STILL EVIL: Aquaculture – the lesser of two evils?
While it is more environmentally responsible to rear finfish and bivalves than it is to rear cows and sheep, it is more responsible still to grow grains, legumes, and nuts. It’s difficult to argue for the environmental improvement represented by a shift from cows to fish when an even more environmentally sound option already exists.
BETH SNYDER: Fish and other marine animals often exist in a hazy limbo on the periphery of humans’ circle of moral consideration. We meet pescatarians who eschew most animal flesh but make an exception for sea creatures. Many people who eat meat but are squeamish about the process by which it is procured are comfortable getting personally involved in the slaughter when they fish recreationally. Even among the animal advocacy community, it can be difficult to know how highly to prioritize the protection of these animals with nervous systems so different from our own. This study, which focuses not on aquaculture’s impact on fish but rather on its impact on the environment, gives animal advocates another angle from which to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of fish farming.
A 2020 report from Nature and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) took on the ambitious task of quantifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of global aquaculture from cradle to farm gate. This required not just measuring the impact of direct fish farm operations — the electricity used for pumping and lighting and the fuel for farm vehicles — but also the land use change, fertilization, cultivation, transportation, and blending of feed and the GHG emissions from water nitrification. They calculated these emissions by species type and by region, yielding an impressively granular view of GHG emissions at every stage…
According to the study, aquaculture accounts for about .49% of human-caused GHG emissions, which is roughly equivalent to the GHG emissions of sheep farming. Sea creatures are far more environmentally friendly than all land animals used for food except chickens and pigs.. This means, with a few subgroup exceptions, it’s much better for the environment to produce a kilo of fish or clam meat than a kilo of beef. As fish farming is a relatively young industry compared with the farming of land animals, the authors believe there is great potential for future innovation which could further decrease the environmental impact of aquaculture…
These data show that a shift from animal agriculture to aquaculture could have environmental benefits. What is less clear is whether such a shift would be an improvement or a step backward for animal welfare. In terms of its environmental impact, its usefulness as an intermediate step toward animal liberation, and its potential animal welfare gains, aquaculture is a mixed bag…
On the one hand, a shift from animal agriculture to animal aquaculture could mean a shift from killing “higher-order” beings to killing “lower-order” beings. However, it’s becoming well established that finfish experience pain and suffering, though it’s less certain with neurologically simpler animals like bivalves. An absence of proof is not proof of absence, of course, but one could argue that it is preferable to kill an animal whose sentience is unproven than one whose sentience is clearly evident…
Of course, animals are not the only source of protein available to us. While it is more environmentally responsible to rear finfish and bivalves than it is to rear cows and sheep, it is more responsible still to grow grains, legumes, and nuts. It’s difficult to argue for the environmental improvement represented by a shift from cows to fish when an even more environmentally sound option already exists. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: