The Money and the Mitigations

Lex got our attention today with a short discussion of sonar restrictions off Hawaii.

The big problem with sonar restrictions isn't a pattern of the Navy wiping out marine life, no one has ever made such a claim. The big problem is the perspective of some that the potential exists the Navy could kill marine mammals with active sonar systems. The other problem is that the largest build up of foreign submarines is currently taking place in the Pacific Ocean, and the Navy is being forbidden by the courts from training to fight submarines. Active sonar is the most effective system for detecting submarines, and yet the Navy can't use it. Lex is asking the question never asked on TV:

It is our Navy’s business to prepare to fight a three-dimensional campaign from the sea, the better to make such a fight unnecessary in the long run: Strength is daunting, but weakness can be provocative.

I can’t help wondering how silly we’ll all feel should the maritime balloon go up, and we lose a $10 billion aircraft carrier and 5000 souls to a $200 million submarine no one remembered - or ever learned - how to fight against.

The whales, at least, will have been spared.

Indeed. The article Lex has cited ran in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, it is a good read for the various events. What caught my attention was the opposition.

Daniel Hinerfeld, spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued the Navy, said the Navy has acknowledged that sonar harms marine mammals. But it continues to train without mitigating the harm, resulting in lawsuits, he said.

"The root of the problem is the Navy's unwillingness to do the responsible thing," Hinerfeld said. "The responsible thing to do is to work out mitigations that addresses that problem and also still allow the Navy to train effectively."

The root of the problem is that environmentalists are calling the shots regarding what training is allowed and what training is not, and all mitigations have been unsatisfactory (and always will be from the perspective of NRDC. There is an incredible lack of leadership in Washington DC not to be able to fix this issue once and for all, and it is a bipartisan problem. However, here is what has been bothering us lately on this issue. The media does a good job tellings us the names of the organizations always fighting the legal battles with the Navy on the use of sonar, but we have never seen any media coverage regarding who is funding them. Most people don't realize they only have to report the people who fund these non profit environmental legal organizations if the donor wants to claim a tax break. Otherwise, no paper trail. We think it is time to start asking questions, because we'd like to know more about groups like the National Resources Defense Council whose actively prevents the Navy from training against submarines.

We think it is reasonable to ask questions when the National Resources Defense Council has a section on their website dedicated to free energy in China. It just seems a little strange that an organization involved in every single lawsuit against the Navy use of sonars would have a section on China and the environment, and doesn't have a single bad thing to say about Chinese environmental policy. Who does the NRDC work with in China? According to their own website:

NRDC works at the national level in China with key agencies and organizations, and also works with their local counterparts in several regions and cities, including Beijing, Chongqing, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shanxi and Shenzhen.

So the facts are a legal organization committed to protecting the environment is involved in every lawsuit against the use of sonars by the Navy, and the same organization openly admits to working with "key agencies and organizations" in China, all the while not saying a single negative word about Chinese environmental policy. Of coarse this has nothing to do with all the usage of legal means to fight America asymmetrically printed throughout PLA published discussions, why would anyone even suggest such a thing?

Which organization in the world is largest investor in research and science to help understand the effects of sonar and marine mammals? The US Navy, and the annual difference is tens of millions. Why? Because everyone else has been allowed to assume the science without the research, and the Navy is the only group that will actually put up money to look into the problem. Another example of the 'root of the problem' according to NRDC no doubt. As I understand it, the Navy outsources that research money, so if you think the Navy is 'cooking the research' you just accused some of the most prominent marine biologists in the country of being Navy stooges.

More facts and history of the sonar issue here (PDF)