1. The quota requested by Greenland WAS sustainable, but denied for political reasons by nations who are against whaling out of principle.
2. The commercial distribution mechanism reffered to is internal trade in Greenland, where hunters with surplus whale meat and blubber, trade that surplus for other goods that they need.
3. Note that ANY nation which leaves the IWC is no longer bound by the IWC regulations and can hunt and kill as many whales as they desire within its economic sea zone - that is their RIGHT.
It is very easy to live in a nice and cosy environment, where you don't depend on whatever you can pull out of the sea, and condemn those who don't have it so easy.
Greenland can be an extreemly tough place to make a living.
Carl is right that any nation can hunt outside of the IWC; its a political judgement whether it wants to do that outside of the sanction of the IWC, and in contravention of accepted multilateral regimes. It would be a step backwards for Greenland, especially when it is awarding itself small cetacean quotas that even NAMMCO does not support. - see the previous entry on Greenland at http://www2.wdcs.org/blog/index.php?/archives/78-Greenland-snubs-world-and-awards-itself-higher-quotas.html
As to the evidence on the denial of the hunt, we would argue that there was not a demonstrated additional need to to take the humpbacks (see www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=139).
On the commercialization there is plenty of evidence of meat for sale in supermarkets. I am not sure how this resonates with what you say Carl, unless you mean the supermarkets are exchanging goods for the meat. however, it would appear that some 25% is ending up in the commercial cash market. More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7476652.stm
And yes, it is easier in a Society that has simpler access to resources of food, but that does not mean that Greenland can just take what it wants, when it wants. The IWC, whilst having a moratorium on commercial whaling, supports responsible and appropriate aboriginal subsistence whaling. Greenland's attempts to undermine this process by threatening to leave and do what it wants, does nothing for potentially legitimate claims that the IWC reviews.