• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for September 2008

The Moratorium on Whaling as a Reflection of the “Muddled Cosmological Beliefs” of the West

September 16, 2008 By jennifer

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1948 at the initiative of the United States to establish a new world order in whaling.   Initially 15 governments were party to the IWC with Japan at the time under occupation and without the right to join.   

 

The Commission’s objectives included safeguarding the great natural resources represented by whale stocks and providing for the “orderly development of the whaling industry” recognising that whale stocks will increase if whaling is properly regulated.

 

But by the 1960s an anti-whaling movement had emerged in the West and the IWC focus started to change.  In 1972, at the United Nations Human Environmental Conference held in Stockholm, the United States lobbied for a moratorium on commercial whaling; a moratorium that came into effect ten years later. 

 

Japan initially took action to be exempt from the moratorium in accordance with Article V of the convention.   Japan made the case that the moratorium infringed upon provisions within the convention in particular that decisions of the IWC be based on scientific findings – at the time the scientific recommendation was that the moratorium was unnecessary – and take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale product. 

 

 The United States threatened that unless Japan withdrew its objection it would revoke fishing allocation for Japanese trawlers off the west coast of Alaska.   Japan withdrew its objection, but the US nevertheless phased out its fishing allocation to Japan.

 

In a book, ‘Reviving the Invisible Hand’, by Deepak Lal, a well known economist born in Indian, reference is made to the West’s obsession with promoting its “habits of the heart” including through the propaganda of the NGOs, most of whom espouse various environmental causes (pg. 233).   Lal explains that the bread and butter of environment groups involves arousing the fear of “Apocalypse Now” (an enduring superstition of mankind) along with the “muddled cosmological beliefs of the West” about how one should live.     

 

He refers to organisations such as the International Whaling Commission as transnational institutions created after the Second World War to legislate our Western morality around the world and that the infiltration and use of these institution by NGOs as source of potential serious disorder (pg. 234). 

 

What the West doesn’t seem to understand is that while Japan, to again quote Lal, joined the bandwagon of globalizing capitalism, they have done this without sacrificing their culture or cosmological beliefs and see the demand from countries like Australia that they give up their tradition of eating whale – a tradition that can be traced to the Jomon Period of approximately 5,500 BC – as a form of cultural imperialism.    Masayuki Komatsu and Shigeko Misaki in ‘Whales and the Japanese’ (The Institute of Cetacean Research, 2003) indicate that the Japanese don’t like others to dictate what “our habits should be” and suggest that the anti-whaling lobby is practicing ethnic and cultural discrimination (pg. 103-104). 

 

At a summit of traditional Japanese whaling communities held in March 2002, it was affirmed that “the basis of Japanese whaling tradition and culture, characterised by the total utilization of the whales and a spirit of gratitude, should be maintained and perpetuated”.   

 

The Japanese have a strong connection to the Shinto and Buddhist religions and believe that deep respect should be afforded animals that are killed so we may eat.   This respect involves not wasting any of the animal and so the Japanese have made a virtue out of utilizing every part of the whale.    There is also a cemetery for whales in the Koganji Buddhist Temple in Nagato City where the fetuses of whales that “did not live to swim in the sea” are buried and kakochos (books of the dead) dedicated to the whales that gave their lives for the well-being of humans.  A service is held once a year in the temple to pray for the souls of the whales.   

 

The Japanese want an end to the moratorium on commercial whaling and the right to continue to harvest whales.  They see the moratorium as reflecting Western arrogance and believe that they will prevail, simply because “we are right”.

 

 *****

This is my fourth blog post on whaling following my recent visit to Japan.  

 

 

Deepak Lal was elected President of the Mont Pelerin Society at its 60th Anniversary Meeting in Tokyo.  

 

The picture was taken in the garden of the Orion Hotel, Chinzanso, on September 12, 2008.

 

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Whales

Australian Environment Foundation Conference

September 15, 2008 By jennifer

AEF_Conference advert Tower.png

Register here.  Other speakers include Graham Young, Chris Hodendyk, Mark Poynter, Max Rheese and Gerhardt Pearson.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Advertisements

The Fight Against Global Warming Justifies Criminal Action: UK Jury Clears Greenpeace Activists

September 15, 2008 By admin

Last week a UK jury decided that the threat of global warming justifies breaking the law; or at least they condoned the painting of the word ‘Gordon’ on someone else’s chimney stack.    

 

The jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage accepting defence arguments that they had a “lawful excuse” when they vandalised the chimney stack because the carbon dioxide emissions from the Kingsnorth power plant are harmful to the environment of the Hoo Peninsula.

 

Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 damage is condoned if it will prevent even greater damage.   

 

This is surely an unusual interpretation of a law meant to allow, for example, someone to break down the door to a burning building?

 

It does suggest the pubic are very concerned about global warming and see a link between a protest against a power station and saving the environmental.   Furthermore it creates precedence, at least in the UK, the idea that it is OK to destroy property to save the environment from climate change.

 

Writing in The UK Independent Geoffrey Lean claimed that:

 

“The jury in effect sat through a six-and-a-half-day seminar on global warming, in a forum where lying was illegal, and every statement could be challenged by top barristers. And, at the end, they decided that the danger was so immediate and serious that it justified taking extreme – and normally illegal – action against it.”

 

NASA’s James Hansen gave evidence in defence of the Greenpeace activists at the trial and according to Kent News when asked what his message to Prime Minister Gordon Brown would be, Dr Hansen replied: 

 

“I would ask him to make a clear public statement for a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2.”

 

It is unlikely the case will have significant implications for activism in Australia. 

 

In New South Wales (and all other States of Australia), juries are only available in criminal case for serious offences (indictable offences) such as sexual assault, murder, armed robbery and other serious crimes against a person. Since graffiti is a summary offence that would be heard by a magistrate, it is unlikely that a magistrate would find climate change a justification for the offence. 

 

Secondly, the legal argument that graffiti to prevent climate change is damage to prevent greater damage in the future is not a very good legal argument. The main problem is that it is just as likely that the graffiti will make no difference what so ever to climate change that it fails to prevent the future damage.

 

Thirdly, in NSW criminal law, there is not similar provision that damage to property is permissible to prevent greater harm.  If a similar case was brought in NSW, the magistrate would be likely to rule that the evidence on whether climate change is damage, which would be key to the case, would be ruled to be irrelevant and dismissed.

 

 The damage to the Kingsnorth power station was estimated at £35,000.

 

***************
Comment on legal implications for Australia from Nichole Hoskin.   This post is based on news reports and opinion pieces, does anyone have a link to, or copy of, the actual judgement.

Filed Under: News

Residents of Adelaide Waste Water?

September 14, 2008 By jennifer

The Queensland Farmers’ Federation have suggested that residents of Adelaide should use less water rather than continually demanding that more water be sent to South Australia.  According to ABC Online: 

“Executive officer John Cherry says 55,000 megalitres of water a year would be saved if Adelaide residents lived under the same water restrictions as Brisbane.

“Last year, Adelaide households used an average of 235 litres per day compared with 153 litres in Brisbane.”

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Water

International Whaling Commission Faces Revolt from North Atlantic

September 13, 2008 By jennifer

 

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is facing a revolt.   The whaling nations of the North Atlantic, in defiance of the IWC, recently approved a quota of 10 humpback whales for Greenland.

 

The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), established in 1992 to provide international competence on conservation and management of whale and seal stocks in the region, normally makes recommendations to the IWC. 

 

But after the IWC rejected Greenland’s request for a quota of 10 humpback whales at the meeting in Chile earlier this year, the countries of the North Atlantic decided enough was enough in particular because the quota had been approved by the IWC science committee and the aboriginal subsistence committee. 

 

The quota was refused at a plenary session with Australia, New Zealand and the European Union key protagonists.

 

Opening statements from Norway at the meeting of NAMMCO on 2-4 September included:

 

“The debate about management of marine mammals today is mostly emotional.  It is disturbing that the attitude towards science as the basis for managing whale stocks is vanishing.  This is especially important as we have based our management of wildlife in general on science.  Also, we have to solve international conflicts in the environmental field (global warming, biological diversity, fishing, effects of pollution, etcetera) on a scientific basis.  Whaling and sealing is not a major issue in this context, but the actions of governments in this matter may create an international precedent for similar actions in more important issues.  We cannot accept that a legal activity conducted with the best practice in one country is not accepted in another country because of emotions.”

 

The decision by the IWC to block the request by Greenland for a quota of 10 humpback whales, a decision spearheaded by Australia and New Zealand, is indeed seen by many as irrational with comment that, “So, whales are not only considered special by Australians, but humpback are even more special.  How is this?”

 

Fed-up, Greenland, a Danish Protectorate, has reportedly written to its government asking that it withdraw from the IWC.

 

 

  

***********

You read it first at JenniferMarohasy.com/blog.

I’m leaving Tokyo for Sydney later today.  

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Whales

US Democrats Poised to Embrace Offshore Oil Drilling

September 13, 2008 By jennifer

Since Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, became a part of the US Presidential election campaign there has been a change in US Politics with the Democrats now joining what some are describing as a new oil rush. 

 

Writing for the New York Times in an article entitle ‘Demoncrats embrace offshore drilling’ Carl Hulse explains:

 

“For decades, opposition to new offshore oil drilling has been a core principle of Congressional Democrats, ranking in the party pantheon somewhere just below protecting Social Security and increasing the minimum wage. But a concerted Republican assault over domestic oil production and the threat of political backlash from financially pressed motorists have Democrats poised to embrace a fundamental shift in energy policy.”

 

————

Carl Hulse, The New York Times, 11 September 2008

DEMOCRATS EMBRACE OFFSHORE DRILLING

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12cong.html?hp

 

Link from Benny Peiser  

Filed Under: News

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

September 2008
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« Aug   Oct »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital