Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

News

International Whaling Commission Faces Revolt from North Atlantic

By

 

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.  

US Democrats Poised to Embrace Offshore Oil Drilling

By

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  

Eating Whale in Tokyo

By

Some people worry about whether a particular food tastes good, others whether it is healthy, while some concern themselves with the ethics of food production and consumption. 

 

There are two criteria that I consider valid when it comes to ethical food choice: 1. Is the harvest of the animal sustainable, and 2. Is the killing humane.   

 

Whaling by the Japanese is undertaken in accordance with a strict quota system to ensure populations are not depleted and every effort is made to get a quick and painless kill including through the use of a grenade tipped harpoon. 

 

So I had no problems with the ethics of eating whale when I visited a restaurant that specializes in whale in downtown Tokyo recently with well known blogger, David.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, whale tastes good, at least when it is cooked. 

 

Our meal started with a green salad containing crunchy whale blubber. 

 

 

My favourite dish though comprised lightly peppered whale steaks.

 

 

 

But several of the dishes comprised elegantly presented raw whale meat including cold raw morsels of heart and tail.   

 

 

 

 

I didn’t enjoy these at all.

 

Later in the meal we were provided with our own cooking pot which we filled with whale tongue and an assortment of vegetables.

 

 

 

 

 

Later David added some raw egg and noodles.

 

 

 

All in all it was a fun evening and I can recommend whale – but it’s definitely best cooked.

 

 

——————-

This is my second post on whales and whaling from Tokyo, the first is here.  

Give your Comment Colour

By

Have your seen those pictures of ‘Luke Walker’ and ‘Graeme Bird’?  Well if you would like one, there are some instructions here.

 

Emissions Trading Now Law in New Zealand

By

The New Zealand Government’s climate change legislation has been passed into law.

 

“The Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill has implications for every household and the potential to change the make-up of the labour force as environmental factors gain increasing importance in business.  It will eventually bring all sectors of the economy under a regime which sets limits on the amount of greenhouse gas they can emit.  Those that breach their limit will have to buy credits from those that are below their cap. Electricity comes under it in 2010, transport in 2011 and agriculture in 2013. 

“Climate Change Minister David Parker launched the third reading debate, saying he was proud New Zealand had risen to meet the greatest challenge facing the world.”

———————-

Parliament Passes Climate Change Bill, The National Business Review, September 10, 2008

Sea Levels Can’t Rise by MORE than 2 Metres by 2100

By

 

In 2006, in his famous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claimed sea levels would rise by 20 feet (six metre). 

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more conservative, suggesting a rise of no more than 0.60m by 2099 in its 2007 report.

 

But in March last year a fellow called Robyn Williams, who has a monopoly on the broadcasting of science programs on Australia’s ABC, scared us with claims sea levels could rise by over 100 metres in the next century because of increases in the rate of ice melt in Greenland and western Antarctica. 

 

A study of sea level rise from ice melt in Greenland and western Antarctica has just been published in Science and concludes that a rise of 0.8 metres is possible by 2100, but MORE** than 2 metres “physically untenable”. 

 

Research scientists W.T. Pfeffer, J.T. Harper and S.O’Neel calculated how much ice and water would need to be lost from Greenland and Antarctica for a two metre rise, then how fast contributing glaciers would need to move in order to dump that much ice, and concluded that a two meter rise in sea level by 2100 would require significantly faster ice velocities than had ever been reported before.

 

Of course at the moment it is unclear how much warming is actually occurring at the Antarctic, with some suggesting a general trend of cooling there in accordance with the recent global trend.  But if the melting starts again at the Antarctic, and continues in the Arctic, it is perhaps reassuring to know, that even under a worst case scenario sea levels should not rise by more than 0.8 metres in the next 100 years. 

 

 

————-

** I’ve added the word ‘more’ included to the title of this piece as Pfeffer et al claim it is physically untenable to suggest a rise of more than 2 metres – not up to 2 metres as I suggested in the original post.  Thanks to Luke and others for pointing this error out.

 

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise, W. T. Pfeffer,  J. T. Harper, S. O’Neel, Science, 5 September 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 – 1343. DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099