How to Create Carbon Credits – Kill a Camel.
By Viv Forbes
The people who brought us pink-bats and cash-for-clunkers have a new scheme – we can earn carbon credits by shooting wild camels, humanely of course.
Surely it would be far easier to shoot tame cattle? There are big mobs near all of our northern ports, going nowhere.
And if greens have their way and stop all live exports, we can earn heaps more by shooting millions of sheep and goats, humanely of course.
What about those mobs of kangaroos? They burn carbon fuel and emit dreaded carbon dioxide. Why should they be spared when the future of the planet is at stake?
One small problem – what do we do with all those carcasses? Left alone they will release all the carbon sequestered within their bodies within a couple of weeks, thus incurring massive carbon debits.
And who counts the dead camels? To prevent carbon cull fraud the economy will boom with jobs for regulators, inspectors, auditors and prosecutors.
And of course, we must not burn diesel, av-gas or gun powder to do the slaughter, so the hunting must be done from horses using bows and arrows.
And if killing camels earns carbon credits, why can’t cattle, sheep and goat abattoirs also earn them?
(Just think of the ball the camel killers could have among the 200 million sacred cows in India.)
First they came for camels, and I did nothing.
Then they came for cattle, and I did nothing.
Then they came for me.
Further Comment:
Wild camels are a valuable resource for those with eyes not blinded by the smog of global warming dogma. Here is a comment we made two years ago when this silly suggestion first surfaced:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/camel-cull.pdf
And here is a comment by Paddy McHugh who actually knows something about camels:
http://www.paddymchugh.com/pdfs/Camel%20Cull%20a%20Blind%20Mans%20solution…pdf
Does anyone believe that riflemen in helicopters will kill every camel cleanly and painlessly? Yet our whole live export industry is threatened for a few misdeeds. Here is the most likely final product from the carbon credit harvesters:
Here is the final product from the live camel harvesters:
Think this is all a hoax? Then check this out:
Yep, our bureaucrats have put together a 62 page proposal to issue carbon credits for killing feral camels. They note that there is not much use in killing an old camel so the cullers will be required to declare the age of each camel killed, so that that the Government auditors can determine how much pollution will be saved. To help this complex calculation the government is researching the average life expectancy for feral camels.
The document is full of endless dribble, including how the cullers discount the credits they will get by the amount of pollution that is created by the culling.
Here is a sample:
“There are two options for measuring fuel consumption for EVc,j,y as detailed below. Option 1 is preferred.
Option 1) Recording of all fuel purchased or pumped for use in these vehicles during the management activities.
Option 2) Recording of all ground vehicle and fuel types and odometer readings before and after management activities.
For Option 2 the amount of fuel consumed is calculated by taking the fuel consumption rating of the vehicle as a litres per kilometre figure and multiplying this by the kilometres of travel undertaken as part of the management activity, then divided by 1000 to convert to kiloLitres, as per the equation below:
Where:
| GDgv,c,j,y | = | Ground distance travelled by vehicle gv using fuel type j in undertaking the management activities c in year y |
| LPKgv,j | = | Litres of fuel type j combusted per kilometre for vehicle gv” |
(Thanks to Helen Dyer for this explanation of the calculations.)
A print-ready copy of this issue of “Carbon Sense” with all pictures can be downloaded from:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/camel-cull-credits.pdf
Will,
You keep emphasizing that comment about archaea not being bacteria. That’s true, but a distinction of recent vintage. What’s not controversial is that they make methane under anaerobic conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen
Although some claims have been made that terrestial plants make methane under aerobic conditons, those are contorversial.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02103.x/full
I’m never sure whether governments are run by the Three Stooges or Jack The Ripper. In this case either could apply.
Back in the day there was an advertising slogan: ” I’d walk a mile to Smoke a Camel”; that was popular with soldiers and Marines serving in certain sandboxes, although for us it had nothing to do with tobacco. 😉
Perhaps that same t-shirt/bumpersticker slogan could be adopted by the Aussie’s to good effect. /sarc
Further evidence that they worship nature above creation.
Further evidence that they worship nature above the Creator.
Verity Jones,
Yes, decomposition of biomass always produces methane, CO2 and water are produced when methane is oxidised, just as CO2 and water are produced when methane is burnt.
Will,
I hope were are only splitting semantic hairs. I would be very concerned if you think decomposition must always proceed biochemically via methane, and that that is how CO2 is produced during decay processes. Microbial methane oxidation is again quite a specialised niche.
Verity Jones
“I am so glad we don’t have 380ppm of methane in the atmosphere.”
You may be surprised at how often you are immersed in methane levels way in excess of such trace amounts!
Will,
really? can you give me some examples?
First you create a phony ‘problem’, then you tell the bureaucrats to come up with a ‘solution’.
Remind you of anything? How about a ‘final solution’?
/Mr Lynn
Verity Jones,
I have said it clearly enough that you shouldn’t try to take me out of context.
The production of methane is an important and widespread form of microbial metabolism. In most environments, it is the final step in the decomposition of biomass.
David L. Hagen says:
June 12, 2011 at 8:09 am
Further evidence that they worship nature above the Creator.
I disagree. If they worshiped Nature, they wouldn’t be killing it. Pantheists believe that the Creator is manifest in Nature (something cannot come from nothing), and would, logically, be appalled by the slaughter of camels. These alleged Greenies are not Nature worshipers. They’re fakes, only interested in making huge profits from their idiotic carbon schemes.
Will,
I too will have to ask for a reference for that. Your statement is only important in the context of this discussion if the methane is released directly into the atmosphere from the biomass. Otherwise, who cares?
WTF!
They’ve lost the plot!
John M
“Your statement is only important in the context of this discussion if the methane is released directly into the atmosphere from the biomass. Otherwise, who cares?”
Is this deliberate nonsense or am I missing something? Where else could it be released?
John M
“In most environments, it is the final step in the decomposition of biomass.”
“I too will have to ask for a reference for that.”
Copy that sentence and paste it into google, there are 49,100 results for that statement. Take your pick.
All well planned and organised genocides start with a new burocratic sounding name for the enemies of the people to be culled. Here they have a nice one – camels are now “feral herbivores”.
This is analagous in many ways to the cull of sparrows carried out by Mao’s communists in China during the cultural revolution. With the agricultural disasters caused by the cultural revolution in full swing, some commissars had the great idea to blame sparrows for crop failure. Huge numbers were killed by bands of civilian volunteers. A catastrophic epidemic of crop destroying insects followed.
Will
my turn to be pedantic. I would consider the following to be correct – at a gross level:
In most anaerobic environments, methane (and CO2 and H2O) is the final step in the decomposition of biomass.
In most aerobic environments, CO2 and H2O is the final step in the decomposition of biomass.
There can be traces of methane produced from anaerobic micropockets in aerobic environments – for example composting, if it is insufficiently aerated.
I wonder how much methane the lentil /pulse /bean-eating vegetarians emit.
Next: water-boarding.
…-
“Harper government receives diplomatic spanking over climate policies”
“A Canadian delegate to a UN climate change conference in Bonn, Germany endured a bruising round of questioning Thursday over the Harper government’s policies on carbon emissions and the oilsands.”
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+government+receives+diplomatic+spanking+over+climate+policies/4921908/story.html
As sure sign of someone in over his head. Most people can “google” and “read”.
Your search gives hits for methanogenesis, which is virtually exclusively under anaerobic condtions.
What I’m asking for is a reference that supports your claim that if biomass were left to its own devices, it would release as much methane to the atosphere as ruminants do when they eat the biomass, and not a product skewed more to CO2 than to methane. Perhaps they do, but you haven’t provided evidence for that.
You’ve also argued that the microbiological processes that produce methane occur in the presence of oxygen, which is refuted by you own simple minded google search.
I first read this in a Financial Times article. It has this informative graphic of emissions comparisons. A camel releases 45kg methane annually, which is one tonne of CO2 equivalent. Quite a multiplier. A cow for comparison is only 35kg methane for 0.8 tonne CO2 equivalent.
Also, a 7000km long-haul jet flight also yields one tonne of CO2 (equivalent?) per passenger.
This would be wonderful to use for PETA and WWF ads:
Save a camel, Don’t Visit Australia!
Golly, this methane trip into the weeds is becoming wearisome. Strictly speaking, methane is produced under mostly anaerobic conditions. We all know that decomposing vegetable matter in lakes produces methane. At the same time there is still dissolved oxygen in the lake water. It takes very little to qualify an environment as anaerobic. Soil is a good example. On the surface it is an aerobic environment, but dig down a few inches and you’ll find an abundance of anaerobes. A pile of maple leaves left on the surface will decompose into CO2 and water. Throw a few shovel loads of dirt on them and you have a methane producing compost heap.
It should be noted that human flatus contains methane (ask and teenage boy) and we’re not ruminants. Almost all animals produce methane as a part digestion. And just for the record, most methane emitted by ruminants comes out the front end, rather than the back end (more burps than farts). I don’t think there’s much question that camels eating twigs and brush will produce more methane than if the twigs and brush decomposed on the surface, but probably not nearly as much as if termites consumed said twigs and brush.
This is bugs, but it has some bearing.
The only good
bugcamel is a deadbugcamel . 🙂exterminate useless eaters , useless co2 producers, useless Oxygen users etc
Julia Does Not Have A Mustache
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/paintimage2025.jpg
Verity Jones,
Pedantic would be putting it rather politely,
“There can be traces of methane produced from anaerobic micropockets in aerobic environments – for example composting, if it is insufficiently aerated.”
Again you are out of context. If you have ever composted you will be aware that biomass becomes extremely fertile soil. As you have already conceded, soil, particularly fertile soil, releases large amounts of methane. How do you suppose that happens?
There is no doubt that a ruminant animal will speed up the process of methane production from biomass through grazing but there is no evidence whatsoever that they can increase the amount of methane that eventually finds its way into the atmosphere.
The only way you can argue your point is to continuously switch time frames, and hope that no one is paying attention. Digestion and methane release in animals occurs within hours. Natural decomposition and methane production processes as biomass is turned back into soil can take years.
This I feel, is the source of your apparent confusion.
Will,
Again, you have provided no references, but merely your own opinion.
Here are two references for you to ponder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
http://www.slideshare.net/mpspradlin/alex-hobbs-biomass
(Slide 7)
Dry biomass-mulched (non-landfilled)
90% aerobic –> mostly CO2
10% anaerobic –> mostly CH4
You would be well-served to provide specific references with hard numbers. Qualitative stuff off the top of your head is not cutting it. It’s like you telling me to google “the sun shines everyday” when I ask you for numbers to justify a solar installation.