"Whaling as a business hardly justifies the environmental costs" - former Japanese whaling official
Remember my blog from a couple of weeks ago, Killing whales to reduce climate change? I don't think so...?
It was about an article in the English-language newspaper, The Japan Times, which quoted Kunio Yonezawa, "a former IWC commissioner and now head of the Japan Overseas Fishing Association", who claimed that whaling is "a green alternative to modern farming".
He also claimed that "'it is a much better way ecologically in terms of climate change instead of (eating) land animals, particularly (when you consider) animal husbandry,'... To produce 1 kg of beef, it takes 18.4 kg of COe greenhouse gas emissions, whereas to produce one kilogram of whale meat it takes 2.9 kg of COe''.
Now a Shigeko Misaki has written a rather terse letter to the Japan Times, countering Kunio Yonezawa claims. Ms Misaki is the author of "The History and Science of Whales," is former advisor to the Japan Whaling Association and former counselor at the infamous Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR). The ICR, you might recall, are the pseudo-scientific agency that carry out Japan's Research Whaling expeditions.
Ms Misaki writes:
"...I now find myself retired and severed from much of the controversy over whaling. However, Internet reports of whaling "progress" thus far persuade me that this season is the most opportune time for Japan's government to decide to withdraw all whaling operations from the Southern Ocean."
"I say this because I believe that pelagic whaling does not contribute to the prevention of global warming. Just think of the expensive fuel the Japanese whaling fleet consumes en route to the Antarctic, plus that consumed by the freezing ship for transporting the byproducts of whaling to the Japanese market. Over the years, Japanese research ships have made a mess on the ocean when fire broke out due to poor management of the vessel. Add to that the mess made by animal rights groups eager to attack the whaling ships."
"Whaling as a business hardly justifies the environmental costs. Talk about "food mileage" has not touched on whale meat. Why doesn't the government consider it more seriously, and cease whaling in any form, except small-scale coastal whaling?"
It's remarkable to have a former member of the whaling establishment like Ms Misaki openly criticise Japan's whaling, and what's more, to do so in an English-speaking publication, which will doubtless draw more international attention. While she doesn't outrightly question Japan's whaling in principle, maybe she's drawing attention to a possible honourable exit strategy for the whalers - to use rising fuel costs, concern for the climate and food miles as a reason for ending whaling.
Meanwhile, in Japan, we're still dealing with the "Tokyo Two" situation; Greenpeace Japan exposed a scandal involving the corrupt and powerful whaling industry (which is funded with taxpayers' money). Two of our activists, Junichi and Toru are now awaiting trial for intercepting a box of stolen whale meat, and delivering it to the police.
More here »
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
Shigeko Misaki also co-authored a very inaccurate book "The Truth Behind the Whaling Dispute" with former Japanese alternate Commissioner to the IWC, Masayuki Komatsu.
Posted by: John Bowler | August 5, 2008 7:09 PM
Dave, consumption of fuel to transport food around the place occurs with all sorts of activities; whaling is no different in that respect.
But even if one looks at fuel consumption in isolation (as Misaki does in her letter, and with respect to whaling only), one doesn't need to be a cetacean biologist to realise that the amounts of fuel consumed transporting the some hundreds of thousands of tonnes of bad-for-the-environment beef from Australia to Japan each year is many many times more significant than the fuel consumption expended on transportation of whale meat by Japan's whaling operations.
So, "blaming whaling for climate change would be like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation".
Furthermore, Greenpeace burns fuel to sail boats around the place, and you aren't even doing it for neccesary activities such as food provisioning, but merely to raise funds for further counter-productive propaganda and future fund raising activities (a vicious circle).
On relative merits, if anything should stop it should be Greenpeace's activities, first and immediately.
But I digress... What Misaki thinks about activities such as beef production relative to whaling activities is unclear from this letter, to say the least.
John, "inaccurate" is a word better used to characterise the reams of nonsense that Greenpeace churns out. Take the spin about the Two Tokyo Thieves as a recent example.
Posted by: david | August 6, 2008 3:05 AM
John,
In what exactly is Misaki's co-authored book "very inaccurate"? And what are your credentials to be able to make such a critic, apart being from GP?
Posted by: isanatori | August 6, 2008 5:46 AM
As I pointed out elsewhere: in all fairness David, Misaki only wrote a four paragraph letter to
The Japan Times - brief, and to the point. I'm not sure where should could
have shoved in a piece about beef too. Perhaps you should take take that up
with Ms. Misak herself, maybe via The Japan Times letter's page? I'm sure you can contact her via the Institute for Cetacean Research.
I think you're getting a little confused: Greenpeace isn't blaming whaling for climate change; you're the one saying that whaling is *good* for climate change. Misake is criticising Yonezawa's claims in that regard.
Finally, for a person who likes to spend time hanging out with us here on Making Waves, you do come across as terribly critical sometimes. Yes, our ships burn fossil fuels, tho the Rainbow Warrior has sails, and the Esperanza has kind of a diesel-electric hybrid system that uses much less fuel than a conventional system. Alas, these are the best propulsion systems available to us right now, but as the technology progresses, we'll be incorporating better and cleaner options.
It's not pretty sometimes, having to use ships to do our work, but we're lucky to be one of the few major NGOs equipped to work at sea. This has come in handy for humanitarian work - the Rainbow Warrior has been seconded to MSF twice in recent years - once in Indonesia, following the Tsunami, and in 2006, to delivery medical aid to Beirut during the Israeli blockade of Lebanon.
Having ships allows us to shine a light on environmental issues way beyond the horizon - whaling, destructive fishing, nuclear testing and dumping, shipping of illegal timber, and lots more.
We're not about to start using rowboats to cross the Southern Ocean!
As for the Tokyo Two, it might be worth reading up on the matter over here Whale meat scandal and freeing the Tokyo Two, in order to fully understand the issue.
Posted by: Dave Walsh | August 6, 2008 1:03 PM