Be more environmentally friendly and choose whale meat

[david@tokyo]

Whale meat has been shown to be better for the environment than substitutes:

"Eat whale and save the planet": Norwegian lobby

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.

...

The Alliance survey, covering eight of Norway's 30 whaling vessels, said they emitted 885 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2007 by burning diesel fuel and landed 461 tonnes 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.

Obviously, there are only so whales in the ocean, and so it's not as if we can entirely replace beef, pork and chicken with whale, but we certainly should aim to sustainably utilise natural whale populations (as with other similarly low emission foods) instead of choosing to needlessly produce and consume these high emission foods.

Sustainable utilisation of whales (and other natural resources) is a positive step towards humans living in balance with the planet.

 

[Chi65]

No, thanks, particularly not northern one, which is even more poisoned than the southern ones. In fact, Norway only wishes to sell his whale meat to Japan, didn't you know? And you know why? Because no one wants their meat hereabout. . .
But Japan is not so interested in buying more of their meat to my knowledge. . .

EU is also already against it, Island stopped, many campains work well, and the above new reasons are as we say, a shot into water.
There are other balance possibilities en masse, very well without whalemeat.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Whatever. Eat insects there are enough of them to go around.

 

[Chi65]

You mean, the aboriginal way? Well, they might teach us soon.

In Berlin we already have according restaurants, no joke!
Dunno, if I would like THAT, though. . .;-)

 

[david@tokyo]

No, thanks

You are welcome to believe whatever propaganda you like about the safety of consuming north atlantic whale meat, southern hemisphere whale meat, and western north pacific whale meat. You are also welcome to choose not to eat it yourself for whatever reasons to wish to believe in, and keep eating beef or other whale meat substitutes, despite the additional environmental damage caused.

However, I hope you are able to respect that other people have the right to make decisions that differ from those that you make.

I suspect that we will hear more about Norwegian and Icelandic whaler's hopes to sell whale meat to the potentially lucrative Japanese market once the upcoming sensitive IWC meetings have concluded, and Japan and other nations have determined their future relationship with the IWC.

 

[Chi65]

Sorry, but its scientifically cleared, what about northern whale meat, incl. minke, its not propaganda. Nor is EU making propaganda in this.

And its not about me.

We had this theme already.

 

[david@tokyo]

Sorry, but its scientifically cleared ... its not propaganda

Like I said, you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

I'm simply asking that you respect that other people have the right to believe differently to you, and make different decisions to you. Danke shoen.

My view is that people who care about the environment and recognise the facts about the safety of whale meat consumption will be very interested in the results of this study.

Nor is EU making propaganda in this.

I really don't care what the EU says, unless they demonstrate their opinion is based on facts, not fictions and emotions.

 

[Chi65]

Then go, ask them yourself, if they have to demonstrate it to you too. They (EU) make no decision without such proofs, and have them.

I doubt, that people who know about the contents and places, where the whaling goes on, have strong interest in this. Every environmental friendly one is against whaling anyhow and for long already.

Also this has nothing to do with me.
You can also think, what you like, of course.

But I doubt, that the first message will have much impact on the matter itself. Thats all.

 

[Sarapva]

This study was only about carbon emissions - there could be other environmental impacts from whaling that are more subtle and that we don't understand yet. Why can't people just leave these peaceful beings alone?

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."

 

[david@tokyo]

This study was only about carbon emissions

...which are believed to be a man-made contribution to climate change. People who genuinely care about the environment will take an interest in this.

there could be other environmental impacts from whaling that are more subtle and that we don't understand yet.

You can substitute the word "whaling" with pretty much anything you like, but without an argument it is not convincing at all.

Unknown risks from the conservative utilization of whales can not certainly not be high, and this study shows that this meat is a better choice than other meats for environmentally conscious meat-eaters. Meat-eaters make up the vast majority of people in the world's major polluting nations, so this is an important message.

Why can't people just leave these peaceful beings alone?

Animals consuming other lifeforms is a natural feature of the planet which we humans live on. Life is not a Disney animated movie.

 

[JimmySeal]

You can substitute the word "whaling" with pretty much anything you like, but without an argument it is not convincing at all.

Right back atcha, bub. This carbon emissions article is not enough to prove that eating whale would be better for the environment than not eating whale, but you are acting like it is. You brush off all other environmental factors as "insignificant" without demonstrating any evidence that that is the case.

and keep eating beef or other whale meat substitutes

Excuse me? In order for beef to be a whale substitute, people would have to be eating beef in place of whale meat, which they're not. It's hard to take you seriously when you use terminology like this.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Just a question for David@Tokyo. How often do you eat whale meat in a month? The way you go on it seems as though this is some sort of important staple in your diet and that of the Japanese people, like you eat it all the time and it is absolutely inconceivable for you not to whale meat.

How important is whale meat to your regular diet? Would you, in all honesty, choose to eat whale over beef or chicken on a regular basis?

 

[david@tokyo]

How often do you eat whale meat in a month?

Probably still less than once, but this coming Sunday will be one of those days.

The way you go on it seems as though this is some sort of important staple in your diet and that of the Japanese people, like you eat it all the time and it is absolutely inconceivable for you not to whale meat.

This seems to be a confusion on your part.

How important is whale meat to your regular diet?

Given the range of foods available to me, there is no specific food I eat that I could not do without. However I do need food. In that sense whale meat is no more nor less important than other foods.

Would you, in all honesty, choose to eat whale over beef or chicken on a regular basis?

Absolutely - would this in all honesty be a surprise to you? The environmentally friendly nature of whale meat production is just one reason for this. If only it were supplied at higher levels closer to the sustainable limits.

 

[JimmySeal]

The way you go on it seems as though this is some sort of important staple in your diet and that of the Japanese people, like you eat it all the time and it is absolutely inconceivable for you not to whale meat.

This seems to be a confusion on your part.

I don't think it is. When you repeatedly refer to non-whale meat as "whale meat substitutes," you give the impression that whale meat is a central part of your (and other people's) diets.

 

[david@tokyo]

JimmySeal, there seems to be confusion on your part. A substitute in this context means "a similar product". The explanation below may help clear it up for you:

"For a product to be a substitute of another good, it must share a particular relationship with that good. When a good's price increases, the demand for its substitute will increase because consumers will go looking for a cheaper alternative. Conversely, when a good's price decreases, the demand for its substitute will decrease. For example, margarine is a good substitute for butter because a consumer can meet similar needs by using margarine. So when the price of butter rises, the demand for margarine will likely increase."

 

[kame]

JimmySeal, there seems to be confusion on your part. A substitute in this context means "a similar product". The explanation below may help clear it up for you:

I think a better word that may be in Jimmy's mind is "replacement".

 

[Rose Selavey]

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.

This is a bit of an over statment, this does not include organically grown or sustainable harvest animal products. Who paid for the study?

 

[JimmySeal]

I think a better word that may be in Jimmy's mind is "replacement".

Why not just say "other meats"? Regardless of the technical economics definition of "substitute," beef, and chicken stand as foods on their own, and are not substitutes (in the traditional sense of the word substitute) or replacements for anything else, especially not whale.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Absolutely - would this in all honesty be a surprise to you? The environmentally friendly nature of whale meat production is just one reason for this. If only it were supplied at higher levels closer to the sustainable limits.

Yes, it would surprise me because from all I've heard of whale meat it really doesn't sound so great, I've heard (never having tried whale meat) that it's nothing to write home about. In addition to that, marine food sources are becoming increasingly toxic due to mercury levels and pollutants. Not exactly safe or appetizing.

I would have to say your reason for choosing to eat whale to 'save the environment' is misguided and naive at best. Beef and chicken farming may add to greenhouse gas emissions but far more important to the environment is the whale. If they get over harvested (which is already proven to be a fact for most marine harvesting) it would be a far greater blow to the environment than gas emissions and would throw the whole local ecosystem out of balance.

You just can't argue with that as it has been shown time and again, not on paper, not in reports or articles, and not by graphs but through real life experience. Eventually, over-harvesting will occur and create an imbalance that threatens the whole local environment. Proven fact that has been repeated over and over and over again, even with such abundant animals as tuna. Demand = increased productivity = increased harvesting = overfishing = environmental damage.

 

[david@tokyo]

from all I've heard of whale meat it really doesn't sound so great

People who aren't interested simply need not eat it themselves, but not impose these presumptions on others.

In addition to that, marine food sources are becoming increasingly toxic due to mercury levels and pollutants. Not exactly safe or appetizing.

This must be why the Japanese, Icelanders and so on (where people consume lots of sea food) have such a low life expectancy.

I would have to say your reason for choosing to eat whale to 'save the environment' is misguided and naive at best.

I would say that you are welcome to your opinion, and request you respect the opinions of others.

but far more important to the environment is the whale

I don't know what you base that on, but you are welcome to think it.

If they get over harvested

Happened in the past when nations wanted oil. But today, people like you seem convinced that whale meat isn't very appetizing, so there's no much need to worry about over-harvesting is there? Nonetheless, the whaling nations are only hoping to conduct regulated whaling.

You just can't argue with that as it has been shown time and again

It certainly did happen in the past, but after reviewing the facts of the matter I don't see that it is likely of happening again with respect to whales.

Eventually, over-harvesting will occur

I disagree, based on my knowledge of the way in which current and future commercial whaling is set to be regulated.

Demand = increased productivity = increased harvesting = overfishing = environmental damage.

So your view is that there is demand for whale meat, or is not demand for whale meat? Or do you choose which view you take depending on which argument you are trying to make?

 

[JimmySeal]

This must be why the Japanese, Icelanders and so on (where people consume lots of sea food) have such a low life expectancy.

Ah, the old fallacy: Japanese lead long lives, so nothing they do could possibly be unhealthy. Japanese also smoke and drink a lot compared to many other nations. Are you going to tell us that's not unhealthy either?
Mercury and other pollution is continually rising, so risks exist in eating seafood that did not exist 20 years ago. Therefore, even if life expectancy were a valid argument here, using the current life expectancies as while seafood is becoming increasingly dangerous, is bogus.

Nonetheless, the whaling nations are only hoping to conduct regulated whaling.

The same way they're conducting regulated tuna harvesting? Japan isn't known for being able to control itself when it comes to consuming natural resources.

 

[david@tokyo]

Mercury and other pollution is continually rising, so risks exist in eating seafood that did not exist 20 years ago

This is true in some cases, but at least with respect to the types of large baleen whales Japan is catching, they are safe to eat generally speaking.

The same way they're conducting regulated tuna harvesting?

No, Japan is asking to conduct whaling under international regulations (including international observers on boats and at landing stations, satellite tracking of vessels, DNA registration of every whale caught to enable market monitoring, as well as an international oversight committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory measures). The IWC is failing to accept this responsibility.

As for tuna, Japan has in the past been lax, as have many other nations. The sort of regulatory framework they are proposing at the IWC would be a blueprint for other sustainable fishieries.

 

[Tasui]

i only eat fish, is healthier =) hooray for omega 3!