Eco-ethicist lashes out at pork-based biofuels
We had the story yesterday about ConocoPhillips and Tyson teaming up to produce biodiesel in Europe from leftover pig fat. Undoubtedly animal rights activists would be upset, and we raised the possibility of religious implications. From a purely academic angle, however, is using animal waste unethical for producing fuel?Eco-ethicist Ethan Greenhart answered the question in his column at spiked-online, and took 959 words to say no rather colorfully to pork power.
"What on Gaia's good earth were you thinking of when you applauded the further enslavement of animals and the exploitation of their bodily fluids and residue just so the likes of eco-criminal Jeremy Clarkson and other 'lads' (an acronym for 'lazy and dangerous scum', perhaps?) can do 200 miles per hour on an A-road?!" screams Greenhart in the opening paragraph, and his voice gets louder from there.
Greenhart quickly blames all of the world's problems on SUVs and oil.
"Forget butterflies flapping their wings and causing hurricanes. When you fill your car with petrol in London it causes a nightclub to explode in Karachi. Just think about that," growls Greenhart.
And it doesn't take long to equate using animal waste to the Nazi death camps.
"Please, Harold, tell me what the difference is between using dead animal blubber to power cars and the Nazis' use of the skin of death-camp victims to make lampshades?" asks Greenhart.
Greenhart tells his readers that he has a pig friend named Dubya and talks to him often. He says pigs are "beautiful, peaceful and courteous creatures."
Greenhart closes with a plea for readers not to use soaps or pet food with animal fat even though the stink from pet poo will increase.
I think many readers are over-reacting to this story. The idea, as I see it, is redirecting resources. Instead of using leftover pig fat, or any animal fat, for soaps, glue and pet food, the waste can be used for a cleaner fuel. I don't foresee animal-based biofuels generating dedicated factory farms just to feed new refineries. The pig-to-tank costs and possible negative energy return may rule out economic advantages of using swine as a specific feedstock. I think the goal is just to make better use of existing animal waste. And we're already using animal waste in myriad ways that most people are unaware. I remember writing a story on slaughterhouses for a business magazine a while back. The plant manager told me every part of the cow except the horns was used in some way, many of which we don't always recognize, or don't want to know about. Before getting all righteous over animal waste that will continue to be generated, whether biodiesel is produced or not, let's look at this issue from an economic and energy standpoint first.
[Source: Ethan Greenhart / spiked-online.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 11:49AM (4/21/2007)
Not everyone wants to be a vegetarian and not everyone's religion prohibits the consumption of pork. Ergo, pigs are already grown for food in many parts of the world. Same for cows, chickens etc.
Provided livestock aren't subjected to questionable practices (GM, force-feeding, inappropriate diet etc.) to maximize fat production and, any fat remains a by-product, converting it to biodiesel does not make things any worse than they already are. If anything, competition for animal fat may lead to leaner cuts of meat - which is good for the waistline.
That said, meat production is highly energy- and water-intensive. The vast bulk of biofuel feedstocks will continue to be vegetable matter, purely on economic grounds.
Reply
JamesWB 12:04PM (4/21/2007)
I'm vegan and I wouldn't like to use biodiesel made from pigs. The source of the fat/oil should be shown at the pumps so consumers can make that choice.
Having said that this guy sounds like an idiot. The nazi lampshade thing is an myth.
Reply
TopaZ 2:59PM (4/21/2007)
I agree. Clearly identify the source so that I can choose to not purchase biodiesel made from animal products.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 2:26PM (4/21/2007)
Self-styled "eco-ethicist" Ethan Greenhart, like most so-called "animal rights" nuts, has completely lost it. In nature, death by natural causes almost always involves being eaten by a predator, usually under circumstances involving tremendous angst on the part of the one being eaten. Get over it.
Pork is nutritious food. If your religion is anti-pork, great, don't eat any -- that's more for me. If your religion/superstition ever gets so full of itself that it tells me *I* can't eat pork, you can go screw yourself.
I've also pretty much had it with unhealthy nutritional superstitions such as 'veganism', 'vegetarianism', or 'low-fat-ism'. Humans are natural omnivores, and you can just get over that, too.
Reply
reddsharkk 6:10PM (4/21/2007)
I say make the fuel out of animal rights activists!! I am gonna go home and make me a sausage, ham and bacon sandwich. Mmmmmmm..... humans evolved K9 teeth for a reason.
Reply
James 7:58PM (4/21/2007)
Love biodiesel, but the idea of making out of animals is pretty morbid to me. Would love to fry them up in a skillet, but the idea of using them for such a mechanical purpose is definitely weird.
However, the smug, elitist, drivel this guy is spouting makes me want to fry up a pound of bacon just to spite him. "Gaia's good earth"???...this is definitely this guys' religion.
Reply
Chris M 8:35PM (4/21/2007)
No one is going to raise animals specifically for fuel - the yield is too low and the cost is way too high.
In these cases, the animals are being raised for food, and the fats and tallows are a byproduct. In earlier times, these fats and tallows were used for making candles and soaps, and now some can be used for fuel. Is that any worse than tallow candles?
What really irritates Ethan Greenhart is that other people eat tasty animals, but his efforts to promote vegetarianism was mostly ignored, so he's trying a new target.
Reply
Joseph 11:35AM (4/22/2007)
Using animals to fuel our cars just sounds way too creepy.
Reply
Julian Edmonds 8:38AM (4/27/2007)
Ethan Greenhart is not a real "eco-ethicist" but a spoof, created by the anti-green website Spiked Online, which was previously Living Marxism Magazine and before that the Revolutionary Communist Party. But they are neither revolutionary, nor communist, nor a party.
Reply
Drewfus 9:50AM (5/25/2007)
Rather than have fuel labeled in regards to its feedstock... how about Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)? I'd prefer to buy gasoline derived from Athabascan tar sands than Nigerian River Delta crude or middle-eastern crude (of which a very small % of our oil actually comes from anyway).
I say go for it! It needs to be used one way or another! I wonder if exhaust fumes will smell like bacon?
Reply