The New York Times reports on a renewed debate over whaling. Whale conservation efforts have been sufficiently successful that many whale populations are no longer endangered. This means that whaling could resume for some species without any threat of driving them to extinction. Nonetheless, many groups oppose the resumption of whaling. Whereas once the anti-whaling movement was motivated by a concern with extinction, now environmental and animal welfare organizations argue that killing whales, which are highly evolved and reasonably intelligent mammals, would be immoral.

While traditional whaling countries (e.g. Japan, Norway) and environmentalists debate the ethics of whaling, technology may move the policy debate beyond a binary choice over whether to resume whaling. Gregory B. Christainsen and Brian C. Gothberg have a provocative paper on how technology could be used to establish tradeable rights in whales. While perhaps not politically viable, such a system would empower those who believe any whaling is immoral to purchase the rights to specific whales in order to protect them. While this might not prevent all whaling, it would help ensure thatn any whaling occurred at a sustainable level and could further reduce whaling by increasing the opportunity costs of holding whaling rights.

Whether or not the Christainsen/Gothberg paper describes a politically viable policy option, it illustrates how increases in technology can facilitate the creation of property rights in environmental resources and true market solutions to environmental problems. On the other hand, if one believes whaling is inherently immoral, then one might not feel trading whaling rights is any more acceptable than trading human slaves.