The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada
Cowgate: Animal Agriculture Not a Major Contributor to Global Warming. Any Comments?
From the Washington Post.
Forget all that indecorous talk of animal flatulence, cow burps, vegetarianism and global warming. Welcome to Cowgate.
|
| Click here to read the whole story on the Washington Post website... |
Views: 284
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on
-
It just proves once again, that the populace are being herded like a school of fish with an aquarium mind-set.
The UN clearly is focused on shifting the global wealth and has patently found the argument of "climate change" as an easily accepted vehicle that most people can readily buy into. The global warming debate lends a level of empowerment to the average citizen. We are now demanding lifestyle changes without the benefit of global "truths" such as "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." .
How can government turn down demands from their majority of citizens?
Another good article can be found at (24 March 2010)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm
"Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions."
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on
-
From London's Science Museum:
" The scientific community has, with some exceptions, concluded that climate change is real, largely driven by humans and requires a response," said the museum's director Professor Chris Rapley. "Our objective is to minimise the shrill tone and emotion that bedevils discussion of this subject."
with that being said... Let's get on with life and enjoy the upcoming BBQ season.
-
Permalink Reply by Arik Theijsmeijer on
-
Just a note that emissions from animal agriculture are not just about bodily emissions from the animals themselves, more important is the energy and water expended in growing and transporting grain for those animals. So while the criticism of the UN in report is sound, it is not at all the point of that report. The point of the report still stands, in that reducing the consumption of grain-fed meat overall leads to significantly lower emmissions. Carbon is actually sequestered in grass-fed methods so it is the grain that matters.
It's also important to note that you can just focus on any one sector, like transportation or agriculture, as we have consider the environment in all major aspects of our lives in order to do what it takes to reduce the serious impact of climate change. Finally, to take the UN's mistake and speculate about what either global food policy or individual choices should be as Mr. Mitloehner does in the longer versio of the article, is not his role and is beyond his expertise and his work, as various commentors have stated since this 'sensational' story broke.
© 2025 Created by Darren Marsland.
Powered by
