bass, and striped bass in a massive farm miles off the coast of San Diego. Don Kent, head of Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute, which is co-funding Rose Canyon, envisions the project as a way to correct America’s seafood imbalance—the fact that we import roughly 90 percent of the seafood we consume. “The big advantage we’ll have over those other supplies is the fact that we can grow it locally,” he told KPBS News.
Renowned food journalist Paul Greenberg isn’t convinced these ambitious aquaculture projects will solve America’s seafood dilemma. Americans often eschew native fish species and import exotic varieties instead, he told NPR’s The Salt. “Rather than trying to start up new and complicated ventures, first let’s try to eat the fish we’ve already got.”
YOU MEAN THE SAME GLOBAL BIG AG BURNING BOREAL FORESTS IS BEHIND GLOBAL FARM SEAFOOD PLATFORMS?
Of course. We on the Eastern Shore of Virginia/Maryland love to call our rural land GOD'S COUNTRY. We must have our 99% of US citizens fighting to stop these policies that are the opposite of SUSTAINABILITY. These offshore farms are not only fisheries---they will have floating oyster/clam/mussel components and they will collapse because they are UNSUSTAINABLE.
CARGILL'S rights to US offshore on West and East Coast brought to them by CARBON TRADING------mass polluters are GREEN CORPORATIONS.
An Ag Giant Is Spending More Than $1 Billion to Get Into Fish Farming
Cargill is buying a Norwegian salmon-feed company.
Aug 18, 2015· 3 MIN READ
Tove Danovich is a journalist based in Portland, Oregon.
Cargill, one of the largest agricultural companies in the world, is making big investments in aquaculture. On Monday, it announced a 1.35-billion-euro deal (roughly $1.5 billion) to purchase the salmon-feed-manufacturing company EWOS. The acquisition is “a strategic investment in our long-term growth and evidence of our commitment to the growing aquaculture industry,” David MacLennan, Cargill president and CEO, said in a statement.
This large purchase is just one of many for Cargill, which became part of a $30-million joint venture to build shrimp-feed facilities in July and has “aquaculture capabilities” in Mexico, Central America, China, United States, Southeast Asia, India, and Ecuador, according to the company’s press release.
While overfishing is quickly depleting supplies of wild fish, that alone doesn’t explain Cargill’s move. It’s part of a larger shift that has made aquaculture the fastest-growing segment of animal farming in existence. In 2011, world production of farmed fish outpaced beef for the first time, according to the Earth Policy Institute. Consumption of red meat has gone in and out of fashion over the last decades, with diets like Atkins and Paleo urging people to eat more of it and concerns over saturated fat and cholesterol warning them away from the stuff. Meanwhile, fish has been on a steady climb to the top—and salmon, in the U.S. at least, is second only to shrimp in popularity.
“With the need for protein expected to grow by 70 percent worldwide by 2050, farmed fish and shrimp offers one solution to meeting this demand,” Sarena Lin, president of Cargill’s Feed & Nutrition business, said in the statement, “and Cargill intends to play a major role in this growing and important market.” A 2014 World Bank report on the future of fish projected that farmed fish will equal wild fish catch by 2030.
There is a rising demand for protein in general as the world population increases, but the stunning growth of aquaculture raises serious questions. In addition to feeding grain to farmed fish, carnivorous species like salmon often consume fishmeal or fish oil made from wild-caught forage fish. The industry is reducing its reliance on fishmeal given to farmed fish, but rising demand makes it likely that the use of forage fish in aquaculture will either continue at current levels or grow. A study on the impact of fishing on forage-fish populations found that fishing can have “far reaching consequences on marine food webs unless safeguards are in place to avoid depleting forage fish to dangerously low levels, where dependent predators are most vulnerable.” Or, more simply, big fish need small fish to eat, and the circle of life taught in elementary school classrooms is real.
Compared with beef and other land meats, fish are much more efficient at converting feed into meat. A pound of chicken requires 1.9 pounds of feed, while beef takes 8.7 pounds. Fish are closer to a break-even ratio, at only 1.2 pounds, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This effect is compounded by the high price of grain as well as limited land for free grazing. Not only do beef and its ilk have a higher environmental footprint than fish, but they have higher costs—and less room to grow.
Yet concerns over the environmental impact of aquaculture make its growth seem more like a necessary evil than a celebration. According to a 2013 USAID report, “Much of the world’s initial aquaculture development occurred during times when technical capacity, governance, policy, and oversight were weak.” With the fast growth of the industry, people have started trying to avoid past mistakes and making new and existing aquaculture operations sustainable for the environment and the communities that rely on it for income. Producers in Norway have been particularly successful on this front: adopting the use of tiny lumpsucker fish to control sea lice instead of relying on pesticides and using far less antibiotics than fish farms based in Chile, for example.
That the demand for farmed fish will continue to rise owing to increased demand from an increasing population and a depleting wild fish supply is fairly undisputed. And fish grown on farms need to be fed. Just as many terrestrial farmers have long turned to Cargill—a major player in other agricultural feed types—for the corn and soy and other fodder their livestock are raised on, salmon farmers will soon be doing the same.