Since the XNUMXs, growing and collecting seaweed has been an important source of income and employment for many residents. This livelihood is in danger
The island of Zanzibar is considered one of the more "exotic" sites. A history of a transit station for slaves left prison buildings. The trade in slaves and spices enriched the merchants who built palaces on sparkling sandy beaches.
Other sites on the island are: the "Stone City" where life is carried on as it was two hundred years ago, a unique forest with red colobus monkeys that approach visitors, spice fields that spread a cloud of scent and on top of that warm weather, golden beaches and coral reefs. All of these create a complex that attracts visitors from all over the world, and indeed the island's economy is increasingly based on tourism.
But not everyone is engaged in tourism. One of the traditional sources of livelihood is of course the sea. The waters of the Indian Ocean provide the residents with fish and seafood that are caught around the island and exported mainly to the east. Anyone who walks along the western shores of the island will see the beds of seaweed spread out to dry on the beach. Algae grow in the sea and have always been a resource for many uses.
Since the XNUMXs, growing and collecting seaweed has been an important source of income and employment for many residents. The demand for algae species that are used for food and the pharmaceutical industry (mainly as stabilizers) is growing all over the world. In recent years, ventures have been developing to produce fuel from algae, ventures that increase demand, which has caused many Zanzibar fishermen to convert their occupation from fishing to growing and collecting seaweed.
The algae are grown in the shallow waters mainly on the western shores of the island (in the east the water is deeper and the waves are turbulent compared to the calm water in the west). Because of stable and warm weather all year round, there is no growing season, but the "planting" and harvesting of algae continue in cycles throughout the year.
At least that's how things looked in previous years when I visited the "exotic" island, except that, like all over the world, global warming hits the weak first. Recently, algae growers have been feeling global warming in an overwhelmingly offensive way.
The commercial cultivation of seaweed was "transmitted" to Zanzibar from the Philippines in the XNUMXs. The growers saw a blessing in the cultivation of seaweed in the shallow waters off the coast of the island, and the demand for seaweed is increasing as the uses increase. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was customary (also in Israel) to fill mattresses with dried seaweed, a filling that was considered better than straw. Today the uses are: for food for humans and farm animals, for the pharmaceutical industry (mainly as a stabilizer and diluent), and recently as a (green) source for fuel production.
The multiplicity of uses and the growing demand caused the Zanzibar government to promote seaweed farming, an industry that will create jobs where most of the produce is destined for export to the USA, France, Denmark, Spain, Chile, China and Japan.
Until a few years ago, around 20,000 farmers (many women) were engaged in the cultivation and harvesting of seaweed, and the export of seaweed took a prominent place along with raffia (fronds of the raffia palm) and spices. The demand was mainly for the red algae of the species Cottony and Spinosum. But the global warming and the warming of the ocean water is not good for these species.
When the water heats up, the algae lose their color and special texture.
The warming affects the amount of the crop which fell from about 15 thousand tons a few years ago to less than 10,000 tons last year. The best temperature for growing algae is around 27 degrees. Recently, the water temperature on the western coast of Zanzibar reaches 30 degrees (and peaks of 38 degrees), according to data from: Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA).
Not only the warm water is harmful but also the local storms and eddies that are created due to the warming. Storms that cause the weathering of the beaches to wash away the seaweed fields, the displacement of the plants and their death, these changing conditions cause the seaweed farmers heavy losses.
To solve the problem, it is proposed to move the algae fields from the shallow water to the deep sea on the assumption that the water is less warm in the deep sea, a researcher from the University of Dar es Salaam has developed a "floating algae farm in deep water" that will allow farmers to continue to grow the red algae that are in demand in the deep sea at comfortable temperatures to grow The "farm" will consist of surfaces 3-6 meters deep that will be anchored to the ground with flexible cables ("rubber bands"), with the depth determined according to the movements of the tides.
Except that there are a number of thorns in it. In the study that appeared in the agricultural monthly Aquaculture, facts are published about the many health problems involved in the cultivation and collection of algae. The farmers, especially the women, suffer from respiratory problems and back pain. Researchers from the University of Stockholm found that the workers are harmed by toxic fumes that the algae emit, this in combination with a long stay in salty water that causes them to get sick.
In addition to this, the work in the seaweed farm is difficult and arduous, so when the amount of crops decreased, fishermen left the seaweed and returned to fishing, saying that "working in the seaweed is too difficult for them". As the men leave the farms either because of the difficulty or because of the decrease in crops, more and more women take their place on the farms (for lack of choice).
The intention of the entrepreneurs to move the algae farms to the depths of the sea will be harmed by the facts since most of them do not know how to swim and therefore it will not work in the depths of the sea. The researcher who developed the idea of the deep water farms offers to provide the workers with boats and suitable clothes.
Of course, establishing breeding grounds in the deep sea, training women to work in the deep farms with the help of boats, providing flotation belts and appropriate clothing, all of this will greatly increase the costs of growing and harvesting, since the seaweed is also grown and harvested on other beaches that have not yet been damaged. The question arises, how will Zanzibar stand up to the competition?
Until the implementation of the deep water farms, it is still possible to see how on the golden beaches of Zanzibar the harvesters scatter and harvest the seaweed crop.
39 תגובות
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for farmers in Zanzibar to develop jellyfish-based products.
You can see my response to the article that was published here in the following link
http://www.green-logic.info/2013/03/blog-post_24.html
Of course the data was not published - this is despite the fact that already 11 months ago I was told that in 30 days they would publish the data.
I'm still waiting…
I should also mention that I directly contacted the professors who wrote the research on which the article was based, but unfortunately they are also not ready to hand over the data - truly exemplary academic work!
Unfortunately, you are not right in the way you described the way the frightening articles were published and the lack of data hidden behind them.
I didn't see the subtitles through YouTube, and the way you sent it keeps getting stuck.
Anyway, from what Raitzi Gihi Gihi says, they are laughing at the greens who threaten that the ice will melt. They'll laugh, it will return the tens of thousands of square meters of permafrost and all the glaciers that melted to a solid state?
Ohad, I think about a year ago you raised questions about a study that claimed that the temperatures in Israel are on a distinct and alarming upward trend. Avi Blizovsky even tried (at least at first) to help get the information from the investigators. I also exchanged comments with Avi Blizovsky but in the end I gave up, it seems to me that this is a strategy - post something scary (the favorite wording is: the [fill in here the phenomenon you want to imply because it is caused by human welfare or wealth] is much faster than they thought first"), the media will publish with a roll of the eyes and if someone dares to tweet then we will ignore him (and Abi Blizovsky will tire him with irrelevant terms that I mentioned in one of my comments above). By the way, there is still hope if such young people are created http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=related&v=AybBEuIpy44&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAybBEuIpy44%26feature%3Drelated (If the link doesn't work, search YouTube for kilez more klimawandel with Englis subtitles melodic rap (as much as possible...) and fun
So fan, I would appreciate it if you would update if you received clarifications and data regarding the aforementioned study.
Wait, what about the answers to the article about algae?
Why does Assaf Rosenthal write incorrect things and then say it is based on "conversations with locals"?!?!
Why is there no criticism of the articles published on this site?
What is this, anyone can write anything here, even if it's not true???
Is this a site that promotes an agenda or truth?
My father - proof is mathematical logic - it is not clear to me where you "proved" or in better words you established that "even in the case of denying global warming in order to avoid paying taxes to correct the situation, and also the rampant pay of the executives that causes there to be no money for investments - among other things in the environment - originates from the same Capitalist madness".
I did not claim to be connected, another claimed that I am a socialist and therefore grumbles both about the salaries of the seniors and about global warming and in both cases I am talking nonsense according to his claim. I proved to him that even in the case of denying global warming in order to avoid paying taxes to correct the situation, as well as the rampant salary of the executives that causes there to be no money for investments - among other things in the environment - originate from the same capitalist madness.
Father, what is the connection between the rampage of the "salary of the seniors" and the councils in Zanzibar?
Google too, but also others (currently, for example, the Science Museum in Haifa and the Ishrastem conference on the left.
Which energy companies? What do you sell?
Do you know why they don't advertise on the site?
I thought the posting was through Google.
And that's why sometimes there are charlatan ads here - because you have no control over who is famous.
I don't know about others, but I can tell you at least about myself, that the site's marketing managers for years have been trying to reach green energy companies and motivate them to advertise on the site, and they are not ready, despite the agenda, and despite the number of hits on the site and tens of thousands of uniques per month, and in every I am not changing my opinion because it is based on science.
It should only be noted that we did not contact the companies opposing warming in advance, due to professional honesty.
Avi-
There is a certain level of hypocrisy to assume that everyone on the AGW side comes to their conclusions from real science - and everyone on the other side - their opinion comes from the Koch brothers' money - not even a worldview - money and brainwashing.
Is that how you see the world?
Do you really think that anyone who disagrees with you is self-interested or bought by a self-interest or brainwashed?
Why do you think the side in front of you plays dirty and your side is clean?
Why is there no money in green industry? Are there no billionaires promoting a leftist agenda in the world?
Since when did the majority of the claimants determine the desire of the argument? What if most of them repeat the same argument?
What if most of them have one reason or another why they claim what they claim? Institutions can have a bias,
In science, unanimity is in many cases a bad thing - a scientific website should show a large number of theories that explain a phenomenon - but you judge anyone who goes against your line as a "denier" who does not care about the truth but the money of the Koch brothers - but all that is not the discussion here - The discussion here is about the data in the article by Dr. Asaf Rosenthal and where they come from.
And regarding the criticism of Amitim - here and now this article was criticized by someone who bothered to look for information elsewhere and saw that there was a gap between the official information and the information provided in the article - and he asked the writer to provide his sources or alternatively to reconcile the gaps.
This is also a form of peer review.
Another one, skepticism and criticism in science is reflected in the institution known as peer review. Once an article has been peer-reviewed, it stands on its own and adds another layer to the proof or disproof of this or that theory. Since I have already written more than once about the overwhelming attitude in scientific articles in favor of man-made warming, compared to almost zero articles denying it, this is the opinion that should be difficult for me as someone who represents science for this purpose.
The fact that the public has a different opinion stems from the strong influence that the capitalists who control the media have. It's a fact that ten years ago, even at Fox, warming was treated as a fact, and only after the Koch brothers started pouring in money, the position changed, and Fox became a refutable network in terms of its credibility.
Which, with all due respect to the self-humor of the daily capitalist, is that certain words have taken on a mocking meaning. There are things that are true even if you think the socialists are exaggerating (anyone who doesn't think there should be total economic chaos in which every Dalim man is in your eyes a socialist and a clone of Shelly Yachimovich)
More than one committee warned about the rampant salary of the seniors, if we take just one example. So saying that every fair and just argument is a cliché is an easy way to escape from discussion.
To my father Blizovsky,
Your comments are not related to the discussion in the debate after the article. Do you read your own words sometimes? Instead of answering the matter, you break out as usual with a series of platitudes from the Beit Midrash of Shelly Yachimovuch. I am a "follower" from the "Daily Capitalist" blog and I hope the writers will not be angry:
"Milton Friedman Extreme Capitalism Cult High Priest Thatcher Netanyahu Children in Slavery Groundwater Poisoning, but Adam Smith Good Morals Milton Friedman Extreme Simplification Corporation Sociopathy. From this it follows that sociopathy is a social condemnation, morals, the immune system, the families of capital, a deep, widespread and dangerous infection - and from which it becomes clear that sociopathy is a deep pathology, the salaries of the senior executives, failed managers, bonuses, options, tens of millions a year, the public, the workers, the profit line.
I took from this great article
http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=a28b07a102084d28785d2d933122ebb1&id=3547
Now father, stop and read most of your comments about the Daily Capitalist break, they seem like jump shots from the hip, without addressing the substance of the debate
Too bad
Abi - It is not clear to me what your socialist propaganda has to do with the article.
The fact that you come from a socialist view and bring up the discussion only weakens your argument - because it implies that you come not only from a scientific conclusion that the world is warming - but that you are inclined to this conclusion because of your political world view - which in advance hates the capitalist world and industry - the reason you are not alone - The reason the global left embraces the green agenda - it's not because Al Gore has an impressive climate science resume - it's because the conclusions of AGW fit the worldview of the left.
------------
Here we are talking about the data in the article - only about them - not about a social economic worldview - not about the Republican party or the Likud party or the tycoons.
And please don't call anyone who doesn't align with you a "denier" - real science needs a good amount of skepticism and criticism - it doesn't make sense that anyone who criticizes a study or an article with an AWG orientation would be called a "denier".
Leave you from the Americans. It's not relevant.
What about the answers regarding algae? What about the links?
99% is in theory that the entire upper ison is replaced.
Anyway, the American dream of getting rich is a bluff. Few do and usually not honestly.
Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. I would love a link on the subject.
By the way, from the upper ion = upper percentage, so it is not about 99.99999% but about 99% (assuming your claim is correct)
If you invested one-tenth of the efforts of denial in persuading people to use green products and green energy, you would be more useful to humanity. I saw the video on the A123, it's all venom on every green thing that exists. As if this is the biggest disaster that has happened to the world - that the capitalists will earn two dollars less, a real disaster, that it is so important for them to sacrifice the planet to prevent their disaster.
And the stupidity of the average American is that they think they will be able to reach the upper echelon and therefore they are not in favor of imposing taxes on it. Statistics prove that 99.99999% of them are wrong in their assessment.
I think not...
I think Shasaf answered all your difficulties, and as usual, the global warming deniers find ways to engineer the data and not the other way around as you claim in your article..
A post explaining my claims was published on the green blog site. It's worth reading
http://www.green-logic.info/2013/03/blog-post_24.html
One more thing, (sorry for the large number of comments):
I still believe that the sources you mentioned in the article are incorrect. An exact link with a certain page number will prove my mistake. I would recommend you do so.
Asaf, you probably didn't understand the graph, the total amount that it costs must be calculated as I described and reference must be made to the graph of Zanzibar and not of the two other places that were not mentioned in your article.
Maybe upload the graph to the article so that all readers can see and understand.
Also, what are the reasons you decided not to address my questions? Can this be seen as an admission that the article is based on errors or have you simply decided that your (unknown) sources are better than the official ones published by the government in Zanzibar?
Best regards,
Fan
Too bad
Peace,
First I'll point out that I don't eat meat (nor eggs and dairy products) so I probably somehow contribute (in your opinion) to stopping global warming.
Secondly, unfortunately all the responses did not touch mainly on the inaccuracies (to put it mildly) in the article.
Milk
Fan
Stop eating meat, raising food animals emits more greenhouse gases than cars, among other serious environmental damages
I just now noticed the skeptic's response, so for your information and general information:
There is a current that passes near Zanzibar, the current (at depth) comes from the north
Therefore it is marked as a cold!
But because of global warming the cold current is weakening and moving away
to the southeast and connects to a (shallow) stream of warm water.
Since the Gulf Stream was mentioned, it is a warm water stream that has weakened...
(This may be one of the reasons for the harsh winters in Western Europe),
This is also affected by global warming (which is denied?)
my father
I am repeatedly amazed by the global warming deniers. I'm sure that the fact that today is cooler than yesterday proves unequivocally in their eyes that there is no global warming.
Forget about the fact that it has long been proven, both theoretically and empirically, that the emission of LPG, as a result of the burning of hydrocarbon fuel by humans, increases the absorption of energy from the sun. Let's not confuse them with the facts……
On the connection between global warming and the circulation of currents in the oceans in general
Or about "changing the path of oceanic currents", much has been written here on the site as well,
Ignoring the effect of global warming on local phenomena
like ignoring the warming,
The last comment, attributing the warming in Zanzibar to ocean currents, is my comment. I forgot to write the nick at the top of the message.
A fan's words to some extent strengthen my guess that this is a warming that is not related to global warming, he stated that this is a normal multi-year warming-cooling. And my guess, as mentioned, is that it is a warming-cooling that originates from changes in the path of oceanic currents.
Apparently there is no connection between global warming and the warming of the sea near Zanzibar. The rate of global warming is on the order of 0.01 degrees Celsius per year, the rate of warming mentioned in the article (if it is true) is a rate of warming of say 0.3 degrees Celsius per year. That means the warming in the Zanzibar sea is about thirty times greater than the rate of global warming.
My guess is that the Zanzibar seawater warming, very rapid warming, is a well-known phenomenon of change in massive currents of ocean water. When warm ocean water flowed. Changing its path and approaching a certain coast, which is spread over ten years or more, this ocean current warms the coastal water and raises the temperature by several degrees in ten or twenty years. The most familiar phenomenon of heating by ocean currents is the Gulf Stream. A lesser-known phenomenon that has intensified in the last twenty years, is the heating of coastal parts of Greenland by two degrees in the last twenty years.
All this will not prevent the followers of the global warming agenda from relating any type of warming to global warming. For them, any warming for any reason is due to global warming, likewise for them any cooling is also due to global warming, torrential rain or typhoon is also due to global warming.
The ideology he expresses, which causes the denial of the science of warming, stems first and foremost from the American Republican Party, which does this to protect the tycoons (probably the local ones) and from there this scourge spread to the whole world.
The idea is quite simple - if there is warming, it needs to be treated and how is it treated? With the government's money, and where does the government's money come from - from taxes, but for the Republicans it is relative to pay taxes and therefore they prefer to start from the beginning and say there is no problem, nothing is needed, no money needs to be spent and no taxes need to be taken.
A simple fan of the green blog and the daily capitalist - people who completely identify with these positions. This is not an innocent criticism.
The reason they deny the warming in Tanzania as well is that it is impossible to deny the warming in the USA and Israel and confirm it elsewhere.
Greetings to my father Blizovsky,
I'm not here to defend the tycoons at all, for my part I want them all to go bankrupt.
Beyond that, the maximum should be done for them to pay taxes like any normal company that is not owned by a tycoon.
The question is what exactly is the connection between your response to the fan and the taxes paid by the tycoons?
Do you mean tycoons in Israel, Zanzibar or all over the world?
Do we know for sure that there are tycoons in Zanzibar?
Do we know for sure that the tycoons in Zanzibar do not pay fair taxes?
Fan
A - The data in the article is based on conversations with locals who are involved in the industry
and on sources indicated in the article,
B - In skimming over the source you mentioned, I saw that: although in the graph that describes exports, there is a
(in one sex) (vein in the other sex),
But in the graph that describes production, in both sexes there is a decrease, it says:
the output of Spinosum is increasing and Cottonii is decreasing in Zanzibar. However, for both types of seaweed, the production is
decreasing in Jambiani and Muungoni from 2008-2011
The graph painters (and you) have solutions.
C - Regarding global warming and the warming of the ocean water if you have any
Mistakes, you should read more material,
I already wrote in the past that "a caveat to the response ... reading comprehension",
Fan, no problem finding excuses to ignore the warning signs.
The main thing is that the tycoons will not pay the fair taxes to protect the environment and the rights of their workers.
Dr. The Honorable Assaf Rosenthal,
Since I noticed that you are not always careful about the accuracy of the data provided by you, I decided to make a habit for myself and check from time to time whether the truth is with you.
As expected, the data on which you are basing this article is not correct at all, so it can be concluded that your conclusions are also inaccurate.
I will detail
You mentioned that the seaweed harvest dropped from 15,000 tons "several years ago" to 10,000 tons a year ago.
According to data from the Aquaculture Department of Zanzibar, the seaweed harvest actually increased from 8,000 tons in 2004 to 15,000 tons in 2010.
Page 13 in this link:
http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=isp_collection
You also mentioned that the number of workers in the seaweed farming profession has decreased.
Contrary to your claims, the last sentence on page 12 in the link above states that although overall productivity has increased, productivity per employee has decreased. From this it follows that the number of workers in the profession increased and did not decrease as you mentioned (if you would like me to specify with a numerical example, tell me and I will be happy to do so).
In your article you came to the conclusion that the main cause of the decrease in productivity (which is not correct) is the increase in sea temperature ("global warming").
You mentioned that the temperature of the sea water has risen in recent years, I would appreciate it if you could be more specific in the source of the data on which you were based (link and page number would be very reliable in my opinion).
In this case, I will point out that the above link also states that the temperature of the sea water on the coast of Zanzibar has increased by 2 degrees, but in reference number 7 on page 5 it is stated that this is a normal cyclical change that occurs every 2-7 years and not the same "global warming" as you claimed.
In conclusion, I will end with the same recommendation that I recommended before, in my opinion the quality of the data and the reliability of the article should be preferred over the number of articles. Easy and material in light of the fact that you are a doctor and therefore it is assumed that you are skilled in writing accurate and reliable documents.
By the way, in what field is your doctorate?
Best regards,
Fan