tagged w/ Greenpeace
-
Greenpeace UK is running a Redesign BP’s Logo Contest that is asking people around the world to rebrand BP logo . Many of these results are, not surprisingly, quite clever and witty. They’re already approaching 700 entries, all of which can be seen on their Flickr page. Few of my favorites here:
http://kaktusjack.com/2010/greenpeace-contest-to-redesign-bp%E2%80%99s-logo/Greenpeace UK is running a Redesign BP’s Logo Contest that is asking people... more
-
-
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/the_daily_spill_diamond_saw_fail_and_bp_should_not_pay_out_dividends
The Daily Spill serves you up the latest developments as oil continues to coat the Gulf.
Forget Plan B, C or D. With how fast their schemes are failing, BP may be soon require the Greek alphabet. So, remember that diamond-tipped saw intended to cut through that troublesome well pipe in order to cap it? Yeah, that got stuck. Most of yesterday went by before it was freed. Now, I kid you not, the company has turned to giant “garden” shears, though it’s unclear when that will begin. Don’t hold your breath. Oh, but just in case you were worried, federal officials assured us that nuclear weapons are not on the table. Nothing would surprise me at this point.
Back on the East Coast, President Obama gave a serious and politically important speech yesterday at Carnegie Mellon University. He finally spelled out the obvious: the Gulf disaster should be a catalyst to pass a climate bill with a price on carbon, and also said he wants to roll back billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks – something he had tried to do in past budget proposals. He also vowed to personally whip votes for a climate bill “in coming months,” which climate advocates have urging for awhile.
While Obama talked policy, other politicians did what they do best (for better or worse): made demands. Alabama Republican state senator Ben Brooks explained that “there’s nothing inherently contradictory” with a small government advocate, such as himself, demanding the very same wimpy government protect public safety. Um, sure, no comment.
Democrats, meanwhile, made some more sensible demands: Sens. Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden rightly told BP it was “unfathomable” that the company is considering pay shareholder dividends before total cleanup costs are known (the latest estimates rise to nearly $40 billion). Florida Sen. Ben Nelson, in a letter, formally asked that the military take charge, and others said BP CEO Tony Hayward’s head should roll. Some news on this should play out when Hayward addresses his investors tomorrow.
Speaking of – the man of the hour has been busy backpedaling, said he was "appalled" by his own “I’d like my life back” remark and admitting to The Financial Times that criticisms of BP’s spill preparedness are “entirely fair.” As for BP’s response since, Vice President Joe Biden seems to believe the company is doing the best it can.
BP and Halliburton are certainly experts at getting politicians to favor their interests. The former hired at least 27 former government insiders to be their lobbyists in the first three months of this year alone, reports the Huffington Post, and is a company with incomparable influence. In a busy donation month, the latter gave $17,000 to candidates this November, Politico reports, several of whom are on committees investigating the oil spill.
And so much for a respite from new offshore drilling. Yesterday, the Minerals Management Service approved the first new shallow oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico since President Obama put a short moratorium in place. The site is a mere stone’s throw from a Louisiana state wildlife refuge. Drilling in deeper waters, for the record, is still frozen, but I’m not sure I get why drilling closer to the shore is better. At the very least, Interior has taken steps to demand more in drilling applications and, as The Hill reports, is asking approved permit holders to resubmit plans if they’d used a loophole that exempted them from environmental review.
And lastly, sometimes being funny pays. Or at least being friends with funny people. The anonymous tweeter behind BPGlobalPR’s fake feed donated $10,000 to the Gulf Restoration Network yesterday.http://environment.change.org/blog/view/the_daily_spill_diamond_saw_fail_and_bp_should_... more
-
-
A quick glance through the scientific literature on the effects of chemical dispersants on marine life leads to two conclusions. One: chemical dispersants were a popular test subject of the disco era, but faded soon after, with research on their effects on marine life going the way of the polyester three piece suit. Two: what little we do know doesn't sound at all good if you are a larval, juvenile, or adult fish, crustacean, mollusk, if you are a seaweed, or coral, or if ... aw, hell, if you live or work on or in or near the ocean, they are bad news.
And this is why BP's refusal to cut back its use of Corexit (a common chemical dispersant) despite direct order from the EPA to do so, is so disturbing. Besides being an outright affront to the authority of the U.S. in her own waters, it risks further and potentially irreversible damage to marine and human life, in exchange for what one ocean conservationist called a "PR stunt."
In theory, chemical dispersants such as Corexit are supposed to correct an oil spill by breaking up the oil slick into small droplets that sink below the surface (but not all the way to the bottom). The idea is that these smaller droplets will disperse through the water column where they can be easily ingested and broken down into "natural products" by bacteria and prevent the slicks from reaching the shore or coating animals at the surface. See here for a video explanation by Norco, makers of Corexit.
The reality is, these are toxic chemicals that have been linked to respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders in people, and have caused developmental problems, cancer, and death for multiple marine species. The little science that has been done concludes with phrases such as: "leads to pathological larval and rapid cytolysis" (translation: diseased babies and rapidly disintegrating cells).
Even industry reports admit that the impact of Corexit on fish is "affected by species, size, maturity, and many other variables." In other words, we have no idea what these chemicals are doing. We do know that adding dispersants can increase toxicity and that Corexit with oil can be more harmful than oil alone. And there's risk of the oil accumulating in the food chain. We know its bad enough that the U.K. banned the type of dispersant BP stubbornly keeps spraying.
The real concern is that BP has sprayed more Corexit into the Gulf than has ever been used before—a world record breaking 700,000 gallons of the stuff (an amount far beyond anything ever studied). And, they are also pumping the dispersants a mile down. There is no telling where that dispersed oil may go, or if it could settle to the bottom, where it would be impossible to remove.
So why is BP insisting on continued use of dispersants when they are likely causing more harm than good? One reason could be that the dispersed oil sure looks less nasty than all those aerial photos of black and rust red crude floating toward shore. And, it seems as though they have some less-than-virtuous incentive to stick with Corexit, which after all, is developed by the industry itself.
So while it may look like things aren't quite so cruddy, there's a lot of dark matter hidden beneath the waves. And chemical dispersants are putting it there.A quick glance through the scientific literature on the effects of chemical... more
-
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/4635783171/
7 Greenpeace activists arrested in anti-drilling protest
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 24, 2010 8:03 p.m. EDT
Greenpeace activists smeared messages on the vessel with raw crude from the Gulf Coast oil spill.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Greenpeace activists want interior secretary to ban new drilling
* Protesters used crude from BP spill to write messages on boat
* Activists boarded private vessel contracted by Shell for Alaska operations
(CNN) -- Seven members of the environmental group Greenpeace were arrested Monday after protesting at a private ship that the group says is scheduled to depart for Alaska this summer as part of a drilling mission.
The group said it was sending a message to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to ban new drilling in the Arctic or any U.S. waters. The ship was docked at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, near the site of the massive BP oil spill that for more than a month has been gushing thousands of barrels of oil daily into the Gulf of Mexico.
Photos from the scene show two protesters repelling off the side of Harvey Explorer, a 240-foot supply vessel, with one holding a sign reading "Salazar: Ban Arctic drilling." The activists also smeared messages -- "Arctic next?" -- on the boat in raw crude from the BP spill in the Gulf.
The seven arrested, between ages 24 and 32, face unauthorized entry charges of a critical infrastructure and an inhabited dwelling, according to the Lafourche Parish County Sheriff's Department. They could face additional charges pending an investigation into the incident, authorities said.
The protest comes as the Obama administration has decided to establish a presidential commission to investigate the disaster and look into federal oversight of offshore oil drilling, safety aboard rigs and environmental protection. Permits to drill offshore were suspended last month pending an Interior Department safety review after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig.
Still, the government is under pressure to issue new permits for offshore drilling as early as next week. The safety review is due this Friday, and the Obama administration will use it to help decide when and how drilling should resume.
The Harvey Explorer is a vessel contracted by Shell for offshore operations off the Alaskan coast that had been scheduled for July.
"The safety and security of this contracted vessel and its crew are a top priority," Shell said in a statement Monday. "While we welcome discussions regarding Shell operations, we are disappointed in the approach taken by Greenpeace today."
Greenpeace and other environmental groups argue there should be no new drilling until the investigation into the disaster is complete, which will take months.
"As long as we continue to rely on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and offshore drilling, we can't prevent future disasters from destroying our oceans and the industries and wildlife that depend upon them," said John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace.
"Pulling the plug on plans to drill in the Arctic would be a first step towards a comprehensive ban on all new drilling in the United States," he said.http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/4635783171/
7 Greenpeace activists... more
-
-
The BP Deepwater Disaster, one month later. Oil specialist and marine biologist Paul Horsman visits the Mississippi Delta to see first hand the oil which is beginning to wash onto the shores of delicate coastal ecosystem.The BP Deepwater Disaster, one month later. Oil specialist and marine biologist Paul... more
-
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/louisiana-oil-spill-2010_n_558287.html
The Huffington Post has updated their stream of photos coming in from the Gulf to include the latest in clean up efforts and images of the oil hitting land.
For the latest photos, check Greenpeace's photostream on Flickr. The organization has had a crew of photographers, activists, scientists, and clean-up volunteers based in the Gulf for weeks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/
This oil spill is on track to become the worst oil spill in history, surpassing the damage done by the Exxon Valdez tanker that spilled 11 million gallons of oil into the ecologically sensitive Prince William Sound in 1989. Unlike the Exxon Valdez tragedy, in which a tanker held a finite capacity of oil, BP's rig is tapped into an underwater oil well and could pump more oil into the ocean indefinitely until the leak is plugged.
Oil hitting the coastlines poses a serious threat to fishermen's livelihoods, marine habitats, beaches, wildlife and human health.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/louisiana-oil-spill-2010_n_558287.html
The... more
-
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10123210.stm
Timber companies and environment groups including Greenpeace, Canopy, and ForestEthics have unveiled an agreement aimed at protecting two-thirds of Canada's vast forests from unsustainable logging.
Over 72 million hectares are included in what will become the world's largest commercial forest conservation deal.
Logging will be totally banned on some of the land, in the hope of sustaining endangered caribou populations.
Timber companies hope the deal will bring commercial gains, as timber buyers seek higher ethical standards.
The total protected area is about twice the size of Germany, and equals the area of forest lost globally between 1990 and 2005.
"The importance of this agreement cannot be overstated," said Avrim Lazar, president and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC).
"We're thrilled that this effort has led to the largest commercial forest conservation plan in history," said Steve Kallick of Pew Environment Group.
"Together we have identified a more intelligent, productive way to manage economic and environmental challenges in the Boreal [Forest] that will reassure global buyers of our products' sustainability."
The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) brings together FPAC's 21 member companies and nine environment groups, many of which have fought a bitter battle against what they have sometimes criticised as rapacious logging.
As part of the agreement, those groups have agreed to suspend criticism of the industry and calls for boycotts.
The Pew Environment Group, which has worked for about a decade on trying to "green" Canada's forestry, said it was "excited" by the agreement.
"We're thrilled that this effort has led to the largest commercial forest conservation plan in history, which could not have happened without both sides looking beyond their differences," said Steve Kallick, director of Pew's International Boreal Conservation Campaign.
Pew notes that the total area covered by the deal is larger than in some agreements currently feted as global leaders, such as the Brazilian Amazon Region Protected Areas project.
Throughout the protected lands - which run right across the country from the Pacific to the Atlantic coasts - companies and environment groups are pledging to work together to implement "world-leading forest management and harvesting practices".
The effects of forest protection on wildlife, particularly caribou, will be monitored; and timber will be certified as coming from sustainable sources.
Pew believes the agreement could be a template for future forest agreements in other parts of the world, as industry leaders respond to an increasingly environmentally-aware public.
"There is a recognition that this is how forestry will be done in the 21st Century, and there's a great interest in getting ahead of the rest of the industry," Mr Kallick told BBC News.
The agreement at present covers companies and environment groups; both parties are looking now for backing and reinforcement from governments.
In the Canadian system that means the national and provincial authorities, and "First Nation" governments of indigenous groups, some of which have already indicated their support.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10123210.stm
Timber companies... more
-
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20005101-36.html
Sometimes these things might actually work: An aggressive, meant-to-shock Facebook and YouTube campaign on behalf of environmental group Greenpeace has caused food conglomerate Nestle to modify its policies regarding the use of palm oil.
IN THE PHOTO: An activist wearing an orangutan mask protesting at Nestle’s Jakarta offices. Nestle dropped Sinar Mas as a supplier amid Greenpeace accusations that the palm oil producer was contributing to deforestation. (EPA Photo)
Nestle announced early on Monday that it has partnered with The Forest Trust, a non-profit group that helps businesses develop practices that harvest forests sustainably, to tackle the social and environmental impacts of its corporate supply chain by severing ties to companies that contribute to deforestation. The first issue addressed will be its use of palm oil--the harvesting of which has been connected to the loss of rainforests and the animal species that inhabit them, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenpeace considers this a major victory: Two months ago, the environmental group targeted Nestle's use of palm oil with a purposely unsettling video that compared eating Kit-Kat bars to snacking on the bloodied appendages of orangutans. When Nestle lobbied to have the video removed from YouTube, Greenpeace turned its force up a notch and encouraged supporters to start posting comments in protest on Nestle's Facebook fan page and to change their profile photos to modified versions of the Nestle logo (i.e. "Killer" instead of Kit-Kat"). The whole thing turned into a particularly ugly social-media mess for Nestle when the manager of the Facebook fan page started getting argumentative and rude. The commenters grew even more vocal, even after the page manager apologized.
Nestle's Monday announcement makes no mention of the digital smackdown that pressured it into making this change, but Greenpeace has been quick to highlight the role of social media as well as more traditional forms of grassroots lobbying.
"With nearly 1.5 million views of our Kit Kat advert, over 200,000 emails sent, hundreds of phone calls and countless Facebook comments, you made it clear to Nestle that it had to address the problems with the palm oil and paper products it buys," read a Monday release from Greenpeace's U.K. division. "Greenpeace campaigners have met several times with Nestle executives to discuss the problems with sourcing of palm oil and paper products. It certainly seemed like things were moving forward in these discussions. But we didn't expect Nestle to come up with such a comprehensive 'zero deforestation' policy so quickly."
Nestle says it had already set a goal to make its palm oil products 100 percent sustainable by 2015. Right now, it's at 18 percent.
So is its partnership with The Forest Trust any more than just posturing? Greenpeace is optimistic. The Forest Trust is "an independent organization we've worked with before (and) will be closely monitoring Nestle's progress," the release from Greenpeace read.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20005101-36.html
Sometimes these things might... more
-
-
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user -Snugg-, via Creative Commons licenseSen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), though down one man, finally released their stab at climate legislation this week. One of the most crucial sections in the bill covers off-shore oil drilling, an issue that was supposed to help solve the tricky math of reaching 60 votes. But since the Deepwater Horizon rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling has become a wedge issue.
Just a few weeks ago, off-shore drilling could have been a point of compromise around which Senators could rally votes to pass the climate bill; now the bill had to strike a new balance to mollify both potential allies who oppose drilling, like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and those who support drilling, like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). The draft that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman released this week allows for expanded drilling but gives states veto power over new projects.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who worked on the bill, said that he had not seen the changes his two colleagues had made since he dropped out of the drafting process—but he looked forward to reviewing their work. Although Sen. Kerry says he thinks the bill can pass, without support from Sen. Graham or another Republican, chances are slim.
Next steps
Now that the two Senators have released the bill, the only work that remains is to pass it.
“I think climate change legislation is dead,” writes Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. His explanation:
“There’s not enough time for a bill to go through the committee process, get passed by the Senate, sent to conference, amended, and then passed by the full Congress before the midterms, and after the midterms Democrats will probably be reduced to 53 or 54 members in the Senate.”
Not everyone agrees that the bill’s chance are so dire, though.
“I think the chances are roughly as good as they’ve ever been in the Senate: low but non-trivial,” says Grist’s David Roberts.
Kerry’s argument
But should green-minded politicos root for the bill’s passage at all? Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman worked closely with energy companies while drafting the bill, and the resulting legislation balances the need to reduce carbon emissions with the interests of prime polluters. The bill includes incentives for old energy industries like coal and natural gas, for instance, and exempts farmers from carbon caps.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry made his case to left-leaning environmentalists. “A comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me — true believers — can’t pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionate I fight on it,” he wrote for Grist. The bill they have, he wrote, can pass, and that victory outweighs the compromises in the legislation.
Responses from the left
On Democracy Now!, Phil Radford, the executive director of GreenPeace USA, said that most environmental groups have given the bill little more than a “tepid endorsement.” Radford squared off on the show with Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress, who supports the bill.
“This will be the first bill ever passed by the Senate, if it were to pass, that would put us on a path to get off of fossil fuels,” Romm said.
The two men were also divided over issues like the impact the climate bill could have on international negotiations.
They agreed, though, there is room for improvement; the only question is whether the politics of climate change will allow for the passage of a stronger bill any times soon. As Kevin Drum wrote, “If you think this year’s bills are watered down, just wait until you see what a Congress with a hair-thin Democratic majority produces.”
Coal and natural gas
Tripping up environmentalists now, though, are the hand-outs to dirty energy industries. The coal and natural gas industry could both benefit from the provisions of the Senate bill, for instance.
On GritTV, Jeff Biggers, a writer and educator who covers the coal industry, explained his frustration:
“The climate bill is a nice first step and a very well meaning effort for someone like Sen. Kerry who’s been working on this issue for 20 years. But at the same time, because of the massive big coal lobby that has poured millions of dollars into lobbying congress on this climate legislation…there are all sorts of little panders and loopholes and exemptions.”
“What we see in this bill is that Sen. Kerry and Lieberman want to ensure coal’s future,” he said.
The booming natural gas industry also had a hand in shaping the bill and benefited from it. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club favor natural gas as an energy source over coal, and as Kari Lydersen reports in Working In These Times, the industry is driving job growth at a time when the economy needs a boost.
But as Alex Halperin reported last month for The American Prospect, in the places where drilling is occurring, like Ithaca, NY, activists are arguing that the environmental risks could outweigh those economic benefits.
Drill or be drilled
That devil’s bargain—risking natural resources for jobs in the energy industry—went the wrong way for the Gulf Coast, and states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida are paying the price even before the oil hits shore.
As I report in AlterNet, the Gulf’s economy could lose billions of dollars and is suffering already from the misconception that its beaches are tarred with oil. With this catastrophe still fresh in voters’ minds, the Senate climate bill proposes pushing new drilling initiatives 75 miles offshore and giving affected states veto power over these projects.
Depending on how long the memory of the Deepwater Horizon spill lasts, politicians could have a good reason to veto drilling. Public News Service reports that 55% of Floridians now oppose off-shore drilling, “almost a complete reversal from one year ago.”
Blame game
Certainly no one is stepping up to take responsibility for the explosion off the coast of Louisiana, as the Washington Independent reports. At a hearing this week, officials from British Petroleum, which was operating the well, Transocean, which owns it, and Halliburton, which was doing contract work that may have caused the problem, all denied wrongdoing and pressed the blame on each other.
It’s starting to look Halliburton played a key part. “The focus is increasingly shifting to the role of Halliburton, which poured the cement for the rig, as well as for another operation that spilled oil off the coast of Australia last August,” writes Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones. The company apparently did not place a cement plug that would have kept gas in the well before emptying it of the mud that was holding in the flammable gas.
Anyone living in a state that could have new drilling off their coast should keep this catastrophe in mind if their politicians are given the option of vetoing new projects.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user -Snugg-,... more
-
-
This Week:
1. State of the Future Report
2. Obama Acts on Climate Change
3. The Gangstas meet again
4. Le Boom Boom!
5. Squatting an airport
6. Earth First! blockade
7. EnCana’s holey pipeline
8. Bobby Mac eats it
9. Jedi Mind Tricks
10. Defending the resistanceThis Week:
1. State of the Future Report
2. Obama Acts on Climate Change
3. The... more
-
-
Lost in the recent headlines was Al Gore's appearance in Denver at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations, an association of the nation's philanthropic leaders. "Time's running out (on climate change)," Gore told them. "We have to get our act together. You have a unique role in getting our act together." Gore was right that foundations will play a key role in keeping the climate scam alive as evidence of outright climate fraud grows.... http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/recent-news/346-believe-in-global-warmingLost in the recent headlines was Al Gore's appearance in Denver at the annual... more
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Offering the first evidence of the complex Senate debate that lies ahead on an energy reform bill, the environmental group Greenpeace said Friday it intends to oppose the legislation that a bipartisan group of Senators intend to introduce next week.
“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary,” Phil Radford, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.
Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.
“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.
Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.
Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.
“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.
That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.
Greenpeace based its analysis of the legislation on information received during a Thursday teleconference with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the bill sponsors. On that call, Kerry outlined specific language that will be in the bill that was drafted along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36277.html#ixzz0mEFd9KOiOffering the first evidence of the complex Senate debate that lies ahead on an energy... more
-
-
A global whaling moratorium took effect in 1986 but three nations -- Japan, Norway and Iceland -- have continued hunting whales in spite of it, killing roughly 1,700 annually in recent years. The U.S. and other anti-whaling countries have sought to strike a deal that would create an international monitoring system to ensure a steadily-declining whale hunt.
Under the new proposal, whalers initially would be permitted to take 400 Antarctic minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an area that includes the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary, and that number would fall to 200 over the next decade. Also in the Southern Hemisphere, the number of fin whales that could be taken would start at 10 and decrease to five during the same period.
In the Northern hemisphere, hunters would be permitted to take 120 common minke whales off the coast of Japan for the next 10 years annually, along with 40 common minke whales offshore and 50 sei whales annually.
"Some whaling will be the price to pay for the reduction in the number of whales killed," IWC chair Cristi?n Maquieira said in an interview. "I don't think anybody will be happy with the numbers, but what I'm trying to achieve is a situation where everybody is willing to sit down at the table because they see something there that otherwise they would be unable to obtain."
Maquieira, of Chile, cautioned that details of the proposal could change between now and the IWC's late June meeting in Morocco, where it would need the support of three-quarters of the delegates for passage.
"This is a bet I'm making. This is not a 'take-it-or-leave-it' proposal," he said, adding that he knows the very idea of proposing a resumption of commercial whaling is "a very controversial approach."
Environmental groups are lambasting the plan as a dangerous concession to pro-whaling nations. While some of the species targeted by the three nations, such as common and Antarctic minke whales, are numerous, others are more imperiled, such as fin, humpback and sei whales.
Greenpeace U.S. Oceans Campaigner Phil Kline said it was "outrageous to allow whaling in an internationally-recognized whale sanctuary" in the Southern Ocean. "Saying you are opposed to commercial whaling, but supporting quotas to kill whales is disingenuous and merely political posturing towards Japan. It is also a less than auspicious way to mark the 40th anniversary of Earth Day."
Obama administration officials have not indicated whether they will endorse Maquieira's proposal. "The United States will carefully review the proposal put forward by the Chair and the Vice Chair," said Monica Medina, America's IWC commissioner.
The Japanese government, which continues to hunt whales on the grounds that it constitutes scientific research, did not issue an immediate reaction to the IWC plan.
In an interview this week, Japanese IWC commissioner Joji Morishita said his nation was "engaged in the process" of negotiating a whaling compromise, but would not indicate what precise terms Japan is willing to accept.A global whaling moratorium took effect in 1986 but three nations -- Japan, Norway and... more
-
-
It all started with Sting, this fad for owning one's very own patch of tropical rainforest, though it is probably unfair to blame him entirely for creating the boom industry that buying up forests piecemeal has become. It is 20 years since the musician first set foot in Brazil and pledged to fight the cause of the Yanomami Indians, setting up the Rainforest Foundation to protect forests and their indigenous inhabitants. Today, protecting forests has acquired a more international purpose.
Climate change, rather than assuring the livelihoods of local people, has become the issue. Celebrities and politicians, and many others just in search of a quick buck, are falling over each other to advocate plant-a-tree conservationism as a salve to global warming. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&Itemid=27&id=27%3Athe-joomla-communityIt all started with Sting, this fad for owning one's very own patch of tropical... more
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
