On November 6th in Barcelona, Spain, United Nations climate change negotiations were supposed to conclude final preparations for the long-awaited talks in Copenhagen this December. But, after the-five day session concluded, the world was not much closer to the fair, ambitious and legally-binding treaty needed from the Copenhagen talks.


Greenpeace activists hang a banner from Barcelona's Sagrada Família that reads "World leaders, make the climate call." © Greenpeace/Pedro Armestre

Eight years after the September 11th attacks, the House of Representatives today approved the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009,” (H.R. 2868) by a vote of 230 to 193. This is the first time either house of Congress has approved permanent and comprehensive chemical security legislation. “Although it's a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants,” said Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace. “It's now time for the Senate to recognize the urgency of this issue and embrace common sense solutions that eliminate these risks once and for all,” said Hind.Earlier this week, Clorox announced plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won't affect the size of the company's workforce." Since 9/11 more than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes, eliminating poison gas risks to more than 30 million Americans. Yet 300 other chemical plants together put 110 million Americans at risk. “For the first time since the September 11th attacks Congress and the administration are in agreement on how to protect the millions of Americans at risk from chemical plants,” said Hind.In addition, water utility groups and a coalition of more than 50 organizations are urging Congress to enact this legislation. They include: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace. The House passed bill (H.R. 2868) will:Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer chemical processes where feasible and cost-effective and requires the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer chemical processes;Eliminate the current law's exemption of thousands of chemical facilities, such as waste water and drinking water plants and port facilities;Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers and limit background check abuses;Preserve state's authority to establish stronger security standards;Provide funding for conversion of plants, including drinking water facilities and wastewater facilities, andAllow citizen suits to enforce government implementation of the law.

As the last day of climate talks before the Copenhagen summit drew to a close, Greenpeace activists attached a banner reading "Climate chaos: Who is to blame?" to Barcelona's Columbus Monument, which points to America. The US delegation has emerged as one of the chief obstructions to progress at the talks that took place in Barcelona this week.Images © Greenpeace/Pedro ArmestreToday's action was the final one of a series of actions Greenpeace did this week in Barcelona. Check out pics from our banner hang at Sagrada Família and the "extreme weather event" we created to show delegates what lies in store for the planet if global warming goes unchecked. If the political courage of the developed world's leaders remains missing in action, then we won't have a deal in Copenhagen. And despite their best efforts to continue floating half-measures and make them stick, consensus is not forming around a deal with weak emissions targets. Developing countries are pushing back and fighting for their survival. We singled out President Obama, however, because his actions fall so far short of his promises to “restore science to its proper place” and lead the world's response to global warming. He has stood aside while Congress let the fossil fuel industry hijack its climate legislation. And on the international scene, he has been silent while his negotiators obstruct the progress on a treaty intended to deal with the most pressing environmental crisis of our time.Write to President Obama now and tell him that it's time to sign a fair, ambitious, and binding climate treaty.

One year ago President Obama was elected and my hopes for a clean energy future soared. However, just two weeks ago, that hope began to be blown away in West Virginia when Massey Energy began dynamiting Coal River Mountain - the site of a proposed 328-megawatt wind farm - to prepare for a massive mountaintop removal coal mining operation. But today, organizations from across the country are coming together to demand that President Obama's Administration be a leader for both clean energy and communities and stop the blasting on Coal River Mountain. In fact, it's the biggest online action to stop mountain top removal coal mining in history.Can you take a moment right now to tell the Obama Administration to not blast away our clean energy future?Here's what's at stake:-The homes, healthy air, streams and ecosystems of the local residents of Coal River Mountain.-A Coal River Mountain wind farm that would provide 85,000 households with electricity, 700 long-term green jobs, give back $1.7 million in annual county taxes and stand as a model for clean energy across the region.-The health of the climate as when burning the coal pumps tons upon tons of carbon into the atmosphere of an already dangerously warming planet.The EPA has the power to either protect the climate and the communities of Coal River Mountain, or it can allow the creation of a 6,000-acre dirty energy wasteland.You can make a difference today by taking one minute right now to tell the Obama Administration to support clean energy and save Coal River Mountain.With your help, we can make the clean energy revolution a reality. As my colleague from Rainforest Action Network, Scott Parkin, says“Coal River Mountain must become our line in the sand. We can no longer allow fossil fuel interests to build more pipelines, belch out more pollution, and destroy more mountains that could become clean energy wind farms. If we can stop the blasting on Coal River Mountain we can stop talking about a clean energy future and start living in a clean energy present.”

Ocean conservation is important to all of us. Take action and tell Trader Joe's to stop stalling and to finally adopt sustainable seafood policies.

Greenpeace activists staged an extreme weather event today for delegates at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, Spain to give them a taste of what the future will look like if they don't create the right conditions for a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal in Copenhagen next month.Amidst a mock storm of thunder, lightning, rain and wind outside the Barcelona conference center, the Greenpeace activists deployed a banner that read “Our climate, your decision”.© Pedro Armestre/Greenpeace© Pedro Armestre/Greenpeace© Pedro Armestre/GreenpeaceThe really bad news is that, according to reports coming out of Barcelona, it is the US that is the biggest threat to the deal the world needs in Copenhagen. Rolf has all the dirt on the excuses the US delegation is making in his post, "Call to Action: US obstructing Barcelona talks." There's also a sample script and numbers you can use to call Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or US climate envoy Todd Stern to let them know that you expect the US to lead the world's response to climate change, not obstruct those efforts. If you haven't made a call, please make one now. If you have made a call, consider calling again. The Obama Adminstration needs to hear from us that we expect the leadership that then-candidate Obama promised on global warming.

This semester, I've worked with student activists who have coal plants on campus - you know, those antiquated, decades-old, polluting machines that fill the air with toxins like mercury, arsenic, and millions of tons of global warming pollution. At Iowa State University, a monster coal plant looms in the center of campus. The plant consumes over 150,000 tons of coal a year - that's one half the weight of the Empire State Building!Iowa State had been dumping fly ash from the coal plant into unlined storage ponds, which is incredibly dangerous due to the risk of contaminating ground water supplies (our drinking water) with numerous deadly toxins. Upon learning about this, Greenpeace campus coordinator Graham Jordison organized a protest on the first day of school. The protest generated several media hits and started a conversation on campus about the plant. A nervous university administration quickly issued a public statement vowing to address the issue.Weeks later, all 3 of the main public universities in Iowa, including Iowa State, announced that they would begin a ground-water monitoring program for the fly ash disposal. Talk about power of the people!One week after this announcement, Graham and his team met with the university president to thank him, and ask him to shut down the coal plant and replace it with clean, renewable sources like wind power. Although the students didn't get a commitment to close the plant, the President and his administration are definitely listening as the students continue to demand clean energy on campus. Graham said it best when quoted in a newspaper article: “We're not afraid to step it up, get our activists together and do some non-violent actions. Whatever it takes to get the school to wake up and realize students want this to change.”Photo: Iowa State student activists protesting at the campus coal plant.The story is unfinished at Iowa State or at your school, but there is only one ending in which we all win. This ending has 100% clean, renewable energy, where coal is no longer part of our vocabulary. To make this happen, we need leaders to fight for the environment. Join Graham, Iowa State, and the Student Network as we fight for the only planet we've got.Let's make sure President Obama transitions our country to clean, renewable energy. Send a message to President Obama right now!For more information about the Student Network, visit our website and friend us on Facebook! Send me an email right now and I'll get you started organizing for climate action at your school.For the climate,David

One of the weird consequences of overfishing is the very real possibility that jellyfish will replace the niche left by fish species. It makes for nice scary pieces of news, like this bit out of Japan. A ten-ton fishing boat was capsized after dozens of giant jellyfish were caught in their net. As the crew tried to haul the net onboard, the boat started to capsize and they were thrown into the sea.The three men are safe. Thankfully, another trawler in the area was able to rescue them.If we are about to be taken over by jellyfish, let's try to look on the bright side. Maybe they taste good? Maybe they're healthy for us to eat. I really can't say, but perhaps we should be open-minded. British cartoonist Steven Appleby tried to find a way we could cook jellyfish. And, at the rate our oceans are being overfished, you'll want to watch this video, just to be sure you're well-prepared. If you really don't want to see a world overrun by jellyfish, take action and sign our marine reserves petition.--Michelle

Most people here in Barcelona I think would say 'slow progress' is an exaggerated description of the state of climate negotations. For a recent issue of Eco, the daily newsletter of Climate Action Network-International, I wrote this article which goes over a couple elements that may be mucking up negotations as well as confusing domestic discussion of climate legislation. Many voices are complaining that the US delegation has put no numbers on the table, but there is one number that just keeps popping up. That number is 2005, the base year for the Kerry-Boxer climate legislation. Even though it was four years ago, 2005 just happens to be the year of the highest US emissions in history. Obviously, reducing 20% of emissions from a higher pool means less reductions. Kerry-Boxer aims to reduce 7% below 1990. Using 2005 base year allows for a more ambitious sounding target. In Barcelona this proposed base year of 2005 distorts an important discussion on 'comparability' and has become a red herring in assessment of the adequacy of the scale of mitigation targets. The US delegation often seems to insinuate that 1990 was just an arbitrary base year. Of course, 1990 was not selected at random: it was the year of the IPCC's First Assessment Report; the year when the world began negotiating what became the Convention. But arbitrary or not, shifting to a different base year like 2005 allows the US to imply that the EU proposed mitigation target of 20% by 2020 relative to 1990 is about as ambitious as that in the US legislation. In effect, this amounts to suggesting that emissions reductions elsewhere between 1990 and 2005 are irrelevant to negotiations today. The comparison we really should be making is the distance between the proposals on the table and what the science is saying we have to do. Countries may find it domestically convenient to use a different baseline year, but this presents several problems. Converting reporting data from one country to another appears to be simple enough in theory. But in practice, measurement, reporting and verification requires comparing apples to apples. Converting multiple data points across multiple countries using a variety of different baselines is a convenient recipe for confusion and avoiding the big picture (remember? 'compare the targets to what the science demands'). So even if the experts can provide conversion formulas for differing baselines, there is still a question of public transparency and accountability. And finally, if the baseline changes, so must the targets. Were we to use a 2005 baseline, the IPCC says global emissions should come down 35-50% by 2020 (as opposed to 25-40% with a 1990 baseline). In the context of history and science, using 1990 is not at all arbitrary.

Greenpeace applauded Monday's announcement by Clorox to convert all of its factories using chlorine gas to safer chemical processes. Clorox CEO Donald Knauss said the conversion will, “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security.” The first plant will convert within six months and all others will phase out chlorine gas over the next few years. Once the conversion is completed at all seven U.S. Clorox plants, the company will have eliminated catastrophic risks from chlorine gas to 13.6 million Americans, living downwind of its facilities. This conversion will also eliminate equally disastrous risks posed by the transport of 90-ton rail cars of chlorine gas. “By leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox's announcement also provides Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation,” said Rick Hind, Greenpeace legislative director. Coincidentally, chemical security legislation (H.R. 2868) is slated for a vote in the House of Representatives this Wednesday. If enacted it would require approximately 107 of the highest risk chemical plants to convert to safer cost-effective chemicals wherever feasible just as Clorox plans to do.“By ending the use of chlorine gas, Clorox also proves that eliminating these risks is both technically feasible and a smart business decision. Switching to safer substances not only reduces liability and regulatory obligations, it also enhances profitability and long-term job security. Eight years after the 9/11 attacks, the Clorox announcement leaves no excuse for other industry giants such as Dow and DuPont. Their plants put potentially millions of Americans at risk [Map of Dow Chemical plants: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/dow-chemical-map, Map of DuPont plants: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/dupont-map]. Given the time it can take to convert, it is urgent that these firms start following Clorox's lead now,” said Hind.In February, Greenpeace wrote Knauss asking for a meeting to discuss ways to eliminate these risks. Greenpeace sent similar letters to Dow and DuPont [Dow: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/dow-letter DuPont: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/dupont-chem-letter]. Soon after, Knauss responded and invited Greenpeace to a meeting with him and other executives at their Oakland, California headquarters in May. At the meeting Knauss unveiled their plans and explained the economic, security and safety benefits that executives factored into their decision. Following the meeting, Greenpeace was also given a tour of the Fairfield, California plant, which will be the first Clorox production facility to convert.Clorox's statement today includes the many benefits of converting that Knauss cited such as: “minimizing business disruption, strengthening operations, reducing potential supply chain constraints, complexity and risks, increasing security, the company's costs, including volatility and increases in raw materials…risks relating to the handling and/or transportation of hazardous substances including but not limited to chlorine…” http://investors.thecloroxcompany.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=420583Because Clorox is a member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) which is lobbying against the House chemical security legislation, Greenpeace also asked Clorox to support the pending legislation. Clorox has not taken a position on the pending legislation.However, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), some of whose member companies are also NAM members, issued a strong statement on this legislation in 2008 saying, “It's time for the big chemical companies to do their part to help protect America. They should stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available. And if they won't do it, Congress should do it for them.”The current law actually bars the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from requiring the use of safer chemicals or processes. The current law also exempts all (2,600) water treatment facilities, some of which use large quantities of chlorine gas. “Just as we require airplanes to be safer, clearly the chemical security law must be strengthened to ensure the use of safer chemicals wherever alternatives are possible,” said Hind.On October 1st, in testimony before Congress, the Obama administration's DHS and Environmental Protection Agency officially called for permanent legislation that requires the highest risk chemical plants in all sectors to use safer more secure chemical processes wherever possible. In 2006, when Senators Obama and Biden championed nearly identical legislation that was opposed by the chemical industry, Obama said, "We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests." The cost of converting a plant is insignificant compared to its liability in the event of a terrorist attack or accident. According to the New York City Comptroller, the economic impacts of the 9/11 attacks were $94.8 billion. Safer chemical processes also ensure a more reliable supply chain and fewer regulatory obligations. More than 87 percent of converted facilities surveyed reported conversion costs of $1 million or less and one third expect to save money. The Center for American Progress produced a report listing 284 examples of facilities that have converted since 1999 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b681085_ct2556757.html/chem_survey.pdfOther companies have also recognized the potential profitability of safer chemical processes. For example, K2Pure Solutions plans to build safer bleach making facilities in California, New Jersey and Illinois. For more information, see: www.K2Pure.com Since the 9/11 attacks, chemical plants have been identified as one of the most vulnerable sectors of U.S. infrastructure to terrorism. Over 100 million Americans are at risk from just 300 of the 6,300 chemical facilities identified as “high risk” by DHS. The potential casualties could range from 100,000 (U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) to 2.4 million (U.S. Army Surgeon General).Non-disclosure agreement: Prior to the May meeting at Clorox headquarters, Greenpeace agreed to defer disclosure of any of Clorox's conversion plans until they were finalized and made public. Disclaimer: Greenpeace does not endorse any company or products. Greenpeace comments on Clorox's conversion are specific to the elimination of catastrophic risks to communities surrounding its plants and do not address any other Clorox practices or products.

Yesterday I reported on a Greenpeace banner hang at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, as well as the fact that several African nations had walked out of the negotiations in protest of the weak emissions reductions targets commitments made by developed nations.I mentioned in that post that the talks were to resume today, but also noted that I didn't know what resolution had been reached to allow talks to resume. Today, via The Associated Press, we have our answer:BARCELONA, Spain - African countries ended a boycott of meetings at U.N. climate negotiations on Tuesday, after winning promises for more in-depth talks on how much rich nations need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.Due to the Africans' demands, most of the rest of this week's talks in Barcelona will be devoted to discussing carbon-cutting pledges rather than other issues including carbon offsets and action by developing countries, said John Ash, chairman of the negotiations on emissions.The Africans, supported by about 70 other developing countries, said industrial nations were making weak commitments to stave off dramatic temperature rises while Africa was being devastated by droughts and floods blamed on global warming.Scientists say industrial countries should reduce emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, but targets announced so far amount to far less...."It's really good that the Africans have finally been able to stand up together," said Fiona Musana of Johannesburg-based Greenpeace Africa. "That sends a strong signal."Of course, low emissions targets aren't the only ways the leaders of the developed world are attempting to shirk their responsibility to solve the climate crisis. Jess, blogging on Greenpeace International's Climate Rescue Weblog, reports that negotiators for developed countries are now arguing for a "politically binding" agreement as opposed to a "legally binding" agreement:The climate negotiations have arrived at yet another war over words that might prove detrimental to a deal in Copenhagen this December. Check this one out - developing countries are demanding that negotiators stick to the commitment of a legally binding treaty while developed countries seem to be pleased with showboating their new idea of a politically binding agreement. Sound like just semantics to you? May sound like it but consider this: When was the last time you trusted a promise that a politician made to you before they took steps to make good on it?...“I do not know anything called a politically binding agreement. They are worth very little. Tell me of any politician that delivered on their (election) manifesto,” Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, a delegate with Sudan.OK, so maybe it sounds like a whole lot of unwarranted distrust to you, so let's use President Obama as an example. I campaigned and voted for President Obama based on the promises he made. As someone that cares about the environment, I was inspired by his statements about leading the world in the fight against climate change. After he was elected, he talked about returning science to its rightful place and leading the world in a solution to the climate crisis. But just 32 days out, where is the leadership and return to science that my President Obama promised? How much longer do I trust in promises without any accountability?Where is the accountability, indeed. We now learn that, far from providing the leadership that was promised by Obama, the US is actually doing its best to undermine negotiations in Barcelona. If you're as fed up with this lack of leadership as I am, you can call Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, right now - click here for the number and a suggested script.

Entergy Nuclear's Vermont Yankee reactor is nearing the end of its 40-year operating permit, and the company is seeking a 20-year license renewal. Entergy's mismanagement has actually been an asset to Greenpeace's campaign to make sure Vermont denies that license renewal - from a drunken supervisor to a spin-off company, it's no wonder Vermonters aren't too keen on their business operations (read more about accidents and incompetence at Vermont Yankee here). Running 20% above capacity, the infrastructure of the plant has been breaking down in recent years, and it poses a risk to people in three states (read our factsheet on Vermont Yankee's license renewal). Luckily, the VT Legislature gave itself the authority to vote against a license renewal for Vermont Yankee, and that is what we're making sure happens when the session starts in January. Greenpeace is working in a coalition with some great local groups to move legislators that have not made commitments on what way they will vote. (We also did a tour around the state earlier this year to talk to Vermonters about nuclear power and the future of energy in their state.) I had the pleasure of spending the last two weeks with a terrific crew of Greenpeace activists, our GOT students, and volunteers from around Vermont. We organized events in Montpelier, Rutland and Burlington with our One World hot-air balloon. We had state representatives, business leaders, other environmental groups and community members come out to the events to address the crowds. The best quote came from State Representative Paul Poirier who said something like: “I'm no nuclear engineer, just a regular guy, but know that we can't have Vermont Yankee around any longer.” The balloon tour highlighted the fact that Vermont doesn't need nuclear power. We have local renewable companies that could replace the plant's energy, which would put our money into the hands of our friends and neighbors rather than in Entergy's pockets. Vermonters are standing up across the state to call for a clean energy future, and we hope you are too. No nukes in Vermont!-Jarred

On November 2nd, the Clorox Company announced plans to convert all of its U.S. factories that use chlorine gas to safer chemical processes over the next few years. Greenpeace applauds this move because it will eliminate catastrophic risks to more than 13 million Americans living near their facilities.

Tell President Obama that it's time to sign a fair, ambitious, and binding climate treaty!

Please take a minute today and send your Representative a message: Prevent chemical disasters pass "The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009" (H.R. 2868) today!

People could some day recall that it was the Information Technology (IT) industry’s advocacy for strong action which tipped the balance at the Copenhagen climate summit. But that's not going to happen unless all of us press them to become climate champions. As our updated Cool IT Challenge leaderboard reveals, IT heavyweights such as Google, Microsoft and IBM are still hesitating to speak up on the urgent need for emissions reductions.

Greenpeace announced today that it has set up base in the heart of the Indonesian rainforest and will remain there for several weeks in order to bring urgent attention to the role that deforestation plays in driving dangerous climate change, a critical issue to be addressed at the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit in December.

While our leaders continue to talk about what's "politically possible," the world continues to warm and precious days go by. The latest science shows that runaway global warming is even closer than we feared. We can't continue to allow our leaders here in the U.S. to sit back and play political games when our future is at stake.

Our tour is wrapping up. We steamed into port here in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, on the 19th. We spent the last few days of the tour in high seas pocket number 3 (see a map of the high seas pockets here), looking for fishing vessels that are threatening the future of the Pacific. And let me tell you, we had absolutely no problems finding them.On Thursday, the 15th, we found a Taiwanese long-liner, Kai Jie No. 1, that had no license to fish in the waters of any Pacific island countries. This does not make it illegal for them to be fishing on the high seas, since these waters belong to no particular nation, but this is one of the main ways fishing fleets get around the regulations that Pacific island countries are introducing to better manage their tuna stocks. We spoke with the captain of the vessel and explained that what he was doing was decimating the tuna stocks that Pacific island nations rely on and asked him to pull in his line. When he refused, we took action. We went out and, using a special contraption designed by our fitter from the first leg of the tour, Jono, to hold the line up out of the water, we went down the long-line and removed the bait from their hooks. I shot this video of the action, in which our resident marine life expert, Gabe, explains more about the process:This ship may not have been a pirate fisher in a legal sense - though it was operating in an area known to host a lot of the region's illegal fishing - but it was certainly plundering the Pacific. That's why we're trying to shut down the four high seas pockets to all fishing.The next day we spotted yet another unlicensed Taiwanese long-liner fishing on the high seas. It might seem unlikely for us to come across one vessel after another in an ocean as vast as the Pacific, but when you consider that these ships are part of a massive fleet of more than 1,300 long-liners - and that's just the Taiwanese fleet - you begin to realize how big the problem is and why we keep encountering them. Again, we went and spoke with the captain, passed him information about our campaign and the science showing that Pacific tuna stocks are in bad shape, and asked him to stop plundering the Pacific. He also refused to haul in his line, as you'll hear our translator Tan-chi tell us in this video:As you could see, the captain of this ship was quite an agreeable guy who seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. He sat and read our campaign materials for several minutes. He was even very hospitable towards us: when we refused the grape sodas he offered after reading our literature, he insisted we take them so vehemently that he actually threw them onboard our boats. We are not trying to set ourselves up in opposition to this hard-working captain and his crew.As Tan-chi translated for us, the economics of the situation make it impossible for him to stop fishing and head back to port. And that's what we are trying to change. You can read more about this situation - the vicious cycle of fishing in the Pacific and the diminishing returns these vessels are producing as Pacific fish stocks grow more and more depleted - in this blog by Karli, our onboard campaigner.

Karli is the lead campaigner onboard the Esperanza for the Defending Our Pacific tour.Last week, we found no less than four Taiwanese fishing vessels on the high seas in the space of just three days. We took action against two of them (Mike wrote about those vessels and the actions we did in this post). Though this makes it seem as if these vessels and their crews are our adversaries in the fight to save the Pacific tuna stocks and close the four high seas pockets to all fishing, that is not the case. We were not there to try and tell these captains what to do, but rather to give them the information their employers might not be giving him, to appeal to their sense of morality, and to ask them to stop plundering the Pacific. Greenpeace activists ask the captain of the Ming Jhy Fwu No. 16 to haul in his long-line after giving him information about our campaign and the state of Pacific fisheries. © Paul Hilton/GreenpeaceWhat we do oppose is the corporations they work for, which are colluding with the Taiwanese government - just as so many other corporations are colluding with governments around the world - to trap them and their crews into economic circumstances that only benefit the corporation, while also blatantly disregarding the plight of Pacific fisheries and the theft of fish right out of Pacific islanders' waters. Our adversaries are also governments, like that of Taiwan, that continue to ignore the warnings of scientists about Pacific fish stocks and instead allow new fishing vessels to be built and sent out to chase after fewer and fewer fish. One of the ships we encountered last week, the Ming Jhy Fwu No. 16, was just built in 2006 - at a time when we were already aware that overfishing in the Pacific was having dire consequences.The captain of the Ming Jhy Fwu No. 16 seemed like a thoughtful guy. As Mike described, he sat right down and read the campaign literature we gave him with genuine interest. We are not against this captain or his crew. If anything, we have total sympathy for him and are glad to be on his side. By allowing this vessel, and many, many others like it, to leave the ship-building yards and join the already bloated fleet in the Pacific, countries like Taiwan are locking their own fishing industry - and people like the captain of the Ming Jhy Fwu No. 16 - into a vicious cycle whereby they must fish to make a return on what they have invested in their fishing ship and gear. If governments do not take responsibility, the fishing industry will simply fish itself to death.Though Taiwan has reduced its fishing capacity in the past years, they still build more vessels and then simply get them flagged under foreign nations. But it's usually still owned by the same owners. The fishing industry is always trying to find and exploit loopholes to avoid national, regional and international regulations. This irresponsible behavior on the part of the fishing industry compromises Taiwan's efforts. The Taiwanese government and the regional fisheries management organization have to take a much stricter stand on the continued introduction of new capacity into the region and drastically reduce the masses of overcapacity of the fleets that currently exists.It's not just Taiwan that has such recent additions to its fleets. In fact, you might recall that on the first leg of the tour we exposed a refueling operation involving a brand new “super-seiner,” a massive fishing vessel with nets large enough to encircle whole schools of tuna and all the other marine life that is swimming with them. That ship, the American Legacy, only left the shipyard for its maiden voyage in 2008.This is a cycle that we need to break, and this year is going to be a deciding moment for the Pacific. Through the Defending Our Pacific expedition, Greenpeace has again provided evidence that fishing in the high seas is undermining management and threatening the Pacific. We've also demonstrated that transshipment by long-line vessels and the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) by purse seiners are enabling the plunder of marine life. It's time for those countries that want a future for their fishing fleets to stand up and be counted alongside the Pacific island countries in their call for the high seas to be closed to fishing.- Karli