Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Sailor Kazutaka Makita Dies at Antarctic

By

“Today, the crew of the Nisshin Maru [the mother ship for the Japanese whaling fleet in Antarctica] were able to search the area of the vessel that caught fire. It is with great sadness they have reported finding the body of sailor Kazutaka Makita, who succumbed to the effects of the fire.

“He was located at 08:20 am (local time) on the second deck close to where the fire began and quickly spread throughout that area.

“Mr Makita, 27, was from Kagoshima Prefecture, south of Kyushu Island. He has played an important role aboard Nisshin Maru.

“This is deeply saddening. The Institute of Cetacean Research and Kyodo Senpaku express their heartfelt sympathy to Mr Makita’s family,” Dr Hatanaka and Mr. Yamamura said.

My condolences to the crew of the Nisshin Maru and the family of Kazutaka Makita.

Europeans Don’t Regulate ‘Filth’ in Food, Just GM – A Note and Paper by Andrew Apel

By

The European Union does not regulate food ingredients which, in the US, would be considered “filth.” This seems at first to be an impossible conclusion, as it claims proof of a negative. Yet, that is the conclusion, and it’s not because these regulations have not yet been found. Rather, it’s because the European Union has specifically exempted such ingredients from regulation.

Even after reading the European legislation which exempts “extraneous matter, such as, for example, insect fragments, animal hair, etc.” from regulation, it remains difficult to believe. It becomes more understandable, though hardly more palatable, when placed in the context of the trade issues involved. In short, Europe has lowered its food standards in order to lower trade barriers between member nations. Scarcely anything could make this more explicit than the Commission’s declaration that trade disturbances based on the Precautionary Principle are problems which Europe must enact laws to prevent. Even so, there is something more explicit: the food regulation designed to address the ‘problem of precaution’ declares these contaminants are “not food,” and therefore, not subject to restrictions on food.

Much of the rhetoric which surrounds the use of engineered crops for food production makes use of the notion of ‘contamination,’ a theme avidly promoted by activists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the European Union passed legislation which declared ingredients from engineered crops to be ‘contaminants’ on a par with insect fragments and animal hair. The result: they would either not be contaminants, and present a mere “quality” issue, or they would be ‘not food,’ and not subject to food law.

An obvious paradox arises when trade in safe food would flourish in Europe if it were legally defined as ‘contaminated.’ Likewise, another paradox when trade in food actually ‘contaminated’ is expressly exempted by food safety legislation. There is yet a third paradox–when the first two paradoxes coexist within the same legal system.

All this can easily be explained in a European system which gives priority to free trade among its member states over food safety and the precautionary principle, and inverts these interests to defend trade interests against outsiders…

Read ‘The Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe’ by Andrew Apel here: http://www.cropgen.org/european_food.pdf

Who are the Beneficiaries of Large High Intensity Bushfires? by Roger Underwood

By

It is only February, but 2006/7 is already shaping as one of Australia’s worst bushfire seasons. The extraordinary fires in Victoria have captured the headlines, but there have also been big, intense and damaging bushfires in Tasmania, West Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. These succeed the shocking fires in eastern and south-western Australia every summer over the last 5 years.

There are many interesting issues relating to this new prevalence of big, nasty bushfires. Bushfire management in Australia reached its peak between about 1975-1990. But despite all the technical innovations since then, the huge expenditure on aerial water bombers and the vast armies of fire fighters with their wondrous equipment, bushfire management in Australia has regressed to the situation that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s. In other words, whenever bad fire weather occurs, unstoppable fires ravage the bush.

It is also curious how the recent disasters have come to be accompanied by a spirit of defeatism amongst our leaders. Bushfires, it seems, are an Act of God, a natural phenomenon which cannot be prevented. Lie back and think of England!

This line of thinking is not just an example of gutless leadership, it is logically flawed and flies in the face of decades of research into bushfire science and centuries of human experience. What is going on?

I was once advised by a grizzled public servant of the old school “if you want to understand any puzzling social or political issue, look for the beneficiaries.” Who on earth might benefit from the regular occurrence of huge, hot bushfires?

While the correct answer is “no-one” it is not hard to find people who use the big hot fire to their political or financial advantage. For example I have heard environmentalists portraying the recent fires in Victoria and WA as a direct consequence of global warming. They quite unambiguously assert that unless we unquestioningly adopt their political agenda on climate change, there will be more horrible bushfires. This can easily be shown to be crooked thinking, but it is an effective line because of the current hysteria about global warming.

The media can be seen as a beneficiary of big nasty bushfires as these provide highly newsworthy, truly front page or top-of-the-bulletin stuff. Journalists are served up with wonderful hero stories, disaster stories and controversy stories on a plate. Bushfires are tremendous drama, complete with cataclysmic vision of houses and forests going up in flames, farmers shooting burnt sheep, sad people raking through the remnants of their houses picking up twisted trinkets, hillsides of blackened forest. To the media (and of course to their clients the viewers and readers), big hot fires arouse intense interest and excitement; few things outside war provide more opportunities to exploit the gamut of human emotions or to experience them vicariously.

Then there are the Fire Chiefs, resplendent in their American World War 2 General’s uniform. “Bushfire management” these days has largely morphed into “bushfire fighting”, a thrilling battle to be fought by Emergency Services staff who have been waiting in the wings for this very moment. I am not criticising our top Firemen. They are doing the job they are appointed to do and all would be equally dismayed by the human misery and environmental damage caused by intense bushfires. Nevertheless, when the Big Fire declares war, their 15 minutes of fame arrives. The regiments of firefighters are amassed and despatched; the squadrons of bombers and helicopters are unleashed; the support and technical units are rushed to the battle. Fire Chiefs are nightly seen on the news giving high profile briefings to politicians and the media, planning strategies and dictating the tactics at the front. This is war, and war is hell. But war is also The General’s Big Moment, his hour upon centre stage.

I also wonder about the money, and who gets it. Bushfire fighting in Australia has become horrendously expensive. In particular, unbelievable sums are spent hiring aerial equipment and firefighters from overseas. I am convinced that if the money spent hiring overseas equipment and importing (and paying) inexperienced overseas firefighters was channelled instead into re-creating the permanent force of firefighters who once occupied the nation’s forest districts, we would be financially better off and have a superior fire management system.

Bushfire research is another interesting and complex issue. There is a considerable band of academics in Australian universities who are associated with and at least partly funded by the Bushfire CRC. None of these people like to see people and houses being burnt, but they all know that every big, nasty fire helps to underpin the security of their research grants, guarantee future funding and ensure desirable academic side-effects such as overseas conferences, publishable papers, and graduate students.

Finally there are those politicians who have learned how to make a name for themselves from a bushfire. They do this by the generous authorisation of huge sums of money for suppression at the very height of the fire, turning up at the control point and shaking the hands of smoke-grimed firefighters, commiserating with people who have lost everything, and looking grave but intelligent in a media briefing. After the fire they disperse largess from the government coffers to compensate those of their constituents who have been burnt-out, and promise more money for fire fighting equipment and research.

I am by no means saying that these “beneficiaries” are the cause of the disastrous decline in the standard of bushfire management in Australia over the last 15 years. We are all to blame for the inept political leadership and government dysfunction which are at the root of the problem.

What really worries me is that while God and Global Warming are cast as the villains, nothing will change. It just means that sensible investment in programs of bushfire prevention and preparedness, damage mitigation and community education continue to be set aside in favour of a self-fulfilling prophecy of apocalypse. Those who support (for example) an effective level of prescribed burning in the national parks, can safely be ignored. God and Western Civilisation are ordaining killer bushfires and we can do nothing about it! The fire and brimstone prophets of the Old Testament are back on the job.

by Roger Underwood
Perth, Western Australia

Roger is a former General Manager of CALM in Western Australia, a regional and district manager, a research manager and bushfire specialist. Roger currently directs a consultancy practice with a focus on bushfire management. He lives in Perth, Western Australia.

Pardoning Jenny Cracknell’s Flatulence

By

It is not enough to say “excuse me” when you next fart. According to a new company ‘Easy Being Green’, if you really care about the planet you should be prepared to pay something. That’s because flatulence contains methane, a greenhouse gas thought to be contributing to global warming.

The front page of today’s The Australian, features a story today about a grandmother who’s whose daughter spent A$20 to offset two years’ worth of flatulence.

So now, when Mrs Cracknell farts she feels OK because the damage to the planet has been offset.

It seems a rather Catholic approach; the idea that it’s OK to do something as long as you pay some sort of penance and in this way is pardoned.

That’s what it’s really all about isn’t it? That you can buy the right to fart?

Some diets are likely to result in more farting. At least I think I have more flatulence when I’ve eaten a lot of lentils. Maybe we should ban lentils?

Maybe we should just ban capitalism? It has after all created the wealth to support a large intellectual class with nothing better to do than count the number of times its members fart over a two year period.

I mean how else would Mrs Cracknell know that $20 was enough?

Greenpeace Offers to Tow Japanese Out of the Antarctic

By

Last year Greenpeace’s little ship tug the Arctic Sunrise rammed the Nisshin Maru, the mother-ship for the Japanese whaling fleet in the Antarctic. Remember the photographs?

But this year, following a fire on the Nisshin Maru and the evacuation of most of its crew, Greenpeace is now offering help.

The Esperanza, another ship in the Greenpeace fleet, could tow the Nisshin Maru to New Zealand.

Greenpeace says the ship must be moved because it represents a threat to the environment, in particular 1.3 million litres of fuel could leak into the ocean if the ship flounders.

The Japanese have said there is no immediate threat, “Fears that this might turn into some environmental disaster are premature. The vessel is not drifting, it’s not listing and it’s not leaking. The Nisshin Maru is stable and the fire has been contained to one area well away from any fuel and oil storage.”

That the huge Japanese mother-ship, the Nisshin Maru, could be towed out of the Antarctic by arch enemy, Greenpeace, no doubt represents an ultimate embarrassment – a worst nightmare for the Japanese.

Pop-Culture Wrong on US: A Speech by Kurt Volker

By

According to Kurt Volker, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs speaking in Berlin a couple of days ago, the US is doing more than its bit to reduce greenhouse gas emmission infact:

“The United States, and this Administration, care deeply about climate change. We agree that human activity contributes to global warming. We support the recent IPCC report, in which U.S. scientists played a leading role.
We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have made tremendous investments in reducing emissions. We are working multilaterally to do so. We are continuing these efforts.

These efforts are producing results that stand up favorably against anyone in the world.
Just because we haven’t joined the Kyoto Protocol doesn’t make any of these statements less true.”

Furthermore, according to Mr Volker:

“Now, I know there is a deeply held view among many in Europe that the U.S. Government doesn’t get it. That we don’t care about climate change, that we are doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that Europe, while perhaps not perfect, is doing a far better job of tackling the issue than the United States. This proposition–no matter how simple, no matter how widely held, and no matter how much it fits a pop-culture “blame-the-United States” paradigm–is completely wrong, on every point…

Read the full speech entitled ‘Post-Kyoto Surprise: America’s Quiet Efforts to Cut Greenhouse Gases Are Producing Results’ here: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/80465.htm

Now does he have a point, or not?