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.
Via Reuters
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.
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.