Texte sur l'environnement
- Auteur de la discussion soso1509
- Date de début
arcenciel24
New Member
soso1509 link=topic=58297.msg604194#msg604194 date=1179856773 a dit:
Je cherche également un résumé sur ce thème
Nous sommes donc 2 :laugh:
en voila 3, de plus je vous conseille de connaitre le film d'Al Gore "An inconvenient Truth"
Climate 2100: Cool For UK?
Wednesday November 29, 2006
The bad news is that global warming is set to make the world largely uninhabitable.
The good news is that Britain could become the most desirable place on Earth.
Assuming the bleak prophecy for the future of the planet is true, a leading climate change expert says the UK would be one of the few areas able to feed itself.
Professor James Lovelock was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warning.
According to The Times, Professor Lovelock believes the Earth will be able to support only 500 million people, a sixth of the current population. His scenario sees people moving north to get away from increasingly hot regions such as central Europe. But, he tells the paper, Britain - as a small island - will remain cool enough to sustain a modern nation. "The summer of 2003 will be typical of conditions in 2100," he said. "The British Isles may be a very desirable bit of real estate because we are surrounded by the sea." His Gaia theory suggests the world will pull through - but it will take 200,000 years. "We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die but I don't see the species dying out."
'Invest Or Risk Disaster'
Monday October 30, 2006
The gleaming skyscrapers which house the captains of British industry may seem far removed from floods in Bangladesh and droughts in Africa.
But today the government's economic adviser Sir Nicholas Stern will say the two are inextricably linked, writes Sky's Environment Correspondent Robert Nisbet. For 15 months, Sir Nicholas has been poring over the most recent scientific data from all over the world. He's expected to conclude that global warming is happening and it's getting worse.
He'll say governments have to respond now or the effects of climate change will trigger the biggest world recession since the Great Depression. Trillions of dollars will have to be spent mopping up the effects of flooding, drought and mass population displacement, he will continue.
It's an uncompromising conclusion, but business risk analysts say all industry must heed the warning. John Firth, the managing director of the Acclimatise consultancy, says businesses up and down the country have to start taking the environment seriously. "This is a fundamental business risk issue that impacts upon their bottom line," he told Sky News.
"Any business that isn't taking this into account, and increasingly so in the future, will find it's going to have significant impacts on shareholder value, its return on capital and its growth."
The 700-page report also has a clear message for governments: that finance ministers have to release funds now to fight global warming and punish polluters.
Sir Nicholas is expected to suggest the world's economies should invest at least 1% of their GDP in the planet's future or face the consequences. That's echoed by those who deal in carbon; a way for companies who cut back their emissions to make cash by selling their spare credits on a virtual trading floor. At the moment the biggest trading scheme is run by the European Union. Lionel Fretz, from Carbon Capital Markets, told us the British government needs to energise the market by implementing tough emissions reductions to create a 'scarcity' of credits, so they are more valuable. So the greener the business, the more money it will make from its spare credits. Sir Nicholas will be hoping the message of his work won't just be heard in numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street, but all around the world.
It certainly couldn't be starker: the world's economies must invest now - or risk financial and environmental disaster.
Worse than we thought
David Adam in Paris
Saturday February 3, 2007
The Guardian
The world's scientists yesterday gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades.
Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.
An average global temperature rise of 4C would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause catastrophic floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: "February 2 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change."
The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure.
The new warning comes as world governments face increasing pressure to agree a new global deal to reduce emissions.
Susan Solomon, the co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report, said: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make."
The previous IPCC report, in 2001, said that failure to act could bring global warming of up to 5.8C by 2100.
Dr Solomon said yesterday's predictions painted a gloomier picture because scientists have discovered feedbacks in the global carbon cycle that are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early estimates say this would be enough to raise temperatures by at least another 1C by 2100.
A 4C rise or higher this century would see the world warm almost as much in 100 years as it did during the 15,000 years since the end of the last ice age.
The IPCC panel stressed that such an outcome was not inevitable. A significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half. But even their most optimistic scenario would see a likely increase in temperature of 2.4C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. The EU has defined any rise over 2C as "dangerous".
David Miliband, the environment secretary, said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over". He added: "What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action. This has been absent so far."
What +4C will mean:
Loss of food production Droughts. African crops slump 15% to 35%. Global production falls 10%
Increased flooding Sea levels rise by up to 59cm. Bangladesh and Vietnam worst hit, along with coastal cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Calcutta and Karachi. 1.8m people at risk from coastal flooding in Britain alone
Melting ice Half the Arctic tundra at risk. Europe loses 80% of alpine glaciers. West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet start to melt
More disease Mosquitoes thrive, exposing 80 m more people to malaria in Africa; 2.5bn more exposed to dengue fever
Loss of land species 20-50% of land species threatened with extinction
Water shortages Fresh water availability halved in southern Africa and Mediterranean
Hurricanes more powerful Wind strengths increasing 15-25%. Great damage to infrastructure
Climate 2100: Cool For UK?
Wednesday November 29, 2006
The bad news is that global warming is set to make the world largely uninhabitable.
The good news is that Britain could become the most desirable place on Earth.
Assuming the bleak prophecy for the future of the planet is true, a leading climate change expert says the UK would be one of the few areas able to feed itself.
Professor James Lovelock was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warning.
According to The Times, Professor Lovelock believes the Earth will be able to support only 500 million people, a sixth of the current population. His scenario sees people moving north to get away from increasingly hot regions such as central Europe. But, he tells the paper, Britain - as a small island - will remain cool enough to sustain a modern nation. "The summer of 2003 will be typical of conditions in 2100," he said. "The British Isles may be a very desirable bit of real estate because we are surrounded by the sea." His Gaia theory suggests the world will pull through - but it will take 200,000 years. "We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die but I don't see the species dying out."
'Invest Or Risk Disaster'
Monday October 30, 2006
The gleaming skyscrapers which house the captains of British industry may seem far removed from floods in Bangladesh and droughts in Africa.
But today the government's economic adviser Sir Nicholas Stern will say the two are inextricably linked, writes Sky's Environment Correspondent Robert Nisbet. For 15 months, Sir Nicholas has been poring over the most recent scientific data from all over the world. He's expected to conclude that global warming is happening and it's getting worse.
He'll say governments have to respond now or the effects of climate change will trigger the biggest world recession since the Great Depression. Trillions of dollars will have to be spent mopping up the effects of flooding, drought and mass population displacement, he will continue.
It's an uncompromising conclusion, but business risk analysts say all industry must heed the warning. John Firth, the managing director of the Acclimatise consultancy, says businesses up and down the country have to start taking the environment seriously. "This is a fundamental business risk issue that impacts upon their bottom line," he told Sky News.
"Any business that isn't taking this into account, and increasingly so in the future, will find it's going to have significant impacts on shareholder value, its return on capital and its growth."
The 700-page report also has a clear message for governments: that finance ministers have to release funds now to fight global warming and punish polluters.
Sir Nicholas is expected to suggest the world's economies should invest at least 1% of their GDP in the planet's future or face the consequences. That's echoed by those who deal in carbon; a way for companies who cut back their emissions to make cash by selling their spare credits on a virtual trading floor. At the moment the biggest trading scheme is run by the European Union. Lionel Fretz, from Carbon Capital Markets, told us the British government needs to energise the market by implementing tough emissions reductions to create a 'scarcity' of credits, so they are more valuable. So the greener the business, the more money it will make from its spare credits. Sir Nicholas will be hoping the message of his work won't just be heard in numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street, but all around the world.
It certainly couldn't be starker: the world's economies must invest now - or risk financial and environmental disaster.
Worse than we thought
David Adam in Paris
Saturday February 3, 2007
The Guardian
The world's scientists yesterday gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades.
Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.
An average global temperature rise of 4C would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause catastrophic floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: "February 2 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change."
The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure.
The new warning comes as world governments face increasing pressure to agree a new global deal to reduce emissions.
Susan Solomon, the co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report, said: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make."
The previous IPCC report, in 2001, said that failure to act could bring global warming of up to 5.8C by 2100.
Dr Solomon said yesterday's predictions painted a gloomier picture because scientists have discovered feedbacks in the global carbon cycle that are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early estimates say this would be enough to raise temperatures by at least another 1C by 2100.
A 4C rise or higher this century would see the world warm almost as much in 100 years as it did during the 15,000 years since the end of the last ice age.
The IPCC panel stressed that such an outcome was not inevitable. A significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half. But even their most optimistic scenario would see a likely increase in temperature of 2.4C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. The EU has defined any rise over 2C as "dangerous".
David Miliband, the environment secretary, said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over". He added: "What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action. This has been absent so far."
What +4C will mean:
Loss of food production Droughts. African crops slump 15% to 35%. Global production falls 10%
Increased flooding Sea levels rise by up to 59cm. Bangladesh and Vietnam worst hit, along with coastal cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Calcutta and Karachi. 1.8m people at risk from coastal flooding in Britain alone
Melting ice Half the Arctic tundra at risk. Europe loses 80% of alpine glaciers. West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet start to melt
More disease Mosquitoes thrive, exposing 80 m more people to malaria in Africa; 2.5bn more exposed to dengue fever
Loss of land species 20-50% of land species threatened with extinction
Water shortages Fresh water availability halved in southern Africa and Mediterranean
Hurricanes more powerful Wind strengths increasing 15-25%. Great damage to infrastructure
arcenciel24
New Member
Bonjour,
Merci déjà pour ces renseignements bien complets.
D'autres informations sont les bienvenues. Merci d'avance
Merci déjà pour ces renseignements bien complets.
D'autres informations sont les bienvenues. Merci d'avance
voici d'autres apports culturels sur ce thème (il est très important d'avoir des choses interessantes à dire, même si l'anglais est moyen ça rapporte beaucoup de points car les idées ont notées environ 4-5 points ce qui n'est pas négligeable!) n'hesitez pas si vous avez d'autres demandes! bon courage
An Inconvenient Truth (by Davis Guggenheim with Al Gore, 2005)
Une Vérité qui dérange
L'humanité est assise sur une bombe à retardement. Les savants du monde entier s'accordent pour dire qu'il nous reste à peine dix ans pour éviter une catastrophe planétaire - un dérèglement majeur du système climatique qui entraînerait des perturbations météorologiques extrêmes, des inondations, de longues périodes de sécheresse, des vagues de chaleur meurtrières.
Cette catastrophe d'une ampleur sans précédent, nous en serions les premiers responsables ; nous seuls pouvons encore l'éviter. Plutôt que de sonner le tocsin de l'apocalypse ou de céder à la délectation morose, Une vérité qui dérange a choisi d'illustrer et de relayer l'action et le combat passionné d'un homme, l'ancien Vice-président Al Gore, qui depuis cinq ans sillonne les États-Unis pour persuader ses concitoyens de l'urgente nécessité de réagir à cette crise.
Global Warming
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts (= sécheresse) is increasing.
Exemples:
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences (according to scientists):
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet ( =6m) with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
The Kyoto Summit
La gouvernance internationale sur le climat repose sur deux traités internationaux fondamentaux : la Convention cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique (CCNUCC ou UNFCCC en anglais), ouverte à ratification en 1992, et entrée en vigueur le 21 mars 1994, a été ratifiée à ce jour par 189 pays dont les États-Unis et l’Australie. Son traité fils, le protocole de Kyoto, a été ouvert à ratification le 16 mars 1998, et est entré en vigueur en février 2005. Il a été ratifié à ce jour par 156 pays à l'exception notable des États-Unis et de l’Australie.
Il est à noter qu'une charte a été signée par de nombreux partis sur l'environnement (Charte des Verts mondiaux en Australie), et que, contrairement à une opinion très répandue, entretenue par les médias en France, les États-Unis, conscients des enjeux sur le développement durable et la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises, ont engagé des actions dans de nombreux domaines concernant l'environnement, et la manière de gérer ces questions en croisant les questions environnementales, sociales et économiques.
Tous les pays membres de la convention climat ont pour objectif de stabiliser les concentrations de gaz à effet de serre dans l'atmosphère à un niveau qui empêche toute perturbation anthropique dangereuse du système climatique. Ils se sont collectivement engagés à prendre des mesures de précaution pour prévoir, prévenir ou atténuer les causes des changements climatiques et en limiter les effets néfastes. Concrètement, tous les pays ont l'obligation de publier des inventaires de leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre, d'établir, de mettre en ½uvre et de publier des programmes nationaux contenant des mesures visant à atténuer les changements climatiques.
Le protocole de Kyoto va plus loin car il propose un calendrier de réduction des émissions des 6 gaz à effet de serre qui sont considérés comme la cause principale du réchauffement climatique des cinquante dernières années. Il comporte des engagements absolus de réduction des émissions pour 38 pays industrialisés, avec une réduction globale de 5,2 % des émissions de dioxyde de carbone d'ici 2012 par rapport aux émissions de 1990.
Overfishing (Surpêche)
La surpêche est une catastrophe écologique. En une trentaine d’années, la flotte industrielle a réduit drastiquement le nombre de poissons dans les mers. Les conséquences se font déjà sentir, mais le pire peut encore venir : 70 % des espèces les plus recherchées sont menacées (les sardines en Californie, les anchois au Pérou, les morues à Terre-Neuve ou le hareng en mer du Nord) et le nombre de flétans et de thons rouges a diminué de 90 %.
C’est ainsi que l’Europe a tenté de se doter d’une réglementation qui se veut plus respectueuse de l’environnement en limitant les prises. Lors des négociations à Bruxelles, en décembre 2003, la France s’est battue pour que les quotas de pêche soient les plus larges possible. Elle a obtenu des concessions, mais globalement, la commission européenne a tenu bon. Le but est de freiner la pêche afin que les cabillauds et les merlus puissent à nouveau être en nombre suffisant. Certains scientifiques militaient, eux, pour l’arrêt pur et simple des prélèvements, mais l’impact sur la filière de la pêche aurait été socialement explosif.
Cependant, même les marins pêcheurs, s’inquiètent de voir les quantités de poissons se réduire
Selon Greenpeace, il existe 3,5 millions de bateaux de pêche. 99% d’entre eux sont des embarcations de petite taille. Reste 1% de flotte industrielle qui effectue 50% de la pêche mondiale. Le résultat est là, à force de prélever les poissons n’importe comment, ils se raréfient. Alors, les grandes firmes ont décidé d’aller les traquer toujours plus profond. Et quand cela n’a plus suffit, les armateurs ont délaissé les zones de pêche traditionnelles pour se tourner vers les océans du Sud, où ils privent la population d’une source importante de nourriture. Une situation d’autant plus choquante que la pêche industrielle gaspille les ressources. «Tous les ans, souligne Greenpeace, les flottes industrielles prélèvent en moyenne 27 millions de tonnes de poissons non ciblés. 25% des prises annuelles de poissons sont rejetés morts par-dessus bord.»
Moins de poissons, c’est aussi moins d’animaux entrant dans la chaîne alimentaire. Ce qui a des conséquences pour les poissons eux-mêmes, mais aussi pour les mammifères marins et les oiseaux. Cela n’empêche pas l’Union européenne de donner 70 milliards d’euros de subventions à l’industrie de la pêche qui capture 130 millions de tonnes de poissons par an.
An Inconvenient Truth (by Davis Guggenheim with Al Gore, 2005)
Une Vérité qui dérange
L'humanité est assise sur une bombe à retardement. Les savants du monde entier s'accordent pour dire qu'il nous reste à peine dix ans pour éviter une catastrophe planétaire - un dérèglement majeur du système climatique qui entraînerait des perturbations météorologiques extrêmes, des inondations, de longues périodes de sécheresse, des vagues de chaleur meurtrières.
Cette catastrophe d'une ampleur sans précédent, nous en serions les premiers responsables ; nous seuls pouvons encore l'éviter. Plutôt que de sonner le tocsin de l'apocalypse ou de céder à la délectation morose, Une vérité qui dérange a choisi d'illustrer et de relayer l'action et le combat passionné d'un homme, l'ancien Vice-président Al Gore, qui depuis cinq ans sillonne les États-Unis pour persuader ses concitoyens de l'urgente nécessité de réagir à cette crise.
Global Warming
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts (= sécheresse) is increasing.
Exemples:
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences (according to scientists):
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet ( =6m) with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
The Kyoto Summit
La gouvernance internationale sur le climat repose sur deux traités internationaux fondamentaux : la Convention cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique (CCNUCC ou UNFCCC en anglais), ouverte à ratification en 1992, et entrée en vigueur le 21 mars 1994, a été ratifiée à ce jour par 189 pays dont les États-Unis et l’Australie. Son traité fils, le protocole de Kyoto, a été ouvert à ratification le 16 mars 1998, et est entré en vigueur en février 2005. Il a été ratifié à ce jour par 156 pays à l'exception notable des États-Unis et de l’Australie.
Il est à noter qu'une charte a été signée par de nombreux partis sur l'environnement (Charte des Verts mondiaux en Australie), et que, contrairement à une opinion très répandue, entretenue par les médias en France, les États-Unis, conscients des enjeux sur le développement durable et la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises, ont engagé des actions dans de nombreux domaines concernant l'environnement, et la manière de gérer ces questions en croisant les questions environnementales, sociales et économiques.
Tous les pays membres de la convention climat ont pour objectif de stabiliser les concentrations de gaz à effet de serre dans l'atmosphère à un niveau qui empêche toute perturbation anthropique dangereuse du système climatique. Ils se sont collectivement engagés à prendre des mesures de précaution pour prévoir, prévenir ou atténuer les causes des changements climatiques et en limiter les effets néfastes. Concrètement, tous les pays ont l'obligation de publier des inventaires de leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre, d'établir, de mettre en ½uvre et de publier des programmes nationaux contenant des mesures visant à atténuer les changements climatiques.
Le protocole de Kyoto va plus loin car il propose un calendrier de réduction des émissions des 6 gaz à effet de serre qui sont considérés comme la cause principale du réchauffement climatique des cinquante dernières années. Il comporte des engagements absolus de réduction des émissions pour 38 pays industrialisés, avec une réduction globale de 5,2 % des émissions de dioxyde de carbone d'ici 2012 par rapport aux émissions de 1990.
Overfishing (Surpêche)
La surpêche est une catastrophe écologique. En une trentaine d’années, la flotte industrielle a réduit drastiquement le nombre de poissons dans les mers. Les conséquences se font déjà sentir, mais le pire peut encore venir : 70 % des espèces les plus recherchées sont menacées (les sardines en Californie, les anchois au Pérou, les morues à Terre-Neuve ou le hareng en mer du Nord) et le nombre de flétans et de thons rouges a diminué de 90 %.
C’est ainsi que l’Europe a tenté de se doter d’une réglementation qui se veut plus respectueuse de l’environnement en limitant les prises. Lors des négociations à Bruxelles, en décembre 2003, la France s’est battue pour que les quotas de pêche soient les plus larges possible. Elle a obtenu des concessions, mais globalement, la commission européenne a tenu bon. Le but est de freiner la pêche afin que les cabillauds et les merlus puissent à nouveau être en nombre suffisant. Certains scientifiques militaient, eux, pour l’arrêt pur et simple des prélèvements, mais l’impact sur la filière de la pêche aurait été socialement explosif.
Cependant, même les marins pêcheurs, s’inquiètent de voir les quantités de poissons se réduire
Selon Greenpeace, il existe 3,5 millions de bateaux de pêche. 99% d’entre eux sont des embarcations de petite taille. Reste 1% de flotte industrielle qui effectue 50% de la pêche mondiale. Le résultat est là, à force de prélever les poissons n’importe comment, ils se raréfient. Alors, les grandes firmes ont décidé d’aller les traquer toujours plus profond. Et quand cela n’a plus suffit, les armateurs ont délaissé les zones de pêche traditionnelles pour se tourner vers les océans du Sud, où ils privent la population d’une source importante de nourriture. Une situation d’autant plus choquante que la pêche industrielle gaspille les ressources. «Tous les ans, souligne Greenpeace, les flottes industrielles prélèvent en moyenne 27 millions de tonnes de poissons non ciblés. 25% des prises annuelles de poissons sont rejetés morts par-dessus bord.»
Moins de poissons, c’est aussi moins d’animaux entrant dans la chaîne alimentaire. Ce qui a des conséquences pour les poissons eux-mêmes, mais aussi pour les mammifères marins et les oiseaux. Cela n’empêche pas l’Union européenne de donner 70 milliards d’euros de subventions à l’industrie de la pêche qui capture 130 millions de tonnes de poissons par an.
arcenciel24
New Member
Merci, c'est très complet cette fois
Mille :aplause:
Mille :aplause: