i hope sea shepherd makes them rethink their career choices

Possibly Tree Hugger should reconsider its hero list? Tim Flannery might want to watch how a whale reacts when hit with an exploding harpoon as it screams and suffers horribly for the nearly hour long ordeal before being cut in half while still breathing. Simply being a low carbon count is no excuse for a horribly brutal system of killing. Possibly Tim might rethink and propose a salad.

It's bugging me how everything boils down to CO2 now. There's more to the environment than CO2.

We want to avoid global warming to... protect ecosystems, including marine ecosystems. Eating the bigger mammals in those ecosystems isn't really a solution, especially since I seriously doubt there's enough whales to really make any difference in emissions. All we'll do is get them extinct.

Eating any type of meat is, admittedly, a choice that can carry some guilt with it. Whether is cows, chickens, or whales -- no animal likes to be killed. The only way to avoid this moral dilemma is to be a vegetarian.

Is killing a whale somehow more or less 'wrong' than killing a cow? Is brain size the indicator for what we should and should not kill? What exactly indicates a species that we should be sustainably harvesting for food?

However, I think the biggest question is -- who wants to eat whale meat?

Unless they are hunting them with sail boats, I doubt it involves so little carbon emissions.

the 2006 study at the University of Chicago, found that red meat and, surprisingly, fish were responsible for the highest emissions. See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/vegan_diets_hea_1.php

The high price of seafood reflects the enormous energy and transportation costs that go in to catching what is otherwise a free resource. Fleets of trawlers need to be built, maintained and fueled. Ocean fish are generally transported refrigerated or frozen over great distances before ending up in our local supermarkets.

I image whale meat would have similar requirements and emissions to fish.

So, if I eat the whole thing, is the next whale free?

First issue is that most whale species were decimated by whaling, stressing most species and bringing others to the brink of extinction. A position they really haven't recovered particularly well from.

There's something to be said that they're big fish (yes, I know. Leave me alone), or no smarter than cows, so why not hunt them just as we hunt and farm other charismatic megafauna.

Maybe when I'm down to my last sack of soybeans I'll think about whaling. But not before.

Maybe folks should be giving Iceland more props to encourage them to keep their ban on.

On the other hand, if I had to eat American chop suey in the school cafeteria, why shouldn't Japanese children be forced to eat mystery meat that they hate too? Builds character.

But thanks, it's really no problem to add Norway to my informal list of countries whose products I'll try to boycott.

I don't see why whale hunting would be illegal unless the particular wale species were endangered. If they're endangered, it should definately be illegal, but absecent that, it really makes no sence.

I never really bought into that whole thing about "we shouldn't club baby seals because they're cute" thing. We shouldn't club baby seals because killing animals when they're babies and only for their fur is stupid and short-sighted.

I've never subscribed to the idea that one animal's intelligence made it more worthy than another.

Whales are predators, they live a long time and reproduce slowly and concentrate industrial and natural pollutants in their fat and tissues. We don't eat wolves, why would we eat sperm whales?

A side note, The American Cetacean Society was actually founded by a bunch of people who originally thought that whales might be the solution to world hunger.

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa. If we're going here, then humans have got to be the most environmentally sound source of meat. Those things are net positive if you add up all the CO2 they release over a lifetime.

And Tim Flannery's opinion applies in the human case as well: "Less intelligent ... species are much like sheep and should be sustainably hunted" but for food, instead of market share.

"Eating any type of meat is, admittedly, a choice that can carry some guilt with it. Whether is cows, chickens, or whales -- no animal likes to be killed. The only way to avoid this moral dilemma is to be a vegetarian.
Is killing a whale somehow more or less 'wrong' than killing a cow? Is brain size the indicator for what we should and should not kill? What exactly indicates a species that we should be sustainably harvesting for food?"

i agree. if eating cows, chickens, and buffalo is moral, why shouldn't eating whale be? go veg!

this is just plain horrible.

isn't there any environmental impact for a the extinction of all whales? just in case the things get out of hand?

I know a lot of people that are vegetables, can I eat them "guilt-free"?

Clearly, this is just a minor argument in the debate about whaling, and will hardly have an impact on the Bambi school of environmentalists.

The problem is that the whale has taken on an image as a gentle giant of the seas, humming it's ancient wisdom as it prowls the deep blue. In other words, those who will gladly eat chicken that has lived out it's short, miserable life in a cramped "free range" indoor hall will not eat an animal that has lived its lifetime in a natural habitat and then been killed quickly. I say quickly, because the scare stories of "hour long death throes" has no connection to the realities of modern whaling - though the traditional whale hunting among the indigenous peoples in the arctic region can involve such practises still.

Also, the species being hunted are not threatened by extinction by a long shot (pun intended), as a quick enquiery to the International Whaling Commission will confirm.

I can understand the argument about not wanting to eat any kind of meat, but to accept meat as part of your diet and then refuse modern whaling on environmental grounds has no logic to it. Just admit that whales are "awesome" and drop the pretext.

Whale has a seriously high mercury count, since they're apex animals and mercury gets stored in fat. Not sure going back to eating them would be that healthy for humans, even if it were good for the environment.

Well, a number of issues to juggle on this one:
1. The fact that the High Northern Alliance's 'scientific' conducted a study by themselves, for themselves - Very suspicious! Maybe I should do a scientific study and prove that eating humans is the best diet for humans! (don't shake ur head at me! It can be done u know!)
2. What does brain capacity to do with what we eat? I am sure we don't eat sheep because of their smaller brains... besides, there are countries that eat dog, cat and anything they can get their hands on. Why muddy the waters by bringing in brains into this ;)
3. Sustainability of the planet is based on sustainability of economy, society and environment. Would ppl die if they didn't eat whale? I think not. Would the economy suffer if ppl didn't eat whale - ask the Japs and Norwegians! Theirs would! Would the env suffer if ppl didn't eat whales? Who knows? The point here is that the Carbon issue is not the only issue for the planet. Biodiversity, and making sure our grandkids will see a real live whale instead of skeletons in museums might be...

Also, to the HNA, get ur facts straight. Presenting research results based on a single impact category is just plain bad science!

Pro-whaling countries should reconsider their cultures b4 more 'Easter Islands' appear. Culture should suit the times, so stop hiding behind it!

As for eating whale meat, I might consider it... but only if it comes with a tasty side dish of human brain!

Personally i believe that all animals lives are equal whether it's a fly, a whale, or a human. ALL ANIMALS ON EARTH ARE EQUAL NO MATTER THE SIZE! Killing animals is the same as war, there is absolutly NO POINT!!!