© Bruno Kelly/Reuters
The European Commission has proposed increasing total fishing opportunities by approximately 35 per cent compared with 2026, largely because of improved assessments for several herring stocks and sprat. At the same time, it wants substantial reductions in permitted accidental catches of cod, whose depleted populations have shown little evidence of sustained recovery.
The negotiations, scheduled for 26th and potentially 27th October, will determine how fishing opportunities are allocated between EU member states bordering the Baltic Sea.
According to the Council’s published agenda, ministers are seeking a political agreement on total allowable catches and national quotas for ten commercially significant fish stocks.
The outcome will determine how much fish can be landed legally during 2027, while also influencing the future prospects of coastal communities, processing companies and fishing fleets.
The Commission’s proposal for 2027 fishing opportunities reflects significant differences in the condition of individual stocks.
Brussels recommends increasing the catch limit for central Baltic herring by 49 per cent and for sprat by 44 per cent. Proposed increases for Bothnian herring and Gulf of Riga herring are more modest, at three and 11 per cent respectively.
The improved outlook for sprat follows stronger reproduction in recent years, while scientific assessments suggest some herring populations are beginning to recover.
However, these improvements do not mean the Baltic ecosystem as a whole has returned to a healthy condition.
Central Baltic and Bothnian herring remain below important sustainability reference levels, even though the latest scientific assessments permit increased catches under specified conditions.
For cod, the position is considerably worse.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, known as ICES, has advised that there should be no catches of eastern Baltic cod in 2027 or 2028 under its precautionary approach.
Its scientific advice for eastern Baltic cod reflects the continuing failure of the stock to recover sufficiently to support fishing.
Western Baltic cod faces similarly severe restrictions.
The Commission consequently proposes reducing the permitted incidental catch of western Baltic cod by 88 per cent and eastern Baltic cod by 51 per cent.
These allowances are designed to account for fish caught unintentionally during other fishing operations. They do not amount to the reopening of a targeted commercial cod fishery.
The proposed increases in herring and sprat quotas would benefit some fishing operators and processing industries, but the economic effects will vary significantly between countries and fleets.
Larger vessels specialising in pelagic species such as herring and sprat are likely to benefit more directly from increased catch opportunities.
Smaller operators whose activities depend on depleted stocks or mixed fisheries may face continued restrictions.
The Commission also proposes reducing the permitted incidental catch of western Baltic herring by 45 per cent and removing an exemption previously available to certain small-scale coastal fisheries.
That proposal creates a particularly difficult issue for smaller fishing businesses, whose operations may have limited capacity to switch fishing grounds or target different species.
The economic effects will depend not only on the size of the quotas but also on how national governments distribute them among individual operators.
The Baltic Sea’s problems cannot be explained by fishing pressure alone.
Nutrient pollution, changes in oxygen availability, habitat degradation and shifting environmental conditions have contributed to the deterioration of several stocks.
Restrictions on fishing can reduce direct pressure on fish populations, but they cannot independently resolve pollution or other environmental problems affecting reproduction and survival.
This complicates the relationship between scientific advice and political decisions.
Ministers are required to take account of conservation objectives under the Common Fisheries Policy. They must also consider the economic consequences for fishing communities and the viability of fleets operating within the agreed limits.
EU Today previously examined the political compromises surrounding European fishing quotas, including the tension between short-term commercial demands and the recovery of depleted fish populations.
The Baltic negotiations present a particularly concentrated version of that conflict because the condition of individual stocks varies so substantially.
The Commission’s proposed increases are based on the latest assessments rather than a general relaxation of conservation policy.
Indeed, its draft regulation envisages maintaining restrictions on vulnerable stocks while allowing greater exploitation where the scientific evidence supports it.
The proposed overall catch volume is approximately 543,000 tonnes, compared with substantially lower fishing opportunities in 2026.
That figure represents a proposed ceiling, not a confirmed agreement or a forecast of actual landings.
Once ministers reach a political agreement, the Council is expected to adopt the final regulation formally in November, with the principal catch limits applying from 1 January 2027.
The central question is whether governments will preserve the distinction between stocks showing measurable recovery and those for which scientific advisers continue to recommend no fishing.
Their decision will determine both the short-term economics of Baltic fisheries and the pace at which the region’s most vulnerable commercial fish populations may recover.
Every autumn, Corvo Island in the Azores turns off its public lighting for a few key days to help fledgling Cory’s shearwaters as they attempt to fly to the ocean guided by the stars
Once a year, Corvo, the smallest and most northerly island of Portugal’s Azores archipelago, goes dark. Since 2019, the island’s 450 or so inhabitants have chosen to switch off the lights every autumn for five nights to tackle the disastrous effects of artificial light on Cory’s shearwaters, a seabird endemic to the Atlantic Ocean.
It began in 1991 when the community noticed huge numbers of deaths among young shearwaters.
A newborn Cory’s shearwater chick
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Andrea Zanenga
© Photograph: Andrea Zanenga
© Photograph: Andrea Zanenga
From beaches to old-growth forests, wind farms are destroying the environment in the name of saving it, says Sandra Bourke. Greens are turning their backs as reckless renewables industrialise the natural world.
The post Wind Turbines vs Nature: How Reckless Renewables Are Destroying the Environment appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© Meridith Kohut for The New York Times
With public opposition toward data centers growing and midterm elections on the horizon, politicians across the spectrum have introduced overreaching policies to stymie data center development and ease voters' minds. These politicians now include President Donald Trump, who has historically been a staunch supporter of the industry.
"New and large, in some cases gigantic, Data Centers are mandated by me to make their own electricity, and give or sell any excess back to the local community, or grid," Trump declared on Truth Social on Wednesday. "If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a 'dividend.' I have watched the process closely, and Data Centers that were highly unpopular in a certain area have become extremely popular when a financial deal is struck."
While Trump has suggested that power plants pay for their own power before, these comments are in stark contrast to him saying less than a couple of months ago that "the only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backward and poor." Still, the president is not wrong that the strategy could boost data centers' popularity; polling regularly shows that concerns over higher energy prices are one of the main reasons people oppose data centers in their communities.
However, mandating that these power plants "make their own electricity" is the wrong way to accomplish this objective, in part because generation costs are not the leading factor in higher electricity prices—transmission infrastructure, such as wires and poles, is. And regulatory barriers, as well as a lack of competition in the building of this infrastructure, are mostly to blame.
Regardless, if the goal is to have data center companies produce their own electricity, easing regulations would have more impact than imposing a mandate. As Travis Fisher, director of Energy and Environmental Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason, "If a tech company buys electricity from the owner of a power plant, in most states the power plant owner then becomes a public utility (even if the transaction occurs off-grid), which brings heavy scrutiny in the form of economic regulation."
To ease these regulatory barriers, Fisher and other experts have advocated for a Consumer Regulated Electricity model that allows large-load customers to connect directly to unregulated power producers off the grid.
Fisher also notes that lower power costs don't automatically translate into lower utility rates. He tells Reason, "Even if a data center were to bring a matching or beating amount of supply relative to their demand, based on the way retail rates work, I am not convinced that that guarantees that prices will fall."
On top of not solving the main driver of higher electricity prices, the mandate isn't needed because many data centers have already begun to produce their own power. A report from energy research firm Cleanview shows that operating power capacity dedicated to data centers has nearly doubled since June, while capacity under construction has roughly quadrupled. Additionally, companies including Anthropic and Microsoft are already volunteering to cover consumers' electricity costs.
By calling on power producers to make their own electricity, Trump joins the growing chorus of politicians who are convinced that the government, not the market, is best equipped to dictate how data centers grow and operate. And, in typical Trump fashion, a "mandate" on social media without any legal action behind it has left the public and investors to guess what, if anything, is actually coming.
Building power plants requires long-term planning and investments meant to last decades, making Trump's tendency to impose abrupt policy changes less than ideal. "The fact that the rules change, not just every four years, but occasionally overnight via tweet," says Fisher, does not make for "a great investment environment."
The post Trump Wants To Force Data Centers To 'Make Their Own Electricity.' Deregulation Would Work Better. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The United Arab Emirates reported an oil spill from a tanker off its coast on Friday, as vessels in Gulf waters come under attack during the Middle East war.
Frequent attacks on ships have been reported in recent weeks near the Strait of Hormuz, at the heart of the conflict between Iran and the United States.
The authorities "detected a tanker oil spill affecting Umm Al Quwain's beaches," the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment said in a statement, referring to an emirate north of Dubai.
It said "teams immediately began containment, cordoning, clean-up and remediation... to limit environmental impacts," adding that the emirate's beaches had been closed.
Access to the area in Umm Al Quwain was restricted by police, AFP journalists who went there said.
The neighbouring emirate of Sharjah also closed one beach, Al Hamriyah, "as a proactive precautionary measure", the local government said.
Satellite images analysed by AFP showed a hydrocarbon slick on October 19 surrounding a vessel, likely the tanker GEM NO.2, located about 20 kilometres (12 miles) off the coast of Umm Al Quwain.
Images from October 21, analysed by Wim Zwijnenburg from Dutch NGO PAX, revealed a slick about 40 kilometres long and covering an area of 190 square kilometres, stretching to just six kilometres from shore.
The British maritime security agency UKMTO reported on October 9 that a vessel had been hit by a projectile off the UAE coast, causing a fire that was later brought under control.
Maritime security company Vanguard also identified the vessel as the oil tanker GEM NO.2, sailing under a Panamanian flag.
Owned by Taiwan's Global Energy Maritime, the ship loaded 2 million barrels of oil in early March from a Saudi port.
Since then, it has been regularly transferring cargo with other ships along the Emirati and Omani coasts near the Strait of Hormuz, according to tracking data from maritime company Kpler.
The images do not make it possible to determine whether it is thick crude oil or "a thin light oil sheen," Zwijnenburg said.
"If it is crude oil, then it is a serious pollution risk as this will end up on the beaches, affect marine ecosystems, including birds and turtles that can get stuck," he said.
"If it is a light oil sheen and mostly diluted oil, the hope is that it evaporates fast, and (you) only have short-term risks," Zwijnenburg added.
Many residents in the north of the country have reported chemical smells on social media in recent days, including residents in northern districts of Dubai, the largest city in the UAE.
"For the past two days it smelled like 10 gas stations spilled their gas everywhere," a Sharjah resident told AFP, asking to remain anonymous.
"I was on my balcony and panicked thinking gas was leaking in my house and I will blow up everyone."
The UAE says the odours "pose no health risks to residents".
Beyond efforts to contain the oil spill, "monitoring and assessing its environmental impact will also be essential to protecting marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them," Inesaf Benzaki, campaigns lead at Greenpeace MENA, told AFP.
Since the start of the Middle East war in February with US-Israeli strikes on Iran, Tehran has claimed control over the Strait of Hormuz and regularly targets ships that transit there without its authorisation.
Washington, in response, has imposed a blockade on Iranian ports and escorts tankers through the passageway.
UK allies have long urged people to stockpile supplies for a crisis. How are people from France to Australia being advised to prepare?
The UK has told people to fill their pantries with food for three days in case of catastrophe, joining a host of countries urging citizens to ready themselves for core systems failing.
Such advice, once dismissed as the preserve of preppers, has become more common in government circles as climate breakdown worsens weather extremes and geopolitical tensions turn cyber-attacks and sabotage into a regular occurrence.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: pundapanda/Getty Images
© Photograph: pundapanda/Getty Images
© Photograph: pundapanda/Getty Images
Login