Save Eco Destinations

The Japanese whaling fleet in action.

Japan has been facing widespread criticism since it said it will be using some of the public funds allocated for disaster reconstruction to buttress its whaling operations. Instead of going to help fishing communities and others devastated by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, a portion of the funds will go to strengthen security for the country’s divisive annual whaling hunt. Classy.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and Greenpeace accused the Japanese Government of spending an extra USD 30 million on increased security for the whalers, whose efforts are regularly affronted by anti-whaling groups.

The awesome Paul Watson.

“I think that it’s totally disgraceful,” SSCS Captain Paul Watson stated. “People from around the world sending money to help the victims of the tsunami-earthquake were not expecting their money to be used to fund killing whales in the Southern Ocean.”

Before the Japanese fleet departed for Antarctica earlier this week, the coast guard informed it would be sending out guards to protect it from environmental activists, AFP reports.

Fisheries Agency official Tatsuya Nakaoku said the move would ultimately help people who depend on whaling and whose livelihoods were ruined by the tsunami.

“The government will support the reconstruction effort of a whaling town and nearby areas,” he said. “This programme can help it reconstruct food processing plants there…”

“Many people in the area eat whale meat, too. They are waiting for Japan’s commercial whaling to resume,” he retorted.

Last February, the defiant actions of Sea Shepherd prompted Japan to shorten its hunt for the 2010-11 season by a month — after catching only one-fifth of its planned bounty.

Japan intends to kill almost 1,000 whales this time around, The Guardian reports.

In November, the Japanese Government approved a USD 1.6 billion extra budget, the third of 2011, to fund reconstruction and boost the economy lagging from the impact of the March disaster. Of the USD 64.2 million designated for fisheries-related spending, USD 29.3 million were earmarked for “stabilising whaling research.”

“We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research,” the fisheries department then said.

Sea Shepherd is ready to confront the Japanese fleet. Three of the green group’s ships will set sail next week, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

“We are hoping to deter their operations,” Watson said. “I assume the security vessels will try and dislodge us. I am assuming there will be some difficult confrontations.”

SSCS asked Australia to send a vessel down to keep the peace, but the country refused, he told.

Whale meat at the Tsukiji fish market, 2008

Japan also approached Australia – asking to help protect it from groups like Sea Shepherd – to no avail. Apparently Australia doesn’t buy that Japan whales for scientific purposes, which is what Japan has claimed for a long time.

Australia does not “buy for one minute this argument,” said Australian Environment Minister Tony Burke.

“You don’t travel from one side of the globe to the other to harpoon whales and chop them up in the name of science,” he snapped.

Excellent.

Meanwhile, the clamor got louder this week when Latin American members of the International Whaling Commission urged Japan to halt its “scientific” whaling in Antarctica and respect sanctuaries.

Save the whales!

Aquabounty salmon vs. normal salmon

Have you heard about the “Frankenfish” that might soon hit US supermarket shelves?

Brace yourselves.

A  Massachusetts-based aquaculture company has genetically engineered (GE) a salmon that reaches maturity twice as fast as normal Atlantic salmon. AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., has accomplished this creepy feat by injecting the fish with the genes of Pacific salmon and an eel-like fish. Tests – run by AquaBounty, ahem — have shown the salmon’s meat is safe for human consumption, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has thus far unfortunately sided with it.

“There is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal,” said AquaBounty.

Wow, that’s reassuring!

Not only this, but the FDA has consequently determined that no label is needed to tell us whether the fish we’re buying is GE or not.

But there is hope for us yet

Alarmed, 24 members of Congress are urging the FDA to stop the approval process of AquaBounty’s GE salmon. They are asking the FDA to wait until it painstakingly analyses and addresses some serious flaws in its approval process and incorporates more public input and scientific data – which it hasn’t been doing because critical information has been kept hidden from the public, such that only the FDA and AquaBounty are aware of key details regarding the fish’s approval process.

“We don’t know if it’s safe for humans to eat and the only research that has been done was done by the company,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of consumer group Food & Water Watch in Washington, D.C. “The FDA is an under-resourced agency that has had so much trouble with the regulatory system for foods – we’ve had tainted eggs, poisonous peanuts and other contaminations – and is now taking on something in a very non-transparent way.”

A major problem is that the FDA has no idea how to go about the approval process because this is an unprecedented event.

“One of the most serious concerns regarding AquaBounty’s application is the FDA has no adequate process to review a GE animal intended as a human food product,” the letter reads.

US Senator Mark Begich, who signed the letter, said it is signed by another 10 senators and is supported by 52 environmental groups, consumer groups, retailers, food businesses and commercial and recreational fisheries associations, such as the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development, Medical News Today reports.

Congressman Mike Thompson, D-St Helena and the other members of the House of Representatives addressed a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg affirming that the Administration should not approve the first transgenic animal for human consumption because the review process is flawed. The government officials argue that genetically engineered (GE) fish put wild populations of fish in jeopardy, as millions of farmed fish have already escaped farms and made it into the wild.

The Consumers Union (CU) rightfully worries the salmon could prove dangerous to consumers.

“Consumers have a right to know that the FDA lacks the means to assess this fish as a genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption. If this product was approved, the resulting consumer health impact could be disastrous,” Food & Water Watch agreed.

A recent survey by consumer group Food & Water Watch showed that 78 per cent of Americans do not want the GM salmon to obtain approval. Not surprising.

Anything GE is unsafe and has the potential to be greatly disastrous to our entire planet – from the environment all the way to us, as we’re intrinsically connected! Anything that harms one part of our planet, of our ecosystem, will come bite us in the bum. You know it.

So the letter describes four grave concerns — that the review method employed is seriously deficient; a lack of data on whether the GE salmon is safe for human consumption; probable irreversible environmental impacts; and that the FDA is not fulfilling its responsibility to consumers by failing to demand a label that states the fish is GE, reports The Times-Standard.

”FDA’s move to approve GE salmon threatens fishing families across the country, native wild salmon, as well as the millions of federal and state dollars invested to restore salmon populations,” said Thompson. “Given the current lack of information, threats to human health, the environment and the livelihood of hard working fishing families, it would be irresponsible for the FDA to approve GE salmon.”

The letter continues spelling out ways in which the FDA has been irresponsibly handing the matter:

“While AquaBounty filed a New Animal Drug application for AquAdvantage salmon with FDA in 2001, the Environmental Assessment compiled by AquaBounty for the FDA is inherently flawed and does not take into account the full and broad range of impacts the approval of the GE salmon could have on the environment. The FDA should have initiated a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and consulted with other federal agencies responsible for managing federally listed Endangered Species,” the letter reads.

Take action

If you agree that this is totally nuts, go here to take action.

Let’s eat/pray/love that the FDA comes to its senses.

Soon, there won't be much Fraser River salmon left for you to fish, buddy.

Last week I wrote about the efforts of certain companies to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing sustainably caught fish.

If you remember, I discussed the problematic Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe and has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Ahem.

Well, it turns out that the independent adjudicator has ruled in favor of MSC last Monday, which means that the endangered Fraser sockeye salmon stocks have been ruled sustainable. Environmentalists are wailing and independent salmon trollers railing.

The certifier will now submit the Final Certification Report to MSC, recommending that the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery be certified as sustainable. The certifier may issue a certificate and MSC would announce certification after a final internal MSC review of the documents takes place.

So what’s the problem?

“This certification could actually result in well-intentioned consumers buying an endangered Fraser River sockeye with an eco-label on it,” explained Jeffrey Young, aquatic biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the groups who filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to provide eco-certification to the stock.

I would like to reiterate that some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is getting certified by MSC are already classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat to the stocks’ health.

Further, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recently set up a commission to study the decline of the Fraser River salmon stock.

This is definitely bad timing for an eco-certification, don’t you think?

Next time you’re shopping for seafood, remember that MSC-certified seafood is probably not actually sustainably fished, and steer clear of Fraser River sockeye salmon.

These days, many seafood species are in decline and numerous stocks have already been depleted by overfishing. Various types of tuna and the Fraser sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia, Canada, are all species under severe threat.

Part of the problem is fraud – and when eco-certifications are awarded without due consideration, without being truly warranted, everyone suffers (that is, the fish and those of us who care for the planet).

The London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe. It has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Fishy, isn’t it? And we’re not the only ones who think so. But I’ll talk more about the MSC when I discuss the sockeye salmon stocks below.

Atlantic bluefin tuna

Tuna

I’ve already blogged about the plight of tuna – bigeye, bluefin, and others – and the efforts of environmental groups like Greenpeace as well as those of entire countries who have called for an international ban on the tuna trade, focusing on bluefin tuna in particular. This call, by the way, has been futile. Some blame Japan and say officials from that country threatened representatives of poor African and Asia-Pacific nations at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meeting in Qatar last March, which was a complete failure. Whatever the case, tuna thus remains without official protection.

Fraser sockeye salmon - photo from TreeHugger

Fraser sockeye salmon

This time I want to discuss the plight of the Fraser sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia on Canada’s Pacific coast.

The MSC has just has just certified three Canadian salmon fisheries as sustainable. As consumer awareness about seafood sustainability is growing worldwide, lots of companies are coveting and applying for the MSC label, which makes their seafood gain popularity in the market. You, Save Eco Destinations reader, may be one of the people who makes efforts to purchase environmentally grown or harvested foods. And you should be aware that the MSC is trying to fool you.

Sockeye salmon fished from the Skeena and Nass Rivers and from Barkley sound on Canada’s Pacific coast will now be sold with MSC’s coveted eco-label worldwide. But Dr Craig Orr, executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, believes this is, to put it bluntly, crap. He thus vowed that his organization will be supervising the fisheries to make sure MSC standards are being followed.

“The MSC has just granted eco-certification to three fisheries that routinely overharvest threatened and endangered salmon stocks,” said Orr. “As disturbing as this is, the MSC has placed several conditions for improvement on these fisheries, and we will be watching closely to see if these conditions are enforced.”

Earlier this year, his organization plus two other conservation groups from BC – the David Suzuki Foundation and SkeenaWild Conservation Trust — filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to give the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery eco-certification.

The certification was thus put temporarily on hold pending the verdict of an independent adjudicator, whose decision is expected by Saturday, July 10.

“We objected to the Fraser River certification because we believe it does not meet the MSC’s own minimum standards for certification, and that the management of the fishery is so dysfunctional that the conditions of certification are very unlikely to be met within reasonable timelines,” explained Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild conservation trust. “Overfishing is a serious concern in the Skeena, Nass, and Barkley Sound fisheries, but the situation is not as dire there as it is on the Fraser,” he noted.

Under the MSC’s third-party certification process, firms hired by fishing industry “clients” decide if a fishery meets the MSC’s criteria for eco-certification. Again, I would like to note that no fishery has ever been refused certification after having finished the MSC assessment process and no objection to a certification has ever been upheld.

The three Canadian sockeye salmon fisheries were assessed by the independent organization Moody Marine Ltd, reported CBC News.

Some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is about to be MSC certified are classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat.

A commission of inquiry by the Canadian Government recently targeted the Fraser fishery because of a major collapse of the fishery and prevalent concerns over mismanagement.

“Eco-certification can provide a powerful incentive for improvement in the way we manage our fisheries,” declared Aaron Hill of Ecologist Watershed Watch, “but it becomes meaningless when you set the bar too low, and certify unsustainable and mismanaged fisheries. It becomes fraud.”

The assessment for Fraser River began in 2009, when only 1.4 million sockeye salmon returned despite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) forecast of up to 10.6 million, reported Vancouver Sun.

“It was a catastrophe,” said Sto: lo First Nation fisheries adviser Ernie Crey. “No one knows what happened to those ‘missing’ fish.”

MSC-certified seafood

Why the MSC’s certification means nothing

The MSC eco-label isn’t even good enough to meet the sustainability policies of some supermarket chains. Really. Retailer Waitrose refuses to carry MSC-certified hoki from New Zealand.

“The fact that the sustainability policy of one of the UK’s largest food retailers could not be met by fish carrying the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) eco-label proves the council’s ineffectuality,” Greenpeace said last year.

Supermarket chains in the U.S. and Europe have refused to carry New Zealand’s orange roughy, a species that is MSC-certified even though it is endangered. This fish is harvested by bottom trawling, which is bad news for seabed communities and is one of the most environmentally destructive fishing methods in existence.

“This shows that even MSC certification is no guarantee of sustainability,” said Greenpeace New Zealand’s oceans campaigner Karli Thomas.

Greenpeace also believes Friend of the Sea (FOS), another eco-certification scheme, is unreliable. FOS even offers eco-certification for farmed fish. Imagine that! I won’t even get into how wrong that is (in this post).

Greenpeace believes that no certification system for sustainable seafood currently exists that is 100% reliable.

Further, Professor Daniel Pauly at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia and the principal investigator of its Sea Around Us Project accused the MSC last year of acquiescing to pressure from the Walton Family Foundation and Wal-Mart and being complicit to a scam.

“At first, the MSC certified only small-scale fisheries, but lately, it has given its seal of approval to large, controversial companies. Indeed, it has begun to measure its success by the percentage of the world catch that it certifies. Encouraged by a Walton Foundation grant and Wal-Mart’s goal of selling only certified fish, the MSC is actually considering certifying reduction fisheries, with the consequence that Wal-Mart, for example, will be able to sell farmed salmon shining with the ersatz glow of sustainability. (Given the devastating pollution, diseases, and parasite infestations that have plagued salmon farms in Chile, Canada, and other countries, this ‘Wal-Mart strategy’ will, in the long term, make the MSC complicit to a giant scam),” he wrote.

FYI, here are other fisheries hit by the MSC

“The Atlanto Scandian herring fishery is PFA’s third fishery to achieve MSC certification: its North Sea herring and its North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries were certified in 2006 and in 2009.” – FIS reported on July 8.

Others include Alaska flatfish, Eastern Canada swordfish, Norwegian cod and haddock, North Pacific albacore tuna, and the Aker BioMarine krill (Euphausia superba) fishery has been in the Antarctic waters of the Southern Ocean.

So what can you do?

Here are some neat recommendations (except for the MSC one).

Keep up the fight!

Inambari River, Peru

Peru and Brazil signed a pact last month to build six hydroelectric dams in the Peruvian Amazon — and the indigenous peoples in Peru as well as the environment will have to suffer the calamitous consequences.

Populations will be displaced and ecosystems disrupted if these projects are realized, environmentalists say.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Peruvian President Alan García signed the pact in question.

Peru has thus committed to deliver a permanent percentage of electricity to Brazil for 30 years. Also, if anyone wants to back down, this will only be possible 15 years into the agreement, according to Peruvian Energy Vice Minister Daniel Cámac. The idea is that Peru will get all the electricity it needs out of the deal, although it hasn’t yet decided how much it will require.

But not everyone thinks this makes sense.

“What is the point of signing a pact without having determined if this is what we need as a country?” asked lawyer César Gamboa, director of the NGO Law, Environment and Natural Resources (DAR). “Why don’t we conduct the studies before we make commitments we can’t back out of?”

The idea of the pact, born in 2006, is to generate 6,000 megavolts (mv) (note: 1 mv = 1 million volts) through the construction of generators in Peruvian turf that will prioritize internal supply and allow for the sale of surplus energy to Brazil, the official version goes.

On the other hand, engineer Alfredo Novoa says this is BS. The director of the NGO ProNaturaleza said,

“Peru doesn’t need energy projects in the Amazon to cover its demand. There is a 22,000 mv potential in the Andes and thousands more along the coast. Why more?”

Professor of the Institute of Electrical Engineering and Energy at the University of Saão Paulo Célio Bermann said the plants won’t meet Peru’s energy needs. Further, the agreement will irrevocably harm the Peruvian Amazon’s ecosystems.

“Yet the energy that will be produced will serve the interest of international and Brazilian mining, and metallurgy companies that are ever-expanding in the Amazon. The power will not go to meet the needs of everyday Peruvians or Brazilians,” he stated.

Moreover, it is still unclear where these generators will be built – it may happen in the Andes instead of the Amazon, Cámac told.

Oy.

Two problems

Asháninka

Mariano Castro, former executive secretary of the Peruvian National Environment Council and lawyer with the Peruvian Society of Environmental Rights (SPDA), said the dams will not ensure clean and renewable energy for Peru.

“On the contrary, it will impose a series of negative environmental and social impacts such as displacement of indigenous people and deforestation in at least five departments of Peru, putting at grave risk the future of the Peruvian Amazon,” Castro said.

One of the controversial projects is to take place in the Inambari River, located in the Amazonian limits of the Cusco, Madre de Dios and Puno regions in the southeastern part of Peru. This would be the largest hydroelectric plant in the country and the fifth-largest in Latin America.

The other is the Paquitzapango Project in the Ene River in Junín, home of the indigenous asháninka population.

Three other projects exist in the pact. The building of all five entails an investment of between USD 13.5 million and USD 16.5 million.

A more important cost will be that paid by the indigenous peoples. More than 4,000 inhabitants of the Inambari region and up to 10,000 in Paquitzapango would be displaced. To make matters worse, the unfortunate asháninka of Paquitzapango were already displaced during the internal Peruvian armed conflict of 1980-2000.

Peru’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise by 5.9% as a result of the project.

An eco lodge in the Peruvian Amazon

Many companies tout their hotels as eco, but – as one might, unfortunately, expect – many companies also lie.

So how do you know if the place you’re thinking of staying at during your next vacation is really an eco hotel?

A great resource is EcoHotelology, a blog written by Holly Worton, who has 11 years of experience in the eco hotel industry. Although her blog’s main purpose is to help hoteliers learn how they can green their business (and home and office), Worton’s posts are helpful for anyone interested in expanding her or his knowledge about eco hotels and greening one’s lifestyle.

13 tell-tale signs that you’re dealing with an eco hotel:

• The rooms have a door-key-card-controlled electricity system that allows guests to turn off the electricity to their room by removing their card when they exit it
• Having green options offered to you, such as foregoing daily housekeeping
• Recycling services
• Low flow or dual flush toilets and low flow showerheads in the bathrooms
• Vegetarian meal options (and I don’t just mean spaghetti and salad. Give me something I can use!)
• The food is grown or produced locally, perhaps grown in an organic garden located on the premises
• Mindful ecotours/safaris – this means hummers are not used to drive guests around, nor ATVs; people are not allowed to speak or photograph in the presence of wildlife, and so on. Otherwise, it’s just a regular, nature-unfriendly tour/safari, and nature has enough hostility to deal with from us as it is.
• Only pasture-raised animal products are offered in its restaurants
• Only native plants are used in the landscaping
• Organic massage oils and all-natural products are used in the spa
• Wall dispensers provide shampoo, etc., instead of individual bottles and individually wrapped soaps
• The eco hotel uses renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.)
• Hybrid cars are used to transport guests and you can rent bicycles to get around the area

If you can rent bikes to get around, you may be in good hands.

5 signs that your eco hotel isn’t:

• The hotel contains a golf course
• The hotel endorses fishing, dolphin swims, visits to zoos, the use of jet skis and other personal water crafts, bonfires, hunting, etc.
• You see foie gras on the menu
• Food or drinks are brought to you in disposable containers and/or you get aluminum foil, plastic wrap, Styrofoam coffee cups or plastic utensils with your order
• You get mineral water in plastic bottles

Make sure to speak up and let the manager, etc., know you aren’t happy with their false advertising or any unsustainable aspects of the so-called eco hotel. And if the place is truly an eco hotel, feel free to inform them how glad you are about their eco-friendly services!

And always remember to do your part to travel green. We are all responsible for taking care of our planet!

The Indonesian rainforest (Bali)

The Indonesian rainforest’s only problem isn’t just fires anymore.

Underground mining will soon be allowed in protected areas of the Indonesian rainforest, courtesy of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s new regulations. These will also permit the abuse of protected forests by power plants and toll roads (and the various forms of transportation that will use them.)

See, the government claims that the companies that will be penetrating the forests will have to meet strict criteria prior to beginning their underground mining.

“The regulation will only allow mining activities to operate under the forest areas. So this is not for open mining and hopefully will only bring a minimum impact to the ecosystem in protected forests,” said Zulkifli, adding that the regulation will be implemented soon.

But we all know that this is crap and the habitat of myriad species in the Indonesian rainforest is consequently now in great peril.

He said the regulation would oblige companies to provide lands in exchange for their mining areas and strictly prohibited them from damaging the forests above ground.

“Because of the lack of regulations, most of the areas were being exploited without considering reforestation,” he said. “In addition, they will be obliged to pay taxes for operating mines under the protected forest.”

But how can you “minimize damage to the environment” when the mere presence of humans in rainforests and other wildlife areas are known to cause high mortality rates in certain species of birds?

The species adversely affected by human infringement in their habitat – in the form of noise, light, hunting, and so forth – includes sea turtles, dolphins, dingoes, penguins, mountain gorillas, and polar bears, among numerous other species.

Facilitated access to the Indonesian rainforest will probably encourage poaching and illegal trade of animals and animal parts, a problem all too common in Southeast Asia.

Rainforest in Puncak

If even ecotourism can have dire effects on natural ecosystems, how could the atrocious consequences of underground mining in the Indonesian rainforest ever be prevented?

A Siberian tiger

When traveling in areas where poaching is widespread – such as China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Nepal, and various African regions – it can be very helpful to conservation efforts to keep alert to suspicious activity so you can report it. You may spot souvenirs and medicines made from illegal materials such as rhino husks or tiger skin, even “exotic” dishes at restaurants, particularly in south-east Asian countries, where there is particular demand for tiger meat.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) met in Doha, Qatar recently and discussed the state of numerous animal species across the globe. They found that tigers, rhinos, elephants, and bears (among other species) are victims of organized crime rings that take part in the illegal trading of these animals’ body parts.

In fact, the illegal trade of wildlife is so lucrative – at some GBP 10 billion per year – that it is only topped by the trade of drugs and weapons.

Below I will summarize the conditions of some species on the verge of extinction: tigers, rhinos, and elephants.

Tigers

The illegal trade of big cats continues to escalate despite warnings from the UN that they will disappear unless the trade is stopped. Their population has been cut by about 50% in the last decade – there are fewer than 3,200 tigers left in the wild! Don’t even get me started on the atrocity that is zoos and tiger farms … And tiger farms, by the way, have been found by the World Bank (which leads the Global Tiger Initiative) to stimulate illegal trade of tiger body parts.

“Although the tiger has been prized throughout history, and is a symbol of incredible importance in many cultures and religions, it is now literally on the verge of extinction,” said CITES secretary-general Willem Wijnstekers.

Tiger bones, for example, are used to manufacture medicines. In China, the trend continues despite a ban on tiger bones and products imposed in 1993.

“It is almost four decades since the world realised that tiger numbers were falling alarmingly,” CITES said.

And I don’t know if this is real or a hoax, but apparently you can buy farmed tigers from India online.

Rhinos

A black rhino in Kenya

Ivory and rhino horns are in some places rumored to have the capacity to boost sexual prowess and even cure cancer. The black rhino, unfortunately, has already been classified as critically endangered.

“Last June, a group of five men drove into South Africa’s Addo National Park and held up the rangers’ station at gunpoint.

“They emerged with a small consignment of ivory and rhino horn worth an estimated 850,000 rand – about £75,000, or $114,000.

“… Last year, a Vietnamese diplomat was recalled to Hanoi after being filmed apparently buying rhino horn outside her embassy in Pretoria.

The Addo Park hold-up is perhaps the most striking event to date in what is, by all measures, an escalation in the illegal wildlife trade.”

Elephants

Ivory trading was banned internationally in 1989. Regardless, Zambia, Tanzania, and other countries that allegedly manage elephant populations efficiently through reliable systems for tracking tusks, have been allowed to trade three times since the ban’s implementation.

An elephant in the African Bush

Because poaching has been increasing since 2004, Kenya, Mali, and other African countries have been pushing for a 20-year ban on legal ivory exports. These countries argue that even legal trade provokes poaching, and some studies support this claim. Meanwhile, China is currently the main market for the rampant trade of illegal ivory, despite its promises to combat smuggling gangs.

The main problem seems to be that, evidence found by conservation groups notwithstanding, police and customs authorities are not enforcing the law against poachers and traders. And if this doesn’t change – and soon – these species will simply disappear, at least in the wild.

The next post will feature other poached species on the brink of extinction.

Manu Island, Fiji

The government of Fiji created the Fiji Ecotourism Association in 1995. One of its alleged aims is to “improv[e] the welfare of the local people.”

There are, supposedly, several eco-resorts and National Parks and Reserves to visit. You can learn about local culture by attending a talanoa (storytelling) session about traditional local medicines, legends, and history; you can attend their mekes, a cultural feast featuring traditional song and dance.

Now, the definition of ecoutourism relies partly on the concept of being respectful and furthering the welfare of local communities; and learning about their culture from a reverential perspective sounds great.

But can ecotourists really help locals with their business in a land ruled by a violent and oppressive military regime?

It’s a question worth asking, and I think the answer is a bold no.

By supporting ostensible ecotourism in Fiji (or any kind of Fijan business) we are supporting a regime guilty of human rights violations, widespread censorship, and a refusal to hold elections. Boycotting is a significant way in which we can pressure Fiji’s government to change its tactics, as the country is heavily dependent on tourism for GDP growth.

Let’s look at a couple of examples why the idea of ecotourism in Fiji may be an oxymoron.

Air pollution caused by cruise ships

Ecotourism in Fiji: Cruises

Tourism companies apparently get very excited about hosting “cruising enthusiasts” and even host cruise companies and operators. Ironically,

Cruise ships generate an astonishing amount of pollution: up to 25,000 gallons of sewage from toilets and 143,000 gallons of sewage from sinks, galleys and showers each day. … Cruise ships dump untreated sewage from toilets once the ships is three miles from shore.

And you don’t think this crap (literally) is going to affect Fiji’s marine ecosystems? Exactly.

Here’s more:

Each cruise ship carries an average of 3,000 people and produces as much sewage and waste as a mid-sized city. Tons of raw sewage, garbage and even hazardous waste are produced and disposed of each day by a single ship. This constant discharge of waste into our oceans is multiplied by dozens of ships operating every day in our precious oceans.

Cruise ships do not have to comply with environmental and water quality protection laws that are required for municipalities. They are allowed to dump sewage and garbage directly into our oceans—and they do!

Incredibly, the most common practice of cruise ships is to dump waste at sea, usually at night. While they are not supposed to release raw sewage or other solid waste into state waters (3 nautical miles from shore), ocean currents can return discharged sewage, polluted waters and garbage to our shores. Fish do not know boundaries.

Cruise liners also impact air quality. Diesel engines spew out diesel exhaust equivalent to 10,000 cars each day per ship and are kept idling, even when in port.

Well.

Ecotourism in Fiji: Sports

Sports options on the island of Denarau include golf and tennis. But get this: runoff from fertilized lawns and golf courses causes nutrient pollution (nitrogen, phosphates, etc.), which in turn can cause algal bloom, sometimes known as red tide.

The effects of algal bloom, also caused by nutrient runoff from sugar cane farming in Fiji, include the production of neurotoxins that cause high rates of mortalities in fish, seabirds, marine mammals, and the litany of species that inhabit coral reefs, as the reefs die. This, as a result, impacts the Fijan communities that obtain their food and/or livelihood from the ocean.

More and more, it seems to me like “ecotourism in Fiji” is indeed an oxymoron.

You know how President Barack Obama recently announced in his State of the Union address that he would boost the use of biofuels and “clean coal”?

What are we, idiots?

Excuse me. There is no such thing as clean coal.

Talk about greenwashing!

And this is an issue that’s been going on for a long while – yet greenwashing has managed to keep it around and prosperous. At least some people are logical: Watch the awesome Rachel Maddow slap some sense into the idea.

Thank you, Huffingon Post

Coal produces more carbon emissions than any other energy source.

It causes significant health problems for miners. It pollutes land and waterways. Stop the greenwashing already!

“Clean coal is a dirty lie,” says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it “indentured servants” of the coal industry.

And biofuels!

It takes preposterous amounts of corn, wheat, and other plants – and land (hello, deforestation and soil erosion!) – to create bioethanol. Not to mention that with crops come fertilizers, with fertilizers come runoffs, and then huge amounts of phosphates that enter waterways and cause algal bloom (a.k.a. red tide) and other environmental calamities. So greenwashing all the way, here.

And what about food? Shouldn’t we be growing food to…eat? It’s certainly more productive given our current biofuel technologies, which are so limited that the use of biofuels causes food prices to soar.

Biofuels are not green. But there sure is a lot of greenwashing about them! (Ha-ha.)

And now algal fuel is coming under attack as being worse than bioethanol (not that it’s stopping the corporations that already invested in mass producing algal fuel). Damn. Just a few months ago I blogged about its shiny new possibilities!

A truly green possibility

Vegetable oil/Biodiesel

This magic fuel is made from vegetable oil. I know people who have gone to Burger King and other “restaurants” and asked for their gross leftover, low-quality, used oil. They got it for free, and used it alone to power their vehicles. It worked, they saved a ton of money, and avoided polluting.

Now this is a neat idea.

So where are we on this, Pres?

This, of course, is a very complex and intricate topic and I barely touched on it. My point is to note the atrocity – yes, atrocity – that is the unabashed greenwashing in President Obama’s speech. Really, clean coal? We can’t let our guard down for a minute, apparently.

What are your “favorite” biofuels, if any, and why?

Any particularly notable sources on the topic? Recommend away!