There are shocking examples in #Seaspiracy of "conservation" groups collaborating in the destruction of marine life. But in my view the worst of all is @RSPCA_official. It was founded to defend animals. Instead, it endorses mass slaughter by salmon farms. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
.@RSPCA_official was very lucky not to have been featured in Seaspiracy, because its collusion is even more disgraceful than the examples that were highlighted. It "accredits" the slaughter of 200 million salmon a year, without, imo, effective safeguards.
Like many big groups, the RSPCA is way behind its members. Many people who care about the lives of animals have now gone vegan. But the RSPCA, which is meant to be *leading* on animal welfare, instead gives its seal of approval to the killing of animals on an industrial scale.
It's time for the big conservation and animal welfare groups to abandon their failed, 20th Century model of collaborating with cruel and destructive industries, and to work instead on closing them down.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course some of the people exposed by #Seaspiracy are going ballistic about it. What else can they do but shoot the messenger? The years of collusion, cowardice and failure have come home to roost.
As for the film's other critics: yes, there are details we could quibble over, as with all films. But, you know what? I didn't hear a word from them about the massive falsehoods and misdirections in Blue Planet 2 and Blue Planet Live. Why is it only the radical films they attack?
I don't think I've ever seen a series of such pathetic attempts to knock something down as the criticisms aimed at #Seaspiracy. They're either wrong, or so trivial/irrelevant that they just look like sour grapes. Finally, this issue is properly on the map. We should be cheering.
I strongly relate to what Louis de Bernieres says. I was also sent to a boarding school when I was 8. Even before you consider the horrific things that happened in those places, the abuse began with the act of separation. theguardian.com/books/2021/mar…
This system of institutional abuse inflicted immense harm not only on the children put through it, but also on the country they grew up to dominate. monbiot.com/2019/11/11/the…
In my experience, the most damaged people are those who loudly proclaim "it never did me any harm" or "it made me the man I am". Processing what happened and finding peace takes years of work and brutal honesty. In some ways it's like recovering from addiction.
Something's changed - I was allowed on the Today programme this morning!
I was challenged, among other things, on the #Seaspiracy claim that 46% of plastic in The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is from fishing nets. Here's the source, in case anyone doubts it nature.com/articles/s4159…
Many of the attacks on Seaspiracy are themselves based on false claims, or false refutations of the statements the film makes. It's a lot more rigorous than Cowspiracy, and stands up well to examination.
The segment started at 0823 this morning. The Today programme gave the subject a fair bit of time, for which I thank them: bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/li…
1. I watched #Seaspiracy on Netflix last night. It’s a brilliant expose of the greatest threat to marine life: fishing.
This thread explores why we have so seldom heard the the truth about what’s happening to our oceans. #TellTheTruth @GretaThunberg netflix.com/gb/title/81014…
2. The BBC and other broadcasters have repeatedly failed to tell the truth. Blue Planet II was a massive exercise in misdirection. It misled us about the main reasons for ecological collapse, emphasising entirely trivial issues like plastic straws instead theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
3. I don’t believe it set out to deceive us. But Blue Planet II was typical of the BBC’s cowardice and wilful ignorance when it comes to environmental destruction. Almost reflexively, it avoids conflict with powerful economic interests.
At last! A crucial, missing piece of the climate jigsaw. For some time, I've been speculating that trawling is likely to release significant amounts of carbon from the seabed. But there was no data. Now there is, and it's even worse than I imagined. time.com/5947430/bottom…
It was a remarkable gap in the science, and I find it surprising that no one has sought to fill it until now. Sometimes, even the biggest questions don't get asked.
It's yet another powerful argument against trawling. To protect habitats and wildlife, we urgently need to exclude this horrendously destructive practice from most of our seas. Now we know it imposes a major carbon cost as well.
1. I will lose friends over this thread. But I feel it would be dishonest not to say what follows.
It seems to me that we need to distinguish between two different issues, that are often confused:
A. Whether the UK is better off in the EU.
B. Whether the EU is a good thing.
2. The answer to A, as we’re discovering the hard way, is clearly Yes.
I’ve gradually come to believe that the answer to B is No.
3. If we take the field I know best, the EU has some good environmental rules. But its overall impact on the living world is catastrophic. This is just the latest of its many assaults: subsidised piracy, that has so far resisted all attempts at redress theguardian.com/environment/20…