• 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

jennifer

Eating Whales (Part 2)

June 10, 2005 By jennifer

Whalers in Norway, Iceland and Greenland have called Australia’s attempts to ban commercial whaling “ridiculous”, according to a report on ABC Online.

Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell is lobbying in Europe and the Pacific to get an international ban on whaling. But the whalers are suggesting that Australia’s environmental record and opposition to the Kyoto protocol leave it in no position to argue.

Anthropologist Ron Brunton wrote an insightful piece on the subject for the Courier Mail in 2001. Extract follows:

They (governments of Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States) become indignant when they are accused of cultural imperialism by people who wish to continue eating whale meat, like the Japanese. As these governments and the anti-whaling activists who support them see it, they are fighting for a universal ethical principle, not a recently developed cultural preference. And they are angry about Japan’s success in thwarting a proposal for a South Pacific whale sanctuary at the recently concluded meeting of the International Whaling Commission by using aid to bribe Caribbean members of the IWC.

There is a considerable amount of effrontery in their response to Japan. The IWC was established in 1946 by fourteen whaling nations to assist the orderly development of the industry by encouraging the proper conservation of whale stocks. But as whale devotion gathered momentum in the 1970s, the United States and environmentalist NGOs induced a number of non-whaling nations to join the IWC, intending to create a majority in favour of ending the whaling industry, in contravention of the IWC’s own charter.

In 1982 this expanded IWC instituted a moratorium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. Japan and its pro-whaling allies such as Norway have merely used tactics that are little different from those that the anti-whalers earlier used against them.

Despite various attempts by animal rights and conservation organisations to obfuscate the issue, only a few whale species, such as the blue and the humpback, can be portrayed as endangered. Most of the other commercially valued species are abundant, and would face no threat of extinction under a properly controlled resumption of the whaling industry.

A good illustration of the kind of humbug that often characterises the anti-whaling forces came from New Zealand’s leftist Minister of Conservation, Sandra Lee, at last year’s IWC meeting. Vowing that she would never stop seeking to protect whales, Ms Lee told delegates that in Maori legend the great whales were portrayed as guides and guardians of humans on the oceans, ‘treasure, to be preserved … the chiefly peoples of the ocean world’.

This is true. But Ms Lee, who is a Maori herself, seems to have omitted a crucial fact from her impassioned speech. Their legends did not prevent the Maori from being avid consumers of the meat, oil and other products of cetaceans. Beached whales were butchered and became the property of the local chief, who would share the carcass with his group. Smaller cetaceans were actively hunted with harpoons and nets.
Furthermore, the official Maori position, as expressed by Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, is opposed to the New Zealand government’s backing of the South Pacific whale sanctuary. Te Ohu Kai Moana supports the right of ‘indigenous and coastal peoples’ around the world to engage in sustainable commercial whaling, and condemns the New Zealand government for not consulting properly with Maori about the whale sanctuary proposal.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Food & Farming, Philosophy, Plants and Animals

Feeling Good About Emmissions

June 10, 2005 By jennifer

“For a small donation, we can all feel a little better about driving our cars knowing that we are doing our bit to reduce the threat of global warming,” suggests Peter Brock at the Greenfleet website.

The idea is that for $40 (tax deductible), Greenfleet will plant 17 native trees on your behalf. These trees will help to create a forest, and as they grow will absorb the greenhouse gases that your car produces in one year (based on 4.3 tonnes of CO2 for the average car).

Greenfleet runs advertisements in The Age, and reader of this blog Norman Endacott had the following comment which was included in a letter to the Editor but not published: “The very modest carbon sequestration achieved by these post-Kyoto activities will always be insignificant in comparison with the huge inexorable fossil fuel usage. Even if those trees survive and prosper, their carbon benefit will reach its plateau or peak within a century, and millions of other people of goodwill will then be asked to cough up their contributions. In any case, what is special about native trees, in this context?”

The largest subscriber to Greenfleet appears to be the Queensland Government. “QFleet has contributed more than $714,000 in Greenfleet subscriptions, which will fund the planting of 433,500 trees in Queensland, re-establishing more than 400 hectares of native habitat,” said Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing Robert Schwarten on 30th March 2005.

This seems like an expensive way to re-establish native habitat in a State where, according to reader of this blog Graham Finlayson, “Just scratch a stick in the dirt and a tree will come up.” (Comment made by Graham in the context of carbon credits and tree clearing restrictions in western Queensland, see post 2nd June.)

Since Norman sent off his letter, Greenfleet have started promoting a new idea, trees to offset airtravel. Greenfleet is now offering to offset greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a one-way flight from Sydney to Melbourne by charging $2.35 (tax-deductible) or one tree.

I wonder where they are going to plant all the trees?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

You Be The Judge (the AEF Poll)

June 9, 2005 By jennifer

I have a little bookmark with the words:
“Whatever you can do,
Or dream you can,
Begin it,
Boldness has genius,
Power & Magic in it. Begin it Now.”

And so the Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) was launched on Sunday, on World Environment Day, in Tenterfield.

It was some years ago that I realized there was a need for a different kind of environment group; an evidence-based environmental group. It was on World Environment Day in 2001, the day the WWF launched its Save the Reef Campaign.

But I never imagined that it was for me to help get it started. I thought some clever ‘other persons’ would realize the need and people like me could then become members.

As it turns out, and as Kersten Gentle told the world on Michael Duffy’s program on Monday, and Melissa Fyfe repeated in The Age yesterday, I am the reluctant but proud Chairman of the AEF.

For some months one of the team has been saying as soon as we/the AEF launch someone will take legal action against us – and we’ll all be ruin. (But we never imagined the issue would be trade mark infringement!)

As it turned out we were issued with a 6-page letter very late last Friday from a legal firm (Arnold Bloch Leibler) representing the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claiming ‘trademark infringement’ and warning us against the Sunday launch.

We went ahead with the launch in Tenterfield anyway.

The legal advice on Monday was that we will not need to change our name, acronym or logo.

But you be the judge.

At the AEF website we have a poll so you can tell us whether you think our logo is anything like the ACF logo.

The questionaire shows the two logos and has only one question – so take the time, give us your advice go to http://www.aefweb.info/index.php.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Poetry

On Plant Rights

June 9, 2005 By jennifer

The following poem was sent in from Ian Beale PhD, Mungallala, SW Queensland, with the comment that it is a response to my post on ‘Eating Whales'(7th June) and Senator Andrew Bartlett’s comment that followed the post.

The Vegetarian’s Nightmare
(a dissertation on plants’ rights)

Ladies and diners 1 make you
A shameful, degrading confession.
A deed of disgrace in the name of good taste
Though I did it 1 meant no aggression.

1 had planted a garden last April
And lovingly sang it a ballad.
But later in June beneath a full moon
Forgive me, 1 wanted a salad!

So 1 slipped out and fondled a carrot
Caressing its feathery top.
With the force of a brute 1 tore out the root!
It whimpered and came with a pop!

Then laying my hand on a radish
1 jerked and it left a small crater.
Then with the blade of my True Value spade
1 exhumed a slumbering tater!

Celery 1 plucked, 1 twisted a squash!
Tomatoes were wincing in fear.
1 choked the Romaine. It screamed out in pain,
Their anguish was filling my ears!

I finally came to the lettuce
As it cringed at the top of the row
With one wicked slice 1 beheaded it twice
As it writhed, I dealt a death blow.

1 butchered the onions and parsley.
My hoe was all covered with gore.
1 chopped and 1 whacked without looking back
Then 1 stealthily slipped in the door.

My bounty lay naked and dying
So 1 drowned them to snuff out their life.
1 sliced and 1 peeled as they thrashed and they reeled
On the cutting board under my knife.

1 violated tomatoes
So their innards could never survive.
1 grated and ground ’til they made not a sound
Then 1 boiled the tater alive!

Then 1 took the small broken pieces
1 had tortured and killed with my hands
And tossed them together, heedless of whether
They suffered or made their demands.

1 ate them. Forgive me, I’m sorry
But hear me, though I’m a beginner
Those plants feel pain, though it’s hard to explain
To someone who eats them for dinner!

1 intend to begin a crusade
For PLANT’S RIGHTS, including chick peas.
The A.C.L.U. will be helping me, too.
In the meantime, please pass the bleu cheese.

Baxter Black
Coyote Cowboy Poetry 1986

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Poetry

GM Food Crops (Part 1)

June 8, 2005 By jennifer

Following are some views on GM food crops. What do you think and why?

“The Overall impact on pesticide use of just the GM crops currently available has been enormous. Reductions in pesticide use from just 8 GM crops in the US have been calculated at more than 21 million kg in the year 2001 alone. GM crops also increased yields by about 1 billion kg, saved more than $1billion in production costs, and reduced the use of tillage in agriculture. Virus-resistant papaya cultivars have saved the papaya industry on the ‘Big Island’ of Hawaii.

China has benefited more from agricultural biotech than any other country in the world, solely due to reduced insecticide use in Bt cotton.”

Rich Roush, September 2004

“Genetically modified food varieties by themselves are equally unlikely to solve the world’s food problems. In addition, virtually all GM crop production at present is of just four crops (soy-beans, corn, canola, and cotton) not eaten directly by humans but used for animal fodder, oil, or clothing, and grown in six temperate-zone countries or regions. Reasons are the strong consumer resistance to eating GM foods and the fact that companies developing GM crops can make money by selling their products to rich farmers in mostly affluent temperate-zone countries, but not by selling to poor farmers in developing tropical countries. Hence the companies have no interest in investing heavily to develop GM cassava, millet, or sorghum for farmers in developing nations.”

Jared Diamond, 6th January 2005 in http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010805G.shtml

“GM crops at their heart are about corporate profits and this is the main objection that NGO organization have with them. They do not want people tied to corporations for their basic food. Witness the farmers in the US that are being prosecuted for saving seed. Also the results of cross-breeding with non-GM crops has not been fully tested and it is almost impossible to predict all the implications. Finally there is no way to stop bees from pollinating non-GM crops with GM crops’ pollen or stop birds eating GM seed and dropping it elsewhere. There have been cases of farmers being prosecuted for illegally growing patented crops that have drifted in from GM crops on the next farm.”

Ender, 27th May 2005 this blog

“GM crops may lead to corporate profits but then so do cardiovascular solutions, greenhouse management strategies,war and so on. What really needs to be said about GM crops is that they have become the sacraficial lamb for a raft of disgruntled, discontented minorities around the western world. It might be globalisation, green politics or organic farming that these people are so passionate about but their line in the sand as it were has become GM crops. Yet scientific discoveries (like the unravelling of DNA) will continue to forge new ways mankind to live smarter, healthier and more comfortable lives. And this is where leaders must recognise, pandering to a form of populism that fosters a distrust of expertise in technical issues is tantamount to leading or relying on ignorance.”

Chris Kelly, 30th May 2005 this blog

“GM food crops could be good, but they could also be bad. I’m torn. In a way I find it sad that we would need to come up with genetically modified crops to solve hunger issues around the world, I also think its good that science can solve difficult problems. I see GM foods as a high tech offering. As a means to solve problems, I wonder if there could be “better” solutions than GM foods to hunger issues, such as better land management, better understanding of climate, reduced social strife and better living standards in poorer countries. I put “better” in inverted commas because I know it is a subjective word, and can appreciate that other people will have a different idea of “better” to me.

I think that companies that push GM are doing so primarily for profit rather than helping to reduce hunger, which makes me skeptical of the benefits as companies report them (which isn’t to say that GM foods couldn’t reduce hunger). I don’t like the term ‘franken foods’ and find I have to filter through much of what I read in the papers on this issue because it is too polarised and emotional. I am similarly sceptical of many environment group claims on the issue. I don’t have a strong POSITION on this issue.”

Steve, 31st May 2005, this blog

“I have no ethical problems with GM foods. I suspect that both their present advantages and health risks have been massively overhyped.”

Ken Miles, 5th June 2005, this blog

What do you think?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Biotechnology

Eating Whales

June 7, 2005 By jennifer

I lived in Africa from 1985 to 1992 and I worked for a period in Kenya with a fellow who grew up along the shores of Lake Victoria.

The first time David saw the ocean was when we traveled together from Nairobi to Mombassa and then on to Malindi doing field survey work.

To commemorate David’s first trip to the coast I suggested we have lunch at a resort just north of Mombassa.

We walked into the buffet lunch, come seafood smorgasbord, and David was incredulous.

“You don’t eat those things,” he said laughing and pointing at the huge bowl of prawns.

They live in the mud and feed-on the crap at the bottom of the lake he went on to explain. He was referring to yabbies.

Diet is cultural. I lived in Madagascar for some years and there was a proverb that went something along the lines, “If you haven’t eaten rice with your meal, you haven’t eaten.”

So should the Japanese be allowed to eat whales?

In today’s The Australian, Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell is reported saying:

The world’s humpback whale population had been reduced by 97per cent by commercial whaling. In the 20 years since commercial whaling had been banned, numbers had still only increased to 25 per cent of the original population. “Now is not the time to start hunting them again”.

So he is running the argument that the Japanese should not be hunting whales because numbers are low. But then the piece in the newspaper went on,

Senator Campbell said he hoped to end the whale kills that Japan conducts in the name of science and was shocked and saddened by recently broadcast images of whale-cooking classes in Japan.

“Anyone who sees a giant and highly-intelligent creature getting harpooned – having a grenade set off inside its head or inside its stomach and if it doesn’t get killed within 20 or 30 minutes they stick an electronic lance in it – if somebody doesn’t get emotional about that there’s something wrong with them.”

In a land-based context there is an argument that sustainable harvesting programs focused on native species can enhance conservation. Bob Beale and Mike Archer writing in the Australian Financial Review (23-28th December 2004) argued that mallee fowl and giant bustard would not be “facing oblivion if we served them up for Christmas dinner instead of Asian chicken and North American turkey”.

Should every thinking environmentalist be vegetarian?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Food & Farming, Philosophy

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 435
  • Go to page 436
  • Go to page 437
  • Go to page 438
  • Go to page 439
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 445
  • 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.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

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