We know PETA will squeal, but could biodiesel made from pigs have religious implications?
Pretty soon there won't be a single living organism on earth from which someone won't be trying to extract a biofuel. We've talked about algae, corn, switchgrass, soybeans, wood chips, seaweed, chickens and even liposuction waste. (I wish ants were a biomass source.) So it wasn't much of a surprise when I found this story out of England that says an oil firm and food processing company will produce biodiesel from pig fat. ConocoPhillips says it can produce up to 175 million gallons of animal diesel a year, or about three percent of the United Kingdom's total diesel output.
But towards the end of this story, flags were raised about the ethics of replacing the tiger in your tank (oh, sorry, that's ExxonMobil) with Arnold the pig. Officials said they have yet to discuss the idea with animal rights groups or religious leaders. But PETA did come out with a statement.
"Clearly, the answer to global warming isn't to fill gas guzzling cars with ground up remains of tortured animals, it is to go vegetarian, which is something every person can afford to do and should do for the sake of their own health, animals and the environment," said PETA.
Any fuel made with swine extracts would be mixed with other types of diesel. No one would be able to tell if any bacon diesel was actually in their tank. But there is always the possibility of complaints and lawsuits. I remember the case of a man whose religion prohibited the eating of beef, and he sued a restaurant because of a slight amount of beef flavoring in the oil used to cook french fries. He claimed severe mental distress because he wasn't told.
Part of living in a multicultural society is that you must respect others, but you must also have tolerance for others. I don't foresee the day when fuel will have to be blessed or approved by religious leaders, but this issue will not go away quietly. In the end, leaded gasoline will probably get a better reputation than animal-seasoned biofuel.
[Source: BBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
waitingforvizzini 4:03PM (4/20/2007)
yes it could absolutely. I'm no rabbai/imam but the implications would be obvious.
Reply
Joseph 5:13PM (4/20/2007)
Biodiesel from animals is disgusting. I am NOT vegetarian, but I still think that animals ned to be treated with respect.
I have no idea, but I'd imagine many, many thousands of animals would have to be raised solely for fat that would be used to burn in our ICE. This would definitely mean that the animals would only move as much as required by federal law or whatever, and fed a ton. This is cruel. Of course, you could say that they'd be grown organic, but that would double or triple the price and too much land would be used since the animal would roam free.
Also, think of all the @$#% and methane and stuff, and then all the food that'd need to be grown for all the animals. I believe only excess fat that would otherwise be wasted should be sent to biodiesel plants, so it'd be more like recycling.
I'm not GreanPeace or anything, but I think humane conditions for animal are required.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 5:39PM (4/20/2007)
I am a member of Bend Biofuels Coop and we had a rail car delivery of biodiesel that was made from turkey fat. It smelled awful and some of our members were vegetarian and this situation did not sit well with us so we refused shipment. I do see some implications with using animal byproducts for fuel but, my opinion is if it going to be wasted use it. It is not like we are slaughtering animals just for fuel the fuel is a byproduct of a different product. There should be a label on the pump that states wether or not the fuel contains animal byproducts and if it does and you don't like the idea then don't buy it but, don't be a whining complainer when the major dosen't really care.
Reply
bc 11:22PM (4/20/2007)
hmmm...hullo??? Where do you think the oil in the ground came from? Plants and animals...mother earth just did all the processing for us. The only good you would be doing is not digging/pumping more up. The pollution created would be worse because you have to expend the energy to get the oil from the animal to refine into diesl (or if you prefer to think of it as "bio"diesl).
Reply
Mulad 1:10AM (4/21/2007)
Raising animals specifically to be used for fuel would be a really bad idea. Complex organisms, just like complex technologies, take a lot of energy and resources to produce. A far better idea would be to use simple organisms like algae.
However, if the fuel is being made from detritus from the butchering process which would otherwise end up in a landfill, I figure it would be a good thing. It's best to use the entire animal.
Reply
JamesWB 12:22PM (4/21/2007)
lol@the Joseph for thinking they would breed pigs just for fuel. Do you know how much that would cost?
On a similar note, you don't need to wait till the pig is dead to make fuel. Like The Collecter says in Beyond The Thunderdome '...methane cometh from pig shit'.
Reply
Mike 9:11AM (4/23/2007)
TOLERANCE MY ASS!!!
The reason a story like this is even being posted is because of religious nuts and THEIR intolerance for others...much the like the Muslim cabbies who are denying rides to alcohol carrying passengers (recent news).
Have some respect for people who don't celebrate your religion and maybe you'll get some back!!! Someone who doesn't use biofuel because it isn't kosher is making a fool of themselves at the expense of their seriously flawed beliefs. Put your own agenda and lifestyle aside and just do what is good for society, the Earth and the economy and we wouldn't be having these problems/issues.
Reply