Where is the Nisshin Maru? | Home | Ocean Defenders TV: Nisshin Maru report

FYI - The Nisshin Maru is in the New Zealand Search and Rescue Region (pdf factsheet). So it is good that they are taking this incident seriously, and another good reason for the whalers to listen to what the Clark has to say.

Very well expressed, Melanie. I agree. Now if only Japan would give a damn! Unfortunately their symbolic reaction is to extend their middle finger. The only public reaction they care about is from their own citizens, who are kept in the dark. Perhaps New Zealand should land a group of commandos onboard and secure the ship for towing with Greenpeace's help. They only respect strength anyway. BOYCOTT JAPANESE, ICELANDIC, AND NORWEGIAN PRODUCTS AND TOURISM!!!

Dave on the Esperanza: Eric, Greenpeace uses only non-violent tactics to elicit change - getting involved iwth military action from a sovereign nation is way beyonnd anything we would want to be in involved in right now. And we're NOT calling for a boycott - as I've stated elsewhere, the ultimate responsibility for whaling is just a few people in the Japanese government and business world, and not indicative of the wishes of the Japanese people. I recommend you read this blog post: Why are we going to the Southern Ocean? which explains how we're handling the campaign in Japan.

Have you contacted the Japanese government yet?

Nice to see the Kiwis getting into this at the most senior level. Hard to overstate how important it is that you guys are there now.

A couple of articles worth reading:

Comment: stricken ship is a gift for enemies of whaling
The Times's Asia Editor on the potential impact of the fire on board Japan's largest whaling ship, the Nisshin Maru
Read more »

How to change the world
ENVIRONMENT. Have faith in one's power to change things, writes a Greenpeace founder
Rex Weyler
Special to the Sun
Saturday, February 17, 2007
How to change the world »

Hello Dave on the Esperanza,
I would like to respectfully ask, why is it that you are "not calling for a boycott?"
It seems that money is the only universal language that businesspeople understand. If these "few people in the Japanese government and business world" who are "ultimately responsible" for the slaughtering of whales refuse to take action, then a boycott can convince others to force these people to take action. It seems like a perfectly logical and non-violent way to effect change.
Can you please help me to understand your position?

Hi Franklin - here's what Karli wrote at the start of this trip:

"A recent public survey in Japan showed some interesting results; firstly that 92% of the public were not aware that their government even had a whaling programme that was about to kill more than 850 whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary; and also that 69% of Japanese people did not support whaling on the high seas. As in all countries, the Japanese government is accountable to its people for the policies it follows and how it spends their tax yen. Historically, the anti-whaling movement has been portrayed in Japan as being "anti-Japanese" rather than simply opposing the industry itself. This year, we are focusing on making it clear to Japanese people that we are not against Japan at all; but that we, like the majority of Japanese themselves, do not support their government's high seas whaling programme."
Read more here »

...well the Japanese whalers are saying that if they are able to re-start the N.M.'s engines they will resume the hunt...what now?

Hi Adriana - hard to know what's true, and what's not in the media:

"Maritime NZ spokesman Steve Corbett said talks with the Nisshin Maru late yesterday afternoon had established that the crew had had no luck yet in restarting the engines."
Crew still working on stricken whaler »

While Glenn Inwood, the New Zealand spindoctor for the whalers says:

"No decision has been made yet but the crew is quite confident of getting the Nisshin Maru repaired and restarted. We're hoping within the next 12 hours of getting the repairs done"
Japan may resume whaling if ship starts »

Hi Dave on the Esperanza,
Thank you for your reply.
I think it interesting to note that when we hear someone say, "A recent public survey showed...." most of us automatically believe the results of the study, without even knowing "who" actually did the study, "how many" people were surveyed, what are the demographics, etc.
Perhaps historically the anti-whaling movement was portrayed as anti-Japanese, but with a new generation of people, and in the age of the internet, this lie could be dispelled.
A boycott could help raise awareness of the whale slaughter in the the Japanese public loud and clear. Everybody understands money, whether they think it is Anti-Japanese or not. If they understand that "when the slaughter stops, the money will come back in" they will do what it takes. A boycott is a very clear and historically effective message.

Boycott? Boycott what, ...and to hurt who? Since 99.9% of the world doesn't eat whale meat, there seems to be a boycott already in place for that industry, and one that Greenpeace has already endorsed. Why would we want to punish the economies of other innocent Japanese companies, and the people themselves. That's the attitude that killed only the most poor and improverished of 500,000 innocent children in Iraq, with a 12 embargo imposed on them. Of course all during this time, ...and for the people that imposed it, Saddam didn't give a Sad Dam about anything and continued to live his, and they, their life of luxury. I am not interested in having children go hungry, or punishing the innocent people in Japan that have nothing to do with this. ...and yes, starvation is violent. If you don't think so, ...just ask the any of the 30,000 children that will die with their faces down in the dirt from that today. Just think what it feels like, ...years of suffering, and finally death, from a world that continues to turn away in indifference. Is that what we really want, ...the poorest of the Japanese children to suffer so terribly? Thanks Greenpeace for holding the bottom line here, ...and end to suffering, not expanding it.
p.s. keep hanging out there guys, ...there's a reason they're sitting there for six days now. You can count on it being an ugly one.

p.s. Just wanting to say thank you Echo for your post, and especially for the "How to Change the World" link. That was perfect, and I've made a graphic link to it on my homepage, as my 'phrase of the day', with a little thanks to you there. I can't speak for Greenpeace, ...but personally I've been inspired by your contributions here. Thanks so much, ...GC

We all know there are no dumb questions ;-) so I'm going to ask a dumb question in the hopes that someone may enlighten me. I thought the oil that the Exxon Valdex dumped was heavy, thick, crude oil. Isn't the oil we are talking about with the Nisshin Maru the far less dangerous fuel oil (diesel)...that quickly evaporates much like gasoline? Are we not comparing apples to oranges here? Thanks in advance to those who can explain this to me.

Hi Kathy,

Yes, the Exxon Valdez dumped crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska, whereas the Nisshin Maru is carrying fuel oil and heating oil. We are relying on the same news reports as everyone else, so I do not know what type of fuel oil the Nisshin Maru is carrying. However, marine bunker fuels are used in the majority of large marine diesel engines, and I saw firsthand the impacts of a bunker fuel oil spill.

In December of 2004, the Selendang Ayu ran aground near Unalaska Island in the Aleutian chain. The ship was not an oil tanker, it was carrying soybeans from the Pacific Northwest of the United States to Asia. The Selendang Ayu spilled spilled tons of soybeans and more than 335,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the ecologically sensitive waters off Unalaska island in the Aleutian Island chain. I work for Greenpeace in Alaska, so I went to the site of the spill to witness firsthand the impacts on the environment. I saw salmon streams choked with oil, oiled beaches, thick carpets of oil on coastal waters, and an oil slick that lasted for quite some time. Even with the rough weather of the area (winter in the Aleutians is quite harsh, and wind and weather hampered response, remediation and documentation efforts), over 1600 dead birds were recovered and oiled seals were spotted in the area. Thirty-eight thousand bags of oily debris was removed by hand from oiled shoreline. And that's just what was found and recovered by workers.

At any rate, I think the most important point is that *any* oil or fuel spill is hazardous to the marine environment, regardless of the type of oil that is spilled, be it crude, marine fuel or heating. I think that setting up a hierarchy of "more dangerous" and "less dangerous" types of oil spills misses the point that no oil should be spilled into the environment in the first place. Even oil that is characterized as "less dangerous" will do a lot of damage to wildlife and the environment if spilled.

Hope this helps and thanks for your question.

Melanie

Photo: Melanie monitoring the environmental impacts of the oil spill resulting from the shipwreck of the Malaysian freighter Selendang.
Click here for photograph »

Hello Grateful Child,

What you are talking about that killed 500,000 children in Iraq was not a boycott. It was the inhumane U.N. sanctions that devastated hundreds of thousands of innocent families and their children by limiting their access to critical public health needs. These sanctions did not affect the government’s actions because it wasn’t directed at them. (It was based on the assumption that the Iraqi government would have compassion for their people, which of course they didn't.) In the same vein, the Japanese whaling industry has no compassion for the whales.

I deeply understand and share your concern for humanity. I agree with you, starvation is a form of violence. But I'm not talking about starving “the poorest of Japanese children” here. I am talking about directly cutting off the life-blood of the corporations in the whaling industry, which is money. After all, that is the main reason for the slaughtering of these intelligent creatures.

You ask, “Boycott What, Hurt Who?” The obvious answer is to boycott and "hurt" the corporations who are supporting the killing. Naturally, the boycotts need to affect the key decision makers and companies who are running the whale-slaughter industry. This would include the private company that owns the Nisshun Maru, called “Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha” whose stakeholders consist of Japanese government organizations including the Institute of Cestacean Research.

It is simple to find out who and where the perpetrators are and to target them directly. A quick web-search makes these entities easy to identify, locate, and contact.

This boycott is not a reckless and emotional knee-jerk reaction as the tone of your letter seems to suggest. It is an intelligent and non-violent way to affect change in an industry that hasn’t listened to other forms of arguments.

So don’t misunderstand the goals or intentions here. I believe we are both on the same side. The question at hand is, “what will convince the companies heading the whale slaughtering business to stop the killing?” Obviously their main motivation is money. A financial boycott targeting these corporations, officials, and groups will cut deeply into that motivation. This type of action has endless examples in history that attest to its effectiveness.

Thank you Melanie for your very informative answer. I live on Vancouver Island and have had questions about the impact of fuel oil spills since a yr or so ago when the BC ferry Queen of the North hit Gill Island, at the head of the Douglas Channel. I know this area well and it is alive with wildlife. At the time of the sinking, the news was full of the predicted dire effects on the environment but that aspect of the disaster has dropped out of the news. I do know that, much to our horror, 3 male orcas (A36's) were seen surfacing directly into the spill. These well known "boys" have been seen regularly since, thankfully, with no apparent ill effects. This gave me hope that this type of spill quickly dispersed and although BAD, not nearly as disasterous as the media portrayed.

I really appreciate you taking the time to convey your experiences and informing me and others of the true result of this type of spill. My hat's also off to you with thanks for your part in mopping up the mess in the Aluetians. Like everyone I'm hoping the Nisshin Maru is quickly and safely moved out of there.

What did the Japanese whalers do with all the whale meat that had already been processed before the fire? Will they still use it in their "research"? Will they feed it to their school children?

Hi Franklin...,
...and yes, I'm sure we're on the same side. ...and I agree with most everything you say. My words were not really directed toward you. Greeenpeace already has a boycott on the industries directly responsible (Gordon's for one), and I support that action. What I don't support is the statement by Eric, "BOYCOTT JAPANESE, ICELANDIC, AND NORWEGIAN PRODUCTS AND TOURISM!!!" That, like an embargo would cause unnecessary suffering to only the poorest of people, ...you know, jobs, cost of food, materials, medicines, transportation, etc., ...just like it did in Iraq and Nicaragua. By all means though, let's certainly not buy products from companies that support this carnage. I'm only saying Franklin, ...and I think this is your position on it too, ...that we should never punish innocent children as a way to get to the bad guys, ...no matter how bad they are.
p.s. thanks for that information Melanie, ...and for the question Kathy. It is my thought too, marine diesel engines on large ships burn #4, #6, or heavier fuels. All these are hard to dissipate in water, ...if ever. But even light oils, like #2, diesel, or home heating oil can have disasterous consequenses, and although they dissipate quicker, they enter the water column, and are more toxic to marine life. If you've ever had an oil spill on your driveway, you'll know oils in general do not evaporate like gasoline. It all has to be dug up and replaced. When they have oil spills on land, it is very serious, as it leaches into, and contaminates the ground water, and can seep many hundreds of meters into rivers. This is why many states and counties have imposed bans on installing underground fuel tanks for homes. Here's a little trip down nostalgia lane for you, ...when I was working for an oil company in 1963, we were buying #2 oil for a nickel a gallon off the barge, and delivering it for less than 11 cents a gallon for large tanks. Gas was about 18 cents a gallon. Yeah, I know, ...I'm only illustrating how much money these people are making, ...renewable energy, conservation, and not living a life of excess is the answer.

Note from Adele, GP Web Editor -Just to be clear - as far as I know, we didn't actually boycott Gorton's, we just asked concerned customers to lask Gorton's to use their power to encourage their parent company (Nissui of Japan) to get out of whaling. Greenpeace generally doesn't use boycotts as such.

Me again... I stand corrected, and apologise to Grateful Child! Greenpeace USA did encourage people to stop buying Gorton's products. Internationally, we didn't. My mistake! But anyway, we don't need to worry about it any more...
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/nissui-sealord-gortons

Hi Adele...,
...and thanks. But I didn't know either, that Gorton's had turned a new leaf, ...and though your actions creating public awareness, no longer support whaling. So I apologize to you too, and you can lay at least half the error on me, ...maybe even 51%. Much Love to you Adele, ...you're the best, ...GC

Gorton's, Sealord and Nissui Withdraw from Whaling!