A Whale of a Sale

Far into the frigid Southern Ocean, the Ady Gil strikes a Japanese whaling boat, the Shonan Maru No. 2, shooting butyric acid and shining lasers into the sailors’ eyes. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society members ready their firearms and unleash thick ropes to entangle the Japanese’ turbines. Unthreatened, the Shonan Maru No. 2 smashes the Ady Gil, destroying the multi-million dollar American vessel and triumphing once again in the whaling war. Conflicts like these between pro-whaling countries and conservationist groups are rising due to increasing whaling sustainability concerns. Though commercial whaling is now illegal, countries like Japan and Norway avoid the moratorium and continue their practices as desired. To fix this issue and prevent further violence, United States environmental scientists have proposed a whale market trading system,¹, which would allow countries and individuals to purchase limited whaling licenses. However, a whale market quota-trading scheme would not resolve conflicts between whale conservationist groups and pro-whaling countries nor assist whale conservation. I believe this scheme would fail to solve the current whaling system’s environmental, economic, and moral issues, leading to further conflicts over an organism that the marine ecosystem cannot afford to lose.

The whale market quota-trading scheme idea entails an international body, the International Whaling Commission, issuing a certain number of permits that would allow a certain number of whales to be killed. Individuals and countries around the world would then be able to sell or purchase permits from each other. Whale conservation groups or anti-whaling countries could potentially purchase them too, but the permits would go unused. The idea is controversial, but it is clear to me that the scheme will fail.

A whale harpoon gun
http://flic.kr/p/9hxA5B

The proposed whale market quota-trading scheme's primary mission is to permit sustainable whaling. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), a voluntary international body that works to review and create measures that will govern whaling around the world, works to “provide for the complete protection of certain species,” a goal ensuring sustainable whaling. However, the quota-trading scheme implemented by the IWC would not result in environmental sustainability because the IWC doesn't have the authority to determine or enforce a sustainable number of whale kills. Historically, the International Whaling Commission has found it difficult to determine how many whales can be killed sustainably. According to Holly Doremus, director of the Environmental Law program and the co-director of the Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment at Berkeley Law School, at annual conventions, “the IWC routinely set unsustainable harvest quotas, and whale populations dropped rapidly.” We can’t trust the IWC to set an appropriate whaling level, especially because it failed to prevent more than 33,500 whale killings since it established a moratorium on whaling.

A new market scheme would also fail to make whaling more sustainable because if all the quotas were fulfilled, the number of whales killed would be the same as the number killed today by the Japanese, who currently avoid the moratorium by claiming whales for “scientific research.” Thus, the potential exists that the quota-trading scheme wouldn’t improve environmental conditions. 

http://flic.kr/p/5YvPY3

Finally, the most fragile populations of whales, endangered species, would not be protected sufficiently. The environmental scientists’ proposal¹ suggests a $13,000 minke whale quota price and a $85,000 endangered fin whale quota price. While the endangered whale price is significantly higher, making the quota less attractive for whalers, it also may be too expensive for anti-whaling conservationist groups or individuals to purchase. As a result, fewer endangered whales would be protected, certainly causing more environmental damage than the quota-trading scheme could avoid because any level of endangered whaling is detrimental  The scheme would not fulfill the proposers’ environmental goals, leading to unsustainable whaling, fewer endangered species, and further unrest between conservationist groups and whalers.

The whale market quota-trading scheme is an attempt to solve whaling controversy economically, involving markets across the globe to purchase and trade quotas in a fair financial system. Researchers and economists hope that anti-whaling organizations will purchase quotas to directly prevent whale killings. However, it’s highly unlikely that conservationist bodies could scrounge up enough funds each year to purchase many whales. Anti-whaling groups have already heavily invested in other forms of anti-whaling campaigns and may want to use their funds towards ending whaling altogether, not towards a system that can encourage whale killing.

Reporter Christopher Mims of Grist outlines another economic challenge for the quota-market trading scheme. He asserts that the eighty-nine countries in the IWC are unlikely to agree on a global market plan, making the scheme extremely difficult to implement and administrate. The greatest logistical difficulty would be determining the distribution of quotas to the countries fairly; balancing whaling country needs, anti-whaling country desires, and indifferent member country rights would surely lead to heated debate at the annual convention of the International Whaling Commission.

The comparison to current "cap-and-trade" air pollution systems is the most prominent evidence economists provide to make the case for the market scheme. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency issues an overall cap on pollutant emissions, and companies can trade their individual allowances, rewarding industries that pollute less. Though the systems have many similarities, the success of the current cap-and-trade system cannot be translated for whale market quota-trading. For example, sulfur oxides are controlled by cap-and-trade, but they are emitted as the result of an activity that most people agree is necessary, electricity production. Few people argue that electricity production is immoral and should be halted, unlike whaling. Cap-and-trade systems also require intense regulation and monitoring to be successful, a difficult task for the IWC. Whale market quota-trading would be a poor version of a cap-and-trade system that would not be economically viable for reasons including lack of funding by conservationists, logistical difficulties, and the incorrect use of a cap-and-trade system. Therefore, whaling would continue and conservationist groups would continue their warfare.

Using an economic scheme to solve whale violence and controversy is flawed because  it avoids the fundamental issue of morality. The International Whaling Condition’s struggle has always been about the non-economic ethics of whaling, so it cannot be solved with an economic program. Unlike fishing, whaling receives special attention because whales are believed to be intelligent and socially unique. Don’t you agree that whales are majestic creatures to be revered? Conservationist groups will oppose any amount whaling, so a system that requires that they pay whalers to stop an unethical problem will not please them. For example, Greenpeace unkindly refers to the market scheme as just another “attempt to legitimize commercial whaling.” They will not rest until all whaling ends.

At the same time, indigenous people that participate in subsistence whaling argue that their history of whaling gives them the right to continue whaling, unveiling another market scheme moral issue. Indigenous populations have a tradition of whaling and rely on the animals’ meat and materials, so whaling policy should consider them especially because they do not have the resources to purchase quota licenses.

http://flic.kr/p/8RW6BK

Lastly, and most controversially, stands the ethical battle of naming a price on a living being. According to the environmental scientists that proposed the idea, “A fervent anti-whaler will be quick to argue that you cannot and should not put a price on the life of a whale; a species should be protected irrespective of its economic value”¹. The right of humans to sell intelligent animals as a natural resource remains a cause of great debate in the IWC. The moral conflicts between pro- and anti-whaling groups will still be present if a market-trading scheme is implemented, so violence will continue.

If the International Whaling Commission hopes to prevent sea violence and sustain a healthy ocean and whale population, it needs to look past the whale market quota-trading scheme. Such a system would not promote an environmentally sustainable whale population, make sense economically, nor properly address moral concerns. While the market could potentially reduce the number of whales killed, the IWC lacks the authority to properly employ the system¹, and it would not end the continuous “whale wars.” Whales are extremely vital to everyone; they help balance the marine food chain, offset carbon emissions, provide a source of income in whale-watching tourism, and have led to a variety of discoveries and advancements in technology and knowledge about marine ecosystems. Because current whaling is not sustainable and a market trading system would be equally ineffective, the only logical solution is to prohibit all whaling. I believe that only this solution would prevent violence on the sea and damage to the whale population, two issues that are becoming increasingly dangerous and difficult to manage.

Works Cited

1. Costello, Christopher, Steven Gaines, and Leah R Gerber. “Conservation Science: A Market Approach to Saving the Whales.” Nature. 11 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html#/affil-a>.