An example...

Recall, for a moment, our discussion about the Administration bucking "green" legislation based solely on a disdain for anything stemming from Al Gore. In that discussion, we determined that... perhaps... it is worth considering a compromise position when so much "extraneous" benefits can be achieved with so little effort or expense.

We can now see an example of this in our friend and ally, Japan. A weak and insecure PM has allowed the harvesting of as many as 50 humpback whales... with no other purpose than to feed the nearly insatiable appetite of the Japanese exotic food market, which is willing to pay $200/lbs for whale meat.

Now, Japan is facing enough heat from the world in general (all over the interests of better business and the almighty "yen") to warrant calls for boycotts and protests from such diverse organizations as Toyota-America and Sony Entertainment, along with the usual tree-hugger crowd like the Sierra Club and Green Peace. It isn't going break the bank, of course... I'm sure that the sushi bars of Tokyo will pay out enough cash to make the effort worth every copper penny for the Japanese whaling fleet. It is simply enough bad press to make the already "elitist" Japanese government seem even more aloof and above reproach.

It is such a waste! While I am perfectly aware that the US interest (or lack thereof) in "green" alternatives to fossil fuels is a completely separate matter (apples to oranges, as Ryan so frequently says), the basis for the argument is the same... it is an unnecessary waste of international goodwill and cooperation, and furthers a nation's dependence on finite supplies of commodities that could be replaced or substituted with something else.

When is it in the best interests of a government to "limit" or "regulate" an industry away from commodities or resources that directly effect that nation's ability to conduct the vast majority of its business and operations?