Overfishing is becoming increasingly recognized for the ecological disaster that it is. The capacity of the global aggregate fishing fleet is at least double of what is needed to exploit the oceans sustainably, and fishing methods such as industrial bottom trawling have proved particularly destructive. Add to this the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to increased sea temperatures and ocean acidification, oil spills, agricultural and industrial run-off, pollution from aquaculture, and the enormous accumulation of plastic debris in water, and the critical situation for marine wildlife becomes clear.
That’s UN special rapporteur on the right to food Olivier De Schutter writing in — where else? —The Guardian last week.
Not once in his op-ed does De Schutter even remotely consider the idea that we already have a good mechanism in place to regulate overfishing and the depletion of the world’s stock of fish.
Red-Eye Flights and Time-Inconsistent Preferences
I will be flying to Southern California this week for the ASSA meetings, which got me thinking about red-eye flights. For those of you not in the US, red-eye flights are so named because they are overnight flights on which one typically has a hard time sleeping. It is very common for travelers flying from the West Coast to the East Coast of the United States to take red-eye — or overnight — flights, since those are typically cheaper, among other benefits.
So I have been thinking about red-eye flights. Or rather, I have been thinking about how grateful I am that my wife has decided not to book a red-eye flight on the way back from Southern California.