http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.7a5f7af9f08212f6d2aaa2f75c515f65.6c1&show_article=1

Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate change.

The suggestion is included in Canberra's "Carbon Farming Initiative", a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, seen Thursday.

-----------

I understand the camels are pests and a nuisance, but to kill them for credits to "tackle climate change"? Really?

Well, it has been estimated that livestock contribute about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, but 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow)

Furthermore, grass-fed animals produce 4 times as much methane than grain-fed animals ( more fibre, more fart).

So, at first glance it may seem that fewer grass-feeding animals roaming around will reduce emissions.....however, the 9% figure (above) has been derived from calculations that include transport of meat and feed, processing of animal products etc, so a feral animal would be significantly less carbon-guilty.

But then, since they are indeed pests...why not cull them and have the bonus of feel-good thoughts that carbon emissions are being reduced at the same time (even if it is not significant)?

Depends on your view of pests, perhaps we should have a cull of Bedlam, it would make me feel better.

Now, back to the topic...

@Harcourt - My opinion on the matter is that climate change is natural so the planned mass killing animals to stop it is borderline criminal. "Climate Change" with capital letters is just the new term of the disproven and controversial "Global Warming" theory. To use a controversial theory as a reason to slaughter is just as bad, but adding in the bribe of these "carbon credits" makes it even worse IMO.

Camel is good eating.

Let the indigenes hunt them and eat them, rather than sitting in a circle drinking VB (and farting).

Killing camels to stop carbon emissions is a fantasy. But camels in Australia should be culled to save native wildlife (there is still some left).

Now, back to the topic...

@Harcourt - My opinion on the matter is that climate change is natural so the planned mass killing animals to stop it is borderline criminal. "Climate Change" with capital letters is just the new term of the disproven and controversial "Global Warming" theory. To use a controversial theory as a reason to slaughter is just as bad, but adding in the bribe of these "carbon credits" makes it even worse IMO.

My opinion of the matter is that climate changes all the time, but this time it is accelerated by man-made gases. Global Warming is a fact; of course it is ignored by some who feel uncomfortable with facts. That makes it controversial.

This is absolutely no reason to slaughter innocent animals. They certainly did not cause global warming, it looks like they are a convenient scapegoat. In Europe, so I read on another unreliable website, cows are the major contributor of methan, thus causing global warming. Well. And how about the cars and the cities and factories?

Also, I never found the point where Carbon Credits made any sense.

Now, back to the topic...

@Harcourt - My opinion on the matter is that climate change is natural so the planned mass killing animals to stop it is borderline criminal. "Climate Change" with capital letters is just the new term of the disproven and controversial "Global Warming" theory. To use a controversial theory as a reason to slaughter is just as bad, but adding in the bribe of these "carbon credits" makes it even worse IMO.

Ok. So there are 2 issues here; the "fallacy of Climate Change", and the "mass" "slaughter" of animals (on a pretext).

Maybe a third issue: Carbon credits.

We could debate the "pretext" on which the animals are going to be slaughtered, first, Or we could talk about the poor old camel's right to life.

(As for carbon credits, although I am a believer in Climate Change, I am not sure about the benefits of CC's. A good argument could sway me either way)

Camel is good eating.

Let the indigenes hunt them and eat them, rather than sitting in a circle drinking VB (and farting).

I'm sorry but I find your post amazingly offensive! Are you a Fartophobe? I believe that you can be prosecuted under Section 4.02.147.337 of the Human Rights Act for discrimination against a bowel-challenged minority. Best to buy yourself a gas mask before the Fart Police arrive!

Carbon Credits - isn't it just a scam? Isn't it a way countries/corporations can pollute more by giving someone money? f we accept the Global Warming fantasy, shouldn't we be doing everything possible to reduce emissions and NOT giving credits out? Who is responsible for managing these credits anyway? Certainly not animal lovers.

I wonder what lame brain politician thought up that scheme. Probably just someone who wants to get his name in the news for something ridiculous. Australia is already over run with feral rabbits. And, they had the audacity to send some of their marsupials to the previously sterile New Zealand wilderness. The Brits started it originally.

I wonder what lame brain politician thought up that scheme. Probably just someone who wants to get his name in the news for something ridiculous. Australia is already over run with feral rabbits. And, they had the audacity to send some of their marsupials to the previously sterile New Zealand wilderness. The Brits started it originally.

Yup.

We exported our unwanted convicts to Australia and our unwanted younger sons to North America.

In both places they ended up slaughtering the indigenous population and declaring that they loved democracy.

We apologise for past misdeeds and realise now that it would have been better to leave the criminals and younger sons in the UK, where they could slaughter the immigrants, and ourselves go out and populate the distant lands of Empire. (We'd 've made a far better job of it)

Carbon Credits - isn't it just a scam? Isn't it a way countries/corporations can pollute more by giving someone money? f we accept the Global Warming fantasy, shouldn't we be doing everything possible to reduce emissions and NOT giving credits out? Who is responsible for managing these credits anyway? Certainly not animal lovers.

The idea is that it costs to produce carbon, and it pays to grow carbon sinks. A stick and a carrot to encourage reduction.

The biggest flaw in the concept is that the biggest producers of atmospheric carbon won't get on board.

If we accept Climate Change as a fact, then a monetary stick and carrot are not enough.

I wonder what lame brain politician thought up that scheme. Probably just someone who wants to get his name in the news for something ridiculous. Australia is already over run with feral rabbits. And, they had the audacity to send some of their marsupials to the previously sterile New Zealand wilderness. The Brits started it originally.

Yup.

We exported our unwanted convicts to Australia and our unwanted younger sons to North America.

In both places they ended up slaughtering the indigenous population and declaring that they loved democracy.

We apologise for past misdeeds and realise now that it would have been better to leave the criminals and younger sons in the UK, where they could slaughter the immigrants, and ourselves go out and populate the distant lands of Empire. (We'd 've made a far better job of it)

I always thought the biggest mistake the English made was that they should have made Britian the prison island and moved the "country" to Australia. But then only the strong survived the long journeys to North America and Australia and I'm not sure the ones who stayed behind in the Old World could have survived the voyage.

Carbon Credits - isn't it just a scam? Isn't it a way countries/corporations can pollute more by giving someone money? f we accept the Global Warming fantasy, shouldn't we be doing everything possible to reduce emissions and NOT giving credits out? Who is responsible for managing these credits anyway? Certainly not animal lovers.

The idea is that it costs to produce carbon, and it pays to grow carbon sinks. A stick and a carrot to encourage reduction.

The biggest flaw in the concept is that the biggest producers of atmospheric carbon won't get on board.

If we accept Climate Change as a fact, then a monetary stick and carrot are not enough.

Climate change is a fact - the climate has always been changing. It's "Global Waming" that is the East Anglia/ Al Gore scam.

We exported our unwanted convicts to Australia and our unwanted younger sons to North America.

In both places they ended up slaughtering the indigenous population and declaring that they loved democracy.

We apologise for past misdeeds and realise now that it would have been better to leave the criminals and younger sons in the UK, where they could slaughter the immigrants, and ourselves go out and populate the distant lands of Empire. (We'd 've made a far better job of it)

Nice one, Humphrey. We were pretty silly, weren't we? And now the sons of the younger sons are pigging it in Thailand in the name of Great Britain.

Back to topic... all the camels, all the brumbies, all the rabbits that myxomatosis didn't get in Australia should be culled. They have no place there, and should be removed to allow the indigenous fauna to recover.

And perhaps that also applies to you and I, Humphrey?

Carbon Credits - isn't it just a scam? Isn't it a way countries/corporations can pollute more by giving someone money? f we accept the Global Warming fantasy, shouldn't we be doing everything possible to reduce emissions and NOT giving credits out? Who is responsible for managing these credits anyway? Certainly not animal lovers.

The idea is that it costs to produce carbon, and it pays to grow carbon sinks. A stick and a carrot to encourage reduction.

The biggest flaw in the concept is that the biggest producers of atmospheric carbon won't get on board.

If we accept Climate Change as a fact, then a monetary stick and carrot are not enough.

Climate change is a fact - the climate has always been changing. It's "Global Waming" that is the East Anglia/ Al Gore scam.

"Global Warming" is old hat and the proponants of it have moved on. Anthopomorphic Clmate Change is what the worry is. To say that climate change is normal or natural is not incorrect, but it is misleading in light of the fact of man-made effects of climate change.

I can't talk much about the Southern hemisphere, although I have visited it from time-to-time.

But in the Northern hemisphere we have experienced far greater climate changes than that being discussed by politicians, journalists, 'greenies' and others with far more time on their hands than is strictly necessary.

We have been through at least three ice ages (not the movies, silly!!) and the consequent changes to flora, fauna and terrain. The world survived those climactic events. Maybe the flora and fauna did not, but new species came along, some better, some probably worse.

If it's gonna happen - bring it on!!

This is only a minor fluctuation in comparison with the previous examples and is of little concern compared with the expanding human population and diminishing food supplies (too much grain-for-ethanol?) that is looming in the background. The coming shortage of potable water and basic food, when compared to the growing demand, will be far more of a problem than global warming - although the latter may be one factor that will affect the former. But only one of several.

Global warming could be pushed back by switching to power stations using molten thorium fluoride/uranium fluoride fuel instead of the current uranium and plutonium reactors (much safer and cannot easily produce bomb-grade material)(that's why governments won't support them). Shut down the coal-fired plants, reduce the gas-fired plants - go for thorium molten salt reactors and electric vehicles.

Then the cows, camels, llamas and alpacas - plus the old farts on Bedlam - would be the main cause of global warming.

(sp)