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
Dr Dave
“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,”
You have made the same mistake as Verity Jones. You are out of context because you compare ruminant digestion and methane production which happens over the course of a few hours, to natural decomposition and methane production in soil formed from biomass, which can take many years and can continue on for thousands of years.
There is simply no way that a few million ruminant mammals can compete with this planetary scale process.
To suggest otherwise would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.
Verity Jones, Dr Dave and John M,
If you can show that the mass cull of hundreds of millions of American buffalo resulted in a sharp or even noticeable decline in atmospheric methane content then I stand corrected.
If you are correct, there ought to be something in the geological record to show such an event, should there not?
Will says:
“If you can show that the mass cull of hundreds of millions of American buffalo…”
That number is a wild overestimation.
Hey, what claim have I made that requires me to show you anything? You’ve made the claim that biomass left to rot on its own would make more methane than if eaten by ruminants. Whatever atmospheric methane levels did during the slaughter of some unkown number of buffalo has nothing to do with that, and even if it did, there was certainly a lot of other stuff going on around the World while those buffalo were getting slaughtered, wasn’t there.
You can’t provide us with any references to support your claim, can you?
This is confirmation of the old saying, “When a Kiwi emigrates to Aus, it raises the average IQ of both countries.”
Smokey,
“That number is a wild overestimation.”
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Extermination-of-the-American-Buffalo&id=1755293
where is the decline in atmospheric methane in the geological record after this mass annihilation of the 1800’s.
Will,
You’re beating a dead camel here. I will readily grant you this much, the volume of methane released by every animal on the planet is very likely dwarfed by natural anaerobic decomposition of biomass. If I leave the leaves from my elm tree where they fall they will mostly decompose in the space of a year. Most of this decomposition will be aerobic but some of it will be anaerobic as bits and pieces of decaying leaves are incorporated into the soil. But if I raked up all those leaves and threw them in a hole and covered them in dirt, a much greater percentage of the ultimate decomposition would be anaerobic and likely result in more methane production. You could scatter a bale of alfalfa all over a piece of ground and let it slowly decompose. Most of the decomposition will be like my elm tree leaves; primarily into CO2 and water. But if you feed that bale of alfalfa to a cow the resulting decomposition will yield lots more methane because of the greater exposure to a “mostly” anaerobic environment.
I don’t believe anyone is denying that methane is released through a myriad of natural processes. But I can guarantee you that digestion of plant matter by a ruminant will result in more methane as a byproduct than would happen if the plant matter decomposed lying on the ground. It’s not a matter of time scale, it’s a matter of biology and chemistry. But the crux of this whole discussion was about the inane idea of killing feral camels to prevent GHG release. They probably have swamp land in Australia the releases more methane than all camels combined. I will, however, agree with you that the net release of GHG from whatever the camels eat would differ only slightly in its composition. Carbon atom for carbon atom it would be about a wash over a long enough time frame.
Dr Dave,
I agree – both with your scientific descriptions and that it is becoming wearisome.
Will,
“As you have already conceded, soil, particularly fertile soil, releases large amounts of methane. How do you suppose that happens?”
I have conceded nothing. Compost can release small amounts of methane. That is produced in microniches which are anaerobic. Soils tend to be methane sinks rather than net producers (unless they are waterlogged), whereas they do release CO2. (for example:http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/publications/pdfs/Bowden_SoilBiolBiochem_1998.pdf)
I say again that perhaps we are arguing over semantics. Outside of anoxic and anaerobic environments (such as lake sediments, rice fields, swamps, ruminant (and non-ruminant) digestive systems and anaerobic digesters) biomass decomposition will tend to be aerobic. The biotic end product of this is CO2 not methane – aerobic decomposition does not happen via methane.
Will (June 12, 2011 at 11:50 am)
“You have made the same mistake as Verity Jones. You are out of context because you compare ruminant digestion and methane production which happens over the course of a few hours, to natural decomposition and methane production in soil formed from biomass, which can take many years and can continue on for thousands of years.”
I have made no mistake. Yes ruminant digestion and “anaerobic digestion” in a biogas plant happen quickly; natural decomposition is slow, but in dry (not waterlogged) areas it will tend to be aerobic and will not produce methane. There is an excellent discussion of methane production in rice fields (waterlogged; anaerobic) here: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-032/004-032.html
“Hundreds of millions” of bison is still a wild overestimation. Per Wikipedia: “The current American bison population has been growing rapidly, and is estimated at 350,000 compared to an estimated 60 to 100 million in the mid-19th century.” Other sources give estimates of ≈40 – 60 million.
But it does bring up an interesting point. If the unlikely number of hundreds of millions of bison is accurate, then compare that with the same number of current U.S. residents. Bison weigh over half a ton each, while the average human is closer to 150 pounds. If 300 million bison didn’t cause catastrophic global warming [or even BGW], then human CO2 and methane emissions won’t, either.
Before the endless nitpicking starts regarding fossil fuels, nitpickers must either provide testable evidence of global harm due to CO2 and/or methane, or admit that they are promoting an evidence-free conjecture, and further admit that CO2 is harmless – as the observational evidence makes clear. There is no global harm from CO2. Thus, CO2 is harmless. QED
I wonder about the claim that a skilled marksman can affect a lethal head shot to running camel while perched in a helicopter 99% of the time. That would be a neat trick. But this got me to thinking. Camels are pretty big critters. Assume each one has to be shot with a 150 grain jacketed lead projectile. Assume 2 shots per camel x 1,000,000 camels. Thar works out to 19,440 kg of lead introduced into the environment. Further, this ruminant methane thing is a red herring. Most of the GHG release from a camel is in the form of CO2 by the simple process of respiration. So in effect they’re killing them for the sin of being living, breathing animals.
Verity Jones
“but in dry (not waterlogged) areas it will tend to be aerobic and will not produce methane”
Are you now claiming that soil needs to be waterlogged in order to produce methane?
Do you believe you are credible with such blatant goal post shifting?
Only on the surface will it be aerobic.
Even though there is no geological evidence of any decline in atmospheric methane corresponding to well known and well documented mass die off’s of ruminants, and even though you have to shift goal posts to maintain your position, you are entitled to believe what ever you wish.
But you cannot compare ruminant digestion to natural decomposition on the same time frame which is exactly what you have attempted to do.
Will says:
“Are you now claiming that soil needs to be waterlogged in order to produce methane?”
You are taking Verity Jones’ comments out of context. Stop it.
Smokey,
That’s a good point about Bison tonnage, but never mind Bison, domestic ruminant numbers have increased hugely, with the increasing demand of the human population:
Buffalo: 88,321,807 (1961) => 177,247,938 (2007)
Camels 12,926,638 (1961) => 24,246,291(2007)
Cattle 942,175,069 (1961) => 1,357,183,587 (2007)
Data from FAO Stat: http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor Sad I know, but I just happened to have the data to hand.
Meanwhile methane in the icecore record have doubled from 1800: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/atm_meth/graphics/eth_comp.gif It is possible to extrapolate livestock numbers back to 1800 in line with the human population and the increase in domestic ruminants (and likely effect on methane) will completely swamp any effect from loss of the Bison (Will’s suggestion).
Will,
So that we don’t shift goalposts, please provide a quantitative reference for your original claim that
Will,
“Are you now claiming that soil needs to be waterlogged in order to produce methane?”
That is one condition that will allow it – that will create the necessary environment without oxygen.
@ur momisugly Verity Jones says:
June 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Interesting numbers, especially on the cattle. Would you happen to know what percentage of that ( I assume US cattle population ) is exported to developing countries? Btw, I love buffalo burgers. 🙂
Curiousgeorge,
Actually, those are worldwide numbers, not just US. If you care to hit the FAOstat link I gave I think you can look up export by livestock type and certainly by country. It is reasonably intuituve if you play with it.
This is just like Rush’s Parody “Al Gore going out to tag a Moose or Caribou” as Al is explaining to his guide how much greenhouse gas the animal emits in a year, the guide just goes ahead and Kills the animal. He has another one where they Al is corking cows to stop emission of cow flatulence to decrease methane , but the cows keep blowing up.
Helen Armstrong says:
June 12, 2011 at 12:55 am
A skilled shooter with the right equipment from a helicopter flown by an experienced pilot can gaurantee a head shot 99% of the time. Any one who went throught the BTEC eradication campaign in NT WA and Qld (900,000 + each of cattle and buffalo) and later the donkey eradication program (NT 400,000 donkey) are a testament to this.
Helen.
That is total bullshit I had relatives involved with those campaigns of carnage and it was a “Clusterfuck ” thousands of Animals were found wondering around day’s and weeks later with shatter pelvis and bloody bones sticking through the skin. the pelvis is at least 4 to 5 ft from the head shot . Even my relatives who are redneck hunters were disgusted by the bloody carnage and after math. Do you believe every sanitized goverment report you read perhaps you believed Juilar Gillard “there will be no carbon tax”?? Helen Governments are crooked by nature don’t you get it yet !!!!!
Global warming causes desertification
(source: http://greenanswers.com/q/205554/nature-ecosystems/land-soil/how-does-global-warming-cause-desertification )
The camel is a creature of the desert
( http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/camel.htm )
Camels cause global warming via their methane emissions
( http://www.ehow.com/info_8253320_environmental-causes-global-warming.html )
Ergo: Camels are camel-engineering the planet to make it more habitable for camels. This requires a renaming from Antropogenic Global Warming to Camelogenic Global Warming.
Methane, lead and other unimportant matters apart, the most chilling aspect of this scheme is the proposed normalisation of killing as a solution to a so-called problem.
To call the killing of an animal a “removal or management event” is nought but an act of linguistic gymnastics to obscure the gory reality of death. It is simply the very first step in the conditioning of the population at large in the acceptance of this seemingly appropriate solution to an oft repeated “problem”.
Once the “management event” of a camel is accepted without demur by the majority of the population which has been brainwashed into the belief that the “problem” actually exists, then it is but a short step to the general acceptance that a “management event” is the preferred solution for anyone opposing the belief in the “problem”.
Pol Pot would be proud of this insinuation of the acceptance of death as an acceptable solution into the mind-set of the population at large.
I am not opposed to the killing of any animal for food; I am the son of a farmer and I’m a hunter. I have slaughtered many creatures and have shot a fair number, but always for food, not as part of the solution of a non-existent “problem”.
They should get rid of those pesky CO2 emitting Koala Bears next! SHOOT ‘EM ALL!!!!!
Hey, can I join the methane debate this late? Simple question – in an aerobic environment, why would bacteria release methane? They could get a lot more energy if they oxidized it and released CO2 and H2O. Are there some bacteria that normally live anaerobically and never learned to take advantage of all that O2 where the sun does shine?
3×2 says: June 12, 2011 at 3:29 am
leftymartin says: June 11, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Patenting a carbon scam – now that has to be a first (perhaps someone knows different).
Normally, politicians and other rent seekers just quietly hand carbon loot to their allies using a plain old complex web of deceit. This is the first time I have seen the theft patented.
Could the ‘solid-fuel’ burning in cooking used by m[b]illions of women and girls be similarly under patent?
“Introduction
Carbon offsets from improved cookstove programs present an economic option in
reduction of global carbon emissions especially given the large numbers of people
relying on solid fuels for their primary energy provision, and the considerable
health co-benefits that are incurred through reduction of air pollution. There are
two currently applied standard methods for determination of carbon offsets from
improved cookstoves: The Gold Standard “Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves
and Kitchen Regimes” for voluntary markets (Climate Care 2008) and the “Switch
from Non-Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications by the User” small-scale
CDM method for use under the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 2008).
2.4 Fuel consumption
There is general agreement across current methods that fuel consumption must be
directly monitored using the kitchen performance test, in which fuel is weighed
in a subsample of homes. Although there are moves to replace in home testing
with controlled cooking tests in simulated kitchens, controlled cooking tests may
also not represent daily fuel use (Berrueta et al. 2008). The additional uncertainty
incorporated by using this test and resultant reduction in carbon offsets likely
outweighs any gains through reduction in field testing.
Additional fuel consumption monitoring would be warranted in areas with large
seasonal or climatic variability, but gains in reduction of uncertainty should be
balanced with increased costs of more extensive monitoring.”
Open Access Improved Stove Programs need robust methods to estimate carbon offsets
Climatic Change, Volume 102, Numbers 3-4, 641-9, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9802-0
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7t47723083026t6/fulltext.pdf
Contents: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0165-0009/102/3-4/
source: 2010 publications in http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/pubs.html
“Murray Grainger says:
June 12, 2011 at 12:31 pm”
I believe it was politician Robert Muldoon who coined the phrase. He was notrious, but not too smart politically.
Feral camels are a pest, they are wreaking havoc on the marginal land they inhabit and have to be reduced in number. AGW is just the excuse a weak-kneed government is using to keep the Greens and the rest of the milk-sops happy.