'Kill a camel' to cut pollution concept in Australia

Jun 09, 2011
This file photo shows a feral camel searching for food near the dry Ross River, west of Alice Springs. Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate change.

The suggestion is included in Canberra's "Carbon Farming Initiative", a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and , seen Thursday.

Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, proposed culling some 1.2 million wild camels that roam the Outback, the legacy of herds introduced to help early settlers in the 19th century.

Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of .

In its plan, Northwest said it would shoot them from helicopters or muster them and send them to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.

"We're a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges -- this is just a classic example," Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press.

The idea was among those accepted for discussion by the government, which is seeking to "provide new for farmers, forest growers and landholders" if they come up with ways to cut emissions, according to the document.

Heavily reliant on and mining exports, Australia is one of the world's worst per capita polluters and the government is looking at ways to clean up its act.

Legislation for the "Carbon Farming Initiative" is set to go before parliament next week.

Explore further: Tool kit for ocean health

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia targets 20 pct renewable energy by 2020

Aug 18, 2009

Australia on Thursday passed a clean energy law requiring the country to produce 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020 in move that could draw billions of dollars of green investment.

China says 2010 pollution goal met

Dec 01, 2010

China has met its 2010 target to cut emissions of key pollutants and is on track to meet its energy efficiency goal, state media on Wednesday quoted the country's top climate change official as saying.

Protecting natural forests crucial for climate change

Aug 06, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- South-east Australia’s natural forests are among the most carbon dense in the world and store three times more carbon than Australian and international climate change experts realise, a ...

Recommended for you

Tool kit for ocean health

1 hour ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Researcher studies interactions between land and water

2 hours ago

Early one morning last January, MIT undergraduate Theresa Oehmke was eating breakfast at the Kilauea Military Camp on Hawaii's Big Island when a colleague burst into the room, yelling, "Oh my god, the plume, ...

Geoengineering our climate is not a 'quick fix'

3 hours ago

The deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system is not a "quick fix" for global warming, according to the findings of the UK's first publicly funded studies on geoengineering.

US to propose stricter smog standard

5 hours ago

Coming full circle on a campaign promise, the Obama administration will propose Wednesday to reduce the amount of smog-forming pollution allowed in the air, which has been linked to asthma, lung damage and ...

Sao Paulo drought issue for global concern

5 hours ago

He cast his rod happily here for 30 years—but where a river once teemed with fish, Brazilian fisherman Ernane da Silva these days stares out over a valley of weeds and bone dry, sun-parched land.

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.6 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2011
Wiping out an entire camel population for some carbon credits. Very innovative! (NOT)
2.3 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2011
Umm, you did read the article plasticpower,didn't you? The camels in question are ferals, and are incredibly destructive to the native animal's environment. They are similar to feral goats and rabbits that also encroach on native's space and take up their resources. They are a HUGE problem here in Australia. I am unsure if you are ignorant or just another rabid denier, but your comment is wit at its lowest form and unenlightened to boot.

So, in effect, by removing (culling) these animals you are giving endangered indigenous floras and flora half a chance as well as eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emission. Where, pray tell, is the problem?
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2011
Umm, you did read the article plasticpower,didn't you? The camels in question are ferals, and are incredibly destructive to the native animal's environment. They are similar to feral goats and rabbits that also encroach on native's space and take up their resources. They are a HUGE problem here in Australia. I am unsure if you are ignorant or just another rabid denier, but your comment is wit at its lowest form and unenlightened to boot.

Feral = Wild

So Australia is going to fight global warming by killing wild camels. How about something more humane like neutering them ?
Keep in mind this is a mentality that starts with animals , and then works its way up to humans.
As of 2007 , 1 Australian = 17.9 tonnes/year . In the year 2051 , will they start killing Australians to "fight" Global Warming ?

2.2 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2011
Sure, let's just blame the camels for the Carbon emissions.. How are they even sure that the amount of methane produced by animals equates to anything significant? If I were them, I'd focus more on trying to cut carbon emissions from factories and cars.
2 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2011
What Australia needs is a new apex predator. Something to replace the extinct Thylacoleo, or Marsupial Lion (which existed before the time of european settlement). I'm sure that will cut down the camel numbers. lol
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2011
OK, so this is the dunces corner.....Feral = Domesticated GONE wild.

So who is going to go into the uninhabited inhospitable inaccessible Australian desert outback and neuter hundreds of thousands of FERAL Camels, you numbat?! They need to be culled chiefly to stop them WRECKING the environment in a direct physical sense and destroying native habitat. And guess what? Scientists measure animal flatulence and can easily work out their total emissions. It is almost as easy as READING and COMPREHENDING at the SAME TIME......
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
@Bog Mire - someone has considered going to visit each of the camels cause the dimwitted government in Oz is considering inoculating each of the camels to prevent them burping and farting. Besides what makes you think that the collective native animals fart any less than the feral imports. Go back to ya cave dill.
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2011
... and with at least 30 million COWS (not counting PIGS) in Oz vs 1 million camels ... then Camels are a minor source of greenhouse gas emissions. But hey dont let that stop you being an ignorant bigot.
3.9 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
Killing camels to reduce CO2 pollution is the stupidist idea I've heard in a while. If they are an invasive species and damaging the environment, then by all means cull them but don't pretend it's for reduction of CO2. Camels and cattle and sheep, etc. are carbon neutral. They don't produce carbon out of nothing. They eat vegatation which gets its carbon from the atmosphere. It is a closed loop--carbon neutral. If you want to stop the introduction of excess carbon into the atmosphere, then curtail the use of fossil carbon, i.e. coal, petroleum, natural gas and butane (liqufied petroleum gas). These fuels sequestered their carbon millions of years ago and it had been taken out of the equation. It is with the use of these fossil fuels that man is raising the amount of CO2. Camels don't have an impact on CO2 one way or the other.
2 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
Camels don't vote and don't finance elections. Corporations do. So it is not a difficult exercise to find a flaky reason to kill them. Whatever camels do to the environment pales beside what we humans do. Does that mean we should start killing people? It was a stupid idea to introduce the camels to australia and it is a no less stupid idea to kill them now. It's the usual trick politicians use to point the finger at something and blame it for real problems caused by something else. Once they kill the last camel, we will all of a sudden read reports in the media that it did not make any difference. But you can't bring them back.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
natural gas and butane (liqufied petroleum gas).

Oops, meant to say propane not butane for LPG.
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2011
Bogmire is right that these ferral camels are amazingly destructive to the fragile environments they have invaded. They not only consume low vegetation that kangaroos need, but they destroy a lot of tall brush that previously was safe from grazers and forms habitat for birds and small wildlife. In combination with climate change they are helping to turn vast tracts of marginal habitat into desert, which surely will cause extinctions of indigeneous species.
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2011
OK Let's get real...
How many camels will they kill - saving how much CO2 emissions, emissions that we don't know are harmful, or helpful , to the environment.
Now let's compare all those killed camels to one forest fire. The latter would put far, far, far more CO2 into the environment.

So a reasonable alternative might be to build a few lightning towers in a forest in North America to eliminate one forest fire. In fact, with the cost of fighting a single forest fire, you can probably afford to build multiple and elminiate even more forest fires.
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2011
OK, so this is the dunces corner.....Feral = Domesticated GONE wild.

When it comes to camels and idiots , i don't see much of a difference between "Domesticated gone wild" and wild. Considering most of them were born wild they are by definition "wild".

So who is going to go into the uninhabited inhospitable inaccessible Australian desert outback and neuter hundreds of thousands of FERAL Camels, you numbat?! ...

I Imagine inoculating and then neutering animals takes the same or actually less effort as killing them and then disposing the body. Or do you propose to just shoot them and then leave the bodies to rot ? My how hygienic. Its just stupid converting an ecological problem into an disease causing epidimic by mass killing of animals.

If you want to really fight global warming , then build nuclear plants . You can reduce you carbon emmision very soon to 10% . Hypocritical aussies export coal all over the world and then talk abt "global warming".
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
Cars, factories and cows produce much more CO2, and these just to support lifestyles which depend on raping the planet. Regardless of the impact of these camels have, the proposed approach is typical of that which caused global warming in the first place- no respect for nature. Instead of extreme 'solutions' like killing and the like, an approach embracing nature would be ethical, wholesomely effective and less harsh on all concerned.

Bog Mire, your tone is condescending, violent, insulting, bigoted and extreme, just like the methods you support. I sincerely put it to you that you are angry (you're probable feeling angry at me right now for suggesting it) and this extends into your outlook on and approach to the world and those around you. Life doesn't have to be painful.
not rated yet Jun 09, 2011
what, no "smoke a camel" jokes?
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
Don't kill those lovely creatures.
All my camel-related memories are happy ones (e.g Camel Toe etc.)

2.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
It's the gift that keeps on giving, I guess? Kill them once and they stay dead forever.

They don't even have a carbon credit law yet though, do they? This seems a bit presumptuous with so many people opposed to the carbon credit scheme in AU in the first place. Even if it passes, it seems likly that it would be repealed after the next election there. So talking about killing camels for carbon credits is a moot point. Kill them for being a pest and be done with it.

I smoke Camels sometimes but I think those are made from imitation camel.
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
Sterilization of the population does not seem to be viable you would have to track all the camels in order to know which ones you already sterilized. Even with the disposal of the carcase It would probably be cheaper to cull the heard. I dont know if they use camel fur for anything but that may off set the cost considerably. This seems like a rider but I don't know Australian law so whatever. Pharoah you called Bog Mire a bigot and in the same paragraph you engaged in bigotry hilarious.
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
I dont know if they use camel fur for anything but that may off set the cost considerably

There's a pest animal here in the US, I think it's down in the swamps in Louisiana, but i don't remember the animal's name. The extermination program is working quite well. The government pays for the furrs. They have tried to find ways to use the furrs but they just destroy them for the most part. There's been a few novelty auctions where famous designers made fur coats for the first time in ages, but other than that they just toss them. The program has been very successful at removing the pests that are destroying the swamp/wetland environment there.
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
I dont know if they use camel fur for anything but that may off set the cost considerably

I don't know about Australia, but here in the US, you could use the meat in animal feed products, especially hog feed. You can use any kind of animal bones for glue base, so that's most of the carcass there, between the meat and bones. They do use camel skin for boots and stuff, by the way. You can google it.
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2011
too many idiots and feral camels....not enough bullets. *sigh*
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2011
Tonight at 11! In a once in a lifetime collaboration, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, and the WWF bring you FACE OFF!!! We lock animal rights fanatics and global warming alarmists in one room together for a STEEL CAGE DEATHMATCH!!! You won't want to miss these left wing nutjobs savagely rip each other to shreds to defend issues NO ONE ELSE EVEN CARES ABOUT!!!

3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
Carbon neutral camels may be but if they incorporate carbon into methane instead of some other form of carbon eg CO2 given off by the vegetation not eaten by the camels, then the overall result of camel culls is a reduction of greenhouse effect. They should be culled, of course, as they are so destructive to the habitat . And yes they will be shot and left to rot, mostly tens or hundreds of kilometres from the nearest human habitation (big place Aus).
All-in-all though - considering the enormous fossil fuel carbon footprint of Australians, which is being tackled so very poorly by Aussie politicians, it's really just a political ruse to cull camels in the name of carbon credits.
2.3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2011
Never have been a big fan of Australian laws expressly censorship now people that kill camels may be able to sell there carbon credits to corporations I wonder what provision will get passed along side this one.
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2011
It's complete nonsense. All plants grown will end degraded into methane with soil bacteria anyway. Should we kill the soil bacteria instead?
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2011
Life is life and each has its own right to exist. I for one would not easily jutify mass kiling because it serves my version of righteousness.
If animals can talk, they would conside human a pest too. Would that give them any right to kill human?
To the camel and many other species, warming is not a bad thing, but being killed by human (because human wants to stay nature's natural climate cycle and variability) is.
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2011
Trurhforall; so we just let the Camels ruin the native environment and perpetuate the extinction of untold species? Remember humans INTRODUCED the camel to this environment. Your rhetoric is nice but simple and short sighted. We have the technology to destroy AND repair.
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
Taking life is taking life. I am not opposed to it on reason of survival. But I am ever conscious of the folly on imposing our version of justice and control on nature beacsue we can repair AFTER we destroy. That spells arrogance to me, beg your pardon.
Human is not indigenous to America, Europe and Asia. We migrated along with our herd and crops. Ever think of killing cattle, sheep and crops to restore native life? I don't think so.
The invading animals and plants are not to blame, human is. So we kill off dogs, cats, rabits, camels, toads, etc en mass, whose only crime are their success in surviving human's meddling. But what did we do to the human perpetrator?
It is nature's way that species would spread and one might replace another, its natural selection. In the end that too will be replaced. You want to protect native species? Kill human, the animals would say.
I, for one, would not speak lightly of killing.
Respect life, for one day we will be judged.
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
Sorry Bog_Mire I do agree with you - Camels are a pest species in the outback. They consume native vegetation at an alarming rate, and there is over 1 million of them (with that number growing, due to no natural predators). I just don't know if this plan will be able to keep the numbers down.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2011
I knew people were racist and fascist, now they are turning into speciest.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2011
Money is behind the "culling" of camels, because camels are competing with live stocks. Do not disguise this behind concern over over co2 or native species, otherwise kill off your cattle and sheep too and have nature take back your farm. That would really help native life.
Farmers have to make a living, they have to work the land so that the city may live. So that I can have food. Native species is only collateral damage, my sincere apology. Nevertheless, when it comes to killing camel, rabits and kangaroos, it is business talking. Just don't sound so righteous.
But bear in mind that after the camel is removed, another animal will take its place. What's next, wallabee and kangeroos? And after that, cattles and sheeps?
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2011
truthfornone, your ignorance is understandable, as you obviously have no idea or exposure to the issue of feral camels.
1) Feral camels in Australia are the tallest animal and strip vegetation from trees/shrubs that natives AND cows/sheep can not reach. This results in mass dieback of trees/shrubs, increased desertification and reduced feed for natives and reduced habitat for native flora and fauna.
2) Cattle and sheep are *farmed*in huge acreage stations admittedly yet they are still *farmed* and not allowed to roam/breed/forage unchecked. They are *farmed* in a *controlled* manner.
3) Money has nil to do with this re/live stock competition. Feral camels ingress into areas untouched by man or cattle/sheep stations and there they thrive unhindered and unchecked by man or his flocks. In fact kangaroos are a much more significant threat to station managers as they directly compete for resources (GRASS) and ruin fences and infrastructure. Tell me, do you live in the real world?
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2011
........or do you simply exist in a fairy floss rhetoric world where we can all live harmoniously and fra-la-la through the tulips and nothing ever has to die, kill or suffer? Are you 10 or just a mental retard? BTW marsupials, apart from being extremely tasty and one of THE leanest red meats you will find, have also being scientifically proven to emit next to ZERO geenhouse gases. Now stick that in your stupid rhetoric wonderland pipe and smoke it you moron.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2011
Farel, you call these camels, may be true to farmers. But the animal didn't swim all the way to down under and it took more than a pair to breed successfully. So who caused this problem in the first place?
You can dislike the existance of this animal but it only wants to survive. Is there a better solution than killing them, may be not? But still killing does not make it moral.

I have the previlage to visit Australia several times many years back. The people I met left me with the impression that they are both friendly, simple but honourable and very concious of their environment, leaving me ashamed of how wasteful my habit was. I stand corrected, there can be exception, of course.
I am no farmer that I admit. But as for your manner and grasp of morality, I have come to realise that we live on different planets. Goodday mate.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.