So, for starters, these are both flat fish, and, as such, live along the sea bed.  This means that they are usually caught by beam trawling.  This is a particularly destructive form of fishing for numerous reasons.  Beam trawling involves dragging a large beam across the ocean floor behind which is pulled a large net.  Typically trawlers pull one net on each side of the boat.  Some also have ‘tickler chains’ in front which stir up the ocean floor so more creatures are caught up in the following net.  As you can imagine this is a pretty indiscriminate form of fishing and the bycatch including immature fish, crabs, coral etc is huge (up to 70% by weight).

However, there is an alternative, Danish Seine fishing, which is less damaging to the ocean floor and uses less fuel than beam trawling (hurrah).  This uses a conical shaped net to catch the fish; although there is some ocean floor damage and some bycatch it is much less than the alternatives.  Gillnets are also a better option, these catch the fish in the mesh of the net, obviously, the mesh has to be of the correct size so that small fish can swim through.

So, onto the sustainability of the fish themselves.  Plaice – current advice is to avoid fish from south west Ireland, west of Ireland, western channel and Celtic sea fisheries, whereas those of the  Irish sea are thought to be sustainable.  However, there is conflicting advice on North Sea stocks, Greenpeace stating that beam trawling in this area has caught too many small fish and stocks are unsustainable whereas the Marine Conservation Society currently states that North Sea stocks are ‘healthy and fished sustainably’ – no wonder eating fish causes such a moral dilemma!

Sole – advice at the moment is that, again, beam trawling has had a massive impact on stocks, and the North Sea and Irish Sea stocks are depleted, so best avoided.  Choose fish caught with more sustainable methods, avoid small fish and avoid fresh fish caught between April and June.  Both Greenpeace and the MCS claim that Celtic sea stocks are sustainable (if, like myself you are not wise in the ways of seas, the Celtic Sea is that part of the Atlantic Ocean off the south coast of Ireland and the south-west coast of England and Wales).

So, where to buy the holy fish grail?  At the moment I cannot fully answer that but hope to have a more in-depth review of all of the supermarkets in the coming months.  Having looked at the websites of the ‘better’ supermarkets, Waitrose and M&S, it appears that Waitrose use only Danish Seine methods and are no longer using smaller fish, although M&S are ‘leading the drive to reduce the use of … beam trawls’ (does that mean they do use them or not?) – it would appear that Waitrose are ahead of them there.

Waitrose fish is from the North East Atlantic, and M&S is from the North Sea, English Channel and around Iceland.  Are these sustainable fisheries – the packaging claims that they are, and the North East Atlantic and Iceland are not mentioned in good or bad terms on the MCS or Greenpeace websites, the English Channel and North Sea being more questionable.   A quick Google search reveals the North Atlantic area to include parts of the Atlantic west of Ireland, areas north east of Iceland and a pocket in the Norwegian Sea.

So, my conclusion, plaice and sole are in trouble, mainly due to unsustainable fishing methods, and, those caught around the British shoreline seem particularly at risk.  The information about flatfish from other areas is not so clear, but this may be because they are of less immediate concern.  As ever, it appears the fishing methods are crucial and any fish caught by beam trawling, and, I would go so far as to say any fishmonger who sells fish caught using beam trawlers, should be avoided.  I feel a little more at ease buying my lemon sole or plaice from Waitrose, but I will probably be doing so less often than previously (perhaps once a month), M&S still don’t get my vote as they seem to be behind Waitrose both on fishing methods and sustainable fisheries.

Then came the Credit Crisis and the market slump associated with the attendant global recession. Suddenly oil was relatively cheap again, and that brief period filled with innovative spirit seemed to turn to scepticism over the economic impact of carbon taxes. Nations became absorbed in their own relative competitiveness rather than the impact their actions would have on all of us.

Political posturing, and I’m looking at all you NGOs too, has turned climate change is a charged topic. Whilst the majority of people don’t care at all, those that do tend to be entrenched believers or sceptics; the depth of feeling seems to approach religious intensity. Unfortunately the real issue is masked by this squabble over carbon: we waste valuable resources by thoughtless pursuit of an unsustainable lifestyle, and one day we’ll by neck high in rubbish with little left to show for it.

I live in the UK and I’m guilty of doing my part to wipe out our species. Whilst I’m one of those that try to minimise my purchases and recycle whatever I can, a grossly unpatriotic position in the current economic climate, the standard of living I enjoy is plainly unsustainable. Those in other countries have just as much right to experience a similar standard of living, but that would accelerate our decline.

Alternative lifestyles are going to have to be adopted if we’re to experience more than a hellish existence on this planet, but the alternative needn’t be a poor compromise. It’s possible that there are better ways to live with a lighter footprint – and it’s not just about carbon – if we choose to look for them and consider our actions:

• What to buy and why I need it?
• Where does it come from and how much do I need?
• What I eat and how it’s produced?
• How many children I chose to have and what will their impact be in the future?
• Where I look for work and how our companies operate?

But how does this relate to my Copenhagen disappointment?

In the end I concluded that I’d no right to expect such a meeting of politicians from diverse cultures to achieve anything significant. I believe that modern government isn’t designed to produce results, it’s intended to generate a safe level of inertia that keeps us from civil war, and in this it’s been supremely successful for centuries.

Even during periods of party political unity – mostly during world wars – government hasn’t driven progress, it’s the actions of the individual, or small groups, that have made the difference, with government usually very late to the game.

And this is where my regret led me; political action and public protest isn’t the answer, the future lies in the decisions we all make as individuals about our lives at home and as part of the corporate world. Governments can’t change the World, but we could.