by frog
A Norwegian pro-whaling group is pointing to a study showing that catching and eating whales has less impact on climate change than other commonly eaten meats.
The survey, focused on whale boats’ fuel use, showed that a kg of whale meat represented just 1.9kg of greenhouse gases against 15.8 for beef, 6.4 for pork and 4.6 for chicken.
Of course, if carbon emissions were the whalers’ real concern surely they would be in rowboats with hand-thrown harpoons?
Photo Credit: Pieter Pieterse at Flickr
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, March 4th, 2008
Tags: carbon emissions, climate change, greenhouse gases, harpoons, norway, rowing, whales
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Actually they understate their case. Cow eating has more impacts than just climate change, including extinctions. The 1997 and 2007 State ofthe Environment reports identified habitat desstruction as the biggest factor in reduction of biodiversity on land and most of that habitat destruction has come about through clearing native forests for cows and sheep.
Greenpeace are correct when they state that flesh (whether cow, whale, sheep or chicken) is more environmentally destructive than eating anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, but there’s no fun to be had harpooning a cow, let alone a vegetable, is there?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog you obviously haven’t been watching mythbusters. Provided you use an explosive tipped harpoon of course.
By the way, if the whale boats switched from diesel to whale oil would that make whale meat the first commercially available certified carbon neutral organic foodstuff? Proves that we live in a bizarre world if nothing else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Er, no, burning whales will release carbon stored in the whales into the atmosphere as CO2, just as buring fossil fuels releases carbon stored in prehistoric plants and animals into the atmosphere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)