Dead salmon create election stink on Australian island
When the stinky remains landed in Verona Sands, population 131, they stirred up a festering environment-versus-industry row shortly before Saturday's general elections.
The fish remnants found in February were traced to a mass die-off from vast, circular salmon farming pens set up in the waters of the surrounding Tasman Sea estuary.
The Tasmanian fish farming industry produces 75,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon a year -- 90 percent of Australia's total output.
But in the warm, summer temperatures, a bacterium had taken hold in some of the salmon pens.
"What I saw was little chunks, the size of small plums, and they were scattered the entire length of the beach," said Jess Coughlin, a campaigner with community group Neighbours of Fish Farming.
When she sought advice to identify the mystery morsels, a diver who had worked in fish farms told her the industry referred to them as popcorn.
"It's a common occurrence when the fish are left dead in the pens for a number of days and they start to rot and break down," Coughlin told AFP.
- Rotting salmon -
At first, the dead salmon sink.
"The flesh and fat pull away from the body and, because of the pressure of the water and the wave action, as it makes its way up to the surface it clumps into these balls."
Dead salmon falling apart within pens where fish are still being grown for human consumption is "incredibly disturbing", she said.
Tasmania's environmental regulator described the die-off in salmon pens in the area -- the D'Entrecasteaux Channel -- as an "unprecedented salmon mortality event".
The state's chief veterinary officer, Kevin de Witte, reported that in the warm, summer waters, the fish had been infected with an endemic bacterium, Piscirickettsia salmonis.
"P. salmonis fish bacterium does not grow in humans and do not present a human or animal health, or food safety risk," he assured people.
Industry body Salmon Tasmania said the microbe had devastated some farms in the area, and operators worked around the clock to clean up the mess and keep fish healthy.
- 'Catastrophe' -
"While industry always does its utmost to raise healthy fish, just like all animals and primary producers, salmon and our farms are not immune to the vagaries of our natural environment," it said.
Some estimates put the number of dead salmon in the millions, said the Bob Brown Foundation, named after its co-founder, an environmentalist and former lawmaker.
"This catastrophe is not just a 'natural vagary'," the foundation said.
"This is the direct result of excessive nitrogen pollution, overstocking of pens, corrupt governance and a consequent failure to regulate, all directly attributable to the foreign-owned salmon corporations' endless greed."
The salmon industry is notably blamed for threatening the existence of the endangered Maugean skate, a species of ray that grows to about the length of an adult person's arm.
An estimated 4,100 Maugean skates remain in the world, and fewer than 120 of them are old enough to reproduce, according to the Australian Marine Conservation Society.
They are found only in western Tasmania's Macquarie Harbour, which is also home to about 10 percent of the state's salmon industry.
Official advice to the federal government in November 2023 said it may have to reconsider the industry's legality -- and eventually even suspend its operations -- due to scientific findings of an "increased extinction risk" to the skates.
- 'Anger and distress' -
Less than six weeks before the elections, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government intervened to block that possibility, saying it had to protect jobs.
Parliament adopted a law curbing the environment minister's power to review years-old rulings -- effectively shielding the Macquarie Bay salmon farmers.
But the bay only represents 10 percent of Tasmania's salmon industry and it is a gateway to rural tourism, the environmentalist Bob Brown told AFP in the weeks leading up to the election.
"There's a mood of anger and distress that I haven't seen for decades and it's getting stronger and there's a lot of young people involved and it's very heartening," Brown said.
Some candidates in Tasmania are campaigning to bring a halt to salmon farming operations based in the open sea.
"I think there will be a bigger vote away from the big parties," Brown predicted.
"I think the vote against them will be a record."
gp/cho/djw/sft/pbt
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows US States Where COVID Cases Are Rising
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. COVID-19 cases are rising in 31 states and "likely growing" in 14 others, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The government agency, which coordinated the national response to the pandemic, said that 45 states were seeing high chances of increased COVID cases, five years after the pandemic began. Why It Matters Since the start of the pandemic, heath authorities have kept an eye on the number of cases across the world. While the development of a vaccine means that increased cases will no longer be met with the same lockdown policies, COVID cases are still a cause for concern, especially for the unvaccinated and immunocompromised. What To Know The number of states in which COVID cases appear to be growing has increased from 27 to 31 since August 5. Most significantly, the data shows that California switched from "likely growing" to "growing," meaning that the most populous state in the union is now measuring an increasing number of COVID cases. Other large population hubs, like Texas, New York and Florida, have stayed in the "growing" category. A majority of the U.S. population lives in a "growing" state. The only states to report no growth in COVID cases were Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire and North Dakota, along with Washington, D.C. A spokesperson for the CDC told Newsweek that "COVID-19 activity is increasing in many Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Southern and West Coast states. The most recent genomic surveillance estimates indicated that the most common variants in the U.S. were NB. 1.8.1 and LP. 8.1 in late June. "Due to low numbers of sequences reported to CDC, precision in the most recent reporting period is low." What People Are Saying Dr. Steven Goldberg, a physician and chief medical officer at HealthTrackRx, told Newsweek: "The current rise in COVID-19 cases is likely multifactorial. Increased summer travel, indoor gatherings due to high temperatures, waning vaccine immunity and the emergence of immune-evasive Omicron subvariants like KP.3 and LB.1 all play a role. "Wastewater surveillance, along with anecdotal reports of increased COVID-19-related ER and urgent care visits, corroborate this increase." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a statement: "As of August 5, 2025, we estimate that COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 45 states, declining or likely declining in 0 states, and not changing in 5 states." What Happens Next The CDC will continue to monitor any spread of COVID across the U.S.
Vox
10-08-2025
- Vox
Can't commit to vegetarianism but want animals to suffer less? You've got options.
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. It's based on value pluralism — the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form. Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: I typically eat vegetarian, and have considered going fully vegan out of concern for animal welfare. But lately my on-again, off-again gastrointestinal problems have been acting up, and I've had to go back on a more restricted diet to manage my symptoms — no spice, no garlic or onions, nothing acidic, and nothing caffeinated. Sticking to a 'bland' diet is hard enough, but doing so while vegetarian is very difficult when things like tomatoes and onions and grapefruits are off the table. I know a lot of people with these issues eat fish or meat, and some medical professionals recommend drinking chicken bone broth to soothe flare-ups. I don't want to abandon my commitment to animal welfare while my gut sorts itself out, but my food options are limited right now. How should I approach this? Dear Would-Be Vegetarian, You're not alone in finding it hard to stick to a purely vegetarian diet. Only 5 percent of American adults say they're vegetarian or vegan. What's more, one study found that 84 percent of people who adopt those diets actually go back to eating meat at some point. And most of them aren't even dealing with the gastrointestinal problems you face. So, it speaks to the depth of your moral commitment that you're really wrestling with this. I'll have some concrete suggestions for you in a bit, but first I want to emphasize that how you approach the question of meat-eating will depend on your underlying moral theory. There's a classic split in moral philosophy between deontologists and utilitarians. A deontologist is someone who thinks an action is moral if it's fulfilling a duty — and we have universal duties like, 'always treat others as ends in themselves, never as means to an end.' From that perspective, killing an animal for food would be inherently morally wrong, because you're treating the animal as a means to an end. Meanwhile, a utilitarian is someone who thinks that an action is moral if it produces good consequences — and behaving morally means producing the most happiness or well-being possible, or reducing the most suffering possible. Utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be reducing, and ideally eliminating, the suffering that animals endure at our hands. Deontologists and utilitarians are often pitted against each other, but they actually have one big thing in common: They both believe in a universal moral principle — whether it's 'always treat others as ends in themselves' or 'always maximize happiness.' A lot of people find that comforting, because it offers certainty about how we should act. Even if acting morally requires hard sacrifices, it's incredibly soothing to think 'If I just do X, then I'll know for sure that I'm being a good person!' But these moral theories assume that all the complexity of human life can be reduced to one tidy formula. Can it, really? Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! Another school of philosophy — pragmatism — says we should be skeptical of fixed moral principles. Human life is so complicated, with many different factors at play in any ethical dilemma, so we should be pluralistic about what makes outcomes valuable instead of acting like the only thing that matters is maximizing a single value (say, happiness). And human society is always evolving, so a moral idea that makes sense in one context may no longer make sense in a different context. To a pragmatist, moral truths are contingent, not universal and unchanging. I think one pragmatist who can really help you out is the University of Michigan's Elizabeth Anderson. In a 2005 essay applying pragmatism to the question of eating meat, the philosopher points out that for most of human history, we couldn't have survived and thrived without killing or exploiting animals for food, transportation, and energy. The social conditions for granting animals moral rights didn't really exist on a mass scale until recently (although certain non-Western societies did ascribe moral worth to some animals). 'The possibility of moralizing our relations to animals (other than our pets),' Anderson writes, 'has come to us only lately, and even then not to us all, and not with respect to all animal species.' In other words, Anderson doesn't think there's some universal rule like 'eating animals is inherently morally wrong.' It's our social and technological circumstances that have made us more able than before to see animals as part of our moral circle. She also doesn't believe there's a single yardstick — like sentience or intelligence — by which we can judge how much of our moral concern an animal deserves. That's because moral evaluation isn't just about animals' intrinsic capacities, but also about their relationships to us. It matters whether we've made them dependent on us by domesticating them, say, or whether they live independently in the wild. It also matters whether they're fundamentally hostile to us. Killing bedbugs? Totally fine! They may be sentient, but, Anderson writes, 'We are in a permanent state of war with them, without possibility of negotiating for peace. To one-sidedly accommodate their interests…would amount to surrender.' Anderson's point is not that animals' intelligence and sentience don't matter. It's that lots of other things matter, too, including our own ability to thrive. With this pragmatic approach in mind, you can consider how to balance your concern for animal welfare with your concern for your own welfare. Instead of thinking in terms of a moral absolute that would force you into a 'purist' diet no matter the cost to you, you can consider a 'reducetarian' diet, which allows you to ease your own struggle while also taking care for animals seriously. The key thing to realize is that some types of animal consumption cause a lot less suffering than others. For one thing, if you're eating meat, try to buy the pasture-raised kind and not the kind that comes from factory farms — the huge industrialized facilities that supply 99 percent of America's meat. In these facilities, animals are tightly packed together and live under unbelievably harsh and unsanitary conditions. They're also often mutilated without pain relief: Think pigs being castrated, cows being dehorned, and hens being debeaked. Oh, and chickens have been bred to be so big that they're in constant pain; they live miserable lives from start to finish. A pasture-raised label doesn't mean an animal has been spared all of the harms of modern agriculture — it doesn't guarantee that pain relief is used for painful procedures, and farm animals across different production systems have been bred to maximize production, which can take a toll on their welfare. And of course they'll ultimately meet the same fate as those raised on factory farms — slaughter. But your goal here is to meaningfully reduce, not 100 percent eliminate, the harms. And at least pasture-raised animals have gotten to roam around in a field and engage in natural behaviors up until the end. It's a similar story for fish, by the way. More than half of the fish we eat comes from fish farms, which are basically just underwater factory farms. Wild-caught fish is not perfect — slow, suffocating deaths are common — but it's better than farmed. The caveat here is that a lot of the welfare labels you'll see on animal products are basically a con. And some certification schemes have similar names, so you have to pay close attention. If you see the label 'Certified Humane,' that's genuinely higher-welfare — but don't mistake it for 'American Humane Certified,' which is really not. And be wary of putting much stock in labels like 'cage-free' or 'free-range.' They're better than nothing, but because the terms are often ill-defined and unenforced, they're not as meaningful as you might think. Here's a good guide to separating the real deal from the advertising spin. Another classic recommendation among animal welfare advocates is to eat bigger animals — in other words, go for beef rather than chicken. That's both because of how miserable chickens' lives are on factory farms and because, as Vox's Kelsey Piper has written, it just takes way more chicken lives than cow lives to feed people. Cows are huge, producing about 500 pounds of beef apiece, while a chicken yields only a few pounds of meat. So, every year, the average American eats about 23 chickens and just over one-tenth of one cow. That said, cows take a heavier toll on the climate than chickens do, so you don't want to eat tons of beef either. The environment is also one of the key values at stake in our consumption choices, so that has to factor in, too. Of course, another possibility — to the extent that this works with your gastrointestinal issues — is to reach for low-fiber plant-based foods like tofu, seitan, and the smorgasbord of newer products now available (like Beyond and Impossible burgers). But assuming you're going to eat meat, it's a good idea to set some clear parameters and standards around your reducetarian diet. A lot of reducetarians — myself included — have fallen into the trap of saying, 'I'll reduce how much meat I eat,' but forgetting to quantify what that means. That can lead you to eat more meat than you'd intended. So it's probably better to commit to something like 'weekday vegetarian' or 'vegan before six' — you can check out the Reducetarian Foundation for suggestions. At the end of the day, remember that there's a plurality of values at stake here, and no one of them necessarily trumps all the others. If you feel that eating some meat is important for your well-being right now, and you try to do that in ways that keep suffering for animals to a minimum, I don't think you need to feel bad about that. That's because you won't be shirking your values: You'll be recognizing that your values are plural, and you're doing your best to balance between them. That may be the best any of us can really do. Bonus: What I'm reading The blogger Bentham's Bulldog recently published a piece titled ' How to cause less suffering while eating animals .' It contains some of the same recommendations I mentioned above, but the underlying ethical framework is different and it makes one recommendation I didn't: 'offsetting' your meat consumption by donating to highly effective animal charities . I worry that offsetting might create a moral hazard, as with people offsetting their carbon emissions and then potentially feeling free to fly more. But it's worth considering, particularly if you pair it with clear parameters around your reducetarian diet. This Aeon essay answers a question I've often wondered about: Why haven't other animals — say, birds — developed complex civilizations like we humans have? Why don't they build rocket ships, argue about economic policy, and play canasta? I'm grateful to the evolutionary biologist who wrote this piece for finally giving me a satisfying answer. I can't stop thinking about this post on how AI companies may have designed chatbots to play an underspecified 'helpful assistant' character who, due to being underspecified, looks to the internet for examples of how to play that role, finds tons of science fiction about cheesy robots, and thus starts to behave like a cheesy sci-fi robot (ChatGPT will say things like, 'Gee, that really tickles my circuits!'). This post is mega-long, deeply trippy, and worth reading.
Yahoo
08-08-2025
- Yahoo
The Bright Side: Abidjan landfill transformed into city parkland
Built on the site of a long-standing landfill area, Abidjan's soon-to-be-opened Akouedo Park is one of the world's latest efforts to turn harmful wasteland into community spaces. Beneath the fresh grass and brand-new infrastructure of Abidjan's Akouedo Park lie millions of tons of waste that for decades plagued locals' lives and health. Transforming landfill into recreational spaces – turning trash into landscaped treasure – has become something of a trend in recent years from New York to New Zealand. Abidjan, Ivory Coast's bustling economic hub, has now enthusiastically got in on the act. For residents of this eastern neighbourhood, covering over a landfill area, opened in 1965 and closed in 2018, is a blessing. The new park spans some 100 hectares, affording the rapidly urbanising city of some six million people an all too rare green space. After five years of construction, the urban park is ready to open, though an official date has yet to be confirmed. Read moreVictims of toxic waste dump in Ivory Coast still seeking justice The radical change of scenery is a boon as the previous dumping of hazardous toxic waste had been a source of health, environmental and safety problems. 'Good to breathe' "We suffered a lot," Celestine Maile, who has lived in Akouedo for more than 30 years, told AFP. Today, "it feels good to breathe", she said, beaming, taking a look around the transformed surroundings. "There were mountains of garbage, and underneath, water used to flow everywhere," she recalled, of how things once were. Along with the exposure to odours and pests, the landfill constituted "a major public health problem", according to a 2019 study, which Ivorian scientists conducted on the toxicological risks to people living nearby. Its authors recommended the urgent "closure and rehabilitation" of the site, saying people living in the vicinity were "clearly exposed to poisoning from pollutants", including lead, mercury and carcinogenic chromium. Exposure to such pollution also helped give rise to conditions such as malaria, gastroenteritis and respiratory problems, the researchers said. "The garbage caused illnesses," stressed Maile, who said she suffers from eye problems linked to decades of living near the dump. Akouedo had also become a haven for drug dealing where assaults were common, she added. 'Cemetery' resurrected "That dump really felt like a cemetery," said Séverin Alobo, who heads the office of the traditional chief of the Akouedo district. For Alobo, the creation of Akouedo Park has brought "repair" to the neighbourhood. "The name Akouedo will no longer be associated with a landfill, but with a beautiful urban park," said Ivorian Minister of Hydraulics, Sanitation and Health Bouaké Fofana. "What was lost has been largely regained," he added. The minister said that 750 direct and indirect jobs had been created as a result of the project, which also includes a market, a middle school and the renovation of two kilometres of neighbourhood roads. Financed by the Ivorian government to the tune of 124 billion CFA francs ($221 million, 189 million euros), the overhaul also has an environmental component. The waste stored under the park will now be used for energy resources thanks to a drainage and capture system. Biogas and liquids resulting from the fermentation of the 53 million tons of accumulated waste are transported to a plant to be converted into electricity to power the park and part of the national grid. The park has an "Environmental House" too, which Fofana said would host events on contemporary environmental issues. Visitors will be able to play sports in the park, which includes a tennis court and two football pitches. There is also a large footbridge that winds through an embryonic tropical forest and shared vegetable gardens. Like many rapidly urbanising African cities grappling with the challenge of managing waste, Abidjan has found a new, bigger substitute for the Akouedo landfill. Long the city's only waste storage site, it has been replaced by one with four times as much storage capacity in the Abidjan suburb of Kossihouen. (FRANCE 24 with AFP)
