Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Ignoring the slaughter of dugongs in Northern Australia

By

There are two criteria which should be applied to the harvest of an animal species: 1. Are the numbers taken sustainable, and 2. Is the method of killing humane?

At least that’s what I said on ABC Radio National last Friday morning when Steve Cannane asked me why I thought it was hypocritical for Australians to rally against whaling by the Japanese while ignoring the slaughter of dugongs by indigenous Australians.

In reply Steve interviewed Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, this morning. Mr Morrison essentially side-stepped the issue of whether dugongs were killed humanely, but he did dispute my claim that 1,000 dugongs are killed in northern Australia each year.

Mr Morrison suggested this number only applied to the Torres Straits. So how many dugongs are killed each year in Northern Australia?

You can listen to both interviews by podcast. The interviews were part of the Breakfast Program and so the podcasts include other interviews and news reports during that segment of the program.

1. Anti-whaling activists released

…The men are about to be handed over to the Sea Shepherd ship, the Steve Irwin. Meanwhile, an Australian public policy group is critical of the strong tactics used by conservation groups like the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace, and the position of the Australian government on the whales issue.

Guests
Paul Watson, Captain of the Steve Irwin
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs

Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2141167.htm

2. Whales and dugongs

Last week Breakfast heard from Dr Jennifer Marohasy from the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs who described the Australian Government’s anti-whaling position as hypocritical. Dr Marohasy said the Federal Government and conservation groups like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd are jumping up and down about the slaughter of whales by the Japanese, yet ignoring the killing of more endangered species like dugongs and turtles by Indigenous people in Northern Australia.

Guests
Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA)

Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2142705.htm

List of Climate Change Skeptics Continues to Grow (Part 4)

By

Hi Jennifer,

Five more scientists have been added to the over 400 scientists in the Minority Senate Report who dispute man-made global warming claims:

1. Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire has taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. Wolf recently declared he was skeptical of man-made climate fears. “Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood,” Wolf wrote EPW on January 10, 2008. “Also, many, many of the supporters (or believers) of human induced warming have not read the IPCC report AND Al Gore is NOT a climate scientist!” Wolf added. He also rejected the claim that most scientists agree mankind is driving a “climate crisis.” “I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming,” Wolf added.

2. Biologist Dr. Matthew Cronin, a research professor at the School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, called predictions that future global warming would devastate polar bear populations “one extreme case hypothesis.” “We don’t know what the future ice conditions will be, as there is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased worldwide over the last few decades,” Cronin said in March 2007. “Recent declines in sea ice and indications that polar bears in some areas may be negatively impacted are cause for concern, but in my opinion do not warrant designation of the species as threatened with extinction,” Cronin said. “I believe that consideration of multiple hypotheses regarding the future of sea ice and polar bear populations would provide better science than reliance on one extreme case hypothesis of loss of sea ice and associated drastic declines in polar bear populations,” Cronin said.

3. Senior Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang P. Thuene was a former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service in the field of synoptic meteorology and also worked for the German Environmental Protection Agency. Thuene currently works in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Rheinland-Pfalz. In 2007, Thuene rejected the idea that mankind is driving global warming. “All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn’t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‘natural greenhouse effect’ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a ‘global warming effect’. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets inevitably colder. This natural fact, formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in his ‘cooling law’, led Sir James Dewar to the construction of the ‘Dewar flask’ to minimize heat losses from a vessel. But the most perfect thermos flask can’t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made ‘greenhouse effect’, like eugenics, belongs to the category ‘scientific errors,” Thuene wrote on February 24, 2007.

“The infrared thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth’s surface. This window cannot be closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the atmosphere,” Thuene wrote. “Summarizing we can say: Earth’s surface gains heat from the Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a nonstop process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity. Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,” Thuene explained.

4. Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at its headquarters office near Washington, DC. DeFayette, who earned a masters degree in Physical Chemistry, also worked at the NRC’s Regional Office near Chicago where he was a Director of the Enforcement staff. He also served as a consultant to the Department of Energy. DeFayette wrote a critique of former Vice President Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007. “I freely admit I am a skeptic,” DeFayette told EPW on January 15, 2008. “I take umbrage in so-called ‘experts’ using data without checking their sources. My scientific background taught me to question things that do not appear to be right (e.g.-if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is). That is one reason I went to such detail in critiquing Gore’s book. I also strongly object to the IPCC and its use of so-called ‘experts,’” DeFayette explained.

In his March 14, 2007 critique of Gore, DeFayette dismissed Gore’s claim that “the survival of our civilization” is at stake. DeFayette wrote, “Nonsense! Civilization may one day cease to exist but it won’t be from global warming caused by CO2. I can think of many more promising scenarios such as disease, nuclear war; volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteor impacts; solar heating.” DeFayette asserted that Gore’s book was “a political, not scientific, book. There is absolutely no discussion about the world’s climate history, effects of the sun, other planets, precession, eccentricity, etc.” DeFayette disputed Gore’s notion of a “consensus.” “Until a few months ago, scientists believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8 because Pluto was demoted. In the 1600s scientists believed we lived in an earth-centered universe but Galileo disagreed and proved we lived in a sun-centered universe. At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, ‘Neptunists’ were convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth’s crust had been precipitated from water and Robert Jameson, a British geologist, characterized the supporting evidence as ‘incontrovertible,’” DeFayette wrote. “In each of these cases there was ‘scientific consensus’ that eventually was rejected,” he added.

5. Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was in charge of South Africa’s Chamber of Mines’ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd has served as President of the South African Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers, and the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of Southern Africa. Lloyd, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town.

Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.

Cheers,
Marc Morano

—————
This is the fourth post in a series on the US Senate Minority Report, you can read earlier blog posts here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

You can link to the report entitled ‘Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007’
released on December 20, 2007 by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority) and link to associated media here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Hollow Victory for the Humane Society against Japanese Whaling

By

The Humane Society International brought an action against Japanese whalers in Australia’s Federal Court for breaking the law by killing whales in Australia’s southern whale sanctuary.

On January 15, Justice James Allsop ruled that the Japanese whaling fleet controlled by Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd has broken Australian law in particular by contravening the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999, and issued an injunction against continued whaling. **

Australia has jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone attached to the Antarctic territories, but the Judge noted that Japan does not recognise Australia’s Antarctic claim.

In fact most countries do not recognise the Australian Antarctic claim so there is no practical way for the order to be enforced.

A spokesman for the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Mr Hideki Moronuki, told the ABC he is not in a position to comment on the ruling because Australia’s claim to Antarctic waters is not recognised by the international community. He says the case is a domestic matter for Australia.

Graham Young has suggested that,

“If there is no way that the order can be enforced, why waste money seeking it in the first place? Australia will not take action against the Japanese under this order because that would be an act of war, not under Australian law, but according to the law of most other countries in the world. It has a lot of things in common with the Iraq war in that respect. But in refusing to take action against the Japanese it will weaken our ability to take action against anyone else in those waters for any other environmental abuses.”

The blog post, dated January 15 is aptly entitled ‘Whaling Illusion Stripped Bare’.

————–
** Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2008] FCA 3

1. THE COURT DECLARES that the respondent has killed, injured, taken and interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229, 229A, 229B and 229C of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), (the “Act”), and has treated and possessed such whales killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229D and 230 of the Act, without permission or authorisation under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Act.

2. THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or possessing any such whale killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or authorised under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

Read more here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/3.html

South Koreans Eat Illegal Whale Meat: A Note from Libby Eyre

By

An illegal whale meat operation was recently exposed in South Korea seizing over 50 tonnes of minke whale meat. Accidentally caught cetaceans can be legally sold in South Korean restaurants (located in Ulsan, Busan and Pohang) as long as this death is reported to the Maritime Police.

South Korea is a migratory corridor for a number of cetacean species, including the highly endangered Western Gray Whale. Only about 121 individuals survive, with entanglement and other anthropogenic threats undermining their comeback from over-exploitation during commercial whaling days. Local populations of species also exist around the Peninsula, such as the tiny finless porpoise.

The marine mammal by-catch problem has been labelled “marine bushmeat” (1), and presents many of the same issues as terrestrial bushmeat, including loss of biodiversity and threatening endangered populations. In a recent paper (2), researchers used techniques to identify the species and origins of cetacean meat sold in South Korean markets. A total of 289 minke whale samples were obtained during 12 surveys of South Korean markets from 1999-2003. Mitochondrial haplotype, sex and microsatellite-based genotyping was used, revealing products originated from 205 individuals. A capture-recapture technique then estimated that 827 minkes passed through the markets during this 5-year period. This number is somewhat larger than the 458 South Korea reported to the IWC for the same period. This technique also provided an estimate of the “half-life” of market products on sale during the survey (about 1.8 months), illustrating that markets should be monitored regularly for accurate results to be obtained.

When the figure of 827 South Korean J-Stock minkes is added to the reported Japanese incidental take of 390 from the Sea of Japan during 1999-2003 (assuming no under-reporting), over 1,200 whales were taken from this protected stock during this period (3). Some models suggest the minke J-stock cannot sustain this rate of loss. In fact previous research has suggested that in order to avoid further depletion, an annual loss of less than 50 J-stock minkes is required, and for the stock to recover, “incidental or illegal directed takes must be reduced to levels approaching zero” (4). The results of this 2000 model were originally rejected by Japan and South Korea as being “implausibly high”, but it now appears the model relied on under-reporting of South Korean by-catch and must be rejected as “implausibly low”.

Minke whales are frequently cited as being anything other than endangered, but genetically distinct populations of minkes are recognised. The J-stock is found in Korea’s East Sea. Due to declining catch per unit effort, in 1983 the IWC Scientific Committee concluded that the J-stock was depleted and should be classified as a protected stock. In the light of past commercial hunting, ongoing by-catch and low abundance estimates from recent surveys, the Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the further depletion or even extinction of this stock. This stock may also make up some of the 100 minkes killed annually in Japan’s JARPN II hunt.

In 2005, a ‘whale treatment facility’ planned by the Ulsan Metropolitan City, was to provide a “check point for dealing with whale carcasses in an environmentally-friendly and sanitary manner” (Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2005). South Korea’s policies are “designed to promote the rational and scientific conservation and sustainable use of whales and dolphins” (MOMAF, 2005), but with a mooted whale meat processing factory, no mitigation measures to reduce by-catch levels and an adult minke fetching an estimated US $100, 000, the incentive is to increase rather than reduce cetacean by-catch in these waters. The legal sale of such incidental catch may also provide the cover for directed illegal hunting and even intentional net whaling.

Japan views market monitoring as outside the IWC’s jurisdiction, but inspection procedures and sustainable stocks are required under the Revised Management Scheme before commercial whaling is to resume. Clapham and Van Waerebeek (2007) write “Market monitoring may be the only way to assess the full toll of by-catch, poaching and legal whaling.” Japan and Norway have DNA registries for material from legally killed whales, but have “resisted independent international oversight of these databases.”

Molecular analysis can provide tools for assessing the extent of illegal trade in animals, but it can also highlight genetically-isolated and unique populations. As Palumbi (2007) writes: “The larger oceanic population might be able to sustain a catch of 200 animals a year, but the structure of the whale population is sometimes so local that small and isolated populations such as the J-stock cannot support a loss rate that may seem minor on the whole-ocean scale”.

________________________________________________________________________
Many thanks to Jennifer and Ann for providing the links.

(1) Clapham, P and Van Waerebeek, K. (2007) Bushmeat and Bycatch: the sum of parts. Molecular Ecology, 16, 2607-2609.

(2) Baker, C. S. et al. (2007) Estimating the number of whales entering trade using DNA profiling and capture-recapture analysis of market products. Molecular Ecology, 16, 2617-2626.

(3) Palumbi, S. (2007) In the market for minke whales. Nature. Vol 447, 267-268.

(4) Baker, C. S. et al (2000) Predicted decline of protected whales based on molecular genetic monitoring of Japanese and Korean markets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 267, 1191-1199.

Pictures of Pirates Taken into Custody by Whalers

By

Two crew of the Sea Shepherd who illegally boarded the Japanese whaling ship Yushin Maru No. 2 in the Antarctic have been captured. According to the Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research, Mr Minoru Morimoto, Ben Potts and Giles Lane (both of the Sea Shepherd) attempted to entangle the screw of the vessel using ropes and threw bottles of acid onto the decks before boarding.

BEN POTTS Sea Shepherd.JPG
Ben Potts

GILES LANE Sea Shepherd.JPG
Giles Lane

“Any accusations that we have tied them up or assaulted them are completely untrue,” Mr Morimoto said. “It is illegal to board another country’s vessels on the high seas. As a result, at this stage, they are being held in custody while decisions are made on their future.”

SS Acid Bottles smashed on deck.JPG
Acid Bottle Smashed on Deck

SS Acid Bottles.JPG
Acid Bottle Thrown by Pirates

The Arctic Fox

By

“Within the European Union, six species have been classified as Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The most threatened category includes the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and the European mink, which both have very small and declining populations. Only 150 Iberian Lynx survive today and the Mediterranean monk seal population has decreased to between 350-450 individuals.”

arctic fox_copy.jpg
Photograph of an Arctic Fox courtesy of Denis-Carl Robidaux via Ann Novek

“The Arctic fox has evolved to live in the most frigid extremes on the planet. Among its adaptations for cold survival are its deep, thick fur, a system of countercurrent heat exchange in the circulation of paws to retain core temperature, and a good supply of body fat. The fox has a low surface-area-to-volume ratio as evidenced by its generally rounded body shape, short muzzle and legs, and short, thick ears. Since less of its surface area is exposed to the cold, less heat escapes the body. Its furry paws allow it to walk on ice floors in search of food. It is also able to walk on top of snow and listen for the movements of prey underneath. Their thick fur is the warmest of any mammal.”

In Scandinavia there are only about 120 arctic foxes left. There is a project in Sweden, to help save the foxes, including additional feeding and hunting red foxes that are a threat to Arctic foxes (the red foxes are out competing the arctic foxes). The Arctic fox eat lemmings, Arctic hares and in some areas left-overs from polar bears.

Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden