I knew that whales were a kind of reservoir of carbon, but I didn’t know just how much carbon they stored. Apparently, it’s enough to make a measurable contribution to the problem of the warming of the earth and the oceans. Basically, whales remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the way the eat and poop. It is described in this excellent Ted Talk I heard recently given by an economist, Ralph Chami, who became an ally of whales after he got to see a Blue Whale up close and when he learned how important they are in helping to regulate the climate.
Whales are useful for controlling carbon dioxide in the air because a major food on their menu is called krill, creatures that look like little shrimp. Krill, in turn, eat microscopic organisms called phytoplankton, which take so the equivalent of 4 Amazon forests of CO2 out of the atmosphere each year. By eating the krill, whales are storing much of that carbon in their bodies, so it doesn’t get released back into the air. When whales die, they sink to the bottom of the deep ocean. Anything below 1000 meters stays put in the ocean virtually forever. Even better, when the whales poop, they provide fertilizer for phytoplankton, which then grab even more CO2 from the atmosphere. Due to their tremendous size, the poop of whales contributes A LOT to nourishing the phytoplankton.
As an economist, Ralph Chami realized that he had to translate the services that whales do for the planet (that is, sequester huge amounts of carbon and therefore help mitigate global warming) in ways that people understand: dollars and cents. So, he estimated that the services a single whale does to capture carbon in the course of their lifetime could be valued at 3 million dollars. It turns out that, on land, elephants also do an excellent job storing carbon, not in their bodies but by fertilizing trees, which in turn sequester carbon. He valued their services to the earth to be about 2.6 million dollars each.
Armed with this information Ralph Chami has been trying to create a market place where companies who need to off-set their carbon footprints purchase credits from countries or areas that are taking measures to protect whales or elephants, or grow sea grass, which is also good at capturing carbon dioxide.
It may see cold and calculating to give a monetary value to living things such as elephants and whales, but, if it helps to protect them, it can be a positive thing.
This blog has been in existence since 2011. It was mainly started to serve as an example for students taking a seminar focused on using web resources to research controversial issues at a private university in Tokyo. However, it has been maintained for more than 12 years out of interest and in light of the fact that thousands of visitors have come to the blog and may have enjoyed reading some of the posts.
The situation regarding Japan's role in whaling operations has gotten somewhat better over the last several years since the international court of justice demanded in 2014 that Japan end its annual hunt of whales. It complied with that only after pulling out of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 2019. When it left the IWC, the Japanese government said that it would limit commercial whaling to within its own territorial waters. So, they would no longer have the pretense that they were engaged in whaling for "research purposes" when it was actually commercial in nature, as they did for many years
Unfortunately, however, the British newspaper, the Guardian reported in February of 2023 that a Japanese company, Kyodo Senpaku, is currently building a huge factory whaling ship, which they call a "mother ship." That ship will be capable of sailing 13,000 KM and can stay at sea for as long as two months. The idea is that smaller ships will capture the whales and the bigger "mother ship" will process the whale meat, freezing and storing it.
Minke whales, including a 1-year-old juvenile, being loaded aboard Nisshin Maru. This photograph was taken in the Southern Ocean by agents from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service vessel, during a 2008 surveillance mission.
The government of Australia is strongly opposed to this planned return to whaling in the Antarctic Ocean, which Australia sees as its backyard, with whales in its waters that travel in and out of the so-called Southern Ocean. The Japanese government gave assurances to Australia’s environment minister, Tanya Plibsersek, that they were not funding this "mother ship" and claimed that it was a private endeavor. Given that it is highly unlikely that any future whaling operation can turn a profit, it's almost surely the case that the Japanese government is subsidizing the project with tax payer yen.
The Guardian quotes the president of Kyodo Senpaku, Hideki Tokoro, as saying that the "mother ship" was intended to pass on “whaling culture" to future generations. As was noted elsewhere in this blog, this kind of whaling operation, with its exploding harpoons and huge vessels is a far cry from the traditional small-scale whaling that Japan engaged in for hundreds of years. It is something that Japan took up following the example of Western nations that have long since given up the practice as being barbaric and not in line with what is now known about the value of whales to the oceans' ecosystems.
It looks like the Japanese government is now outsourcing the tired old claim that Japan's "whaling culture must be preserved" to private companies. The other claim, that it is needed for future "food security," is laughable given the unsustainable nature of the industry, huge ships using fossil fuels to travel thousands of miles to catch animals that are no longer part of the diet of modern Japanese.
I watched “A Whale of a Tale” last night and found it disappointing and annoying although I understood the admirable motivation of its director, Megumi Sasaki, and respect the fact that she spent 6 years of her life making it. In an interview (Sasaki, 2018) that was conducted by the Asia Society soon after the release of the film, she mentioned how disgusted she was by the total breakdown in communication between the anti-whaling activists, the filmmakers of “The Cove,” and the fishermen and townspeople of Taiji. She wanted to make a film that showed the town’s perspective, and that of the fishermen, in a more balanced way.
On the plus side, she did succeed in her film to humanize the fishermen, Taiji officials, and citizens who were mostly vilified in “The Cove.” As a Japanese filmmaker who was not perceived as being aligned with activist groups, she gained the trust of the fishermen, mayor, and even local right-wing activists in order to get their candid comments. “A Whale of a Tale” uncovered the hatred and xenophobia that existed on both sides, emanating from the activists, foreign critics of the dolphin/whale slaughter, the fishermen, the rightist defenders of the drive, and from the townspeople.
Those in Taiji, whether they were directly connected with the whaling industry or not, felt under attack. They had been losing the media battle abroad, mainly thanks to “The Cove” and the notoriety it caused, but gained domestic sympathy because they were seen as underdogs defending their ancient traditions. In the intervening years, between the filming of “The Cove” and “A Whale of a Tale,” the fishermen and local officials seemed to realize they had to change their approach to activists, journalists, and filmmakers.
They turned on a charm offensive for the cameras, in the case of the more recent documentary, without changing the brutality of their dolphin hunt drive methods or the bloody consequences of them, except for some lip service about more humanely severing the dolphins' cervical spine. Nor did they make any attempt to try to justify the continuation of the hunt in the 21st century, when the vast majority of Japanese eschew whale meat the harm done to captive animals is well known (Bearzi, 2014).
The claims of neutrality or objectivity by the filmmaker, Megumi Sasaki, and one of the film’s chief protagonists, Jay Alabaster (a doctoral student and AP stringer), is laughable. The very reason why “The Cove” gained the notoriety that it did was because of the coup that it pulled off in successfully (albeit clandestinely and through trickery) of showing the drive hunt in its full gory detail, despite the best efforts of the “fishermen” to shield the bloodletting with tarps and to intimidate the activists/filmmakers. Jay Alabaster is both a character in the doc and the vehicle for the film’s main contention that things could be so much better if the two sides (portrayed simplistically as Americans and people in Taiji, or the Japanese in general) could just understand each other and “get along.”
Only token consideration is given to the whales/dolphins themselves and Alabaster becomes an apologist for the Fisheries Agency/ Fishermen’s argument that the species being slaughtered are not endangered and “only” about 2000 of them are killed each year. At the end of the film, Alabaster sits down for a beer and a meal of whale meat with the fishermen who treat him condescendingly like their pet “good gaijin,” unlike those nasty gaijin who want them to stop making Taiji’s cove red with blood each year.
The biggest lost opportunity in the film was that it did not give greater screen time to local activists. A Japanese activist who worked since the late 1960s, and her younger protege, to protect dolphins and whales were interviewed in the film for just a few minutes despite offering valuable insights that could have been expanded upon. An excellent article appeared in the Japan Times (O’dwyer, 2015) explaining how much domestic activism was set back by “The Cove” and the confrontational tactics of Sea Shepherd. That outside pressure made it possible for The Fisheries Agency, right-wing agitators, and the fishermen to paint any resistance to the hunt as anti-Japanese, a threat to Japanese cultural identity, and a menace to Japan’s sovereignty and autonomy. This distracted from the sheer barbarity and gruesomeness of the slaughter and put that on the back burner.
The most fundamental problem with the film “A Whale of a Tale” is its argument that the two sides (Japan/Taiji fishermen and townspeople vs. foreigners/activists) misunderstand each other and can all be happier if they came to see each other’s perspective. This was beyond naive. The naivety of it was laid bare in a particularly revealing scene that appeared late in the documentary, one in which Jay Alabaster met with a relatively young whaler equipped with some of the recent Tweets and streamed video by Sea Shepherd (and copious comments on those Tweets).
Just a single day of tweeting filled pages and pages, whereas the town of Taiji and the fishermen had hardly any social media presence at all. One of the Tweets showed a streaming video of dolphins being slaughtered beyond a barrier of tarps that had been set up. Wind gusts blew the tarp up exposing the bloodshed and reddening sea. Alabaster was trying to make the point that if only the fishermen and the town could get their side of the story out they’d be able to compete against the foreign social media onslaught. What the fisherman was concerned with, however, was how they could better shield the slaughter by tying down the tarp better. The “sides” understand each other only too well. Alabaster and Sasaki were a boon to Taiji's (and the Fisheries Agency's) PR efforts but did nothing to advance any true "meeting of minds." Their lack of care or concern for the thousands of dolphins and whales being killed each year was obvious. A anthropocentric worldview can not easily be reconciled with a biocentric one, and differences in these worldviews go beyond cultural differences or mere preferences.
In the film, one of the Taiji fishermen made an excellent point and he did so quietly and earnestly. He asked why slaughterhouses in the US didn't carry out their activities openly, freely allowing cameras so all could see what was being done. Why indeed? He said this to point out the hypocrisy of what he perceived to be unfair criticism of the Taiji slaughter. Setting aside points that might be made about wild cetaceans vs. livestock raised for human consumption, of course, a more genuinely biocentric approach would just as vigorously advocate for an end to the slaughter of dolphins in Taiji as it would the slaughter of hogs in Iowa. The quickening pace of our biosphere's destruction will, hopefully, advance a more consistent biocentric worldview...but it's unfortunate that that's what it may take before we start to come around. Empathy is not only needed to bring people together, but also to bring about respect for sentient creatures of all stripes, even if they happen to be striped dolphins.
“A Whale of a Tale” (2018) is a documentary about the controversy surrounding the Taiji dolphin hunt and it is meant as a response to the 2009 Oscar-winning anti-whale hunting documentary, “The Cove.” The film director, Megumi Sasaki, was disgusted by the communication breakdown that occurred between the people of Taiji and the activists/ film makers and she wanted to present a more balanced view of the issue, listening deeply to both sides (or at least the humans’ perspectives as the whales/dolphins suffer silently).
I respect Megumi Sasaki as a filmmaker as I watched her wonderful documentary about amateur art collectors called “Herb & Dorothy,” which was well made, entertaining, and deeply moving. I just purchased “A Whale of a Tale” on Amazon and plan to watch it this weekend. After that, I’ll report my reactions to it in this blog.
A student in a seminar I’m teaching (at a private university in Tokyo) on research and critical thinking recommended a Taiji-related documentary, directed by another female Japanese filmmaker, Keiko Yagi.
Although “The Cove” may have presented a rather one-sided view of the issue form the activists’ and dolphins’/ whales’ perspectives, Keiko Yagi’s documentary, “Behind the Cove” seems to parrot the talking points of Japan Fisheries Agency and vilifies activists, portraying anyone who opposes the annual slaughter of dolphins/whales in Taiji as a Japan basher and someone who couldn’t possibly respect Japanese culture and traditions, neglecting the fact that many Japanese also oppose the slaughter. I plan to watch this documentary as well and report on it in this blog too. Stay tuned.
A story that appeared to report a terrible incident in which 16 members of a Japanese whaling crew were eaten alive by orcas (killer whales) was published in the satirical website "World News Daily Report.” Although most people visiting the site and seeing this story probably could recognize it as satire, when it was retweeted and posted on various social media sites it was mistaken by many people as a true story.
Using the excellent list of criteria for how to evaluate sources, from New Mexico State University Library (http://nmsu.libguides.com/c.php?g=381561&p=2585271), we can see that the most important question for quickly assessing the truthfulness of the killer whale story comes under the heading “Scope, Coverage & Relevance”: Who is the intended audience? Fortunately, the reader can find the answer to this question easily by scrolling to the bottom of the page where it says “World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content.” This tells us that the content is meant to amuse and entertain. After we know the purpose of the website questions about “authority” (i.e., the credentials of the author), the timeliness of the content, and issues related to bias, accuracy and quality are all irrelevant.
What may have led some people who read the article quickly to be fooled by it was that there was plenty of factual information about Japan’s whaling operations mentioned. Just to name a few, the factory ship was identified as the Nisshin Maru (which is accurate), and it was also correctly noted that Japan had lost a ruling in the international court forcing them to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
If one did a Google search for information about killer whales eating members of a Japanese whaling crew, an article would be found from the fairly respectable British newspaper, Independent, with the headline “Japanese whaling crew 'eaten alive by killer whales, 16 dead' story definitely a hoax.” This shows the importance of checking outside sources. The Independent article points out how unlikely it would be for a representative of Greenpeace to say the following: "It seems that Japan just doesn’t give a damn about international law. The waste of life is always a shame, but the whales are not to blame here, they were only doing what they are born to do: kill for food." There were also spelling and grammatical errors in the article that should have hinted that something was wrong.
Below is a reference to the article in the Independent identifying the article as a hoax:
Disturbingly, some of those who had believed the story after seeing it reposted on Facebook or retweeted on Twitter thought that the Japanese whalers got what they deserved and rejoiced.
I searched on COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English—https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/) for the occurrences, —within 4 spots of each other—of when the word “Japanese" collocates with “whaling.” In total 41 such collocations were found. Thirty in academic contexts, five in news, and three in spoken English, while only one was found in fiction. This was a fairly low occurrence rate in a corpus comprised of more than half a billion words.
It was discovered that all of the ones from academic contexts were found in either of two articles that were published in the years 2000 and 2002. Some further research revealed that the articles came from two issues of the same academic journal, one that is based in America but focuses on Asian affairs. These are the citations of the articles:
BAILEY, J; MCKAY, B. Are Japanese Attitudes Toward Whaling America-Bashing? A Response to Tanno and Hamazaki. Asian Affairs: An American Review. 29, 3, 148, Sept. 2002. ISSN: 00927678.
TANNO, D; HAMAZAKI, T. Is American Opposition to Whaling Anti-Japanese?. Asian Affairs: An American Review. 27, 2, 81, June 2000. ISSN: 00927678.
The article by the Japanese co-authors contends that American ethnocentrism and an anti-Japanese bias led to negative feelings by Americans toward Japanese whaling operations. They also claim that Japan was singled out for its whaling activities even though Iceland and Norway also conducted their own annual whaling expeditions. Tanno and Hamazaki charge that environmental groups such as Greenpeace tend to focus their protests on Japan instead of the Western countries that also engage in whaling, which they believe amounts to Japan bashing.
In response to the Tanno and Hamazaki article, Bailey and McKay convincingly counter that Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and other environmental NGOs have extensively protested against the whaling of Western countries such as Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. They assert that Japan was not exclusively targeted. In fact, Sea Shepherd sunk the Norwegian whaling vessel Willassen Senior in 2007, something it never did to a Japanese whaling vessel. Not to justify their actions, but this is evidence that the pressure put on Japan’s whaling was not evidence of any sort of racism or “Japan bashing.”
The news stories that were found in COCA ranging from 2010 to 2014, concerned the threatened legal measures taken by Australia against Japan to halt Japan’s Antarctic whaling program, which Japan was claiming to be necessary for scientific purposes. When Japan did not respond to the pressure put on it by Australia, the Australian government sued Japan in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In 2014, a decision was made against Japan in the court. It was found that “Japan’s program failed to justify the large number of minke whales it takes under its [then] current Antarctic program.”
Because the academic articles that the COCA samples came from fell on both sides of the whaling issue, they were balanced in their stances. Only a few of them showed some bias:
* Sympathetic toward the Japanese (in the face of aggression tactics by the conservation group Sea Shepherd (3)
* Expresses opinion that environmental NPOs are more likely to target Japanese whaling operations than Norwegian ones. (2)
* Siding with environmentalists or with countries opposing whaling (pointing out that the Japanese whaling industry is heavily subsidized and “scientific whaling” a guise for commercial whaling) (3)
