Editorial Note (2026): This editorial was originally published on July 29, 2009, under the title Should the Greenland Shark Be Turned into Biofuel? It challenged a proposal in Greenland to convert Greenland shark bycatch into a source of renewable energy. The St. Lawrence Shark Observatory (formerly the Greenland Shark and Elasmobranch Education and Research Group, or GEERG) was among the first organisations to publicly question the initiative, warning that assigning commercial value to dead Greenland sharks could encourage their deliberate capture and potentially lead to a directed fishery. These concerns were subsequently echoed by other researchers and conservationists, including shark conservation scientist David Shiffman, who cited the original editorial in Southern Fried Science in 2011.[1] Although the proposed biofuel project never materialised, the underlying conservation issues have resurfaced. In 2026, a municipality in western Greenland approved a controversial proposal to kill up to 1,000 Greenland sharks in response to conflicts with commercial fisheries. Although the initiative was subsequently withdrawn, it raises many of the same questions that prompted the Observatory’s original warning seventeen years earlier.[2] This revised editorial combines the original 2009 argument with an examination of the 2026 controversy. The original text has been adapted for continuity while preserving its central message and historical perspective.

An ancient shark, a modern commodity

In 2009, a proposal emerged in Greenland to convert Greenland shark bycatch into a source of renewable energy. Proponents suggested that shark meat, particularly the oil-rich liver, could be combined with wastewater and macroalgae to produce biogas capable of powering isolated communities. At first glance, the idea appeared to offer an environmentally responsible solution to an existing problem. Greenland sharks were frequently caught unintentionally in commercial fishing gear, and converting otherwise discarded animals into energy seemed preferable to allowing them to go to waste. But there was a fundamental problem with this reasoning.

In a region where Greenland sharks had long been regarded as a nuisance by some fishermen, and where certain municipalities had offered bounties for shark hearts, one could reasonably question whether every shark delivered to a biogas facility would actually have been caught accidentally.

Once a dead shark acquires commercial value, the distinction between accidental capture and deliberate fishing can become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The hidden cost of bycatch

Equating dead sharks with a financial reward creates an obvious risk: more sharks may be killed because there is now an incentive to do so. What begins as an attempt to make productive use of unavoidable bycatch can gradually encourage the deliberate capture of animals that would otherwise have been released or avoided. In the worst circumstances, it can even provide the economic foundation for a directed fishery. For Greenland sharks, the consequences could be particularly serious.

Even in 2009, the species was recognised as unusually vulnerable to overfishing. Greenland sharks grow slowly, reproduce infrequently, and possess biological characteristics that make population recovery exceptionally difficult. Subsequent research has revealed just how extraordinary these animals are. Greenland sharks are now recognised as the longest-lived vertebrates known to science, with estimated lifespans potentially exceeding 400 years. Females may not reach sexual maturity until approximately 150 years of age.

These estimates remain subject to scientific uncertainty, but their implications are unmistakable: removing mature Greenland sharks from the population could eliminate animals that have survived for centuries and may take generations to replace. The species is currently classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.

The seductive appeal of “bio”

In a world where marketing strategies frequently shape public perception, adding the prefix “bio” to a product or process can be enough to encourage people to believe that it is inherently beneficial to the environment.

Transforming an unfortunate reality, such as fisheries bycatch, into something seemingly useful, such as biofuel, may sound appealing. But the environmental merits of such an initiative cannot be judged solely by what happens to the animals after they have been killed. The more important question is whether the process creates an incentive to kill additional animals.

A renewable energy project that encourages the exploitation of a vulnerable species cannot automatically be considered environmentally responsible simply because its end product is labelled green. This was the central concern raised by the Observatory in 2009, and it remains relevant today.

Nature already recycles bycatch

Bycatch undoubtedly takes a heavy toll on the world’s oceans, but animals that die at sea do not necessarily go to waste. Dead fish, sharks, and other marine organisms become part of the natural recycling processes that sustain marine ecosystems. Their remains provide food for scavengers, decomposers, and countless other organisms, transferring nutrients and energy through the food web. In other words, nature already has its own system for converting dead sharks into biological energy.

This does not mean that returning dead bycatch to the ocean is always the most appropriate management practice. The ecological consequences depend on the species, fishing methods, location, and applicable regulations. Nevertheless, the assumption that every discarded animal represents a wasted resource overlooks the important role that dead organisms play in marine ecosystems. More importantly, creating a market for dead sharks risks transforming an incidental consequence of fishing into an economic opportunity.

In 2009, the Observatory concluded that turning Greenland shark bycatch into a commercial commodity could worsen an already untenable conservation problem.

Seventeen years later, that warning has acquired renewed significance.

2026: A familiar threat resurfaces

Just when you thought Greenland’s plans to turn sharks into biofuel had been consigned to history, another proposal has emerged that makes the original controversy seem almost modest by comparison.

In February 2026, the municipal council of Avannaata, in western Greenland, approved a proposal to kill up to 1,000 Greenland sharks, offering fishermen 300 Danish kroner (approximately C$64) for each shark heart. The initiative was intended to address complaints that Greenland sharks were damaging expensive fishing equipment and interfering with commercial catches of halibut and cod.

The proposal was subsequently withdrawn after Greenland’s national government questioned its legality. However, the possibility of a future cull has not been ruled out.[2]

The same incentive, seventeen years later

The irony is difficult to ignore.

Seventeen years after the Observatory warned that placing a monetary value on dead Greenland sharks could encourage their deliberate killing, essentially the same incentive has resurfaced. This time, however, there is no attempt to present the killing of sharks as an environmentally beneficial activity.

Instead, the animals are being targeted because they interfere with commercial fishing operations.

The proposed scale of the cull is particularly troubling. The Greenland shark has an exceptionally long lifespan, reaches sexual maturity very late, and has a reproductive biology that remains poorly understood. The loss of mature individuals could compromise the replenishment of its populations, particularly when each death represents the loss of an animal that may have survived for several centuries.

There are also serious questions about whether killing these sharks would achieve the intended objective.

Our own research in Québec, along with studies conducted elsewhere, has demonstrated that Greenland sharks are capable of travelling considerable distances. Removing individuals from particular fishing grounds would therefore not necessarily prevent other sharks from moving into the same areas, potentially replacing those that had been killed. Discarding shark carcasses could even attract additional sharks.

Researchers and conservation organisations have proposed alternatives, including compensation for damaged fishing equipment, non-lethal deterrents, improved fishing practices, and better monitoring of shark interactions with commercial fisheries.[2]

Conservation, until it becomes inconvenient

The economic difficulties faced by Greenland’s fishermen are real and deserve serious consideration. Fishing supports families and communities, and damage to expensive equipment can represent a substantial financial burden. But protecting livelihoods and conserving vulnerable marine species should not be treated as mutually exclusive objectives.

The willingness to kill large numbers of Greenland sharks without convincing evidence that doing so would resolve the underlying problem illustrates a familiar contradiction in our relationship with the natural world.

Conservation is easy to support in principle. The real test comes when protecting wildlife requires compromise, investment, or changes to established practices. This applies not only to commercial fisheries, but to any activity that derives economic benefit from wildlife while claiming to promote its protection.

Unfortunately, conservation itself has become a convenient promotional tool. Much like adding the prefix “bio” to a product or advertising something as cholesterol-free when it never contained cholesterol in the first place, invoking conservation can lend an appearance of environmental responsibility to activities that contribute little, if anything, to protecting wildlife, including sharks. Nor is this phenomenon unique to Greenland.

Greenland sharks have survived in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans for millions of years.[3] Individual animals alive today may have been swimming these waters long before the development of modern commercial fisheries.

Yet the survival of these sharks continues to come into conflict with the short-term economic interests of the activities that threaten them.

Seventeen years after the St. Lawrence Observatory first questioned the wisdom of assigning commercial value to dead Greenland sharks, the fundamental issue remains unresolved.

How many centuries must a Greenland shark survive before we decide that its life is worth more than the inconvenience it causes us?

(1) Shiffman, D. (2011, April 2). How not to save the environment: Sharks as biofuel. Southern Fried Science. https://www.southernfriedscience.com/how-not-to-save-the-environment-sharks-as-biofuel
(2) Smith, A. (2026, October 5). To cull or not to cull: Greenland debates fate of world’s slowest shark. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/05/to-cull-or-not-to-cull-greenland-debates-fate-of-worlds-slowest-shark
(3) Walter, R. P., et al. (2017). Origins of the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus): Impacts of ice-olation and introgression. Ecology and Evolution, 7(19), 8113–8125.