← Back to Library

China is killing the fish

Noah Smith delivers a jarring pivot in environmental discourse: the greatest threat to our oceans isn't pure greed, but a calculated geopolitical strategy that treats fish as a weapon of statecraft. While most analysis focuses on climate change or local pollution, Smith exposes a disturbing reality where a nation's domestic conservation success masks a global assault on biodiversity driven by naval ambition. This is not just an ecological crisis; it is a failure of the international community to hold a rising power accountable for actions that strip the world of its future food security.

The Three Faces of Harm

Smith begins by categorizing environmental damage, a framework that clarifies why some problems are solved while others fester. He notes that local pollution, like the toxic air China once choked on, follows the Environmental Kuznets Curve: as nations get richer, they demand cleaner surroundings. "China used to be known for its toxic, unbreathable air, but in the 2010s it launched a successful cleanup policy," Smith writes, highlighting how economic development can drive domestic environmental progress. This historical parallel mirrors the ozone layer recovery, where technological innovation replaced CFCs with HFCs, proving that human ingenuity can solve self-inflicted global harms when incentives align.

China is killing the fish

However, the third category—harm to the natural world itself—presents a unique challenge because the victims, future generations and non-human species, have no political voice. Smith argues that we are seeing a shift where wealthier nations begin to value nature intrinsically, citing Steve Pinker's theory that security breeds altruism. "Societies don't trend toward greater rapaciousness as they become richer and more powerful," he asserts, pointing to reforestation efforts in North America and East Asia. This optimism, however, hits a wall when applied to the high seas, where the rules of engagement are far more brutal.

"The fact that China is overfishing international waters for military and geopolitical reasons, rather than out of pure economic rapacity, suggests that the Chinese are not an exception to the rule that richer societies start to care more about sustainability."

The Fleet as a Weapon

The core of Smith's argument lies in the dissonance between China's domestic environmental policies and its aggressive behavior abroad. While the administration banned fishing in the Yangtze River in 2021 to save local stocks, its industrial fleet has simultaneously expanded its reach globally. Smith cites a 2025 report from Oceana to illustrate the scale: "57,000 of their industrial fishing vessels dominated 44% of the world's visible fishing activity during this period." This isn't merely commercial activity; it is a systematic dismantling of marine ecosystems.

The methods employed are as sophisticated as they are destructive. Smith details how vessels turn off transponders, falsify records, and use foreign front companies to evade detection. "Almost half of the Chinese squid fleet... were tied to human-rights or environmental violations," he notes, drawing on investigations by the Outlaw Ocean Project. This evidence suggests a level of state-sponsored impunity that transcends typical corporate malfeasance. Critics might argue that Western fleets have historically engaged in similar overfishing, but Smith's point is about the current trajectory and the sheer scale of the modern Chinese operation, which dwarfs previous offenders.

The most chilling aspect, according to Smith, is the strategic intent behind the fleet. He quotes Ian Urbina, who observed that "commercial fishermen often serve as de-facto paramilitary personnel whose activities the Chinese government can frame as private actions." This transforms the fishing fleet into a tool for territorial assertion, particularly in the South China Sea. "What China is doing is putting both hands behind its back and using its big belly to push you out, to dare you to hit first," says Huang Jing, a former policy director. The result is a "naval militia" that prioritizes geopolitical leverage over the survival of fish stocks.

The Silence of the Greens

Perhaps the most provocative claim Smith makes is that the environmental movement has largely abandoned this issue due to geopolitical bias. He argues that legacy groups have shifted from universal environmental protection to a stance that critiques the West while ignoring abuses by non-Western powers. "In recent years, with a few commendable exceptions like Sea Shepherd, they have mostly gone quiet," Smith writes. This silence allows the "China hawks" to become the primary voices sounding the alarm, framing the issue through a lens of national security rather than ecological preservation.

This dynamic creates a dangerous blind spot. If the environmental movement cannot criticize the world's largest polluter or the most aggressive overfisher without being accused of bias, it risks irrelevance. Smith warns that "as power and wealth shift away from the West, the environmental movement risks making itself irrelevant if it continues its recent practice of letting countries like China off the hook." The tragedy is that the solution to the overfishing crisis requires the same kind of global cooperation that Smith identified as necessary for climate change, yet the political will is fractured by great power competition.

"China's quasi-military subsidies for its fishing fleet are resulting in too much actual fishing taking place. That's not good, and I wish that more environmentalists would pay attention to the problem."

Bottom Line

Smith's strongest contribution is reframing the overfishing crisis not as a failure of market regulation, but as a deliberate instrument of state power that bypasses traditional environmental safeguards. The argument's vulnerability lies in its reliance on the assumption that geopolitical motivations will eventually yield to the same domestic altruism seen in China's inland waters, a leap that ignores the entrenched nature of military-industrial complexes. Readers should watch for how international bodies respond to these "paramilitary" fishing tactics, as the next decade of ocean health may depend on whether the world treats this as an environmental emergency or a geopolitical standoff.

Sources

China is killing the fish

by Noah Smith · Noahpinion · Read full article

Unfortunately, I have another thing for you to worry about.

There are three types of environmental harm. The first kind is local — think air pollution and water pollution. This kind of activity hurts people who are geographically close by — when factories dump crap in the water, it’s local communities who get cancer, and so on. This kind of local pollution is typically solved by a local or national government, using things like regulation, pollution markets, and so on.

In fact, humanity has a pretty good track record when it comes to problems like this. The Environmental Kuznets Curve — the theory that countries pollute less as they get richer — seems to hold true for air and water pollution. As people escape poverty, they demand a cleaner local environment. For example, China used to be known for its toxic, unbreathable air, but in the 2010s it launched a successful cleanup policy:

The second kind of environmental harm — global harm — is a lot harder to deal with. These are things that mostly hurt people in other countries — global warming being the primary example. It’s very hard to solve global warming, because the worldwide nature of the harm means there’s a free rider problem (or, if you prefer, a coordination problem) — no country wants to pay the full cost of decarbonization, because most of the benefit goes to people in other countries. You can try international agreements, but everyone has an incentive to cheat.

Often, the best solution to these problems is technological — you simply invent something better and cheaper that doesn’t pollute as much, and then every country has an incentive to switch. Essentially, you use the positive externality of technology to fight the negative externality of pollution. This is what we did with HFC refrigerants, which replaced the CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer. It’s how we’re now fighting climate change with solar, batteries, and other green energy technologies.

But there’s a third kind of environmental harm, which is harm to the natural world. When pollution or logging or mining destroys natural habitats, it often doesn’t cause much harm to human beings — at least, not to those who are alive today. When coral reefs get bleached and die from industrial runoff, it might hurt tourism revenue a tiny bit, but overall humans don’t really get hurt. Animals and plants get hurt, ...