Bullwinkle Linked to Global Warming


“no reason to begin killing off the entire moose population.” 

I can’t make this stuff up:

A grown moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2,100 kilograms (4,630 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers said Wednesday.

That is more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted on a round-trip flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Oslo to the Chilean capital Santiago, according to Scandinavian Airlines.

“An adult moose emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a year. But methane gas is much stronger than carbon dioxide, so to get the equivalent you have to multiply by 21,” professor Odd Harstad at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences told AFP.

With an estimated 140,000 moose roaming Norway’s forests, that is a total of of 294,000,000 kilograms of CO2 per year.

But Harstad said that was no reason to begin killing off the entire moose population.

“Moose have very important functions in nature. They are ruminants that eat the grass. If we don’t have ruminants, we have too much grass and that changes the landscape and has consequences for the flora and fauna,” he said.

Harstad said the figure of 100 kilograms of methane gas was a rough estimate based on earlier calculations for beef cows in Norway.

As is the case with cows and other ruminants, methane is produced from the microbes in the moose’s stomach which help break down the roughage they eat.

Because methane gas is stronger than carbon dioxide, it is considered even more harmful to the environment. Both methane and carbon dioxide are so-called greenhouses gases, one of the main causes of global warming.  Yahoo News Link


I’ve always felt that some kind of bull-“winkle” was associated with popular global warming ideas.  I now feel vindicated.  And I’m just relieved to know that U.S. taxpayer dollars were not responsible for this colossal waste of time and resources.   

10 comments so far

  1. mpinkeyes on

    Every time you think you have heard it all when it comes to global warming something else comes out that is even more ridiculous. To think that a part of nature can destroy this planet is assinine.

  2. Jay on

    Thanks mpinkeyes. It kinda makes you wish that it’s a prank story doesn’t it? I mean–is that for real???

  3. mpinkeyes on

    I think it probably is for real. I have posted in the past about worms being blamed for global warming, along with many other things that make you scratch your head. Anything to keep their agenda moving forward.

  4. Jay on

    Ever wonder on a hot day, why two neighboring cities report 5-10 degree differences in temperature readings? It can depend in part on where the reading instruments are placed: http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

    So if someone wanted to manipulate weather statistics, it is possible to get higher or lower readings.

  5. musingsofabittergirl on

    Reagan tried this tactic back in the 80s saying trees caused air pollution. Others blamed cows. What Reagan didn’t say was that trees also consumed more air pollution than the put out, but what are a few small details like that when fighting controls on industry?

    It is easy to point to things that have always been there in our environment as if they are ‘new’ or ‘revealing’, as people don’t think about them every day. But doing this stares directly in the face of a reasonble person who would rightly ask – ‘OK so what has changed to make it a problem now’? And that answer of course is the industrialization movement starting in the late 1800s. Moose were always there, as were some amount of cows and trees. However, probably with cows there are more bred now to feed our overpopulation McDonalds burgers. Go vegan, and you will reduce the number of cows we require. But most importantly if we curb population growth and the need for fossil fuels we will get there faster …. but that’s exactly the conclusion that big business does not want. They’ve based the whole economy and all profits on an unsustainable economic model of never-ending expansion.

  6. Jay on

    I agree that industrialization across the globe has undoubtedly dumped more polution into the air than most of us would like to admit. I’m sure there are consequences.

    But people have been here as long as the moose and before industrialization and we are natural members of the planet as well, so blaming humans simply for our existence is akin to blaming the poor moose. We’ve always been in our environment too.

    Your view could lead to some unfortunate consequences such as forced abortions: http://witorwisdom.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/china-says-killing-okay-because-of-global-warming/

  7. musingsofabittergirl on

    If moose, cows and trees also had industrial revolutions, I’d be there with you. But they didn’t. Just because we live on the planet doesn’t mean we have the right to overrun it like a virus, destroying all of the natural world in our path.

    That type of thinking also of course in the end is going to kill our own species as well, but that will take longer and it’s easier for people to ignore that they are destroying the world for future generations.

    That’s a long term view, and most corporations making their profits today (and let’s be realistic that this is who funds our politicians and this is therefore who makes our laws now) are happy only looking at short term. At any rate, we as humans don’t simply ‘exist’ as a tree does, rather unchangingly from one generation to the next in the way in which we affect our environment – and that is our problem. But luckily we also have brains and should be capable fo being smart enough to see this – if only we can get rid of the cardinal sins of greed and pride first.

    Now I am not sure if you looked past your front door (where you said there is plenty of space), but they are swimming in people over in China compared to say Europe where I live (and where it’s actually not at all crowded as you imagine – the cities and countryside here are much better managed than say the Eastern seaboard of the US or the LA sprawl).

    At any rate, I can see why China might have to take some radical measures so they can feed and employ all the people being born there. Though frankly I’d prefer to see this done via birth control or even via forced vasectomies after the first child to control the population rather than abortions … but I do think that for many reasons China is reasonable to have the one child per family policy.

    And clearly it’s a policy they do not adhere to very strictly as their population continues to increase exponentially eacy year. I think that reducing the global population by promoting birth control and smaller families is a good goal for all countries, in fact.

    The economics of requiring an ever-expanding economy and population in order to be profitable are simply mathematically unsustainable long-term. There is a finite limit to the size of the planet and therefore to the number of humans which can live on it before the ecosystems required to support that number of people will simply collapse. Personally, I don’t like the idea of my descendants resorting to cannibalism to survive.

  8. Jay on

    “Just because we live on the planet doesn’t mean we have the right to overrun it like a virus, destroying all of the natural world in our path.”

    I couldn’t agree more with that statement. I’m all for conservation, recycling, and less pollution of our air and water. I just don’t come to your conclusions about population control/birth control, etc.

    The over-population stuff is a little bit like Chicken Little saying that “The sky is falling.”

    The economic problems in China have more to do with Communist ideology than mere population. Over-population is really an issue in larger cities that have less than adequate infrastructures, but China has vast amounts of countryside and rural area. They also have vast resources, it’s just that their “system” is not very efficient or as efficient as it could be. I just think that killing people is a failure to recognize Earth’s greatest potential and resource–us. There are other solutions.

    Besides, over-population stats don’t seem to account for various deadly epidemics such as Aids, etc., other natural death rates, and wars that constantly decrease human population. Humans do multiply, but we also eventually die. And something else–maybe global warming and the melting of the Arctic will just provide us with more room and resources in which humanity may thrive and expand. But human expansion does not necessarily equate destruction of the natural world.

  9. Granny Twig on

    What a shame that “The Industerial Revolution” hasn’t been taught or used in history books for the last 2 generations! A first Industrial Revolution merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850. Technology & economic progress spread with the invention of steam-powered ships, railways, and then in the 19th century, the internal combustion engine and electrical power. Talk about pollutants & global warming!

    Those years were somewhat before my time, but I lived in the 1930’s when we had record snowfalls that have yet to be broken. Then again, in the 1940’s we had more 100+ degree summer days in a year, than most of your young media brainwashed minds have seen in a lifetime…

    There is a saying that you need to hear -“This too shall pass” Ask your grandparents & great-grandparents (and I am both). We’ve been there and done (and seen)that… Go big Moose!

  10. Jay on

    Thanks Granny Twig.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: