Who doesn't enjoy a nice seafood dinner now and then? Halibut, cod, salmon are great to eat. Or perhaps your tastes run more to shrimp, lobster, or oysters. I hear swordfish is good, as is shark, and I'm not one to turn my nose up at tuna sashimi, although I admit Alaska salmon and halibut are my favorites.
Premium seafoods have always been on the expensive side, but there are more economic alternatives, depending on what part of the country one is in. Commercially-raised fish, from catfish to tilapia to salmon and so on, can be more economical, while being nutritious and delicious. But on the whole, seafood is, for most people, a rather expensive treat. For most of us, it's always been that way. Right now, in no small part due to rising fuel costs, seafood is even more expensive than usual.
But leave it to the legacy media, in this case The New York Times, to make the cost of seafood into an argument about climate change, claiming that seafood has been "gentrified." That checks off two boxes on your Woke Buzzword Bingo card, if you're playing the home game.
Seafood prices have never been stable. Forces like inflation, geopolitical tensions, regulation changes, international market shifts, fuel and labor costs always fluctuate. But over the last 20 years, climate change-related phenomena have added steady pulses of volatility. A pattern of disruption from droughts, heat domes, marine heat waves, sea ice anomalies, ocean acidification, atmospheric rivers and toxic algae blooms has upended the rhythms of most commercial seafood species in the Pacific Northwest.
Seafood prices, as the NYT admits, have never been stable. That's why, in so many places with seafood on the menu, you'll see "market price" instead of an amount on said menu; even our favorite local place here in the Valley does this, listing Alaska halibut as "market price." 'Twas ever thus; the price of fresh-caught seafood has never been set in stone.
But the NYT does readers a disservice in implying this is all about climate. It's not. As is so often the case, it's rather more complex than the legacy media would have us believe. Writing at ClimateRealism, the Heartland Institute's Linnea Lueken breaks it down.
The NYT claims that climate change is increasing ocean temperatures and reducing the supply of fish, forcing prices upwards, but also quite early in the post admits that “more people” are also going after those supposedly “fewer fish and shellfish.”
With that admission, the NYT complicates their own narrative. Human populations are growing, and the popularity of seafood has been increasing as diet trends promote eating fish and shellfish as easy ways to get lean protein. Trends on social media like TikTok made eating canned fish like sardines look epicurean and health conscious to younger consumers who otherwise would probably turn their noses up at it. Seafood consumption has been rising; in 2024, sales reports showed that four-year sales growth in both frozen and fresh fish increased 31%, and shellfish experienced a 23% growth in sales.
I don't know about people on TikTok, who I suspect are generally younger than me (but then, every year, more and more of the population is younger than me) but I can tell you that I've been turning my nose up at canned sardines pretty much all my life. That is, admittedly, a matter of personal taste. But while the NYT is whining about the "gentrification" of seafood, there's one factor that they seem to downplay: Fuel costs. Marine diesel is at a high right now, over $7 a gallon in many places. And that cost is factored into every catch.
Economic pressures are much larger influences on especially local seafood costs. In 2024, seafood prices had actually been trending downwards in the United States, despite inflation, but pressures change quickly. The spike in fuel costs is likely a large part of why seafood is so comparatively expensive right now. Marine diesel is over $7 per gallon right now, while last year it was closer to $6.50. That might not sound like a huge change, but large fishing boats that do multi-day excursions might have tanks that hold over 250 gallons, and commercial crabbing boats have fuel requirements of 48,000 gallons or more.
But The New York Times whines about climate change, and trots out the old "gentrification" horse squeeze.
Look, the climate is changing. It has been since the end of the last major glaciation and will continue to do so no matter what we do about it. And fresh-caught seafood always has been and will continue to be on the expensive side. But in this case, it's the "gentrification" angle that's galling; in this, the NYT is engaging in some class envy, and that's all they're doing. So what if fresh-caught seafood is beyond the budgets of some people? There are alternatives. In most of the country, cheaper, commercially-raised fish is available, and in any case, people don't require seafood to live. People of modest means can't afford lobster and crab? Well, so what? They can't afford to drive Rolls Royce automobiles, either, and are instead stuck with Chevrolets.
If The New York Times were really concerned about this issue, they'd be getting behind the "drill, baby, drill" efforts, to increase supply and bring down the price of marine diesel. That's the best long-term way to bring fresh-caught seafood prices down some.
