Thoughts on this BS?

[Backfromthedead]

its bad enough theyre trying to ban all the cool fish, now were getting blamed for global warming.

Pet problems: tropical fish are terrible for the environment – and dogs are a disaster

An aquarium full of fish could generate as much CO2 as running a motorbike. But that’s nothing compared with our furry friends

amp.theguardian.com

And the study theyre referring to:

The carbon footprint of a pet fish

Tropical fishkeeping could contribute up to 12.4% of the UK average household emissions

www.cardiff.ac.uk

.

 

[JackEmerson]

Ha, we can't win these days.

That’s a very good reason. What about just one goldfish in a bowl?

Much cheaper – and only 25kg of CO2 a year.

Any article that suggests a goldfish in a bowl may be a good thing, can be easily dismissed as not doing their research. We can assume that the rest of their research is just as sloppy.

 

[esoxlucius]

7 billion people on this planet, and rising fast, all exhaling CO2, and they want to point the finger of blame in the direction of some guppies, lol.

Yeah, BS is about right.

I'm curious too, if tropical fish omit so much CO2, then why the hell would we need CO2 cannisters to ensure thriving plants in our tanks. That one doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Backfromthedead]

Ha, we can't win these days.






Any article that suggests a goldfish in a bowl may be a good thing, can be easily dismissed as not doing their research. We can assume that the rest of their research is just as sloppy.

Yeah...the first article is more or less clickbait garbage. But to be clear i dont think these loons are trying to even recognize a distinction between good and bad fishkeeping, just trying to wipe out the hobby altogether.

 

[Backfromthedead]

7 billion people on this planet, and rising fast, all exhaling CO2, and they want to point the finger of blame in the direction of some guppies, lol.

Yeah, BS is about right.

I'm curious too, if tropical fish omit so much CO2, then why the hell would we need CO2 cannisters to ensure thriving plants in our tanks. That one doesn't make sense to me.

Hehe, im wondering if your house was the one they measured at 635 kg/yr.

 

[Cal Amari]

The article on the guardian is actually pretty funny, and a good example of how deeply scrutinized these logic jumps are (or aren't at all). They're calculating the carbon footprint of fishkeeping based on energy/electrical costs and carbon output, and transportation of the tropical fish, atc, then comparing it to driving a motorbike, with no reference to the amount of energy used or carbon produced in the manufacturing or transportation of said motorbike. It's not the fish thats the problem, it's our innefficient and unsustainable infrastructure of electrical grids and power plants, and our current reliance on fossil fuels in transportation and freight. I don't have the answer, I drive a gas car and love my air conditioning, just saying pointing the finger at fishkeeping is rather like pointing out how flawed their own logic is.

 

[esoxlucius]

Hehe, im wondering if your house was the one they measured at 635 kg/yr.

Well, typically the size of aquariums they're getting their figures from are for 50, 200 and 400 litre systems.....LITRES!!!

I'm currently hovering around the 1600 litre mark, whatever that equates too, who cares.

All I can say is that thebiggerthebetter . You should be ashamed of yourself, you're single handedly killing the planet, lol.

Honestly, what utter trash, they've nothing else better to do.

 

[FINWIN]

They must have missed all the geological earth processes that create massive CO2 like earthquakes, geysers, plate movement, volcanoes, etc. But wtf, blame goldfish.

The earth is flat, baby.

 

[Snakefish]

All I have to say is thank goodness this is an online article. At least no trees had to die to print this.

Really it’s a good summary of the state of what we call discourse. Assuming this article wasn’t written by a data scraping bot, which is a big assumption, whoever composed this has the lack of ability to contextualize information that is characteristic of a lot of these opinion pieces disguised as scientific articles. By citing a study this imaginative piece of creative writing tries to gain credibility by standing next to something credible, but the person behind the computer has way too much information and way too little understanding. I don’t think fishkeeping is unique, every thing under the sun is a target for the “ruining the world“ crowd of chronically online worriers. A ton of knowledge does not equate to a respectable (or even functional) broader intelligence. Or as the saying goes: knowledge is knowing that a pepper is a fruit and wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Is it Carl Sagan I’m thinking of? “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Apt for this article.

 

[scalareson]

Hahaha I was waiting for this to start circulating through the internet garbage news world. I have heard rumblings of this recently from more extreme environmentalists that I know because it dovetails nicely with Peta's idiotic assertion that we are all monsters for keeping fish in the first place.

What makes me laugh is aquarium tech is so much more energy efficient now than it was decades ago. Just the shift from incandescent/fluorescent to LED lighting has probably saved millions in energy costs