Can We Save the Whales by Putting a Price on Them?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/news/whale_quota.htm

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif]Jan. 12, 2012

[font size=5]Can We Save the Whales by Putting a Price on Them?[/font]
[font size=4]Scientists suggest that tradable harvest quotas may ensure that cetaceans survive[/font]

[font size=3]Santa Barbara, CA – Every year, a group of anti-whaling nonprofit organizations that includes Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and the World Wildlife Fund spend, by conservative estimates, some $25 million on a variety of activities intended to end commercial whaling.

And every year, commercial whaling not only continues, but grows.

…

Now, an economist and two marine scientists writing in the January 12 issue of the journal NATURE suggest a new strategy that they believe could save whales by putting a price on them.

In the article, “A market approach to saving the whales,” Christopher Costello and Steve Gaines, professors of economics and marine science, respectively, at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, join Leah Gerber, a population ecologist and marine conservation biologist at Arizona State University, to propose a market-based solution to saving whales.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/481139a

[FBaggins]

1. Doubt that would work (both sides would oppose it).

First of all... I can't imagine Sea Shephard going along with a plan that codifies ongoing whale "harvesting". "You can take all you like, you just have to pay for them" doesn't strike me as something they would agree with.

More importantly, There is no international government with the power to force such a scheme. Japan wouldn't agree to a treaty that put external controls on them. They would continue to insist on "research" exceptions to any international treaty... or they simply wouldn't sign it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. The proposal is not, "You can take all you like, you just have to pay for them"

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/481139a

…

We propose an alternative path forward that could break the deadlock: quotas that can be bought and sold, creating a market that would be economically, ecologically and socially viable for whalers and whales alike. Because conservationists could bid for quotas, whalers could profit from whales even without harvesting the animals. A market would therefore open the door to reducing mortality without needing to battle over whether whaling is honourable or shameful.

…

The 'whale share' approach stands a good chance of being acceptable both to anti- and to pro-whaling constituents. If quotas are set properly, transactions would reduce the number of whales harvested, quite possibly to zero, unlike existing protocols, which seem to be increasing the catches. Whalers would be suitably compensated. And because trades are voluntary, the market would have the potential to make all parties better off, and simultaneously improve whale conservation.

A fervent anti-whaler will be quick to argue that you cannot and should not put a price on the life of a whale; a species should be protected irrespective of its economic value. But unless all nations can be convinced or forced to adopt this view, whaling will continue. It is precisely because of the lack of a real price tag in the face of different values that anti-whaling operations have had such limited success.

…

Simple calculations based on current market prices, whale sizes and whaling costs, suggest that the per-whale profit for whalers is in the ballpark of $13,000 for a minke whale to $85,000 for a fin whale. Whale prices should therefore be within reach of conservation groups and even some individuals.

…

[FBaggins]

3. Doesn't make a difference.

They won't agree to a plan that makes it ok to kill a certain number of whales.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Part of the idea here…

…is that anti-whaling groups are already paying a good chunk of change to try to stop whaling, and they’re not succeeding. If that money were used to “buy” whales from the whalers… they might save many more.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064115/quotes?qt0409692
“If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him.”
[font size=1]— Butch Cassidy in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid[/font]

[FBaggins]

5. I get it... I just don't agree that it can work.

The idea has its roots in trading markets for such air pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides,

Which rely on each country agreeing in advance to what their portion is. That doesn't work in this case because most contries "take" none at all... and the one country that really matters isn't going to agree to their quota going down.

The price estimates don't get you anywhere... because the price of a thing changes as scarcity increases. The final 100 permits would cost many times as much as the first 100.

The Cassidy quote makes the point pretty well. I wouldn't want to pay "protection" to the mob for year after year with the explicit agreement that it's ok for them to shoot me if I stop... would you?

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. OK, how about this for a comparison?

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110418/NEWS/104180309

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]New fishing quota system gains support[/font]

By Doug Fraser
[e-mail]
April 18, 2011

[font size=3]On June 24, 2009, John Pappalardo, the Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, walked into a critical council meeting in Portland, Maine, fully expecting a battle.

…

But the fight never materialized and the measure passed 14-1. Even the allocation method, the most controversial element of the new regulations, which dictated how the fish would be divided among fishermen, passed by a lopsided margin, 12 for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

…

While critics grabbed the spotlight and waxed loud and long about the new management system, many fishermen from Maine to New Jersey found it to be far better than the previous regulations to the point where they are looking forward to the beginning of the new fishing year next month.

"From my perspective, this is a hell of a lot better than it was before and we're still working on ways to improve it," said Eric Brazer, sector manager for the Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector.

…[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

7. I don't see how it's comparable.

Take instead a similar situation where a fishery is in serious decline and a dozen fishermen have listened to public calls to halt production... but two boats still make regular trips - one taking 2,000 tons and the other taking 500 tons.

Now propose your system. Will there be 2500 tons in the quota? Who gets them? If it's split between 14 fishermen but all must agree... what are the chances that the guy taking 2,000 tons will listen? If it's split between the two who still make trips, what does that say to the dozen who acted responsibly (think "moral hazard&quot ?