Unit 1 Project

Mary Madison Albright

English 105. 951

March 5, 2013

Unit 1 Project

Establishing Whaling as a Quota Market

Gliding through the gray, frigid waters in the Southern Ocean, a family of whales approaches trouble nearing a whaling boat off the coast of Japan. These whalers, sitting on commercial ships equipped with machinery to take down a mammal weighing over 180 metric tons, have seen their prey. Without warning, the whales are gruesomely attacked, slaughtered and sold off in lifeless parts to consumers. Whaling, a practice once taken root in tradition, is now becoming an epidemic. Despite the 1986 bans placed by the International Whaling Commission making whaling an illegal practice, whale population numbers continue to rapidly decline. As an observer to the issue, new strategies must be employed to protect the species and preserve their sensitive ecosystem. But will tampering with the whaling epidemic in order to create positive change ultimately consequent negatively?

With the dire situation at hand, three Environmental Science and Management professors Christopher Costello and Steven Gaines of the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Leah Gerber of Arizona State University proposed a whale quota system where conservationists and whalers can bid on quotas. Best-case scenario results in profit for whalers who sell quotas to conservationists and conservationists walking away, saving potentially more whales than before. Although seemingly a golden plan, the scheme is flawed, prohibiting effectiveness and success. If proposed trading quota becomes enforced, the new institution could cause higher demand for whales, disagreement over the stressed economic factor rather than ethical issue, and overall ambiguity of the plan, with no specific details how the plan will be carried out (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html).

Adapting one market scheme into another market proposal is the first noticeable flaw. The sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide quota market has favorably reduced overall emissions and costs, but carrying the same basic outline for whales fails to run smoothly in the fine details. Whaling, a separate practice than chemical emissions, translates different outcomes when implementing a quota scheme. Potentially, the quota creates high risk for increased demand concerning commercial marketing whale parts and products. Deriving the economic basic law of demand, when a price of a product decreases, product demand increases. Therefore, when a new market enters as a legal entity such as whaling, product demand, in this case whale meat and oil, would rise. Due to the enlarged demand, whalers seeking opportunity enter the business, if not already before, for potential profit (http://www.onearth.org/article/save-the-whales-by-hunting-them). Adding those whose culture traditionally whales, and the overall whale population killed increases. Ultimately, higher demand causes higher whale market entry, resulting in the killing of more whales than before.

From an ethical standpoint, the quota scheme causes concern. The environmental marketers are viewing the whaling issue through an economic viewpoint rather than a moral one. Essentially, allowing whales for sale marks a price on a mammal conservationists consider invaluable. The situation seems highly unlikely for conservationists to morally back down from strong viewpoints as well as whalers recognizing the profitable gain in selling whale quotas. An economic price on a sensitive product causes species and environment troubles. Due to low whale population and ecological damage whaling causes marine ecosystems, optimally whale meat is not reasonable to consume (http://news.discovery.com/earth/selling-whales-to-save-them-120117.htm). As well, whale commercialization could spark other risk animal markets, turning focus from conserving to exploiting endangered creatures. As marine biologist Taryn Kiekow states, “You cannot save whales by legalizing their slaughter.” Protecting a species, versus commercializing, should hold top priority of any government funded or protection group (http://www.onearth.org/article/save-the-whales-by-hunting-them).

Lastly, vague details surround the projected plan; there is no indication to explain how quotas are divvied, monitored, or distributed. The proposal contains little explanation of quota distribution between government, conservationists, and whaling groups http://news.discovery.com/earth/selling-whales-to-save-them-120117.htm). One must question whether quotas are distributed equally or based off various economic or moral factors. Are country governments where the whaling takes place the sole leader in monitoring safe trading practices? Or does the International Whaling Commission supervise the transactions? One specific, an estimated whale fin pricing over $85,000, shows no clarification how said amount was chosen and if there are different price considerations due to size or type (http://news.discovery.com/earth/selling-whales-to-save-them-120117.htm). Multiple questions and obscurity should cause major concern when implementing a huge change in a delicate market. If environmental marketers were to take on such a large risk administering the idea, there should be clear, detailed, and specific laws producing far less risk for potential negative consequences.

With recent controversy over extreme conservationist groups implementing dangerous tactics, struggle between conservationists and whalers continues in this ever-prevalent issue marked in our waters. Although Costello, Gaines, and Gerber create a seemingly productive whale trading quota, risks outlying the plan are far too chancy to be considered a viable option. Higher demand for whales, disagreement over stressed economic factor rather than ethical issue, and ambiguity of the plan cause concern that whaling may be a topic of argument, and unfortunately unsolvable situation, in the years to come.

Flickr Photo By: Yeimaya

Works Cited:

Barcott, Bruce. "Save the Whales By Hunting Them?" OnEarthMagazine.com. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013. <http://www.onearth.org/article/save-the-whales-by-hunting-them>.

"Conservation Science: A Market Approach to Saving the Whales." Nature. Nature
Publishing Group, 11 Jan. 2011. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.htm>.

"Good Whale Hunting." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/whaling>.

Mulvaney, Kieran. "Selling Whales to Save Them?" Discoverynews.com. Discovery
Communications, 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.
<http://news.discovery.com/earth/selling-whales-to-save-them-120117.htm>.

"Whales for Sale." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 5 Mar.
2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/ 481114a.html>.