OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

I'd argue that there hasn't actually been an increase in aggression. The "whale wars" have been going on in the Southern Ocean every summer for quite a few years now. What would be motivating Kevin Rudd more, I think, is that this a a pretty important issue to quite a number of Australians, who expected a lot more from our government when they voted for them in 2007. (Polls would have told them this.) And now, with another election looming toward the end of this year, the Labor government has appeared to have done even less than the previous (conservative) government in resolving the ongoing "whaling issue". There appear to be a lot of very disenchanted young people (especially) with this government which promised so much (on this issue, climate change & other environmental concerns) but appears to have achieved very little progress.

I'm sure there are many like minded greens and others who may be dissatisfied with the current Australian government (as they were also with the last). However these folks are usually dissatisfied and are very unlikely ever to be pleased. Rudd's efforts may be futile (or more likely an empty gesture, intended to placate the merely excitable). A gread deal of the "wind" has gone out of the sails of the global warming cult in the last few months. I'm surprised it is still a big issue in Australia. Even Canadians (who have the world's highest per capita GHG emissions) don't seem to care much anymore.

Diplomatic resolution sought over whaling threat
Updated 59 minutes ago
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd shakes hands with Japan's foreign minister Katsuya Okada

During the talks, Mr Rudd repeated his threat to take legal action against Japan over whaling. (AAP: Greg Wood)

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has had a frank discussion about whaling with the Japanese foreign minister Katsuya Okada.

The pair met in Sydney this afternoon, where Mr Rudd repeated his threat to take legal action against Japan if it failed to cease whaling by November.

Prior to the meeting, a spokesman for Mr Okada said it was crucial to reach a diplomatic resolution on whaling in light of the "importance of Australia-Japan relations".

The spokesman also said Japan would seek Australia's "cooperation" over the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd.

Defence relationship

But whaling was not the only issue on Mr Okada's agenda during the first day of a two-day visit to Australia. .... <cont>.

There is no sensible reason to stop any nation that wants to use the resources found in the oceans of the world. The only concern, and one that covers far more than just whaling is controlling the kill.

Many marine ecologists think that the biggest single threat to marine ecosystems today is overfishing. Our appetite for fish is exceeding the oceans' ecological limits with devastating impacts on marine ecosystems. Scientists are warning that overfishing results in profound changes in our oceans, perhaps changing them forever. Not to mention our dinner plates, which in future may only feature fish and chips as a rare and expensive delicacy.

I too love whales and dogs and horses and ... but I'm not about to suggest that others can't and shouldn't eat them.

No fingers extended, but the nations that do the most preaching are some of the biggest hypocrites going.

Overfishing - bad bad bad, and bad. [and not the focus here, or so I'm told.

JTT: Overfishing - bad bad bad, and bad.

MsOlga: Seriously, you believe over-fishing the oceans is OK?

Even if it was, there are many other aspects to this debate, such as the IWC ban on commercial whaling. (There are those who'll argue about the legitimacy of that ban, too, if you've managed to read the back pages of the thread.)

Like, for example, protecting a designated whale sanctuary.

The pro-whaling nations accuse the IWC of basing these decisions upon "political and emotional" factors rather than upon scientific knowledge given that the IWC prohibits all whaling, even though its own Scientific Committee has concluded since 1991 that quotas on some species of whale would be sustainable. They argue the IWC has swayed from its original purpose and is attempting, under the guise of conservation, to essentially grant whales an entitlement to life via an absolute protection from being killed by humans for commercial purposes.[22]

Non-IWC whaling nations have expressed similar sentiments. Canada withdrew from the IWC after the vote to impose the moratorium, claiming that "[t]he ban was inconsistent with measures that had just been adopted by the IWC that were designed to allow harvests of stocks at safe levels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission

such as the IWC ban on commercial whaling.

IWC is a voluntary international organisation and is not backed up by treaty. Therefore, the IWC, in essence, is a voluntary organisation which has substantial practical limitations on its authority. First, any member countries are free to simply leave the organisation and declare themselves not bound by it if they so wish. Second, any member state may opt out of any specific IWC regulation by lodging a formal objection to it within 90 days of the regulation coming into force[19] (such provisions are common in international agreements, on the logic that it is preferable to have parties remain within the agreements than opt out altogether). Third, the IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty imposition.

ibid

Did you figure that was sarcasm, MsOlga?