Eat whale and save the planet

[RedStarOverChina]

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.


The 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.


The Norwegian-based Alliance said it was the first to measure the "carbon footprint" of whaling. Fish and seafood was comparable to whale meat with relatively low emissions.


Norway and Japan, the two main whaling nations, are seeking new arguments to promote whale meat after years of condemnation from anti-whaling nations for breaking with a 1986 moratorium on all hunts meant to save many whale species from extinction.


Oslo says, for instance, that the small minke whales it hunts are plentiful in the North Atlantic and that a 2008 Norwegian quota of 1,052 animals will not harm stocks. The meat is eaten mostly as steaks or in stews.


GREENPEACE DISMISSIVE


Greenpeace said the threat of extinction was more important.
"The survival of a species is more important than lower greenhouse gas emissions from eating it," said Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace. "Almost every food is more climate friendly than meat. Most fish and seafood has similarly low emissions."


The Alliance survey, covering eight of Norway's 30 whaling vessels, said they emitted 885 tons of carbon dioxide in 2007 by burning diesel fuel and landed 461 tons of whale meat. That meant an average of 1.9 kilos of emissions per kilo of meat.


By contrast, raising cows in developed nations requires use of tractors, ploughs and fertilizers to produce feed. The animals themselves generate methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, in their digestive tracts.


The Alliance said that the "carbon footprint" was up to the first sale -- for whales the landing point and for livestock the farm gate. Neither included processing or transport costs to shops.


The International Whaling Commission (IWC) will hold a special meeting in London this week to review deadlock between pro- and anti-whaling nations.


Froevik said the IWC had turned into a group devoted to banning whaling rather than allowing hunts under strict controls. "We compare it to a soccer club where the only rule is that soccer is forbidden," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080303/od_nm/climate_whaling1_dc;_ylt=ApC2oIbczkUhHXbKJIiLnM7ti BIF

[RedStarOverChina]

Now, I have always thought, if we kill and eat a large portion of the sharks and whales, Doesn't that leave more of the other fishes and octopuses for US? Isn't that good?

[pave_the_planet]

we could just, you know, tear down the meat industry...

[chimx]

Now, I have always thought, if we kill and eat a large portion of the sharks and whales, Doesn't that leave more of the other fishes and octopuses for US? Isn't that good?

Are you acting a fool intentionally?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Now, I have always thought, if we kill and eat a large portion of the sharks and whales, Doesn't that leave more of the other fishes and octopuses for US? Isn't that good?

First off Whales generally don't eat fish (baleen whales that is)

Secondly, whilst there are definite benefit of eating whale meat as opposed to beef, pork and chicken, proposing that we cull whales to extinction is extremely naive. Remember whales especially in the Antarctic make up an essential element of the marine food web. It man seem like a great idea that in the interests of man we ought to eliminate the predators of fish, but this ignores the complexity of biotic interactions. You only have to look as far as the introduction of the Cane Toad into Australia to see the implications of playing around with food webs so I think it would be much safer to avoid such ideas.

On a final note, I would largely agree with the article in condoning the consumption of whale meat, BUT, I believe it aught to be performed with strict limits to avoid over hunting and potential alteration of the natural food web

[RedStarOverChina]

Are you acting a fool intentionally?

No, I just plain don't like competing predatory animals--except for, maybe, other humans.


First off Whales generally don't eat fish (baleen whales that is)

Secondly, whilst there are definite benefit of eating whale meat as opposed to beef, pork and chicken, proposing that we cull whales to extinction is extremely naive. Remember whales especially in the Antarctic make up an essential element of the marine food web. It man seem like a great idea that in the interests of man we ought to eliminate the predators of fish, but this ignores the complexity of biotic interactions. You only have to look as far as the introduction of the Cane Toad into Australia to see the implications of playing around with food webs so I think it would be much safer to avoid such ideas.

On a final note, I would largely agree with the article in condoning the consumption of whale meat, BUT, I believe it aught to be performed with strict limits to avoid over hunting and potential alteration of the natural food web

Sharks eat fish. Some species of whales eat shrimps and other octopuses.

Still, some people like octopuses and shrimps (I don't like either).


Cane toad is what happens when introducing new species to an unprepared environment. It's quite different from hunting something into the verge of distinction.

I doubt if you take out all the natural predators of fish such as cod you'd have a a cod over-population...Because we humans like cod a lot.

Similarly, a rabbit over-population (as was the case in Australia) would have never happen in densely populated areas such as China. People will hunt down the rabbits and have a delicious dinner at their expense.

Of course I could be wrong about all this. But how is killing more whales going to negatively effect the environment and biotic interactions? Please explain.

[RedStarOverChina]

we could just, you know, tear down the meat industry...
Why would you want to do that?

I for one, don't like sea food and very much prefer bacon.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fact that this information is coming out of Norway isn't very suprising.

I'm sure these findings are also endorsed by the Japanese. Maybe now they won't have to inconvinence themselves by going out on "scientific expeditions".

[RedStarOverChina]

It definitely is suspicious that this came from Norway. But even Green Peace isn't refuting its findings...And all the Green Peace guy said was "you shouldn't drive an animal into distinction".

Why not? We have already driven intestinal worms "underground" in many parts of the world.

[Lector Malibu]

You know I'm thinking a whale and bacon sandwich would probably be pretty tasty...

[#FF0000]

It sounds like a pretty good idea, but it would be very, very difficult to continue whaling and not drive certain whales to extinction. Whales are long-lived and have very few offspring, so a fleet of modern whaling boats could do a good amount of damage to the whale population in an area over a relatively short period of time.

[Dystisis]

The fact that this information is coming out of Norway isn't very suprising.

I'm sure these findings are also endorsed by the Japanese. Maybe now they won't have to inconvinence themselves by going out on "scientific expeditions".
The idea that Norway really cares about whaling is quite hilarious. Sure, you have a few local interests... but come on.. we are one of the wealthies nations in the world and it has nothing to do with whales what so ever. Personally I have never ever seen or heard of any person that has had anything to do with whaling (and yes I am norwegian) and it's a tiny ass country...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hunting whales may produce less carbon, but that ignores the fact that whales are endangered. The whaling industry and their lobbyists can fuck off.

[RedStarOverChina]

Hunting whales may produce less carbon, but that ignores the fact that whales are endangered. The whaling industry and their lobbyists can fuck off.
So what if they are extinct? What's wrong with that? If they are endangered, that probably means they don't play a large role in the food change anyhow, since their numbers are limited.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what if they are extinct? What's wrong with that?

At best allowing whales to go extinct is crass mismanagement of the Earth's natural resources. The whaling industry cannot be trusted to hunt whales responsibly, why do you think they became endangered in the first place?


If they are endangered, that probably means they don't play a large role in the food change anyhow, since their numbers are limited.Whales are some of the most massive creatures in the sea. Hence they will consume large amounts of biomass in order to maintain energy levels, which means that despite their rarity they have an appreciable effect on the marine ecosystem - I would rather err on the side of caution and not face any potential unintended consequences as the result of irresponsible whaling.

[RedStarOverChina]

Whales are some of the most massive creatures in the sea. Hence they will consume large amounts of biomass in order to maintain energy levels, which means that despite their rarity they have an appreciable effect on the marine ecosystem - I would rather err on the side of caution and not face any potential unintended consequences as the result of irresponsible whaling.
Well, so far no one has provided any evidence as to how that might effect the environment negatively, so my skepticism holds.

The planktons that the whales eat are also an important food source for the fish, fish that we might also want to eat. So as far as I can tell, less whales means more food for both fish and human.

[Cult of Reason]

Hunting whales may produce less carbon, but that ignores the fact that whales are endangered. The whaling industry and their lobbyists can fuck off.

Not ALL of them are endangered. Minke whales, for example, are quite common in Icelandic waters (on the order of thousands) so hunting a few would only have a small effect.

Vaginal_Residue: It is usually wise not to fuck about too much with what is not well understood. I doubt very much that the effects of whales on the ecosystem are well understood, particularly since they are such wide-ranging animals.

[Jazzratt]

Well, so far no one has provided any evidence as to how that might effect the environment negatively, so my skepticism holds.

The planktons that the whales eat are also an important food source for the fish, fish the we might also want to eat. So as far as I can tell, less whales means more food for both fish and human.

Ecology dude, ecology. We know next to fuck all about how sea life works, especially what would happen if we removed the whales - even if fish managed to get up to speed on plankton consumption do you not think that an increase in those fish might also affect population levels of other creatures - possibly destabilising the ecology and fucking everything up. Also if we run out of edible whales how in the fuck do you propose we continue to eat their delicious meat? Go on, I'm curious now.

We should be aiming to progress, not just kill shit willy nilly.

[Dr Mindbender]

It sounds like a pretty good idea, but it would be very, very difficult to continue whaling and not drive certain whales to extinction..

Whale farming? :confused:

[RedStarOverChina]

Well, I have no intention of driving whales to extinction myself...Besides, whales tend to be bigger and stronger than me, so there really aren't much I can do.

But the "doomsday sayers" really annoy me. As if the extinction of fin whales would bring catastrophic collapse to the environment. Animals go extinct all the time, with out without human intervention.

And if you eat beef or veal or pork, it's really hypocritical to denounce people for eating whales.

I've never eaten a whale and I hate seafood, but it just doesn't make sense to bash the Japanese or the Icelanders or Norwegians for hunting down and eating whales.

[Mujer Libre]

Well, I have no intention of driving whales to extinction myself...Besides, whales tend to be bigger and stronger than me, so there really aren't much I can do.
Well, if you're advocating hunting an endangered species...


But the "doomsday sayers" really annoy me. As if the extinction of fin whales would bring catastrophic collapse to the environment. Animals go extinct all the time, with out without human intervention. Only we have the power to make them become extinct much faster than the normal attrition rate- and we have.

We also know that this can seriously disrupt ecosystems which, in a case such as the sea- where much of the food we extract comes from wild stocks- is incredibly shortsighted.


And if you eat beef or veal or pork, it's really hypocritical to denounce people for eating whales.
Cows and pigs are hardly endangered.


I've never eaten a whale and I hate seafood, but it just doesn't make sense to bash the Japanese or the Icelanders or Norwegians for hunting down and eating whales.
It makes sense to bash them for unsustainably hunting an endangered species. How many times do people have to repeat this?

[RedStarOverChina]

Oh man. We have to go over this again.

Just what if they go extinct? All you say that, oh, they are going extinct. So what?

The worst thing that could happen is some fin-whale lovers in Japan will have to switch to some other whale.

[Mujer Libre]

We also know that this can seriously disrupt ecosystems which, in a case such as the sea- where much of the food we extract comes from wild stocks- is incredibly shortsighted.
Did you even bother to read my post?

[Jazzratt]

Well, I have no intention of driving whales to extinction myself...Besides, whales tend to be bigger and stronger than me, so there really aren't much I can do.

No single person is going to be responsible for driving the whales to extinction, but you have in this thread advocated hunting them to extinction.


But the "doomsday sayers" really annoy me. As if the extinction of fin whales would bring catastrophic collapse to the environment. Animals go extinct all the time, with out without human intervention.

Yes, but you've revealed that you know sweet fuck all about ecology so your considered opinion probably isn't worth as much as you think it is.


And if you eat beef or veal or pork, it's really hypocritical to denounce people for eating whales.

We farm cows and pigs, thus we are not going to run out any time soon - our methods of getting beef, veal, pork and so on are far more efficient than the primitive hunting method.


I've never eaten a whale and I hate seafood, but it just doesn't make sense to bash the Japanese or the Icelanders or Norwegians for hunting down and eating whales.

Why not? If people are doing something stupid they should be criticised for it, surely?

[Black Cross]

Just what if they go extinct? All you say that, oh, they are going extinct. So what?

You're overlooking some other people's posts. They've answered this, what was your rebuttal?

[RedStarOverChina]

Yes, but you've revealed that you know sweet fuck all about ecology so your considered opinion probably isn't worth as much as you think it is.

Neither do you. Nor does anybody else in this thread.

Species go extinct all the time, sometimes it has negative effects, sometimes it has positive effects, and sometimes it doesn't have much of an effect.

Does anyone want to offer any evidence as to how it's going to effect the ecology negatively?

Otherwise, you are all bullshitting. Like I said, if anyone would like to present some real evidence and not some environmentalist-fundamentalist bullshit about how we shouldn't drive even tapeworm into extinction, I'd be glad to think it over.

So just drop your sanctimonious horseshit and debate like a fucking respectable person.

[Apollodorus]

Because whales support a billion dollar industry while they are alive and taste like shit when they are on a plate.

www*greenpeace*org*uk/whale-watching/the-world-is-watching-the-economics-of-whale-watching/

www*abc*net*au/news/newsitems/200602/s1567589.htm

www*news*com*au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23289975-661,00.html

northcoastvoices*blogspot*com/2008/02/whale-meat-market-stagnates-in-japan.html

Finding real evidence took about two minutes. It really is not hard.

[Mujer Libre]

VR, the problem is that we can't predict what will happen if we drive whales extinct. It could be catastrophic, and there will certainly be a significant impact on the marine ecosystem. Consider that whales are top-order predators and contribute significantly to the life-cycles of planktons and krill (by providing them with fertiliser and eating them), which make up a large proportion of the ocean's biomass.

Sure, we might not completely fuck up the marine ecosystem- but is that a risk worth taking when we don't have to?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whale farming? :confused:

Long lifespans are a problem, and given their size, there are only so many whale types that can be "domesticated" (like killer whales in marine exhibits). :(

Nobody here would seriously consider domesticating blue f****** whales, for crying out loud.

[Jazzratt]

As Mujer said the reason we shouldn't just run into this with reckless abandon is because we do not know what the result will be. The braindead approach of "Yee-haw, we don't know shit about this fancy-pants ecology stuff but lets go and harpoon us same whales" should never be given precedence over the scientific "don't fuck about when you know dick about what will happen" method.