Great news. Word today from colleagues in Iceland and now reports in both Icelandic and English-language media confirm that the planned hunt for fin whales will not happen this summer. The man behind that whaling is claiming that he’s stopping because of "hindrances" in exporting the meat. That’s great news for whales and everyone who has been opposing this needless, senseless hunt.
BREAKING: Iceland cancels fin #whale hunt this summer! https://t.co/M3pc7UrT9e #whaling https://t.co/4wTQ5UgQz5— Greenpeace USA (@Greenpeace USA)1456421323.0
Fin whales are amazing. The second largest animal on our planet growing up to 27 meters in length (that’s about two and a half double-decker buses) and are found all over the globe. They’re nicknamed the "greyhounds of the sea," because they are sleek, streamlined swimming machines. They are listed as internationally endangered, largely because these massive whales were some of the first targets of the harpoons of factory whaling in the 20th century and their populations were virtually wiped out in many areas.
Over the past few years Iceland has defied international opinion and public outcry and allowed one man, Kristian Loftsson, to restart a fin whale hunt. This hunt of an internationally endangered species is quite impossible to defend. It makes no environmental, economic or social sense to Iceland. There is no market for the meat in Iceland, the blubber (and often more) is discarded as being "unfit for human consumption" and the tentative trade to Japan makes no sense—not least since they too have stockpiles of unwanted whale meat and are concerned about toxic pollution.
Greenpeace supporters have played a crucial role in highlighting and even blockading some of these illicit shipments. When tens of thousands of supporters raised there voices for whales, President Obama imposed diplomatic sanctions on Iceland. And activists have blocked ports in the Netherlands and Germany and challenged shipments through Canada, exposed desperate shipment through the Arctic and mobilized massive public support to block whale meat trade via South Africa. And let’s not forget there is no economic rationale for these hunts and this trade and fin whales are supposed to be protected species internationally. As well as that, whales and other marine life in the North Atlantic have been shown to suffer particularly badly from toxins. That’s why people are advised to avoid eating whale blubber or too many portions of fatty fish and recent studies suggest some populations of whales in the North Atlantic might ultimately go extinct as a result of pollution alone.
Over recent decades tourism has become a much more significant economic activity in Iceland than whaling could ever be and the growth of whale-watching has been one of the greatest success stories of all. Iceland is now a destination synonymous with scenery and wildlife, which has increasingly brought the tourist industry into conflict with Loftsson’s ego-driven hunt.
There’s simply no place today for commercial whaling and the world’s remaining whales, dolphins and porpoises face a whole host of threats from us humans that we collectively aren’t tackling—from climate change, to pollution and industrial fishing. Stopping the senseless charade of commercial whaling for good needs to happen so we can get on with the other stuff.
So when Loftsson says he is stopping because of "hindrances," it sounds like a very diplomatic version of the truth to save face. But let’s hope that the cancelling of this year’s hunt is the end of this indefensible outrage for good.
That would be even better news for the whales, for Iceland and for the oceans.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Massive Starfish Die-Off Linked to Warming Oceans
Humpback Whale Entangled in Illegal Gillnet Saved by Sea Shepherd Crew
Horrible! This Guy Drags Shark From Sea Just to Pose for Photos
Baby Dolphin Dies After Being Passed Around by Tourists Taking Selfies
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.