Mar 25 2008
Looking for Earth-Friendly Meat? Eat Whale
The Norwegians have come up with a way to support their economy and their whaling industry while poking a finger in the eye of the global warmening crowd.
OSLO (Reuters) - Eat a whale and save the planet, a Norwegian pro-whaling lobby said on Monday of a study showing that harpooning the giant mammals is less damaging to the climate than farming livestock.
Environmental group Greenpeace dismissed the survey, saying almost every kind of food was more climate friendly than meat.
By definition, you can dismiss the Greenpeace dismissal. They oppose any form of whaling, fishing, or economic progress. In the Antarctic, Greenpeace terrorists have repeated harassed Japanese whalers with chemical weapons.
The [Norwegian] survey, focused on whale boats’ fuel use, showed that a kilo (2.2 lbs) of whale meat represented just 1.9 kilo (4.2 lbs) of greenhouse gases against 15.8 for beef, 6.4 for pork and 4.6 for chicken.
“Basically it turns out that the best thing you can do for the planet is to eat whale meat compared to other types of meat,” said Rune Froevik of the High North Alliance, which represents the interests of coastal communities in the Arctic.
“Greenhouse gas emissions caused by one meal of beef are the equivalent of eight meals of whale meat,” the study said.
I think our responsibility is clear: whale burgers, anyone? It’s for the planet!
April 1st, 2008 at 17:53 pm
Hmmm… Plus, whales don’t clog up the streams on federal land (on which ranchers easily procure grazing rights) with poop. Sounds good to me!
I’m envisioning the Chick Fil A sign that has the cows holding a sign saying “EET MORE CHIKN” and having it say “EET MORE WHALE.” Not quite as catchy, though…
April 1st, 2008 at 21:42 pm
Yeah, this one is just crying out for a good marketing campaign. How about, “Shamu - it’s what’s for dinner”?
April 10th, 2008 at 23:08 pm
Your comments about Greenpeace constitute lies. In particular, you assertion that Greenpeace activists have used chemical weapons against Japanese whalers is wrong. I know that non-violence is a core principle held by Greenpeace. Its whale actions have never involved violence of any kind. In fact, I know that Greenpeace makes a point of not co-operating with other anti-whaling organisations that do use violent tactics. From what I’ve read and heard, its campaigns show a commitment to defend whales, not to attack the whalers.
Your statement that Greenpeace does not support economic progress is also false. Demand for whale meat has been in decline for years, and hence the potential economic revenue to be generated from selling whale meat is also dwindling. Iceland couldn’t sell enough whale meat last year to justify sending a single whaling ship out this year. Even in Japan, demand continues to decline despite government-funded marketing of whale meat and subsidised price-cuts.
The notion that whale meat is a climate fiendly alternative to beef is laughable. Let’s look at the logical reasoning of ‘brianfit’:
“World production of beef in 2005 was about 50 million tons. Let’s assume we want to make a 1% decrease in beef consumption. And even though it is not true, we will assume that whale meat production has zero CO2 cost. So to replace 1% of the world’s beef production we need 0.5 million tons of whale meat - ie 500,000 tons. The Norwegians get about 1.5 tons of meat from a minke whale, so to generate 500,000 tons they will need to kill about 330,000 minke whales.
Unfortunately this is more than double the population estimate - they would wipe out the minke in under 6 months. Whoops. “- http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2008/03/save_the_planet_eat_a_whale.html
Maybe it would be more constructive for all involved to look at the facts when it comes to whaling, not insubstantiated propaganda. Whaling is a real problem and requires real consideration, not mockery.
April 11th, 2008 at 09:45 am
Ramya K »
I know that non-violence is a core principle held by Greenpeace. Its whale actions have never involved violence of any kind.
Someone is feeding you a line - and you’re buying it.
No chemical attacks? You don’t consider butyric acids bombs not to be chemical attacks? Hmmm, how about this, this (complete with pictures), or this? The actions by the Sea Shepherd crowd certainly seem to be in line with greenpeace actions and motives, despite any bickering between the two groups. If I’m wrong about greenpeace I will retract the statement, though.
Actually, you need to develop a sense of humor. The lobbying group understands well enough that, 1) whaling will likely never produce enough to replace beef or other meats, 2) whaling is viable economically and environmentally, and 3) resistance to whaling is based on emotion, not any reasonable form of logic.
Whaling is a real problem and requires real consideration, not mockery.
No, whaling is not a real problem, and yes, the economic benefits of whaling warrant real consideration, not mockery. It certainly does not warrant the criminal/terroristic assaults launched by greepeace and others.
April 14th, 2008 at 18:55 pm
Steve - I don’t think anyone is feeding Ramya a line! Non-violence is definately one of the core principles of Greenpeace. I’m confused as to why you have put three pictures of Sea Shepherd as examples of Greenpeace’s violent behaviour? The main reason Greenpeace won’t work with Sea Shepherd is precisely because of their violent actions like the ones in the pictures!
For your info - Greenpeace is also campigning in Japan to get Japanese people to put pressure on their government to stop whaling and is also doing high-level political lobbying to make all whaling illegal. I think these are great long-term and non-violent ways to put an end to whaling.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Charlie - Again, I place Greenpeace in the same collective boat as Sea Shepherd, Earth First, ELF, or any other fringe eco-terrorist group. There may be differences in degree, but not in their aims. The ideal vision for most of these groups is small pockets of mankind huddled in caves looking out over the ruins of modern society. In their view, man is a virus to be eradicated, not a privileged species placed above the rest of creation.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Charlie:
For your info - Greenpeace is also campigning in Japan to get Japanese people to put pressure on their government to stop whaling and is also doing high-level political lobbying to make all whaling illegal. I think these are great long-term and non-violent ways to put an end to whaling.
This presumes that whaling is an evil to be eradicated. It speaks volumes that GP’s goal is destruction of livelihoods, not encouragement of local economies.
April 17th, 2008 at 18:50 pm
How can you possibly say whaling is not a problem- many species of whales are endangered, and whales are hardly being ‘harvested’ sustainably.
You may consider humans to be a priviliged species, but at the end of the day, they still rely on the environment to survive- where do you think our resources come from? On top of that if everyone encouraged the livelihood of humans, and the development of local economies, the environment, and therefore human life, would suffer. Sometimes the environment needs to be put first, after all it is the environment which sustains human life in the first place. If the ocean ecosystem were to collapse, believe me, we would be in massive trouble.To believe that humans are above the environment that they live in is simply ignorant.
Greenpeace are an essential part of keeping the environment healthy- without this, humans life as we know it would collapse anyway.
April 17th, 2008 at 21:35 pm
How can you possibly say whaling is not a problem- many species of whales are endangered, and whales are hardly being ‘harvested’ sustainably
Amber:
Whales are hardly being harvested sustainably? Whales are hardly being harvested period. Their populations can be easily sustained through well managed harvests. In 2006, approximately 600 minkes were taken by Norway, Japan took about as many, plus a smattering of finners and humpbacks. Despite the frenzy of the anti-whaling community, stocks are considered to be stable for many years to come.