Ontario Agriculture

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.

Lower consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite persistent claims that link such diets to more greenhouse gases. So says a report presented Monday before the American Chemical Society.

It is the bovine version of Climategate, complete with faulty science and noisy activists with big agendas.

Cows and pigs have gotten a "bum rap," said Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis who authored the report. He is plenty critical of scientists and vegetarian activists such as Paul McCartney who insist that livestock account for about a fifth of all greenhouse-gas emissions.

He also is critical of highly-publicized campaigns that call for "meatless Mondays" or push the motto "Less Meat = Less Heat," a European campaign launched in December during the Copenhagen climate summit. Talk of pricey air pollution permits of a "cow tax" for already cash-strapped farmers has surfaced in the U.S. and abroad.

 
Click here to read the whole story on the Washington Post website...

Views: 251

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joann on April 8, 2010 at 2:24am
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 April 8, 2010 at 3:09pm
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 April 9, 2010 at 2:21am
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.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Study Reveals Heavy Producer Cost to Bunge-Viterra Merger

A new study commissioned by Prairie agricultural groups concludes the planned Bunge-Viterra merger could cost farmers more than $700 million annually. Undertaken by University of Saskatchewan researchers with support from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS), Alberta Grains, SaskBarley, and Sask Wheat, the study found the merger is likely to cause “substantial economic harm” to grain producers. The results support the findings of the Competition Bureau’s review that the merger is likely to result in substantial anti-competitive effects and harm competition in markets for grain purchasing, an APAS news release said. The report examined the impact of the proposed merger on grain export services at the port of Vancouver, the canola crushing sector, and competition at primary elevators, and found worrisome levels of market concentration in all three scenarios. The merger would result in over 40% of Vancouver export capacity controlled by one firm, the repor

Global soybean glut could pressure canola prices

The world will be awash in soybeans in 2024-25, and that could be an anchor on canola prices, say analysts. The International Grains Council is forecasting 75.4 million tonnes of global soybean carryout, excluding China. That would be 13 per cent more than last year and 31 per cent above the previous five-year average. “In the absence of any weather events, these heavy stocks are likely to keep pressure on soybean prices,” Helen Plant, senior analyst with the United Kingdom’s Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, said in a recent grain market report. “The extent of the impact on (canola) prices will depend on prospects for the 2024-25 (canola) crops.” Canola/rapeseed planting is expected to be down 3.1 per cent in Canada and 3.6 per cent in the European Union, two regions that accounted for 44 per cent of global production of the crop last year. Rich Nelson, chief strategist with Allendale Inc., agrees with the premise that global soybean stocks are on the rise unless

Opinion: Farm economic aspect often ignored

The term “environmental sustainability” frequently lacks definition, though it is widely used by governments, media, retailers and environmental non-governmental organizations. We use the term in our research, where we demonstrate with evidence how environmental sustainability has changed, for better or worse. However, the term has been over-used and often lacks meaning or value. The term is frequently applied to methods, processes and technologies that are used to produce food. The European Union is using its broadness and lack of definition to its advantage in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy. It advocates for significant and negative changes in food production, all in the name of improved environmental sustainability. The strategy trades economics for what the EU deems will be environmental sustainability. Often, governments, media and ENGOs fail to appreciate that without economic sustainability, there will be no environmental sustainability in food production. Farming and food pro

Local CFFO Districts Host Successful All-Candidates Night for Lambton Kent Middlesex By-Election

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) districts of Lambton, Kent, and Middlesex recently hosted a successful All-Candidates Night for the Lambton Kent Middlesex By-Election.

Introducing the next generation of farm leaders to advocacy

Canada is in the midst of a generational shift as more and more Canadians reach retirement age and younger generations are moving into leadership roles.

© 2024   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service