One of my biggest gripes about the annual seal hunt is that my tax dollars subsidize it. I don't like hearing about how all of these people need the hunt for income because if it's not making any money why not subsidize an industry that could eventually stand on its own?
This same argument applies to the meat industry, and the thing that really gets me is how much money the meat industry receives compared to crop farmers. And the irony is that 80% of crops grown in America are used to feed livestock! (not sure of the exact number for Canada)
I've detailed in the past how ridiculously unsustainable, socially irresponsible, and morally abhorrent the meat industry is before so I won't get into it again. And I understand that our Canadian farmers require subsidies to remain competative with international prices however I don't like helping to support something that I take a stand against.
What I especially loathe is the meat industry being so slow, resiliant and outright defiant to improving animal transportation laws and conditions when they recieve these government handouts.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
More to the Cove
I was recently discussing the Cove with someone who although enjoyed the film, had a hard time believing that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) could be so corrupt.
Many of us have a certain respect and awe for organizations, professions, or people of rank that are in a position of authority and are appointed to represent the people's interests.
The IWC was created in 1946 to conserve whaling populations and govern whaling prices. This organization was created because of the fear of extinction due to over hunting of whales.
Whaling was supported during the first 20 years of the IWC's existence and whale populations fell even further.
However public pressure in the 1970's with many 'Save the Whales' campaigns meant that many whaling countries abolished the practice altogether.
Some however, continued to hunt large number of whales and do so legally with a loophole in the IWC's regulations: a country can hunt whales for scientific purposes. Countries like Japan, Iceland, and Norway then make sure that the whale meat that was hunted for science doesn't go to waste. The meat is sold in supermarkets, restaurants, and to schools. Sometimes it's labelled, sometimes not.
I won't even get into the health hazards, the ecological importance of whales, or even how damn smart these creatures are in this post. Let's focus on the IWC.
You'd think that with Japan hunting 950 whales a year, the IWC would quickly amend the loophole. I mean what's the point of regulations if there's a blatant hole that makes the entire set of rules meaningless? Either don't have the regulations or make them effective right?
Like the seal hunt, the whaling industry is well, fishy. The seal hunt is mostly subsidized and is trying to meet a demand that doesn't exist. So why continue? Some theorize that it's a pride thing others think that the whaling industry is in enormous debt and has to pay back the government for million dollar ships and equipment. Whatever the reason, it doesn't make sense
Anyone who has seen The Cove knows that wealthier whaling nations have been *allegedly* recruiting small poorer nations to join the IWC (nations that don't even have whales in their vicinity) and then buying their votes.
However something The Cove did miss was that the IWC is using some other unconventional tactics: hookers.
Surprisingly this might be just what whales need right now. With Obama considering allowing whaling again, this sort of outrageous revelation could be enough to motivate people that whales be protected once again.
Many of us have a certain respect and awe for organizations, professions, or people of rank that are in a position of authority and are appointed to represent the people's interests.
The IWC was created in 1946 to conserve whaling populations and govern whaling prices. This organization was created because of the fear of extinction due to over hunting of whales.
Whaling was supported during the first 20 years of the IWC's existence and whale populations fell even further.
However public pressure in the 1970's with many 'Save the Whales' campaigns meant that many whaling countries abolished the practice altogether.
Some however, continued to hunt large number of whales and do so legally with a loophole in the IWC's regulations: a country can hunt whales for scientific purposes. Countries like Japan, Iceland, and Norway then make sure that the whale meat that was hunted for science doesn't go to waste. The meat is sold in supermarkets, restaurants, and to schools. Sometimes it's labelled, sometimes not.
I won't even get into the health hazards, the ecological importance of whales, or even how damn smart these creatures are in this post. Let's focus on the IWC.
You'd think that with Japan hunting 950 whales a year, the IWC would quickly amend the loophole. I mean what's the point of regulations if there's a blatant hole that makes the entire set of rules meaningless? Either don't have the regulations or make them effective right?
Like the seal hunt, the whaling industry is well, fishy. The seal hunt is mostly subsidized and is trying to meet a demand that doesn't exist. So why continue? Some theorize that it's a pride thing others think that the whaling industry is in enormous debt and has to pay back the government for million dollar ships and equipment. Whatever the reason, it doesn't make sense
Anyone who has seen The Cove knows that wealthier whaling nations have been *allegedly* recruiting small poorer nations to join the IWC (nations that don't even have whales in their vicinity) and then buying their votes.
However something The Cove did miss was that the IWC is using some other unconventional tactics: hookers.
Surprisingly this might be just what whales need right now. With Obama considering allowing whaling again, this sort of outrageous revelation could be enough to motivate people that whales be protected once again.
Friday, June 18, 2010
History of Oil Spills
Unfortunately the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico is dominating headlines lately (not unfortunate that it's getting coverage but rather that it happened).
It's sad that this is how we need to be reminded that offshore drilling is far from fool-proof and spills aren't a question of if but rather when. The haunting images of animals drenched oil and unable to move should be enough for us to take a stand against our dependence on oil.
However, history has shown this won't change anything. The recent oil spill doesn't even make the top ten worst oil spills in history. Even America's latest president who campaigned for change and promised absolutely no drilling has approved more offshore drilling. Canada isn't much better with our government pushing to install a massive pipeline to carry oil from the Tar Sands right to Vancouver's coast near tourist destination Stanley Park.
The Gulf of Mexico is getting the attention it rightly should, including the usual celebrity telethons, massive government funding, investigations to reveal the obvious, and hollow promises from the oil company.
However the spotlight should be shared with all oil companies and the governments with lax regulations. Why aren't the front pages including investigations into other operations? Why aren't we demanding a halt to all other approvals to offshore drilling?
Our focus is on recovery when we should also be thinking of preventing it because it absolutely will happen again.
It's sad that this is how we need to be reminded that offshore drilling is far from fool-proof and spills aren't a question of if but rather when. The haunting images of animals drenched oil and unable to move should be enough for us to take a stand against our dependence on oil.
However, history has shown this won't change anything. The recent oil spill doesn't even make the top ten worst oil spills in history. Even America's latest president who campaigned for change and promised absolutely no drilling has approved more offshore drilling. Canada isn't much better with our government pushing to install a massive pipeline to carry oil from the Tar Sands right to Vancouver's coast near tourist destination Stanley Park.
The Gulf of Mexico is getting the attention it rightly should, including the usual celebrity telethons, massive government funding, investigations to reveal the obvious, and hollow promises from the oil company.
However the spotlight should be shared with all oil companies and the governments with lax regulations. Why aren't the front pages including investigations into other operations? Why aren't we demanding a halt to all other approvals to offshore drilling?
Our focus is on recovery when we should also be thinking of preventing it because it absolutely will happen again.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Oceans: How we are cutting off our oxygen supply
I've said it before and I'll say it again: oceans are out of sight, out of mind for many of us and are among the most abused ecosystems on the planet.
Because the majority of our waters are 'open' (meaning they don't below to any country and therefore aren't regulated and controlled by any national government) it has meant that almost anything goes.
Yes, there are protected areas and sanctuaries but much of the ocean's life is constantly moving and rarely are these protected areas 100% safe from illegal fishing, whaling, or dumping.
Add that to the ridiculous legal practices that are currently practiced around the world like using the oceans as a sewage dumping ground or just a regular garbage dump and it's a little wonder our oceans are in the state they're in.
Today's fishing practices are more destructive and unsustainable than they've ever been in history. For an update on common fishing practices that include long lining, bottom trawling, and sharking fining, check out Wake's website here.
This astonishingly abridged and short summary of how are oceans are endlessly abused and generally taken for granted leads me to my point: humankind is once again failing to see that destruction of the environment could likely lead to the destruction of ourselves.
I hate to sound like how Conservatives and Republicans paint us environmentalists as dooms dayers but I don't see how we can continue to expect to live the way we are with no consequences.
Oceans cover 71% of our earth and provide an estimated 50-70% of our oxygen supply. Phytoplankton uses photosynthesis, just like plants and trees do on land to take energy from the sun to convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
Phytoplankton support all ocean life: plants, fish, and even sharks and whales. National Geographic has a more detailed article on Phytoplankton here.
However, what happens when we start messing with oceans by depleting it of fish and changing the earth's temperature?
Well no one really knows, as my friend the biologist explains:
There is already a shift in heavily fished oceans away from fish biomass, replaced with other biomass. Jellyfish being an example in some situations. This is the response of the environment to an imbalance and it is always unclear what will happen long term. Often, you see a peak in say jellyfish after disturbance and a corresponding crash in their food source as the rising number of jellyfish eat more and more. Often their food crashes, they then crash also. All round bad situation. This could result in spikes and crashed in phytoplankton, as the whole food web gets messed up. Spikes mean more 02, but crashes mean less. It could imbalance the whole atmosphere, which has in the past been relatively stable.
I think one of the biggest problems is ocean acidification. Carbon Dioxide and water in the air form carbonic acid. More carbon dioxide= more carbonic acid. As oceans acidify, organisms cannot deal with the change. Many use compounds like calcium carbonate in their 'shells' which dissolves when exposed to acid. Phytoplankton can't deal with acids and also is the fastest assimilator of C02. So if they are removed by acid we're on a downward spiral with no fish, no phytoplankton, and no oxygen being produced.
Just like total Recall.
(His words not mine).
So when my friend orders tuna sushi and I say that in the next 50 years we likely won't have any fish left, she'll say "Might as well enjoy it now!". I also have to explain that it's very likely that without fish and healthy oceans we won't be around either.
**Another related article on how the recent BP oil spill is also affecting our oxygen supply can be found here.**
Because the majority of our waters are 'open' (meaning they don't below to any country and therefore aren't regulated and controlled by any national government) it has meant that almost anything goes.
Yes, there are protected areas and sanctuaries but much of the ocean's life is constantly moving and rarely are these protected areas 100% safe from illegal fishing, whaling, or dumping.
Add that to the ridiculous legal practices that are currently practiced around the world like using the oceans as a sewage dumping ground or just a regular garbage dump and it's a little wonder our oceans are in the state they're in.
Today's fishing practices are more destructive and unsustainable than they've ever been in history. For an update on common fishing practices that include long lining, bottom trawling, and sharking fining, check out Wake's website here.
This astonishingly abridged and short summary of how are oceans are endlessly abused and generally taken for granted leads me to my point: humankind is once again failing to see that destruction of the environment could likely lead to the destruction of ourselves.
I hate to sound like how Conservatives and Republicans paint us environmentalists as dooms dayers but I don't see how we can continue to expect to live the way we are with no consequences.
Oceans cover 71% of our earth and provide an estimated 50-70% of our oxygen supply. Phytoplankton uses photosynthesis, just like plants and trees do on land to take energy from the sun to convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
Phytoplankton support all ocean life: plants, fish, and even sharks and whales. National Geographic has a more detailed article on Phytoplankton here.
However, what happens when we start messing with oceans by depleting it of fish and changing the earth's temperature?
Well no one really knows, as my friend the biologist explains:
There is already a shift in heavily fished oceans away from fish biomass, replaced with other biomass. Jellyfish being an example in some situations. This is the response of the environment to an imbalance and it is always unclear what will happen long term. Often, you see a peak in say jellyfish after disturbance and a corresponding crash in their food source as the rising number of jellyfish eat more and more. Often their food crashes, they then crash also. All round bad situation. This could result in spikes and crashed in phytoplankton, as the whole food web gets messed up. Spikes mean more 02, but crashes mean less. It could imbalance the whole atmosphere, which has in the past been relatively stable.
I think one of the biggest problems is ocean acidification. Carbon Dioxide and water in the air form carbonic acid. More carbon dioxide= more carbonic acid. As oceans acidify, organisms cannot deal with the change. Many use compounds like calcium carbonate in their 'shells' which dissolves when exposed to acid. Phytoplankton can't deal with acids and also is the fastest assimilator of C02. So if they are removed by acid we're on a downward spiral with no fish, no phytoplankton, and no oxygen being produced.
Just like total Recall.
(His words not mine).
So when my friend orders tuna sushi and I say that in the next 50 years we likely won't have any fish left, she'll say "Might as well enjoy it now!". I also have to explain that it's very likely that without fish and healthy oceans we won't be around either.
**Another related article on how the recent BP oil spill is also affecting our oxygen supply can be found here.**
Monday, June 14, 2010
Fish-Eating-Vegetarians
It's surprising to me how many 'vegetarians' I meet still eat fish. It's a very interesting physcological question on what and who we extend our compassion to.
How come the morals and reasons that have convinced someone not to eat meat do not apply to fish? Is it because we are constantly told how good and essential fish is to our diet? Or is it because most fish are caught from the wild and so the factory farming issue doesn't apply?
Or is it because humans can't identify emotions or feelings from fish like we can from cows or pigs?
I usually contend that our moral compass as a society continues to grow but it starts from large animals down to the small (seriously... ask a mouse or a spider). I've heard the arguments as to why humans have a right to rule over and consume animals and when the arguments are defeated it is usually through examples of larger animals (many animals exhibit cognitive dissonance, empathy, grief). People can visably see a gorilla holding the body of their dead baby or an elephant funeral) but it's more difficult to visualize these traits in our marine life.
I'm not saying that all animals have the same level emotional intelligence or foresight but it's getting harder and hard to ignore the science that all animals feel pain in the same sense that we do.
You can find an interesting on how fish feel pain here.
How come the morals and reasons that have convinced someone not to eat meat do not apply to fish? Is it because we are constantly told how good and essential fish is to our diet? Or is it because most fish are caught from the wild and so the factory farming issue doesn't apply?
Or is it because humans can't identify emotions or feelings from fish like we can from cows or pigs?
I usually contend that our moral compass as a society continues to grow but it starts from large animals down to the small (seriously... ask a mouse or a spider). I've heard the arguments as to why humans have a right to rule over and consume animals and when the arguments are defeated it is usually through examples of larger animals (many animals exhibit cognitive dissonance, empathy, grief). People can visably see a gorilla holding the body of their dead baby or an elephant funeral) but it's more difficult to visualize these traits in our marine life.
I'm not saying that all animals have the same level emotional intelligence or foresight but it's getting harder and hard to ignore the science that all animals feel pain in the same sense that we do.
You can find an interesting on how fish feel pain here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Food for Thought
I believe in karma and one thing I've always believed is that it cannot be good for the soul to eat something that spent its life or last moments in fear and pain. (Take that Chick Soup for the Soul!) Although I usually don't use it as an explanation not to eat meat because it's lacking in scientific prooft but I believe it nonetheless.
However it seems there now IS scientific proof the vegans and vegetarians are generally happier people.
In other news, the UN has now asked that the population of the world take on a vegan diet to save humanity (seriously, that is pretty much their wording).
However it seems there now IS scientific proof the vegans and vegetarians are generally happier people.
In other news, the UN has now asked that the population of the world take on a vegan diet to save humanity (seriously, that is pretty much their wording).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)