Fighting Fragmentation: Making the Case for Ecosystem Connectivity

This heartbreaking visual is all too common for the wildlife that live in our fragmented world. Yet you probably don't think about it until you see a dead animal on the road.

In my experience that roadkill you see is merely the most visible expression of a cultural phenomenon. More than half the earth is developed, causing widespread fragmentation and disruption of the natural processes that sustain life on the planet.

• Forests: The international agriculture firm, Cargill, announced last week that corporations will fall short of halting deforestation by 2020. We’re losing 18.7 million acres of forests annually, equivalent to 27 soccer fields every minute--requiring 86% of the world's land-based species to get by on less and less. Not even our public lands and national parks are safe from such destruction. From Virunga National Park to Point Reyes National Seashore, we are proving that our desire to extract and despoil in the name of profit knows no limits.

• Wetlands: Globally, we are filling in our wetlands at 3x the rate of deforestation, pushing many amphibians to the brink of extinction and destroying what remains of our migratory waterfowl and shorebird habitat. There is no place this is more evident that California, where we have lost over 95% of our wetlands to agriculture. Over the last few years, my brilliant team at Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) has been working with communities to reverse this ecological disaster.

• Rivers and Streams: While conducting research in Morocco I found a country reliant on aquaculture for fish protein because they had dammed all their water bodies and let tanneries dump dangerous quantities of cancer-causing chromium, sulfurs, and oil into their rivers and streams--breaking up fish migration patterns and poisoning the fish that remained. In Vietnam, the farmers, fisherfolk, and community members in the Lower Mekong River Delta shared hardships they have experienced with decreasing flows of water and nutrient-rich sediments, lack of fish and other aquatic life, and saline intrusion. Why? The built (or planned) 11 mainstream dams and 120 tributary dams on the Mekong River in China and Laos.

I don't mean to discourage. I merely aim to shed some light on the gravity of our method of systematic fragmentation of the natural world, and the inequities that this pursuit bears.

I am an advocate for greater ecosystem connectivity and wildlife mobility through and through. These dynamic and interconnected landscapes and seascapes are part of our cultural and ecological identity. When we think about climate resiliency at a landscape level I firmly believe that our 20th-century solutions no longer suffice. We need to get creative and we need to get everybody to the table.

P.S. I know it is possible. Great work is being done all around the world, from Patagonia to Montana:

*Large-scale example*: The Greater Yellowstone Coalition has been collaborating with private, public, and tribal landowners to effectively increase the range of migratory bison by more than 250,000 acres (with an eventual goal of 400,000 acres) via land acquisitons, grazing allotment buyouts and land leases. Source: http://bit.ly/2Xb0GUX

*Small-scale example*: A new wildlife overpass near Pinedale, WY has reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions by an incredible 85%. Source:http://bit.ly/2X7g1G1

Why Our Bans on Single Use Plastics Matter

This right here. This is why our bans on single-use plastics matter. This is why we need to focus on the "reduce" and "reuse" above all else--even recycling and the supposed "composting" of bio-plastics.

As we fight to ban single-use plastics and promote reusables in cities and towns across America, petrol companies plan to build or expand 264 petrochemical plants and increase U.S. plastics production by 33%.

Petrol companies see the writing on the wall. The internal combustion engine is on its last leg. In the next decade, the majority of vehicles on the road in developed nations will be hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles. How do petrol companies intend to keep the demand for oil high? To quote the film The Graduate:

"Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics."

That's right, everything from your paper plates and cups to your soda cans (inside and outside) are coated in films of plastic.

Oil and gas wells (on OUR public lands and off OUR coastlines) produce the chemicals needed to produce 99% of these plastics. And if the drilling and mining impacts on wildlife, water, and frontline communities weren't destructive enough, our failure to reduce single-use consumption has resulted in the transport of our waste around the world, to developing nations where our waste (even the contaminated plastic we put in our recycling bin) is piled up and burned. If these plastics don't end up polluting the air, then they break-up over into microplastics over hundreds and thousands of years and end up in our drinking water, our food, and our even our rain.

End this senseless cycle. Be a part of the solution. Feel free to reach out to me if you want to strategize on how to move your community (big or small), your business, or your household to be #zerowaste. <3

Revisiting the Prius Prime & The Future of Energy Efficient Vehicles

Well,

It was been nearly two months since I purchased the 2017 Toyota Prius Prime. I am continuing to find new things I like about the vehicle, and I must say the mileage I have been getting is astounding. As a younger individual, I like to take a lot of trips that may exceed the 25-mile range of the electric battery for the vehicle; however, I am happy to report in my 650 miles of driving that the Prime has only utilized two gallons of gas! In strict terms of gasoline usage, I'm getting 325 MPG! Living in a home that is powered by Deep Green (100% renewable energy), I make a conscious effort to fuel my vehicle in a way that is carbon neutral. These efforts are essential. For instance, if you buy were to purchase a PHEV or an EV and charge your vehicle, pulling energy from a grid that is powered by coal, then you may be doing more harm than good. (Keep that in mind, and look into your utility's generation portfolio before going all in on running your car off the grid!)Another Prime feature I am ecstatic about is Toyota's dynamic radar cruise control. I've done significant portions of trips with the Prime controlling the speed and adjusting to flows of traffic. I didn't really understand the feature when I acquired the vehicle and I am truly amazed by it.

Courtesy of Toyota Motor Corp.

Sidebar: I'm also surprised about the amount of hate on the Prime--and on Toyota in general--on many energy-efficiency and sustainability-oriented car blogs. One feature about the Prime that I am annoyed with is that the engine turns on when I turn on the windshield defroster, but the general hate for this vehicle is laughable and misses the bigger picture: highly efficient, safe, technologically savvy vehicles are now market competitive. It is great to provide constructive criticism, but there is a point when bias becomes too blatant to overlook.

Courtesy of greenercars.org

All in all, the Prime is just an initial glimpse at our near-term transportation future--more on the long-term transportation future in another post. I've dedicated a great deal of time to writing about the Prius Prime, but I assure you I'm not funded by Toyota. (I'm just one really excited car owner). There are, in fact, many cars to be excited about right now in terms of efficiency. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently came out with their 2017 Green Car ratings and their "Greenest & Meanest" cars list at their website greenercars.org. The list can be sorted by various filters like "year" and "car class size," and cars can be compared to each other. The Hyundai Ioniq Electric tops ACEEE's list as the greenest car in the US, but it has yet to be released. The Hyundai Ioniq PHEV will be even more fuel efficient than the Prius Prime with a slightly better MPGe estimated at 136. ACEEE scores cars based on their analysis of automakers' test results for fuel economy and emissions as reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), among other estimations for pollution from vehicle manufacturing, from the production and distribution of fuel and from vehicle tailpipes, then factoring in greenhouse gases and combine the emissions estimates into a Green Score that runs on a scale from 0 to 100.

Unfortunately, the new administration in Washington, working against long-term consumer and environmental interests, is reportedly working to rollback vehicle fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards, adopted under the Obama administration in a post-recession multistakeholder agreement, will reduce fuel consumption by more than 2 million barrels of oil per day by 2025 (the equivalent of taking 53 million cars off the road). The standards help to promote innovation within the auto industry, bolster job creation in an important manufacturing sector, aid in moving the United States away from dependence on foreign oil, save American consumers hundreds of millions at the pump, and ultimately honor our global pledge to remain a leader in the fight against climate change.

While some manufacturers will continue to move toward the future of the "Hyper Car" and continue to expand EV, PHEV, and Hydrogen vehicle production, it may not be as quick as the planet needs if rollbacks to fuel efficiency standards are realized. Though a greater number of hybrid, plug-in hybrid (PHEV), and all-electric vehicles (EV) are available in 2017 than ever before, ACEEE reports that pickups, SUVs, and crossovers accounted for nearly 60% of new vehicle sales. Let's hope that the low cost and universal accessibility of new efficient transmissions and Atkinson engines will be enough to generate widespread fuel-efficient midsize vehicle development even without the strict fuel standards the new EPA is out to dismantle--and very close to, apparently.

All of the politicking and these industry maneuverings can seem like a real drag. But, my friends, I will continue to stress that "Hyper Cars" like the Prius Prime, the Chevy Volt, the Hyundai Ioniq, and (hopefully) the Tesla Model 3 will continue to exceed and redefine market expectations. These cars will be better for our wallets and the planet, and as consumers are definitely starting to warm to electric vehicles. Long term, my bet is that charging your car through the night during cheap transmission times, while sourcing your electricity from renewable energy, means that EV will be cheaper and cleaner than petrol no matter the price of petrol. And, to be sure, after a certain price point oil will not be cost competitive. Battery capacity tech, energy retention tech, and energy utilization tech are getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper. I encourage you to contact you congressional representatives and stress your concern about our planet and the need to move away from dirty fuels. Tell your reps that you want then to stand up for our fuel efficiency standards whether via letter, via e-mail or by phone. Furthermore, if you want to fight against the leaders that are pushing us back toward a dirty future, then vote with your dollars and play the important political role the consumer plays.

The future is now.

Prime Time: A Car of the Future

Tired of stopping at the gas station to fill up your ride two or three times a week?

In 2007, Harvard Business Review published "A Road Map for Natural Capitalism" wherein authors Lovins, Lovins, and Hawkin used the automotive industry as an example of a sector that is ripe for technological change. They posit, "After a century of development, motorcar technology is showing signs of age. Only 1% of the energy consumed by today’s cars is actually used to move the driver: Only 15% to 20% of the power generated by burning gasoline reaches the wheels (the rest is lost in the engine and drivetrain) and 95% of the resulting propulsion moves the car, not the driver. The industry’s infrastructure is hugely expensive and inefficient"

Instead, Lovins, Lovins, and Hawkin proclaimed, let us move to an era of the "Hypercar." This car would integrate the best existing technologies to reduce consumption of fuel as much as 85% by making the vehicle out of advanced polymer composites and implementing an aerodynamic design to reduce air resistance. Add electrical controls to replace traditional hardware and a "hybrid-electric" drive and the streets would be filled with high-performance, pollution-free vehicles.

"Hypercars," the authors suggested, "will succeed for the same reason that people buy compact discs instead of phonograph records: The CD is a superior product that redefines market expectations."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to announce the future is now. Hypercars have arrived!

You might be thinking I'm a little late to the game. Toyota inspired efficiency-enthusiasts in 2000 with its infamous jelly-bean of a hybrid vehicle (HV), the Prius, through the integration of best existing technologies. Tesla changed the game several years ago with the Model S, showing the potential of electric vehicles (EV) by producing a superior product that certainly redefined market expectations.

The problem was that there wasn't a "Hypercar" that was as available and accessible as the Prius with the superior, market-redefining features of the Telsa Model S.

That is...until now. Toyota just released its plugin hybrid electric vehicle 2.0: The Prius Prime.

I just picked up the 2017 Prius Prime and it has blown me away. This spacious, efficient vehicle provides an exceptionally smooth and enjoyable ride at a price point that is nearly impossible to beat. The Prime starts at $27,100 for the "Plus" model. The Prius Prime Premium and the Prius Prime Advanced are $28,800 and $33,100 respectively. Here in California, I'm looking at a $1,500 rebate from the state and a $4,502 tax credit from the Federal Government for stepping into the future. Those incentives come alongside a lucrative carpool lane sticker and $100 card for electric vehicle charging.

Perhaps the greatest benefit is all the time (and money) you will save by skipping the gas station. Prius Prime’s EPA-estimated 133 miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) makes it the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the road today. The Prime's MPGe, which is a measure of the average distance traveled per unit of energy consumed, is higher than vehicles of competitors: the Chevy Volt (106 MPGe) and EV pioneers like Telsa's Model S (89-100 MPGe). It also represents a substantial 26 percent enhancement over its predecessor, a result of greater battery capacity and an improved hybrid system. On one 11.3-gallon tank of regular-grade gasoline and a full electric charge, the 2017 Prius Prime has a class-leading estimated total driving range of over 640 miles.

If your commute, like the average American's, is less than 25 miles, then you are going to be doing most of your driving without using a drop of gas. To add, if you have a work situation like mine, you can charge your car at work so you have a full battery for any after-work driving. The 2017 Prius Prime can be plugged in at home to recharge its 8.8 kWh battery pack with no special equipment needed; just plug it into a standard household outlet (110/120V) and schedule a 5.5-hour charge throughout the night when energy costs are lowest. Charging takes less than half the time when using a 240V source (such as a public charging station or home-based installation).

And if the electric battery runs out? You are in luck! The Prius Prime is the best of all worlds! After the EV battery is used up the car will switch to the hybrid driving mode and still receive 55 MPG. Run out of gas? You are in luck! Plug the car into a wall outlet or a charging station listed on your onboard, Telsa-like tablet and you are back on the road. (Of course, I don't recommend running out of EV power or gasoline!) All joking aside, the Prime does a great job at introducing the benefits of Hybrid or EV technology to all consumers without creating a fear that you may be stranded on the highway somewhere.

If driving the most efficient car on the road isn't a seller, then perhaps you'd be delighted to know that the Prius Prime is one of the safest vehicles on the road today. The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (IIHS), tested the Prime in five safety categories and it earned the highest Top Safety Pick Plus designation, while Tesla’s Model S and the BMW i3 fell short. What you may find most important is that all models of the Prime earned the Top safety Pick Plus rating; state of the art safety equipment is standard. As TorqueNews reports, "No need to check a box on the options list to get a top-rated front crash prevention system or decent headlights."

The Prime is definitely an upgrade from the traditional Prius, and it is so airy and futuristic you might feel like you are cruising around in your own little spaceship! The thin, quad-LED headlights illuminate your galactic journey while the 11.6-in HD multimedia tablet display and the customizable 4.2-in. color dual Multi-Information Display screens let you keep track of Prime’s vitals as you quietly cruise to your destination.

Standard heated front seats and Qi-compatible wireless smartphone charging add to the long list of satisfying gadgetry. Though this is a four-seater, the luxurious feel of the car (and the legroom) provides for an extremely pleasing ride no matter what seat you are in. And, 60/40 split fold-down rear seats give you any extra space you may need. More perks can be found in the brochure.

I encourage you to take the car for a test drive at your local Toyota dealership. The Prius Prime is certainly a superior product that redefines market expectations of what a car can be. The "Hypercar" is now available and accessible. What are you waiting for?

_____________________________________________

Photos courtesy of Toyota Motor Sales USA.

The Return (2017)

Welcome back! *he says to himself*

It has been nearly three years since I started my blogging experiment and a lot has happened since then. I'm now living in Marin county working on public lands management issues, agroecology, and environmental education. Located in Mill Valley, Resource Renewal Institute was founded and is currently chaired by Huey Johnson. I'll surely be writing more about our work here. Another exciting happening is that I'm working towards my degree in Sustainable Management at Presidio Graduate School. I look forward to sharing my experiences from this program. It has been incredible so far, and the people I've been able to meet through Presidio are reason enough to attend. I'm very grateful.

The reason I decided to get back on here is because I just purchased a new car and it is absolutely fantastic. I've done so much research on the car, and I'm so satisfied with the purchase, that I decided to write my own article on the subject to persuade you to join me in celebrating the future of the automotive industry--one that is much cleaner and more sustainable than its gas-guzzling predecessor.

Stay tuned,

Chance

Dealing With Climate Change: The Carbon Tax

There has been a great deal of backlash from fiscally conservative entities or individuals when rational discussions attempt to determine further linkages between such human-caused disasters such as oil spills, coal ash spills, coal combustion particulates and asthma, death, or natural disasters. As President Obama cleared up in his 2014 State of the Union, “Climate change is a fact.” Secretary Kerry declared climate change to be perhaps the most world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction earlier this year as well and stating that it is “the greatest challenge of our generation.” With overwhelming support from both administrations and scientific communities around the world, it is difficult to understand to motives of climate-denying entities.

From an economic standpoint, however, it is easy to see that for climate-denying entities (private and public sector)—and those with ties to such entities— the potential threat of incorporating externalities is at the heart of this issue. There are increasing number of externalities that are not being accounted for by entities who sit idle as their business consumes or produces material that in turn creates external, or “social”, costs (costs to our health, environmental, infrastructure, etc.). In the free market these entities are allowed to alleviate themselves from incorporating the rapidly increasing social costs, and they may simply apply individualistic private costs. Well, to this I remind everyone that we are a collection of unique individuals in a causal nexus. The decisions of these (corporate/transnational) entities are not practiced in a vacuum. Their actions have real effects on real people for better or for worse. It is up to regulator agencies to enforce the proper inclusion of these social costs of fossil fuel extraction, production and combustion, which would otherwise be ignored by private entities.

How is this possible? The Carbon Tax Center gives a basic run-through that is pretty easy to get on board with. A carbon tax would effectively tax the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel. Since the carbon content of every form of fossil fuel is precisely known a carbon tax presents few if any problems of documentation or measurement. Economists and policy-makers believe that the tax could be effective if it is paid far “upstream,” at the point where fuels are extracted from the earth or imported from suppliers and put into the stream of commerce. Such a tax would obey the proportions of fossil fuels that emit different amounts of carbon per unit of energy. For instance, a unit of energy from coal produces 30% more carbon dioxide than a unit of energy from oil, and 80% more than from natural gas.

To avoid runaway climate destabilization we must procure a method to rapidly reduce our carbon emotions. Climatologists like Dr. Jim Hansen suggest destabilization will result in severe weather events, inundation of costal areas, spread of diseases, failure of agriculture and water supply, infrastructure destruction, forced migrations, and international conflicts. A tax on carbon pollution will create the broad incentives to encourage decision-makers at all levels of society to reduce carbon emissions through conservation, substitution and innovation. As I have previously mentioned, prices of gasoline, electricity and fuels in general include none of the long-term social and private costs associated with devastating climate change. The omission of these costs oppress incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (high-mileage cars), renewable energy (wind turbines, solar panels) and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every link in the chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation.

In order to maximize incentives to reduce emissions while avoiding “income” effects normally associated with taxes that would drag down the economy a carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutrality, says the Carbon Tax Center, is a “politically savvy way to blunt the ‘No New Taxes’ demand that has held sway in American politics for generations.” There are two methods in which this may be enforced. The most promising way to tax in a revenue-neutral fashion would be, as the Carbon Tax Center states, for “each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated.” Reducing payroll taxes could also stimulate employment. This method is known as tax-shifting.

The other method, which Dr. Hansen supported at the recent Congressional Foreign Policy Committee Hearing on the Keystone XL Pipeline, would be one that would return revenues directly through regular equal “dividends” to all U.S. residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total carbon revenue “pie.” The amount of every individual’s carbon tax would be proportionate to his or her fossil fuel use, creating an incentive to reduce. But revenue return “dividends” would be equal and independent of individuals’ energy use, preserving the conservation incentive.

Despite the extensive work we must undertake this theory can be practically applied. In Canada a carbon tax isn’t just an idea; it is a reality. Five years ago, the Canadian province of British Columbia joined a small group of local and national governments (still fewer than 20 overall) that have created a carbon tax—setting a price on carbon in an effort to reduce emissions. Today, the tax brings in $1 billion a year in revenue that is returned to British Columbia taxpayers. This is returned through a system that is similar to the one Dr. Hansen describes.

A tax on carbon emissions isn’t the only way to “put a price on carbon” and thereby provide incentives to reduce use of high-carbon fuels; a carbon cap-and-trade system is an alternative approach. Recent evidence from the EU’s ETS suggests, however, that price volatility and gaming by market participants has largely undermined the effectiveness of this complex, opaque indirect cap-and-trade system for pricing carbon pollution.

If we are to effectively regulate companies, from an economic efficiency standpoint, then the EPA and other agencies must assist entities internalize the externalized “social cost.” The method of internalization, I suggest, is this carbon tax. To battle the climate patterns and threatening ecosystems that result we need to slow the amount of carbon we are emitting; we should not increase the extraction and combustion of more fossil fuels to create jobs or boost the economy in the short-term. If the cost of carbon is not soon internalized by all entities, then there will be uncontrollable events for my generation and the future generations of our families.

Upholding the Rights of Whales and Dolphins in the 21st Century: Reflecting on Fundamental Conclusions 2013-2014

"Hurray!"-This whale

Whales around the world are a little safer today. Why? Today, March 31, 2014, Australia has won an international lawsuit against Japan’s Southern Ocean ‘scientific’ whaling program and the International Court of Justice has ordered Tokyo to cease the killing immediately. Australia—who launched this case against Japan back in 2010—were quick to challenge the Japanese slaughter of whales as an important, long standing feature of Japanese culture. Australia pointed out that Southern Ocean whaling began in the 1930s, and that it takes place some 6000 km from the Japanese coastline…doesn't sound like a definitive feature of Japanese culture to me. Even though it may not have a cultural impact, Japan whaling efforts affect the ocean ecosystem where around a thousand minke whales are hunted down annually in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean. Australia and environmental groups say the hunt serves no scientific purpose and is just a way for Japan to get around the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986.

Courtesy of abc.net.au

 Slovakian judge Peter Tomka stated today that Japan had not justified the large number of minke whales it takes under its "scientific" program, while failing to meet much smaller targets for fin and humpback whales. Japan argued that the World Court, which is the United Nations’ court for disputes between countries, did not have the authority to deem what is and is not scientific. Despite Japan’s best efforts, Tomka believed that there was no evidence that Japan has examined whether it would be feasible to maintain a smaller lethal take and increase non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve research objectives. This was the first time in history any country has used an international court to try to stop whaling and it was met with success. Japan has said it will abide by the ruling of the court.

Of course, there have been other victories for cetacean species in the last 12 months. Back in July 2013, India's Ministry of Environment and Forests advised state governments to ban commercial entertainment that involves the capture and confinement of cetacean species such as orcas and bottlenose dolphins. That marked India as the forth country in the world to ban the capture and import of cetacean species for the purposes of commercial entertainment. Costa Rica, Hungary, Chile, and now India all recognize these species as highly intelligent and sensitive, and that these animals should be seen as ‘non-human persons’, whose rights to life and liberty must be respected.  These rights are not just being uphold abroad, but here too in America where state Assemblyman Richard Bloom of Santa Monica proposed a bill that would ban the captivity of orcas for entertainment at SeaWorld. This proposed bill comes shortly after the release of the massively successful CNN documentary “Blackfish.”

There are, however, those who still oppose the life and liberty of cetacean species. Icelandic whalers have killed more than 700 whales, including hundreds of endangered fin whales, since the country allowed whale hunts to resume in 2003, exploiting controversial loopholes to evade the whaling ban—just like Japan has with their ‘scientific’ whaling scheme. Iceland killed 35 minke whales and 134 fin whales—massive animals second only to blue whales in size—during the 2013 whaling season alone. Though the International World Court’s moratorium on commercial whaling prohibits the commercial trading of whale products, Iceland has exported to Latvia, Norway, and Japan to keep its dying whaling industry afloat. SeaWorld, also facing economic hardships, attempted to set the record “straight” by fighting back allegations with a list of responses from the supporters of SeaWorld, “An Open Letter from SeaWorld’s Animal Advocates”.  Unfortunately, in late December 2013, Sea Shepherd deflated the rhetoric of the SeaWorld supporters.

Greenpeace so eloquently summed up todays proceedings here: “While today's ruling did not outlaw the killing of whales for scientific research per se, it categorically stated that Japan's whaling programme in the Southern Ocean was not for scientific purposes, and the amount of whales being killed was not justifiable in the name of science.” This ruling is important because it is binding under international law and will be upheld by Japan, tightening the noose around a dying industry. Lethal whaling programs are not necessary, nor are the captures and imprisonments of other cetacean species for commercial entertainment purposes. Cetacean species are more entertaining in their natural habitat then a confined space, stripped of liberty and joy. These industries are on their last legs; we must continue to support legislation that promotes sustainable ocean regeneration and just treatment of the animals therein so that whaling and commercial exploitation of all cetacean species for (minor) amusement/enjoyment will be a practice of the past.   

Courtesy of hdwallpaper.com