Stop Global Warming

Developing World Stands Up To Developed Nations

Published October 16, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT

I'm currently on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in the South Pacific. We're on the Defending Our Pacific tour, which is a campaign to establish a global network of marine reserves, stop overfishing of Pacific fisheries, and support Pacific island nations efforts to stop Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in their waters.


Crewman aboard the Japanese vessel Koyu Maru 3, fishing in Cook Islands waters illegally, haul a tuna onboard. Like climate change, overfishing of the world's fisheries is threatening the livelihood of developing countries who are not contributing significantly to the source of the problem. Image © Paul Hilton/Greenpeace

Last week, we caught the Japanese ship Koyu Maru 3 fishing in Cook Islands waters without a license, which is obviously illegal. When I blogged a bout it on the Greenpeace website, I made the point that this was not just illegal but also immoral. So why is it immoral?

Last week, a new study was released by The Commonwealth that underscores the drastic need for government action on overfishing and climate change in order to stave off a collapse of global fisheries. The report warns that the oceans could soon become “deserts” and goes on to say:

The study reveals that those least responsible for the state of the oceans are most likely to suffer the consequences of poor management and climate change. Small island states in particular are vulnerable to illegal and unfair fishing by foreign fleets and to migration of fish away from warming seas.

The Esperanza has been in the Pacific region since May to support Pacific Island countries on issues ranging from climate change to fisheries collapse and marine conservation. But of course Greenpeace’s history in the Pacific Ocean goes back much further than that — all the way back to the early 1970s when we were protesting the French nuclear blasts at Moruroa. The fallout from these blasts also disproportionately affected those Pacific islanders living downwind from the blast sites — another instance of those not responsible for a problem suffering the most. While there was nothing technically illegal about these blasts, the total disregard for human health and welfare is egregious.

The industrialized commercial fishing vessels that are literally stealing fish from Pacific island nations' waters is just another example of the developed world doing as they please and disregarding the well-being of the people affected by their actions. That's why it’s very encouraging that eight Pacific island nations have come together and are standing up for their rights against these invading international commercial fishing fleets.

Pacific island states are not the only developing nations that are banding together to force the developed world to live up to their other moral obligations: “Africa will demand billions of dollars in compensation from rich polluting nations at a UN climate summit for the harm caused by global warming on the continent, African officials said Sunday.”

Lest we doubt that there is any need for this stand by African nations, even the World Bank, generally no friend to the developing world, is warning of the threats those nations are facing as the climate crisis looms: “The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

So the real question we must be asking ourselves is: Will the developed world stand up and do the right thing in regard to these moral obligations?

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (5)

  1. CTYankee Aeon

    What happened to my earlier comment? 

    Biased censorship is never a good idea.

    But at least I've got your number.

    Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 11/03/2009 @ 05:32PM PT

  2. Reply to thread
  3. Mike G.

    huh? no one's censoring you, dude. you probably just didn't post it properly.

    Posted by Mike G. on 11/04/2009 @ 09:22AM PT

  4. CTYankee Aeon

    Perhaps someone on the board upstream of this thread???

    I made two comments:

    1) about Africa 'demanding' compensation...

    2) the flaw of the assumption that the Cook Islands own the tuna, or that the tuna (the victims) sought legal protection in the those waters.

    It was a bit tongue in cheek, apparently someone thought it was less than amusing and deleted the post.

    Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 11/04/2009 @ 11:03AM PT

  5. Reply to thread
  6. Mike G.

    well go ahead and post your comments in more detail and i'd love to discuss them with you.

    based on what you've said, though, i'd argue that there is absolutely no flaw in the argument about the Cook Islands' right to set terms for fishing in their waters. no one is claiming they "own" the tuna, per se, but they certainly do have the right to determine who can fish in their waters, what terms fishing vessels must adhere to in order to get a license to fish in their waters, and to demand any compensation they deem fair for the fish caught in their waters.

    by "their waters," of course, i mean their exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends 200 miles out of their borders.

    Posted by Mike G. on 11/04/2009 @ 11:24AM PT

  7. CTYankee Aeon

    Hey Mike,

    I'm sure you've seen this but I copied it from Wikipedia:

    The fifteen small islands in this South Pacific Ocean country have a total land area of 240 square kilometres (92.7 sq mi), but the Cook Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covers 1.8 million square kilometres (0.7 million sq mi) of ocean.[2]

    That's 0.013% land over water.  That's not even mud, that's like some low turbidity fluid; my tap water isn't that clear!

    I bet the Cook Islanders are really nice folks, but I consider their 'claim' on that much ocean (90km^2) per person to be downright absurd.

    I'll admit I have no idea how much the license fee was/is/should be...  I suggest the Cooks' send the skipper of the tuna boat an invoice, perhaps he'll pay it using PayPal, and deduct the expense from his taxes.

    PS I used to support Greenpeace, I bought many many bottles on indellible orange dye for baby seal fur.  But when I learned how anti-capitalism, anti-commerce, anti-progress, etc, the backroom of  organization really is, I walked away.

    Posted by CTYankee Aeon on 11/04/2009 @ 12:45PM PT

  8. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author
Mike G.

Mike G. has been a progressive and environmental activist since he knocked on his first door as a canvasser in college. He's been writing about progressive and environmental causes on the web almost as long. He is currently a Web Editor at Greenpeace USA, covering the org's global warming, forests, and nuclear energy campaigns. Mike has two English degrees gathering dust in his closet: a Masters from San Jose State (in California) and a Bachelors from the University of Texas, Austin. When not being a web geek, he is a writer (mostly of sci-fi), editor, cyclist, and musician. He lives in San Francisco and loves it there.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.