A Norwegian pro-whaling group released a study concluding that farming livestock is worse for the environment than hunting giant whales. The group's argument is that the process of tracking and harpooning the mammals requires less fuel than farming livestock—the boats burn less fuel, and release less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Sure, maybe that makes sense, and it's certainly a creative way to try to generate some positive PR by hitching a ride with the green movement, but isn't the whole anti-whaling thing really about, you know, saving the actual whales? The carbon footprint of whaling might be smaller than that of raising cattle or chickens, but that was never the point. The anti-whaling movement is about extinction, not greenhouse gases.
What are the BENEFITS of killing whales?
Regardless of whats more green, really what are the benefits? Who really wants to eat whale meat over a nice salmon steak? What else would we use them for? fuel/lamp oil? lipstick? corsets? shoe polish?
Unless your part of the Inuit culture and use every part of the animal - and only whale on a small scale, pardon my rhyme - YOU DON'T NEED TO KILL WHALES.
Now if this comment sparks debate on how whaling is part of Japanese and Norwegian cultures let me just say this - cultural whaling doesn't and shouldn't involve the mass murder of an endangered species.
Who's seen the "south park" on this? Terribly Brilliant.
While I am also against the whaling of endangered species, your argument seems to allow for the whaling of non endangered species of whales. Such as the Minke whale, which is the most commonly hunted species, and the Humpback whale.
The South Park episode was terribly brilliant. But when you also watch a movie such as "Food Inc." and you see how cows and chickens are raised and slaughtered, I can't really say that it's better or worse than whaling.