Tuesday, March 4, 2008

"Eat a Whale and Save the Planet" - Norway

Japan and Norway are looking for new reasons to increase whaling. Both nations are condemned for continuing whaling, but continue to kill whales under the guise of "research." Now the Norwegian pro-whaling lobby High North Alliance has come up with a new "excuse" for whaling: global warming.

According to Rune Froevik of the High North Alliance, which represents the interests of coastal communities in the Arctic:

"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. Greenhouse gas emissions caused by one meal of beef are the equivalent of eight meals of whale meat."

The study focused on the fuel use of whale boats and 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.

Yeah, yeah. But beef, pork and chicken are domesticated. Whales are wild, and are endangered.

Yet we humans seem to feel that we can do anything we want, kill any species want, and wipe them off the face of the earth as long as it suits our needs. After all, it doesn't really matter that the entire world is big ecosystem, and if we had half a brain, we would realize that destroying one species ruins the "Sacred Balance."

Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace said:
"The survival of a species is more important than lower greenhouse gas emissions from eating it. Almost every food is more climate friendly than meat. Most fish and seafood has similarly low emissions."
While fish may be better than whales, it's not like we're doing all that well in terms of fish either. Many studies and projections show that we are seriously overfishing the oceans.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well there would be alot less CO2 if we just offed the whalers in Norway and Japan.

Our Hero, said...

I think whale meat is yummy. I've only tried minke whale and it was fantastic. I will eat it again. Being against whaling is okay, but one should be against it for the right reason. The whales being hunted in Iceland (where I live) are far from endangered. There are an estimated 250,000 of them in the population that is regularly found in the vicinity of Iceland. There is another population slightly larger (estimated just over 350,000) near the northwestern coast of Europe and a population of more than 500,000 along the eastern coast of the US and Canada. These whales are feeding as they always have on small fish such as capelin and herring which are in short supply and have been since we started overfishing. So, by killing hundreds of thousands of tons of the small fish and protecting their largest predators we are continuing to drive their numbers down. Governments have noticed the decline in fish stocks and have lowered quotas. But the fish aren't making the come-back they could because fishermen vote and politicians are unwilling to put thousands of people out of work. Meanwhile, the whales continue to eat and multiply as we continue to fish. It is actually healthier for the ocean for us to spread our usage out among a greater number of species than to focus on a few and drive them to near extinction.
The type of mass slaughter in the old days was extremely detrimental to the ocean and that is not what I advocate. Rather, I think that reducing our meat intake and spreading out what is left to a large number of species is a better solution than banning whaling and focusing on destruction of vast tracts of terrestrial habitat for the production of cows, chickens and pigs to satisfy our lust for meat.
I think that vegetarians make the best point: don't eat meat because if you do you're killing the planet and yourself. But I think that we could practice the harvesting of meat in moderation and still maintain biodiversity.

General Viagra said...

These people need to be condemned because we can't domesticate a whale and we can't do a mass production of this animals. this species need our help to protect them of those beasts.