I don't know, but somehow I don't find this argument very compelling:
Eat a whale and save the planet, a Norwegian pro-whaling lobby said on Monday of a study showing that harpooning the giant mammals is less damaging to the climate than farming livestock.
Environmental group Greenpeace dismissed the survey, saying almost every kind of food was more climate friendly than meat.
The survey, focused on whale boats' fuel use, showed that a kilo (2.2 lbs) of whale meat represented just 1.9 kilo (4.2 lbs) of greenhouse gases against 15.8 for beef, 6.4 for pork and 4.6 for chicken.
"Basically it turns out that the best thing you can do for the planet is to eat whale meat compared to other types of meat," said Rune Froevik of the High North Alliance, which represents the interests of coastal communities in the Arctic.
"Greenhouse gas emissions caused by one meal of beef are the equivalent of eight meals of whale meat," the study said.
The Norwegian-based Alliance said it was the first to measure the "carbon footprint" of whaling. Fish and seafood was comparable to whale meat with relatively low emissions.
Norway and Japan, the two main whaling nations, are seeking new arguments to promote whale meat after years of condemnation from anti-whaling nations for breaking with a 1986 moratorium on all hunts meant to save many whale species from extinction.
I suppose it's quite a smart move, in a deeply cynical kind of way. Organisations like Greenpeace - as we can see from their struggling response here - are straightaway put on the back foot, because global warming pretty much trumps every other ecological argument nowadays. But of course it's fatuous: whaling isn't a sustainable method of providing meat, except, arguably, for a miniscule percentage of the world's population. This isn't about climate change: it's about killing magnificent animals, entirely unnecessarily, in the name of national pride.
Killing and eating people though: now there's something positive you can do for the planet.