From the meatheads at the Carnegie Institution
Climate: Meat turns up the heat
Stanford, CA—Eating meat contributes to climate change, due to greenhouse gasses emitted by livestock. New research finds that livestock emissions are on the rise and that beef cattle are responsible for far more greenhouse gas emissions than other types of animals. It is published by Climactic Change.
Carbon dioxide is the most-prevalent gas when it comes to climate change. It is released by vehicles, industry, and forest removal and comprises the greatest portion of greenhouse gas totals. But methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gasses and account for approximately 28 percent of global warming activity.
Methane and nitrous oxide are released, in part, by livestock. Animals release methane as a result of microorganisms that are involved in their digestive processes and nitrous oxide from decomposing manure. These two gasses are responsible for a quarter of these non-carbon dioxide gas emissions and 9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions overall.
The research team, including Dario Caro, formerly of Carnegie and now at the University of Siena in Italy, and Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, estimated the greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries over a nearly half a century and found that livestock emissions increased by 51 percent over this period.
They found a stark difference between livestock-related emissions in the developing world, which accounts for most of this increase, and that released by developed countries. This is expected to increase further going forward, as demand for meat, dairy products, and eggs is predicted by some scientists to double by 2050. By contrast, developed countries reached maximum livestock emissions in the 1970s and have been in decline since that time.
“The developing world is getting better at reducing greenhouse emissions caused by each animal, but this improvement is not keeping up with the increasing demand for meat,” said Caro. “As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock keep going up and up in much of the developing world.”
Breaking it down by animal, beef and dairy cattle comprised 74 percent of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, 54 percent coming from beef cattle and 17 percent from dairy cattle. Part of this is due to the abundance of cows, but it is also because cattle emit greater quantities of methane and nitrous oxide than other animals. Sheep comprised 9 percent, buffalo 7 percent, pigs 5 percent, and goats 4 percent.
“That tasty hamburger is the real culprit,” Caldeira said. “It might be better for the environment if we all became vegetarians, but a lot of improvement could come from eating pork or chicken instead of beef.”
The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
[ADDENDUM]: My thanks to Anthony for pointing out this study. This might be a good time to recommend to people my previous posts on the relationship of plants and animals in the planetary food systems:
Animal, Vegetable, or E.O. Wilson
Finally, one of the larger methane sources on the planet, ironically, is … rice paddies. Lots and lots of organic materials decaying underwater, someone needs to put an end to that terrible practice immediately …
w.
How much carbon is sequestered in livestock?
I think all cattle should be fitted for emissions collection and the full contents sent to special collection points at Stanford and East Anglia. It will be important to collect the solid emissions as well, just because. We can ask Tom Steyer to build the transfer pipelines.
Where is the methane they claim is being released by agriculture? About 90% of what the models expected isn’t showing up in the atmosphere.
I thought water vapour was the most important greenhouse gas.
Has someone moved the goalposts while I’ve been away sailing?
So.. That means that if we eat the vegetarians we would have less carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions… and there would be fewer obnoxious greens. sounds like a win-win to me.
Vegan extremism and its link to political extremism found in AGW advocates are worth researching. How do such sociological patterns form and reinforce themselves?
Red States and Blue States are one thing, journalists another, academics also self-segregated politically but why and how vegans? Does it start with an anti-industrial, pro-organic value structure …leading to a likely leftist viewpoint? Is that even a common theme among vegans as a rule?
Then again, it might be only the vegans who politically associate and perhaps a vast majority silent vegans who are largely invisible from debates and political comments. Vegan and green cross culture is worth a look.
Of course the papers claim are rubbish as it assumes a fact not in evidence, an unquantified claim regarding “greenhouse” gasses only assumed but never empirically defined.
I would suggest that if a person believes in climate change, they should not have a pet. What would be the impact of a dramatic reduction in number of dogs/cats (e.g. producing and transporting food and supplies)? I’m not anti-pet, I just would like to see the outrage among climate warming pet owners if they were badgered to give up their pets for the good of mother earth.
That should be CLIMATIC change.
The other type results from recurrent stimulation.
And here I thought all the tree-hugging, sticker-festooned Leaf drivers here in Seattle were unjustly sanctimonious. Now, I know that they’re merely trying to save us from climate change. The time I see a bumper sticker that reads, “Stop Global Warming, Be a Vegan” (not a joke, they exist here), I’ll embrace them with open arms.
Naked social engineering.
Agriculture, manufacturing and petrochemicals are still the three most energy intensive industries in the US.
Catastrophic Bovine Global Warming is upon us. My redheaded girlfriend and her two redheaded kids are begging you for their lies. Won’t you please help by not eating beef?
(Plus, if you all stop eating beef, my t-bone steaks will be much cheaper.)
Did they consider that if we ate nothing but vegetables, our methane emissions would increase? It is well known that herbivores produce more methane than carnivores.
Save the world! Eat more Meat to stave off the next Glaciation!
Thank God all those bison are gone. Just think of all that warming that must have occured during the little ice age.
“Climate Change” has simply become the all-purpose Trojan Horse for activist groups to push their particular agenda. I’m surprised we haven’t seen the claim that “climate change” is behind the surge in illegal immigration; that claim is no more absurd that others that have been made.
It’s gotten to the point where real scientists trying to do actual serious work don’t stand out any more from all the charlatans pushing junk.
Great. I hope they all stop eating bacon and beef.
That way prices would drop for the rest of us.
“Carbon dioxide is the most-prevalent gas when it comes to climate change.”
Sorry, that’s as far as I could read.
So does this mean that the early settlers were helping the environment when they hunted the buffalo nearly to extinction?
Will the President and presumptive candidate now taunt the meat eaters too?
Guess I’ll switch to vegan and eat only beans from now on. Only way to avoid those nasty cow farts…
Wait a minute…
As always, the unintended negative consequences are ignored.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/264585/speedreads-study-smelling-farts-may-be-good-for-your-health
Based on my experience of being around veg-heads, if this measure were adopted the amount of methane humans would exhaust from a diet of 7-bean salads, lentil burgers, Brussels sprouts etc. would certainly exceed the amount produced by cattle. It is my unique belief that all vegans wear special shirts/jackets that say “pesticide-, herbicide-, GMO- and additive-free human” so when the end comes I’ll know who to aim for. 🙂
@ earwig42 July 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Brings a whole new meaning to the exhortation “Eat your Greens”
Being a Paleo diet convert this is deeply distressing to me. I consider grains to be poison. I am much more healthy since I gave up grains and beans. 30 pounds lighter, no arthritis, no GERD, better cholesterol values. They will have to pry the greasy steak from my cold dead fingers!
OMG! People in developing countries are improving their diet by adding meat! It’s much worse than we thought.
‘Blazing Saddles’ scene:
They bury the lede – you can’t just top eating livestock, you need to kill all the livestock you have. It’s their *life* that is the problem, not their death.
Taken a step further, this is an argument that wiping out species reduces global warming.
I am going to protest and go get big steak for dinner 🙂
I wish I knew how to embed this image,,,,,,
http://i.imgur.com/eYXMSFA.gif
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says at July 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Actually. the claim is being made.
But here in the UK (where I think you are also?) it isn’t considered a bad thing.
I cannot find any figures mentioned, just meaningess percentage increases. A 50% increase of a small number is still a small number. This is what’s called an argument without data. Meaningless from what I can see.
This article highlights a key problem with the Western media’s fixation on carbon. If there had been a calm, rational campaign to encourage people to burn less deep-earth carbon (coal, oil, natural gas) so that there would be plenty left for future generations, I would have been on-board. But this focus on CO2 and now CH4 is a) incorrect and b) confusing for the layman. For example: whether grass rots on the ground or rots in a cow’s stomach, it releases the same amount of Carbon into the atmosphere, so cows are pretty much carbon neutral. The only impact will be minor changes in how long it takes the carbon to return to the gaseous phase.
I think humans started migrating long before they invented carbon hysteria.
How many emmissions did 60 million bison and many otehr ungultes emit before they were reduced? Till we gat that answered these “findings” are meaningless.
Protein deficient peasants are less able to rise up against the rulers.
It’s all part of the plan…
So what are we going to eat? Beans, broccoli & cabbage?
Stupid.
Here’s an interesting TED talk on why grass needs cows.
Michael D says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm
This article highlights a key problem with the Western media’s fixation on carbon.
===================
Yes, we should re-brand CO2 emissions as “oxygen emissions” since there’s twice as much oxygen as carbon in CO2.
“Carbon dioxide is the most-prevalent gas when it comes to climate change. It is released by vehicles, industry, and forest removal and comprises the greatest portion of greenhouse gas totals.”
They left out quite a few sources of CO2 (which dwarf those they listed), and CO2 certainly doesn’t comprise “the greatest portion of greenhouse totals”.
If cows produce methane, then surely we should be eating cows as quickly as we can.
CO2 is nowhere close to being the most-prevelant greenhouse gas, however you care to define that term.
Water vapor is, by a huge margin.
The religion now has a diet to add to its dogma.
How do they account for that produced during anaerobic plant decay, natural gas leakage etc. Furthermore, CH4 is photoreactive is it not? So therefore has a short residence time.
Here in Sweden, it is well known within the healthcare that vegans sooner or later will get a vitamine B12 deficiency disease. Two of the first common symtoms are low blood count and reduced brain activity …
Why don’t they mention anything about the large number of wildebeests and other herbivores in Africa?
Also, I have never met or heard of any genuine vegan, as they whould remove their canine teeth … I would like to hear a discussion about eating meat between a vegan and an Inuit on traditional food …
Go big game hunting, Save The Planet. You need to kill as many of those wildebeast as you can to stop the planet overheating!
Gamecock says: July 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm “How much carbon is sequestered in livestock?”
Well that’s exactly the point! Has anyone bothered to challenge these nitwits with the fact that 99% of the carbon in the methane these animals emit was pulled OUT of the atmosphere by the plants used for animal feed? What is the difference between this claim and claiming that burning bio-fuel emits GHG’s? They are purposely masking over the other side of the equation; probably to assure future funding.
And they ignored the question… if humans all start eating mostly vegetable matter.. what about the increase of OUR methane emission?
Better dig out Michelle Obama’s spinach pie recipe. Not forgetting (much as I would like to) her non-cream creamed spinach.
BTW, if vegetarianism or veganism is so great, why do they keep inventing “foods” that look like mine……veggie burgers, soy bacon, etc.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide from energy generation and personal transportation, and there is nothing wrong with nitrous oxide from crops, nor nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous for plants, and there is nothing wrong with building a fire, and there is certainly nothing wrong with methane from dairy and beef cattle.
At least cow flatulence produces milk, cheese, yoghurt, cottage cheese, ice cream, beef, leather, medicine, hormones, fertilizers, paint, paint brushes, tire additives, nicely grazed fields that support wild bees and reduce fire hazards, and violin strings. Whereas ill-considered, toxic hippy paradigms produce nothing of the sort.
And speaking of Organic-only Boomers, Where will all the flowers go? — There already wasn’t enough composted bull%$#@ to fertilize the cereal crops alone, let alone the vegetables, with the millions of head of cattle we have in this country now. Nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous meet the needs of the cereals, vegetables, and orchard trees in nice clean tanks, shipped any time, any where.
This is an old one. From the same people that claim that all problems can be solved by breeding the “defective Y chromosome” out of humanity. Meanwhile, it remains a simple thing to spot the vegetarians around us by the trail of flatulence they emit.
Just in:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that last month’s average global temperature was 61.2 degrees (16.2 Celsius), which is 1.3 degrees higher than the 20th century average. It beat 2010’s old record by one-twentieth of a degree.
NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt said the record was driven by unusually hot oceans, especially the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Heat records broke on every continent but Antarctica, especially in New Zealand, northern South America, Greenland, central Africa and southern Asia.
The United States had only its 33rd hottest June.
Global temperature records go back to 1880 and this is the 352nd hotter than average month in a row.
The Canadian Press
Re
Ken Caldeira’s email address kcaldeira@carnegiescience.edu
The comments on this post are a laugh-a-minute. Thanks guys for a great start to my Tuesday!
Livestock is not the problem, it is a part of the solution:
asybot says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm
__________________
I call Bovine Solids emissions.
Beef, beef
The veggie substitute
The more you feed them
The more they toot
The more they toot
The better we feel
So eat more beef with every meal
Was that article written by the Chick-fil-a Cows?
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Cows/Campaign-History
/grin
Hitler was a vegetarian/vagen. Was he trying to save humanity? He did suffer from gas pains ( just couldn’t fart in front of Eva, too many veggies) . Mind you, he was a socialist. Is there a connection?
So many questions.
asybot says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Zeke and Mosher assured us that averaging absolute temperatures (as in 61.2 C) are scientifically indefensible and have taken issue with Steven Goddard over this very practice. Only temperature anomalies when used to give us a temperature trend can be calculated accurately (with esoteric adjustments of course). So what are the true error bars in the 61.2C temperature claim? And why does it differ so radically from the satellite temperature record which shows no such record temperatures?
Uh, ”if we all became vegetarians” a bunch of us would die of starvation/malnutrition. Generally speaking, livestock convert plant matter that we can’t digest (ever try living off of grass without say cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc…?) into digestible nutrients. Yes, in the developed world we have a lot of grain fed meat products, but a) many of those “meats” still eat a lot of grasses (hay) when they’re on the hoof and b) those grains aren’t exactly the same as the ones we eat with only minor processing and can be viably grown in conditions that “table ready” grains can’t. Chickens being a notable exception but they can eat stuff (like insects & worms) that we don’t particularly want to eat.
bonanzapilot says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm
As always, the unintended negative consequences are ignored.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/264585/speedreads-study-smelling-farts-may-be-good-for-your-health
“While hydrogen sulfide gas is harmful in large doses, the study suggests that “a whiff here and there has the power to reduce risks of cancer, strokes, heart attacks, arthritis, and dementia by preserving mitochondria,” Time reports.”
====
Oh dear, I always light my farts ( to save the planet ) and stop them smelling. However, if they won’t burn you know to clear out, it’s real hummer. I guess that’s the methane farts vs the hydrogen sulphide ones.
So I suppose now when I get one the doesn’t light I’ll know to breath deeply and hold, to guard against getting cancer and dementia.
ok, so now it’s cows that emit magical CO2….that stays in the atmosphere
Per T says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm
——————————-
I was thinking along the same lines. If man kind has cut down on the amount of herbivores roaming the landscape (not a lot of bison left here in the lower 48), one would expect a response from the ecosystem. I don’t want to speculate on what that response would be, but it is hard to be opposed to adding animals back to the grasslands.
Also, it is hard to keep up with the greens. They were for animals before they were against them.
Here comes the the DOE grant program to develop pilot lights for certain personal emissions.
The protein, zinc, iodine, and vitamins provided to the diet by beef and dairy are not only good for the developing bodies and minds of children, but cattle are the most effective way to use land to support families. This reduces foraging and hunting and reduces more clearing for farming, if that is a concern.
Peaceful lands where cattle, goats and sheep may safely graze and pasture have always been the mark of a civilized life and culture. Cattle and other domestic animals belong with people, and people belong with the Cow. To have land, and to engage in commercial activity, is not a class privilege. Governments are instituted by people to provide protections for these activities, among other things.
earwig42 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm
So.. That means that if we eat the vegetarians we would have less carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions… and there would be fewer obnoxious greens. sounds like a win-win to me.
Yuck! You do what you want, but I’m heading out for a nice thick Delmonico just dripping with blood!
“The research team, including Dario Caro, formerly of Carnegie and now at the University of Siena in Italy, and Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, estimated the greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries over a nearly half a century and found that livestock emissions increased by 51 percent over this period.”
Beyond my questioning the climate alarmism involved here regarding livestock digestive emissions, I somehow have a hard time understanding where they counted 237 countries in the world. The link below states that there are only 193 member nations in the U.N. and the U.S. recognizes the existence of 195. If they can’t get their country count right, what else do they get wrong?
http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm.
The evolution in the size of the human brain is credited to meat eating and early human teeth were designed to eat meat. So it is natural for humans to eat meat. The real problem was the change from being hunter gatherers to becoming farmers and ranchers where survival of the fittest no longer applied. This resulted in the passing on of genetic material that is less than top of the line. Anyone with any kind of physical malady wouldn’t have survived as a hunter gatherer, including me because I am nearsighted. So let’s count our blessings for having a society where the genetically weaker can still thrive and enjoy life. I think I will go out now to grill a huge porterhouse steak and eat it off the bone with my bare hands. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
And the fact that human population growth thus their farts has nothing to do with a calculated rise in methane?
But let’s leave that aside for a moment. Hey folks, I’ve been to a vegetarian food only retreat hot springs. Trust me, the sulfur from the wonderful medicinal waters is a drop in the bucket compared to what happens after eating veggie meals. So much so that if it weren’t for the geothermal energy available as a heating source, the retreat center cabins could burn methane instead.
I call this piece of crap research…crap. As well as another example of grant chasing.
M Courtney says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:57 pm
I should have known as soon as I said something hasn’t been linked to climate change someone would prove me wrong.
No, I’m in the US and the illegal immigration I referred to is occurring over our border with Mexico, consisting mostly of minors transiting through Mexico from Central America. Has anyone mentioned climate change as the reason illegal immigrants are getting younger? Must be; it certainly couldn’t be because our twice-elected coyote-in-chief has unilaterally changed immigration law to exempt “children” from deportation.
If someone in the US leaves a minor child unaccompanied in a hot car for 10 minutes to go into a store he/she is likely to be cited for neglect/endangerment. But our President can encourage over 30,000 parents so far this year to put their children into the hands of professional smugglers to make the journey from Central America to the US border while crossing hostile desert and trying to evade the border patrol, and he has the chutzpah to claim this “crisis” only proves the need for the “comprehensive immigration reform” he has so far been unable to ram through Congress.
Sorry; this is way O/T. Rant over.
Pastureland sequesters 0.3 tons of Carbon per acre per year on average (some higher, some lower). Each section of pastureland sequesters about 1000 tons of CO2equivalent per year.
This sequestration rate is 6 times higher than equivalent methane emissions from cattle on that same pastureland.
Cows emit 2.3 tons of methane in CO2equivalent per year. Assuming 10 acres per cow, those 64 cattle on a section would only emit 147 tons of CO2e per year
Proof in a picture here. There is a lot of CO2equivalent cattle in those 12 inches of black Carbon-rich soil.
http://esask.uregina.ca/management/app/assets/img/enc2/selectedbig/51F187F4-1560-95DA-43DFADB7FF2FC811.jpg
The computer model obviously left human flatulence out of the calculations. Humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. Our teeth and our guts aren’t made to process large amounts of vegetable matter. (Compare yourself with a cow or a deer if you need more information on this). All that indigestible vegetable matter gets passed along to our little friends in our intestines (the bacteria which live in our guts) and our little friends do what they do. The results — increased gastro-intestinal emissions — from both ends of our alimentary canals.
And don’t get me started on how all that extra fiber will put a strain on our sewer systems.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says at July 21, 2014 at 2:15 pm…
Sorry, I make a policy of not talking about the internal politics of foreign countries. It’s your country, you work it out.
It’s also way off topic.
But in the UK I’m all for the dynamic, determined immigrants fighting their way in to my country. I’d just like to deport the slackers in exchange.
However, I am a left-winger so I doubt we will agree politically on much – Yet maybe we can agree that linking unrelated, PC bollocks just to add momentum to an “agenda push” is a devious dodging of debate. Which is cowardly.
Anti-Carbon = Anti-Life
krischel says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm
They bury the lede – you can’t just top eating livestock, you need to kill all the livestock you have. It’s their *life* that is the problem, not their death.
Taken a step further, this is an argument that wiping out species reduces global warming.
______________________________________________________________
We could start with the Greens
This statistic concerns me much more than the number of cow farts.
“Considering all factors in beef cattle production including direct consumption, irrigation of pastures and crops, and carcass processing, it takes 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of boneless beef, according to the CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beef.org%2FuDocs%2FFactoid%2520Fighter%2520Revisions%252011-03-03.doc&ei=JITNU738I6np8AHlooD4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHgxyGg-7khGuJ6sOgBE29C6760Ow&bvm=bv.71198958,d.b2U&cad=rja
How will Lord Stern cope without his Chateaubriand steak?
Oops, sorry, forgot, he won’t have to.
However, when you fart, the life you save could be your own:
No need to thank me for saving you, the pleasure is all mine.
This statistic concerns me more than the number of cow farts.
“Considering all factors in beef cattle production including direct consumption, irrigation of pastures and crops, and carcass processing, it takes 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of boneless beef, according to the CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beef.org%2FuDocs%2FFactoid%2520Fighter%2520Revisions%252011-03-03.doc&ei=JITNU738I6np8AHlooD4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHgxyGg-7khGuJ6sOgBE29C6760Ow&bvm=bv.71198958,d.b2U&cad=rja
“Kate Forney says:
So what are we going to eat? Beans, broccoli & cabbage?”
If we all ate copious amounts of beans, wouldn’t that almost immediately cause NHL –quality global warming? What am I missing here?
“Joe Public says:
‘Blazing Saddles’ scene:”
One of the greatest cinematic masterpieces all time, and possibly the greatest Western ever made. I place it above Citizen Kane, but slightly below The Godfather (both I and II). Dr. Strangelove and Python/Holy Grail will always top the charts for those of us who have the ability to truly appreciate great cinema.
If it wasn’t for hoofed animals – both to use as labor and for meat – it is possible man would have never left the stone age. One example is Australia, where the tastiest animals appeared to be quickly eaten and gone extinct, and other animals not easily adapted to labor, not providing the native population with help. Natives subsequently stuck indefinitely in the stone age. Animals are awesome – both to help us out and to munch on. Australia eventually went from the stone age to a massive penal colony, and now is proud to be a semi-civilized society that has swimmers that are still far, far inferior to Murican swimmers.
As a Christian I prefer Acts 11 1-10
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_hoofed_animals_such_as_deer_and_cattle_native_to_Australia
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2563/is-there-more-flatulence-in-a-vegetarian-diet
They BS you that the flatulence of the Vegetarian diet is temporary until your body adjusts to it. Havent’ cows and sheep adjusted yet? I suppose if you attached an afterburner to cattle and sheep that wouldn’t satisfy the zealots. Also, it would conflict with a lot of the other ‘cultural’ aspects of these types. No cattle, no leather, so shoes would all have to be made of materials obtained from with oil and gas feedstocks. Wool sweaters and other clothing would be out and we would have to go with rayon, nylon and the like exclusively – better okay that fracking project down the road.
Also, we better let a few hundred million people die off because an important part of our nutrition comes from land that won’t effectively grow crops but can be foraged on by cows, goats, sheep….
Now for an engineering analysis. What about retiring that scrub land? Letting the rough land of much of the western part of the country go back to bush, shrubs, etc. will result in a logarithmic increase in wildlife who,… well,… fart a lot. Also, how much carbon is sequestered in the worlds flocks? Yes we kill and eat them but over time the flocks increase. Among vegans are to be found a high proportion of autocratic, gullible, collectivist, self-righteous, rigid, conformist, doctrinaire, ideologues. These folks would be promulgating laws in batches of a thousand until we are all ‘herdable’.
Re studies on life span, these are the most poorly designed studies there are and the reason is likely because of PC skewing. There are virtually no studies that have taken the trouble to compare vegan and sensible meat eaters who have an overall healthy lifestyle. Rather, they compare the vegan to the general population, which is just plain wrong. Vegans also are highly unlikely to smoke or to drink alcohol other than moderately. They are also most likely to maintain healthy weights and get adequate exercise.
http://www.honeycolony.com/article/do-vegetarians-live-longer/
“For example, Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarians, and their mortality rate is a tiny bit less (!!!) than ‘regular people,’ but Seventh Day Adventists also don’t smoke, don’t do alcohol, and don’t do drugs. They rarely die from drunk driving, for example. People who become vegetarians often have other habits that can account for the difference.”
“the German Cancer Research Center conducted a study exceeding 21 years showing that female non-meat eaters cut their mortality by 30 percent, and that male vegetarians cut their risk of early death by 50 percent. More than 1,900 vegetarians participated in the study. The GCRC study included a range of eaters: from vegans (no animal products), strict vegetarians (no flesh), and moderate vegetarians (occasional fish or meat). Results were similar among all three groups (!!!).”
These serious studies found marginal to no improvement, despite the likely better overall lifestyles of Vegetarian/Vegan. Other studies talked about the lack of carnosine (from meat) causing breakdown of muscle protein and leading to papery wrinkled skin in vegetarians with aging.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_awsi_01.htm
One thing you can be sure of, like all agenda-driven studies there is more adherence to message than to good science. It was early studies that indicated vegetarians had shorter lifespans that led to a smothering output of contrary studies.
IF we stop eating meat WHAT will happen to the Animal population? An increase in animals would create an increase in Methane.Could you imagine the Animal Rights Movement allowing an animal reduction campaign to reduce Methane and “to save the planet” <:o)
Old news around here. You might find this piece from 2013 amusing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/tastes-great-less-incinerating/
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change: [http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change]
More meat, not less.
Tom in Florida says: July 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm “… wouldn’t have survived as a hunter gatherer, including me because I am nearsighted. ”
Might not be true, maybe the hunting weapons were crafted by nearsighted people?
So without animal husbandry to fertilise pasture and fallow lands, how much more carbon dioxide and other pollution will be produced to manufacture and distribute the additional chemical fertilisers that will be needed to grow the grains and vegetables?
I love this flat statement, tossed out there with utter aplomb:
” …methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gasses and account for approximately 28 percent of global warming activity.”
There you have it. Scientists said it, so just move along folks, nothing to see here.
I thought we were supposed to be using plants to make ethanol to prevent GAGW? Now we’re supposed to eat them?
PhilCP says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Guess I’ll switch to vegan and eat only beans from now on. Only way to avoid those nasty cow farts…
Wait a minute…
===================================================
Exactly. I observe my CH4 emissions rise exponentially when forced to go vegan even if for only a day. I prefer real food after the greens have been processed into goodly amounts of red protien.
Just for giggles
http://www.peta.org/?s=Global+warming#/
Dave says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm Yuck! You do what you want, but I’m heading out for a nice thick Delmonico just dripping with blood!
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I don’t know anyone named Delmonico.
Gunga Din says:
July 21, 2014 at 3:05 pm
===
…and then they came for the dogs and cats
From Tom in Florida on July 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm:
You’ve never heard of trapping?
Plus the nearsighted are good at removing ticks and other parasites, removing splinters and thorns and stingers and porcupine quills, cleaning out and treating wounds, plus basics like garment construction and the thorough preparation of hides for preservation. Etc.
Seeing things at a distance might be useful, but the reality of survival is predominantly a lot closer.
The key environmental issue concerning countries taking up the US diet is habitat, not CO2 emission. Roughly twice as much land and resources are required for the typical US diet as compared to Vegans.
http://dels.nationalacademies.org/resources/static-assets/banr/AnimalProductionMaterials/LessMeat.pdf
“The United States, for instance, has just 4.5% of the world’s population but accounts for about 15% of global meat consumption. Americans consume about 330 grams of meat a day on average—the equivalent of three quarter-pound hamburgers. In contrast, the U.S.Department of Agriculture recommends that most people consume just 142 to 184 grams of meat and beans daily. In the developing world, daily meat consumption averages just 80 grams.”
The reason to switch from a US diet to a Vegan diet is not climate change but rather concern about one’s health and the health of those who we love. The US ‘health care’ system is disease control and disease management not health care. As most are aware the US has the highest health care costs in the world.
There is a direct correlation of the amount of meat and dairy consumed and the incidence of cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, and so on. For example those eating a traditional Japanese diet have 48 times less incidence of prostate cancer, almost no atherosclerosis, and six times less breast cancer. Interesting the specialists have discovered why that is true (have worked out most of the mechanisms). As there is no profit in telling people they are getting sick due to diet, the research is continuing on ingenious methods to treat diseases that are caused by diet.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/
http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/07/08/a-low-methionine-diet-may-help-starve-cancer-cells/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-tumors-use-meat-to-grow-xeno-autoantibodies/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-answer-to-the-pritikin-puzzle/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cancer-proofing-mutation/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-inflammatory-meat-molecule-neu5gc/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/nonhuman-molecules-lining-our-arteries/
Really? Where does that water go? Isn’t the vast majority returned to the water cycle? This seems only a problem in areas where there is a drought, or where the water is pulled out of aquifers faster than the aquifers replenish.
“North of 43 and south of 44 says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:28 pm
…
Taken a step further, this is an argument that wiping out species reduces global warming.”
They’ve got a point there. Atmospheric CO2 balances are determined by the amount of photosynthesis from plants and CO2 produced by both plants and animals. I suppose by wiping out ALL non photosynthesiziing life, the CO2 balance in the atmosphere would be slightly lower.
If you’ve ever stood in an enclosed space with a vegetarian you’d realise that cattle farts are the far lesser of two evils!
Don’t forget this fine piece of 2012 scholarship from Ken on the cause and effect relationship between Co2 and temps. http://www.sustainabilitysc.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/scientificamerican0912-78-The-great-climate-experiment.pdf Ooops.
The very troubling book Living in a Socialist USA that came out this year and celebrates this vision pointed out that meat would necessarily become a rarity for most in its plans. It also laid out in its Thanksgiving 2077 story that few of the supporters would probably have gone along with the changes if they had appreciated that it was really about much lower levels of prosperity for most people.
Given what Carnegie is pushing in education and has been for decades, it is hard not to see this as another push towards the pernicious Marxist Humanist vision of an economy centered on needs and state direction.
3 questions
– didn’t the C in the methane come from the C in the grass which came from C in the air? (and yes I know CO2 Methane lignin … but isn’t it just a cycle?
-and if there is no cow, doesnt the tip of the grass brown, and fall off and there in between the blades rot and bacteria turn it into methane anyway?
– and, thirdly, cows produce a large percentage of atmospheric anions, right? which seed clouds, and cool the earth
Co2 has nearly doubled in my lifetime and the temperature has barely moved. Summers were much hotter when I was a teenager. I guess this gas rates pretty low on the scale as a greenhouse gas.
Per T says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm
_______________________
Fascinating- thanks!
And then, they came for the cows…
=======================================================================
Here’s a little something to chew on.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/pdf/2009-3098.pdf
(I tried to paste an excerpt that said livestock water usage was 3% but each word came out as a separate line)
Each methane molecule contains one carbon atom which started out in a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere. The authors of this study need to do a little remedial work. Cows don’t manufacture carbon atoms out of nothing. And water is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.
I prefer to eat vegetarian (of the herbivore kind).
Mike M says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:46 pm
and
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm
—————————————————————————————————————————I I was thinking not about me being able to find the food but rather that I would become the food. If you can’t see it till it’s too late, then it’s too late.
And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged,
“Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?”
And the angel said unto me,
“These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust.”
Tool – Discustipated
I switched from burgers to cabbage yesterday. Despite complaints from my wife and dog, I did manage three bars of “Yankee Doodle”.
cwon14 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Of course the papers claim are rubbish as it assumes a fact not in evidence, an unquantified claim regarding “greenhouse” gasses only assumed but never empirically defined.
What does not in evidence specifically mean in this context?
By quantified, do you mean proof of the impossible, not related to the basic and only real issue: which is, what will the affect of a huge geological external spike in total long lived [gg] ultimately be on long term climate, relative to what we have evolved under and adapted to?
According to the Science Daily article:
Over 800,000 years, methane levels never went above 700ppb. By 1950 they were at 1100. While they’ve been relatively flat the last several years, they are still extremely high (methane breaks down into CO2), and in 2012 reached a new high of 1819 ppb. They are part of the overall change in total long lived [gg] gas concentrations to levels collectively not seen on earth in several million years, and a change that, geologically speaking, has been extraordinarily rapid.
If one doesn’t want to accept something, you can run rings around it in fancy sounding language circles forever. The issue is, what is reasonable to do in response?
Not eat meat? Not my choice, but it is something for those who want to consider. Subsidize non meat foods? Address the more basic agricultural issue which have far more of a fundamental effect, and which by addressing would actually lead to more of a net improvement anyway? Address the fossil fuel aspect, which we have to shift over from anyway, end international reliance upon (in the U.S, for instance), and which creates a lot of additional, more “traditional” pollution anyway, and which right now are heavily subsidized relative to other energy sources because their huge impact is not integrated into the price, so the market skews heavily from promoting more beneficial and efficient development of all the possibilities we are otherwise well more than capable of? Etc.,Etc. .
Again, it seems like the intent here, whether realized or not, is to simply both try to discredit anything that has to do with basic Climate Science and cling to anything that does so, rather than just try to present evidence that the problem may not pose the same risk range that many (such as myself and a large majority of the world’s leading scientists) I think rather reasonably, if not extremely logically, believe that it does.
I think if the debate and discussion was had in a more reasonable, objective and considered way, the view of the great majority of the world’s leading scientists would likely be seen as the more logical.
If that is not the case, then it would not be so viewed. (But the point is that to view it as not, and continue to reinforce that view, what is happening is that anything that supports basic climate science is immediately discredited, attacked, or focused into something that it is not, and anything that seems to discredit it, no matter how misrepresentative, or out of focus, is immediately adhered to and solely, often erroneously, relied upon.)
On the other hand, if that is the case, why not already have, or consider that view? It seems, while those concerned with CC are labeled (often incorrectly) as alarmists and fearful, that the real fear is fear of climate change redress, and that drives almost everything, for example, here, which then skews the interpretation of what is a completely separate subject : The actual nature of the problem. (As distinguished from the question of what to do about it.) Something which, given that CC probably does (or actually “does”) present a significant and very high risk range, would ultimately seem to not be a rational, but fear based and obviously strongly driven, response.
But why not instead focus on the far more relevant, and far more interesting question, of what the risk ranges might actually reasonably be, and also how best to sensibly redress them? Particularly, in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns or fears over possible ways of redress.
Yes, wanting to do something about the problem is based on concern of the problem (and for some people fear of it, maybe, for them, warranted). But not wanting to do something about it based upon fear is not the same thing as what the problem itself is, which are two completely separate things. But it is wildly skewing the interpretation of it in the first place.
Fear based upon the CC affect is logically expressed though examination of the climate change issue; fear based upon redress of the issue is rationally applied to examination of possible ways and proposals of redress. The two are two separate things. The latter, in some circles, is driving the former and interpretation of the former, and leading to heavily self-selecting reinforcement of anything that serves, in turn, to disparage it as well.
Can we force these people to only eat non-global warming food products??? Identify yourselves; set the example!!! I am so tired of this!!
So does that mean the infrared absorption band for methane doesn’t count towards global warming now?
cwon14 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Of course the papers claim are rubbish as it assumes a fact not in evidence, an unquantified claim regarding “greenhouse” gasses only assumed but never empirically defined.
What does not in evidence specifically mean in this context?
By quantified, do you mean proof of the impossible, not related to the basic and only real issue: which is, what will the affect of a huge geological external spike in total long lived [gg] ultimately be on long term climate, relative to what we have evolved under and adapted to?
According to the Science Daily article:
Over 800,000 years, methane levels never went above 700ppb. By 1950 they were at 1100. While they’ve been relatively flat the last several years, they are still extremely high (methane breaks down into CO2), and in 2012 reached a new high of 1819 ppb. They are part of the overall change in total long lived [gg] gas concentrations to levels collectively not seen on earth in several million years, and a change that, geologically speaking, has been extraordinarily rapid.
If one doesn’t want to accept something, you can run rings around it in fancy sounding language circles forever. The issue is, what is reasonable to do in response?
Not eat meat? Not my choice, but it is something for those who want to consider. Subsidize non meat foods? Address the more basic agricultural issue which have far more of a fundamental effect, and which by addressing would actually lead to more of a net improvement anyway? Address the fossil fuel aspect, which we have to shift over from anyway, end international reliance upon (in the U.S, for instance), and which creates a lot of additional, more “traditional” pollution anyway, and which right now are heavily subsidized relative to other energy sources because their huge impact is not integrated into the price, so the market skews heavily from promoting more beneficial and efficient development of all the possibilities we are otherwise well more than capable of? Etc.,Etc. .
Again, it seems like the intent here, whether realized or not, is to simply both try to discredit anything that has to do with basic Climate Science and cling to anything that does so, rather than just try to present evidence that the problem may not pose the same risk range that many (such as myself and a large majority of the world’s leading scientists) I think rather reasonably, if not extremely logically, believe that it does.
I think if the debate and discussion was had in a more reasonable, objective and considered way, the view of the great majority of the world’s leading scientists would likely be seen as the more logical.
If that is not the case, then it would not be so viewed. (But the point is that to view it as not, and continue to reinforce that view, what is happening is that anything that supports basic climate science is immediately discredited, attacked, or focused into something that it is not, and anything that seems to discredit it, no matter how misrepresentative, or out of focus, is immediately adhered to and solely, often erroneously, relied upon.)
On the other hand, if that is the case, why not already have, or consider that view? It seems, while those concerned with CC are labeled (often incorrectly) as alarmists and fearful, that the real fear is fear of climate change redress, and that drives almost everything, for example, here, which then skews the interpretation of what is a completely separate subject : The actual nature of the problem. (As distinguished from the question of what to do about it.) Something which, given that CC probably does (or actually “does”) present a significant and very high risk range, would ultimately seem to not be a rational, but fear based and obviously strongly driven, response.
But why not instead focus on the far more relevant, and far more interesting question, of what the risk ranges might actually reasonably be, and also how best to sensibly redress them? Particularly, in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns or fears over possible ways of redress.
Yes, wanting to do something about the problem is based on concern of the problem (and for some people fear of it, maybe, for them, warranted). But not wanting to do something about it based upon fear is not the same thing as what the problem itself is, which are two completely separate things. But it is wildly skewing the interpretation of it in the first place.
Fear based upon the CC affect is logically expressed though examination of the climate change issue; fear based upon redress of the issue is rationally applied to examination of possible ways and proposals of redress. The two are two separate things. The latter, in some circles, is driving the former and interpretation of the former, and leading to heavily self-selecting reinforcement of anything that serves, in turn, to disparage it as well.
In many places, cows eat grass. Grass is produced by absorbing carbon dioxide. Huge amounts of it. Grasslands are a carbon sink. Some of this carbon gets made into cow (or maybe milk), some is excreted, and some is given off as methane. The actual balance (carbon in : carbon out) in all this is seldom calculated. Some farms could actually be net sinks.
I wonder if the guys who come up with this actually have a conscious thought– or are they like a fellow I know on another forum who claims he doesn’t have a conscious thought and that he’s an automaton. Don’t ask how he can post to a forum, I still haven’t figured that out.
Now I have to worry that I may become a fugitive because if there’s one thing I do well in the morning, it’s pass gas. Eating more vegetation is likely to make that worse instead of better. Behold the cattle we’re talking about here, all they do is eat vegetation and our great global-climate scientists are having a tizzy about how much methane a cow produces. Imagine how much methane 7 billion vegetarian humans will produce……we might do better to eat more meat rather than less.
When you attend conferences, seminars and training in this day and age, you usually asked dietary requirements when you register. Things like Gluten Free, Vegetarian etc. Just put ‘Vegan Free’ and see what turns up.
mjmsprt40 says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm
“Imagine how much methane 7 billion vegetarian humans will produce…”
_____________________
There would be far fewer than 7 Billion of us, if we were all vegetarians, but that’s the basis of support for this kind of “study”.
Funny. I am the Christian who loves legitimate science, and wants to see scientific advances used for the good of humanity, with resulting prosperity for all, especially for those living in the suffering 3rd world. It seems like the uber-progressives (progressing towards WHAT, exactly?) are the ones who want to turn back the clock, and do everything possible to direct us all back towards the stone age – all of us but themselves, of course.
Bull!
RGP says:
July 21, 2014 at 4:05 pm
“In many places, cows eat grass. Grass is produced by absorbing carbon dioxide. Huge amounts of it. Grasslands are a carbon sink. Some of this carbon gets made into cow (or maybe milk), some is excreted, and some is given off as methane. The actual balance (carbon in : carbon out) in all this is seldom calculated. Some farms could actually be net sinks“.
_________________
Please see the video, posted above, by:
Per T says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Livestock is not the problem, it is a part of the solution:
What these propagandist playing researcher really are saying is that they want poverty stricken regions to remain that way.
Glenn Beck did much as the question why Al Gore eats meat, and interviews PETA in this video
Vegetarians are unevolved humanoids … meat eaters on the other hand are fully evolved.
“Vegetarian” is an Indian word for “Bad hunter”. Or so I’m told.
As a vegetarian for 4+ years now (lacto/ovo – whey, dairy & eggs are okay) I have the following to say:
1) The idea that extra methane from cows will influence the climate is wrong.
2) I’m offended when people use vegetarians as cover for their agenda.
3) I’m offended when people use their agenda to try and force vegetarianism on others.
3) I like it and feel great. Hope you do too regardless what your choices are.
4) It isn’t for everyone. To each their own.
5) If you ever do give it a try make sure you get B12 and EPA/DHA regardless of the source. There are no substitutes and those are essential for human health.
6) I’m not flatulent. After a short time your body adapts to extra fiber. What makes me gassy now is sugary treats. A nice maple fudge treat and you don’t want to be on a car ride with me.
Cheers
There was a post here a few years ago about how having livestock is better for everyone overall.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/animal-vegetable-or-e-o-wilson/
M Courtney says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Actually, I’d accept all the illegal immigrants if I could deport an equal number of lawyers. They’re much worse than slackers.
“Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says
Actually, I’d accept all the illegal immigrants if I could deport an equal number of lawyers”
No comment on the immigration issue ‘cept that I have compassion for all those poor souls – but, we all know what Billy Shakespeare said about lawyers.
The conclusion of the news release – that eating meat contributes to global warming – is NOT diminished by any of the following:
Water vapour being a larger greenhouse gas than CO2 – not relevant.
That there used to be lots of bison and now they’s not – not relevant.
That cows on pasture aren’t a net contributer to GHGs – grain fed cows are.
That vegetarian humans emit more GHG than meat-eating ones – maybe but entirely anecdotal
There is nothing controversial about this statement:
1. Methane is a GHG which contributes to global warming.
2. The raising of cattle with food grains increases the net output of Methane and therefore contributes to global warming.
I don’t like preachy vegans but neither do I like preachy meat-eaters.
I love eating meat but can entirely understand many of the reasons not to eat it – gestation crates, for example, are a sad part of eating delicious bacon.
“Saren says”
I don’t care if someone is a vegetarian, if that is what floats his/her boat. I don’t think eating vegetables should be outlawed, or curtailed in any way, or should there be any restrictions on their use in people’s diet, and I’ve never heard anyone, ever, with that viewpoint. While I eat meat, I also like things like broccoli and asparagus and lettuce – quite bit .
Ever heard the opposite? You know, that meat eating should be curtailed, restricted , rationed, or even outlawed?
LOL at the “preachy meat eaters” – I haven’t heard that one before.
Does not anyone know what the @#$%ing carbon cycle is?
Until someone figures out how to feed cattle with petroleum this is just a bunch of … appropriately … bullshit.
That Ross Gaunaut once said, Farmers should farm kangaroos instead of ruminants. So did that Indian Patchari, a Hindu. Methane does not stay in the atmosphere long. In fact it makes up the smallest % of gases, along with nitrous oxide. And from some experiments years ago, carrots scream when pulled up.
So, what exactly are they suggesting we do here? Do we eat the beasts to get rid of them or not? Is this advocating species extinction to ”stop climate change”? Of course if we all change over to a vegan diet, what effect will that have on our own species? If we stop eating meat we will be over run with wild cows etc. It all sounds like a lot of B.S.
We need to get the loonies to face up to the reality of Climate change and stop denying that it’s something that happens, always has and always will. Attacking humanity with crazy notions, that shutting down our industries and now also our agriculture, will keep our global average temperatures down to an imaginary safe level. They really should start questioning their assertions and seriously ask, what if they are wrong? what are the costs to humanity and the environment. Stop assuming that every crazy idea that’s put forward, is automatically correct.
Every time a cow farts, somewhere a fish has to swim a little bit harder! Just pull the collective plug on those less than useless climate models, and tune back in to the real world.
Eamon.
[+emphasis]
Well, that explains a lot.
Hmm… so we should all become diabetic, obese, … Manufactured foods and vegetarianism are not healthy. I remember ‘Diet for a small planet’ and believed that was the solution. Now 40 years later, after eating healthy whole grains and other carbs, I have diabetes and am now quite carb intolerant. Humans need animal based food including fats.Vegetable oils are toxic.
Plants are not our friends. They can only protect themselves chemically with toxins to kill or discourage their predators. Yes, we can perhaps feed the world on plants but we will be a lot less healthy and many of us will die much sooner. It is estimated that 50% of the Chinese population is pre-diabetic. I expect this rate to increase with each generation as the population becomes less and less tolerant of carbohydrates.
***what they mean is no-one will be able to afford meat if the alarmists get their way:
21 July: Bloomberg: Christopher Flavelle: A Carbon Tax Even Republicans Can Support
A new survey suggests the conventional wisdom about carbon taxes is wrong: Promising to give people their money back with rebate checks isn’t the best way to win public support.
Polling by the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a joint project by the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy and the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College, shows that Americans in general (and Republicans in particular) still don’t like the idea of a tax on carbon emissions in general. Democrats are evenly split, and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it…
One way to soften that opposition is to commit to returning the revenue that’s generated. That could be done in different ways, including using the money to reduce other taxes. But the simplest way is just cutting people checks. And when David Amdur, an economics professor at Muhlenberg College and the survey’s lead author, tested that option, Democrats supported a carbon tax by more than 2-to-1, as did more Republicans…
???But Amdur found that the best way to gain public support for a carbon tax — and the only way to persuade a majority of Republicans — was to use the revenue to fund research into renewable energy…
The poll’s sample of 798 included 221 Republicans; it’s possible that a larger survey would yield different results…
That doesn’t mean the advocates of such a tax can start celebrating. When asked whether they would support a carbon tax even if it raised energy costs by 10 percent, respondents of every partisan affiliation said no — including Democrats, by a significant margin.
***And however you spend the proceeds of that tax, it will increase energy costs. That, after all, is the whole point…
Amdur died before the results of this survey were published. His research suggests, however, that the path to a carbon tax with bipartisan appeal isn’t hopeless after all.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/a-carbon-tax-even-republicans-can-support
Plants good. Animals bad.
Did this bring to mind for anyone else that ’50’s classic sci-fi movie “The Thing”?
It ate meat.
Frodo says: “I’ve never heard anyone, ever, with that viewpoint.”
Well I’m sure the same people who would ban meat would also ban all sorts of fruits and vegetables. These authoritarians would probably love to ban the importing of exotic fruits to lessen CO2 from transportation as one example.
It’s pretty established that most of our views on global warming come from our political beliefs. The authoritarians love to see a problem to justify government intervention. Small government people don’t want there to be a problem so that no government intervention is needed. This bias is so ingrained it needs to be acknowledged. It’s ok to say “I eat meat and know it contributes to global warming but I don’t care because the contribution is tiny and I don’t think global warming is much of a problem anyway”. What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of and besides we need to eat meat because of “
My government spent $10 million or so on research to stop sheep and cows farting. Make us all vegetarians we will fart even worse and they will spend anothe $10 million to make us stop farting or maybe someone will invent an after burner. Bomber that CH3 will produce CO2 when burned though.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
TRM says:
July 21, 2014 at 5:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/claim-we-should-all-be-vegetarians-to-stop-global-warming/#comment-1691311
==================================================================
Well said, particularly #3 and the advice in #5 for those who choose to go vegetarian. To many jump on the bandwagon just because it sounds good.
(I was going to say “feels good” but that won’t last long without #5.)
Edit:
What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of [insert illogical/irrelevant/insulting statement] and besides we need to eat meat because of [other unsubstantiated nonsence]“
I wish the greens would stop being so pushy. I’m already trying to rid the planet of these GHG-emitting livestock as fast as I can eat them. What more can I do?
Actually Saren, you cannot pretend to summarize or even understand any of the comments here that are addressing cattle and dairy. Instead you are surprised that there is some crude humor about the government funded scientistic studies purporting to describe the effects of cow farts on earth’s atmosphere. You don’t get out much, do you.
Do feel free to eat your organic soy product patty and wash it down with organic soy product coffee, and certainly help yourself to all the organic soy product milk you may fancy.
But do not mistake your faux ethics and irrationalistic beliefs about a vegetarian organic diet as having any relevance, scientific basis, or logic to anyone else. It is just a personal preference masquerading as science.
Saren says:
July 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm
“It’s ok to say ‘I eat meat and know it contributes to global warming but I don’t care because the contribution is tiny and I don’t think global warming is much of a problem anyway”.
_________________
You might have more credibility if you quit falsely putting words into people’s mouths in order to rationalize your own beliefs. I don’t think that’s likely to happen, as you seem to be wound tightly into your beliefs, regardless of truths presented to you.
If you had been paying attention in this thread you could have learned, or at least been exposed to references and inferences that:
a) all plant material eaten by animals was destined to decay and turn into CO2, anyway
b) methane from cow burps is not only a miniscule fraction of naturally occurring methane, but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2 and H2O.
c) intense grazing is the only way to keep grasslands productive and prevent desertification
d) there are people behind the scenes in the environmental movement and the halls of power with a stated goal, the reduction of humanity. Those people are continuously propagandizing the masses with such things as this “study” topic, in an effort to win widespread uncritical support for their agenda.of power and control
Termites make more methane than cattle. If you get rid of range land and let it go back to trees, the termite load goes up. Yes, termite farts are more powerful than cow farts.
Oh, BTW, ruminants can eat plants we can not; like the stalks of corn plants. You get more total productivity out of a mixed diet of plants and animals than out of plants alone. Vegetarian diets do not reduce consumption, they waste the parts of the plants we can not eat. That then rot in the soil (or are eaten by bugs and termites) making, yes, CO2 and methane….
Someone needs to get these folks to think more than one step ahead…
They did a medical survey and tests on ‘carnivores’ (Mainly meat eaters) Vegan, (no animal products, fish or dairy food) and omnivores (balanced with vegs and fruit, fish, meat, and dairy food). The carnivores had high fat and prone to heart disease, etc., Vegans, not as much energy, lack of muscle development and of course low Vit 12. Omnivores, the healthiest. Actually some chimpanzees have 20% of their diet as meat. Yes they kill small monkeys. (Even each other sometimes, between different competing clans). Whereas the metabolism of Inuits (before being introduced to a Western diet) was just flesh and blubber. Only a kg of berries all year and a soup made from a seals stomach. These cold weather humans could survive on mainly flesh and fat and protein, whereas the rest of us can’t. Very much like the Neaderthals.
My thanks to Anthony for pointing out this study. This might be a good time to recommend to people my previous posts on the relationship of plants and animals in the planetary food systems:
Animal, Vegetable, or E.O. Wilson
Vegans Are Not From Vegas
Finally, one of the larger methane sources on the planet, ironically, is … rice paddies. Lots and lots of organic materials decaying underwater, someone needs to put an end to that terrible practice immediately …
I’ve added this to the head post.
w.
Zeke,
I actually like the ridicule and think it’s well placed. My interest in this is the simple claim that eating meat contributes to global warming. To me it’s a substantiated claim that I wouldn’t argue against.
As to my “faux ethics” and my “organic soy product patty” I think you misunderstand. I eat meat. I don’t care if you do or don’t. I don’t advocate any particular diet. I couldn’t care less about the impact my meat-eating has on global warming (but I admit it may have a tiny impact).
The Green final solution has been updated due to recent scientific breakthroughs regarding the omnipotent nature of Averaging. Redeem your data, average it or be left behind in the wrong.
And so, a future humanity of herbivores will be created by averaging omnivores…
Alan Robertson,
“all plant material eaten by animals was destined to decay and turn into CO2, anyway”
This can’t be true can it? I could eat a seed or plant a seed. Wouldn’t these two actions produce quite different results in terms of emitted CO2?
“methane from cow burps is not only a miniscule fraction of naturally occurring methane, but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2 and H2O.”
No argument from m but this doesn’t invalidate the claim that eating meat produces more GHGs than not.
“intense grazing is the only way to keep grasslands productive and prevent desertification”
Again no argument but I don’t see the relevance. Remember that cattle raising involves much more food than what is eaten at pasture.
“there are people behind the scenes in the environmental movement and the halls of power with a stated goal, the reduction of humanity. Those people are continuously propagandizing the masses with such things as this “study” topic, in an effort to win widespread uncritical support for their agenda.of power and control”
And you will defeat them by arguing over how cow farts aren’t as big a deal as they claim they are?
“you seem to be wound tightly into your beliefs, regardless of truths presented to you”
You mean my insane belief that a person eating meat probably produces a tiny/minuscule/unimportant bit more GHGs than a vegetarian?
Hilarious nonsense, all of that AGW/CO2 fairytale, as an elementary order-of-magnitude calculation shows: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html
Saren, you have engaged in a cheap head-fake and a mischaracterization of the thread when you say, “What I think is more common in this thread is “well that claim is just wrong because of [insert illogical/irrelevant/insulting statement]”
You continue, “and besides we need to eat meat because of [other unsubstantiated nonsence]“
So you have no grasp of nutrition or any other economic, social, cultural, environmental, or spiritual issue that is being discussed wrt domesticated animals here. Your cheap head-fake summary of the issues is merely suggestive language (“illogical,+/irrelevant”), entirely lacking in substance. It was “all hat and no cattle,” as they say.
Here’s one for WWF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReELc6H6f98
Well I am not starting to eat kangaroo to help the planet. My dog likes it. But we humans have about 2 kg of bacteria in our gut, to help break down food and meat as protein, is just one of the protein suppliers. Anyway, I strive to eat free range eggs and chickens, fish, as well as grass fed animals. But – some vegetarians not vegans, eat a good diet too. Plenty of roughage and fibre does not harm you. One can get enough protein or secondary proteins from some fruit and veg, beans etc. Rice and pasta. Anyway, just look at our teeth, we are not carnivores any more, so let’s hope intensive farming is improving, because there should be some adjustments, not only morally but also the health of the livestock overall. And grow your own veggies if you can, they are fresher and more vital, with no chemicals added.
Come on guys stop the Veggie bashing. It is easy picking and has nothing to do with the science.
I for one am a veggie (because personally I do not accept that man has the right to determine who has rights, just because you are strong does not mean that you have the right to ride rough shod over the weak and vulnerable, all life is amazining wonderous and cannot be recreated by man, and all life shares a common thread binding us together in the circle of life, namely the will to survive), but I have never once sought to persuade another to be a veggie (I belive in personal choice and free will, and I do not consider there to be any reason why my views are any better than someone elses), and being a scientist, I am sceptical of AGW, and consider cAGW to be a political construct and wholly unscientific.
Anyone who has read my many comments will know that I am far from luke warm, and would probaly be catagorised as a denier in that whilst I do not accept the infamous SkyD****** I do not dismiss out of hand much of what they say. About the only thing I accept in this debate, is the laboratory characteristics of CO2, and that CO2 levels have increased since the late 1950s
and that probably man is, at least in part, responsible for the rise in such levels. All other issues are up for grabs such that I am sceptical of each and every argument that supports AGW and sceptical of each and every argument that runs against that conjecture. On the otherhand, cAGW I find to be just so unscientific that I find its many claims laughable.
It is misguided to consider that just because someone is a veggie, they are dyed in the wool cAGW supporters and activists. I guess the same is probably true of those who are religous, ie., just because they believe in God doesn’t mean that they are ‘believers’ in cAGW. Isn’t Dr Singer an example of that?
The real issue is not whether you are a veggie, or a green, but rather, do you have an open mind, are you a scientist, and/or do you have a scientific approach to all matters (not simply cAGW but other political issues that our ‘controlled’ media bombards us with).
Humans are very complex. I know that it is irrational to be worried about the rights of animals (but heck they do not have a voice of their own, and why is it right to abuse them just because we can?), and I know that the rights of people appear (at least superficially) to be more important, but is that really so (I accept that this is natural and is an in build reaction according to Darwism)? But I would suggest that it is human nature to strive to be more than one can, and ideals are always worth striving for.
I would suggest that anyone who considers (and would be oposed to) aliens coming to planet Earth and farming us humans for food, knows deep in their heart, that there is an issue over the way we treat animals for our own convenience. But this is a science blog, it is not about morality, so the issue here is the science, and in particular the effects of natural variation verses manmade emissions of GHGs and manmade changes to land use.
There is no doubt that farming is not carbon neutral (whether that is an a problem is moot). Most farming relies on massive amounts of fertilisers and this is energy intensive. I for one, do not accept that biomass is carbon neutral and consider the claim that it is, is a clam based on dodgy statistics (cutting down a forest that is a natural existing carbon sink and then replacing it with a new forest which is exactly the same carbon sink does not offset the additional CO2 released in burning biomass compared to the lower CO2 released in burning coal or gas. One would need not only to replace the carbon sink cut down, but to also add a new carbon sink to eat up the additional CO2 released by burning biomass before one could claim that it is a carbon neutral activity).
There is also little doubt that if we were to eat a more vegatarian diet, farming still would not be carbon neutral but would be more carbon neutral.
Personally, I can’t stomach the thought (apologies to those who come from an asian background), if we were to supplement our diets with insects, this would tilt the table towards being even more carbon neutral.
But the take home is that mankind, in today’s world, can never be carbon neutral, but why should he be?
The world will be whatever the world will be, and certainly it will survive, may be not as it is today, but it will survive. Should we be concerned? Of course not, since change is natural, and the only certainty in the whole of this affair is that things have in the past changed, and will continue to do so no matter what we do. Stagnation is far from utopian, it is change that drives evolution, and why should we apply a break to that? .
Advance of life on Earth demands change, and since our most important ‘skill’ as a species is adaption, I see no particular problem for mankind in an ever changing and evolving world. Sure there will be challenges ahead, but I am an optomist and I see no reason why we should not meet every challenge thrown our way (whether of our own making or otherwise) at least untill such time as the sun begins to die (it is already dying, as is all life once born, but you know what I mean).
“Carbon dioxide is the most-prevalent gas when it comes to climate change. It is released by vehicles, industry, and forest removal and comprises the greatest portion of greenhouse gas totals. But methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gasses and account for approximately 28 percent of global warming activity.”
These clucks make Terry Schiavo look like Richard P. Feynman.
If I eat myself would I become twice as big or would I disappear?
Since some sort of herbivore will eat the grass anyway-see Buffalo, and since the greenhouse gas emissions come as a result of eating the grass, there is no solution short of Roundup for the whole prairie.
Honestly, would they have blamed wolves for the Buffalo farts? Indians? Of course not, I saw Dances with Wolves, Indians are one with nature, and therefore blameless. Wolves ARE nature. It’s we humans who are to blame!
I’m tired of this game.
M Courtney says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm
“But in the UK I’m all for the dynamic, determined immigrants fighting their way in to my country. I’d just like to deport the slackers in exchange.”
a) Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it (well actually you got plenty already)
b) A leftist who wants to deport slackers? Isn’t it “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” anymore? As socialism rewards slackers via income redistribution, you’ll get more of them as socialism progresses. You’ll run out of people if you keep deporting them. The non-slackers will flee your country on their own.
And what kind of message does this send? First you pay the slackers with money you take from the productive, then you deport them?
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm
——
You must have missed all the talk of climate refugees.
Col Mosby says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:58 pm
——
You fail to understand the “reasoning” of the earth worshipers.
To them any change that is caused by man is evil. So the 50% is the only number that matters.
Whether it’s a small number or a large number isn’t important, it’s the amount of change from the base that matters.
Michael D says:
July 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm
——-
Deep earth carbon is the source of our wealth.
Leaving it in the ground would mean we leave them a much poorer world.
Yes, you can be a responsible, compassionate uber- progressive and also eat meat on occasion, as long as you approach it the right way and with the right amount of righteous, misguided guilt (note the name of the restaurant)…
I’ve posted this clip before at this site, sorry about the redundancy but it’s one of my favorites…
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlWrT5P2VI?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
Saren says:
July 21, 2014 at 10:33 pm
___________________
“I could eat a seed or plant a seed. Wouldn’t these two actions produce quite different results in terms of emitted CO2?”
————–
Yes, in the short term… otherwise, nitpicking irrelevance in terms of grazing animals. Grazing animals foster improved growing conditions which greatly increase the area’s capacity for CO2 uptake. By the way, most grass/weed seed passes right through cattle.
_________________
“Remember that cattle raising involves much more food than what is eaten at pasture.”
——————–
That statement is simply untrue. Ranchers often do supplement the diets of their grazing cattle with feed, but if they run out of grass, they sell the cattle. Simple economics.
_________________
“…this doesn’t invalidate the claim that eating meat produces more GHGs than not.”
———————
That is the claim of this “study”, but what evidence do the authors, or you offer to support the claim? What contrary evidence shows the opposite to be true? What difference does it make?
__________________
“You mean my insane belief that a person eating meat probably produces a tiny/minuscule/unimportant bit more GHGs than a vegetarian?”
—————–
If that is what you meant, then why did you go to such lengths to imply the opposite? Mere denigration of the words of others?
_________________
“… you will defeat them by arguing over how cow farts aren’t as big a deal as they claim they are?”
——————-
Would you have “them” remain unnoticed and unchallenged?
Ps Cow burps are the greater source of cow methane.
Before man came along, we are told of vast herds of herbivores on both the African & American continents that roamed freely on the grassy plains. Along came Man & decimated them. Does anyone have any idea as to the numbers that there were before we came along and the numbers now? I would guess using my best scientific model that we are still short of the number by several million.
As all these herbivores continue to pollute the planet, I have volunteered to sacrifice my principals and eat them.
P.S. Why do vegetarians try to mimic omnivores & label things as “Vegetarian Steak & Ale Pie” etc?? Can’t they make up some imaginative new names like “Reconstituted Soya extract lumps & Ale pie”
Tom in Florida says: “..thinking not about me being able to find the food but rather that I would become the food. If you can’t see it till it’s too late, then it’s too late.”
Goes along with what mountain lion hunters say, “If you ever see a mountain lion the only reason you were able to spot him is because … you are his dinner.”
But vegetation loves CO2 AND a warm climate! 😉
My favorite saying: “If humans were not supposed to eat meat then why does it taste so good?
Hold no, hold on, hold on. Yes, livestock emit methane and their manure emits nitrous oxide. But are livestock NET emitters? Livestock eat grass, corn, and other grains and plants. If THEY didn’t eat it, then SOMETHING would, and that something would emit methane and its manure would emit nitrous oxide. Or, if NOTHING eats it, then it would just rot, and when it does it would emit carbon dioxide. I don’t know the exact numbers, nor do I pretend to know how to even begin calculating them. But the author just completely IGNORES all the greenhouse gas emissions being PREVENTED by livestock.
Also, I don’t see the benefits of consuming chicken or pork over beef. Yes, cattle emit more methane and nitrous oxide PER ANIMAL than pigs and chickens, but a mature steer weighs 3-4 times as much as a mature hog, and hundreds of times as much as a chicken. A single chicken will feed a family of four, one meal. A single steer will feed hundreds of people on meal, or a family of four for several months. So the only sensible way to compare the species is on an emissions per-pound-of-edible-meat basis.
Grain and hay eaten by cattle is then eaten by people, who require proteins, fats, vitamins, and nutrients which the dairy provides. Therefore, the grain and hay, and the unsalable potatoes and apples, are still eaten by people when they are eaten by cattle.
People arguing against feeding grains to cattle and goats are better served objecting to forcing people to put grains into Amercian gas tanks. Grain and crops are commodities necessary for life. Oil and gas for personal transportation and shipping and can be located in continental shelves and in ANWR.
Governments are instituted among men in order to protect private property and the peaceful commercial activities of ranching and growing crops and fruits. This requires also the use of chemistry. The criminalization of harmless and beneficial uses of land, chemistry, and domesticated animals is what is at issue here.
So how about we don’t eat wormy, nematode-eaten, fungus-ridden organic potatoes.
Any potatoes not marketable can be fed to cattle. We then eat the 100% beef hamburger with feta cheese, mushrooms and onions, with a side of potatoes – which have been properly protected from blight and soil pathogens, so that there are over a billion pounds grown per year in excellent and appetizing form and inexpensive supply.
CO2 by itself does not warm the planet, nor does methane. Climate science looking only at inputs to the atmosphere is disfunction and irrelevant.
What about all the positive effects of all that green pasture land for cattle. All the photosynthesis and reduced albedo. What do they want – to pave over it all and make intensive chicken factory sheds without a blade of grass?
Also, by attacking countries where cattle rearing is on a large scale like Argentina and Brazil, AGW is making new enemies.
Sensible observation.
Zeke,
I don’t think it was a head-fake. I think what happened is that because I accept the basic premise of the article (meat-eating produces more GHG than vegetarianism) you assumed I was some sort of vegan eco-nut. Also I wasn’t trying to characterize the entire thread – only the part that instantly dismissed the claim of the article. The opinions are pretty diverse and some comments are pretty similar to mine.
“Gunga Din says:
July 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Plants good. Animals bad.
Did this bring to mind for anyone else that ’50’s classic sci-fi movie “The Thing”?
It ate meat. ”
The movie , not so good, was based on a Classic Science Fiction Story, “Who Goes There?” , by John W Campbell. You can read it here:
http://www.goldenageofscifi.info/pdf/Who_Goes_There.pdf
So are cows now weapons of mass destruction?
Or maybe, weapons of gastric ruption?
Alan Robertson says:
That statement is simply untrue. Ranchers often do supplement the diets of their grazing cattle with feed, but if they run out of grass, they sell the cattle. Simple economics.
The statement is true. Cattle go through feedlots. Feedlots involve giving the cattle food rather than have them on pasture. The rancher who raised the cattle on pasture may very well be a different person than the one running the feedlot. The amount of grass on the pasture has nothing to do with what is fed to the cattle in the feedlot.
“That is the claim of this “study”, but what evidence do the authors, or you offer to support the claim? What contrary evidence shows the opposite to be true? What difference does it make?”
To me it really doesn’t make a difference. I’m not entirely certain raising cattle leads to more methane leading to more overall GHGs leading to more global warming but it seems pretty believable.
“If that is what you meant, then why did you go to such lengths to imply the opposite? Mere denigration of the words of others?”
What was I implying? I may have come across as denigrating but that wasn’t my intention – challenging, provocative maybe but not denigrating.
The whole point I want to make is simply that being skeptical of alarmist AGW doesn’t require one to challenge every single little claim made by the alarmists. Accepting that meat-eating might produce more GHG than not doesn’t mean you have to turn in your skeptical credentials and steak knives. If one is trying to promote a certain view – like global warming isn’t as bad as many people make it out to be – it doesn’t help if that person quickly rejects any facts that don’t support that view. An outside observer might question the person’s believability and credibility.
ossqss says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm
I am going to protest and go get big steak for dinner 🙂
I wish I knew how to embed this image,,,,,,
http://i.imgur.com/eYXMSFA.gif
Thanks, ossqss that good laugh was worth my spilled coffee 🙂
Should we not therefore kill all animals that emit green house gasses in an attempt to curb climate change? This includes all sea life?
Or maybe this study is agenda rather then thought driven.
This is not “a little single claim made by the alarm1sts.” It is asserting that methane from dairy and beef cattle, nitrous from crops, and carbon dioxide from people utilizing fire of any kind, is causing global warming.
All of these gases are in naturally occurring cycles on earth and in the atmosphere already, and the sources from our own commercial and cultural activities are only a bit part of those cycles.
True, carbon dioxide should never be challenged alone. There are many greenhouse gasES. Boomer politicians use the term “greenhouse gasES.” Carbon dioxide, nitrous from crops, methane from cattle, all effective refrigerants, and let us not neglect to mention particulate matter 2.5 from all shipping and personal transportation, should always be listed in every discussion of greenhouse gases. Otherwise, people might give “credibility and believability” to commenters who mischaracterize the significance and gravity of the situation, and do not understand the science or economics of the claims of the progressive scientists who are attacking these naturally occurring gases, dusts, and aerosols, and many of the naturally the occurring elements.
Cattle are ruminants and belch the ‘odious ‘
gases. The other end of the gastric system produces fertiliser. which used to be gathered and spread on grain fields in the older system of agriculture.
Beans need land which is cleared of woodland and grass land. Rice paddies keep people in flood prone areas near rivers so loss of life is greater .from growing rice. than keeping herds of ruminants on higher drier grass land.
They should start over with the basics, someone mail them a carbon-cycle for dummies book.
I’m maintaining my longtime stance against exercise so as to continue with my commitment to low personal CO2 levels …
Saren says:
July 22, 2014 at 11:15 am
_________________
It’s certainly fair for you to bring up feedlot operations, where many/most US beef cattle are fattened up to add ~40% fat to their total weight before slaughter, since this article deals with total emissions to produce a pound of beef. Feedlot cattle are given ~30% feed supplement to the hay they are fed. Every sq foot of land used to graze cattle or produce feed sequesters more CO2 than it would if left fallow. Every bit of the carbon sequestered in the grasses/feed would eventually re- enter the atmosphere as CO2, in any case. Did the study consider these factors?
The report from Carnegie Institution for Science does not link to the actual study. It does, however, focus primarily on livestock production and emissions in developing nations, where feedlots are not typically employed.
It is also fair for comments here to question anything the purveyors of fear and guilt have to say, since the those promoters of cagw agit prop have an almost unbroken record of producing all manner of agenda- driven studies, using methodologies and garnering results which fall apart under close examination. So far, studies which show how many greenhouse gases are given off by humans while simply being alive have been a step too far and would likely backfire, but don’t rule such nonsense out, in future. In far too many instances, just like with this study, the finger of blame points at the poorest people living in the poorest nations and exhorts them (and us,) to reduce their dietary intake of protein from animal sources. Who, or what benefits from such rhetoric?
a) total population of ruminants in North America approximately the same today as it was 10,000 years ago.
b) Carbon Cycle anyone? NO NET CHANGE in atm co2 or ch4 when co2 & plant–>glucose; glucose +o2 & animal–> co2; any ch4 produced by gut flora is quickly oxidized in atm back to co2
c) It takes less fossil fuel to produce meat than veggies: no plowing, planting, chemical & fertilizer applications requiring tractors.
============================================================================
I looked at Saren’s site. Saren is sold out to the idea that green house gases must be reduced to prevent…something very bad. The “very bad” part is the part that only shows up in the models that have failed in their projections.
In the real world it’s just, well, weather changes whether a cow belches or not.
(But do appreciate that Saren wants to address the theoretical problem without Government mandates. That’s refreshing.)
(Sorry. Messing up my blockquote.)
[That right? .mod]
Gunga Din says “I looked at Saren’s site. Saren is sold out to the idea that green house gases must be reduced to prevent…something very bad.”
You have got to be kidding me. No where on that website do I say GHGs should/need/must be reduced.
My posts around “Fair Climate” involve voluntary compensatory payments in the form of development assistance. That has nothing to do with reducing GHGs.
The idea of no-regret development programs isn’t exactly a left-wing/environmental idea. WUWT’s own Willis Eschenbach’s thoughts on this topic helped form my opinions – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/31/climate-caution-and-precaution/
OK. If you really think cattle emit too much methane, I’ll help ‘the cause’ and eat more beef…
Beef. It’s what’s for dinner!
Some years ago the Greens suggested that a tarif be put on the heads of sheep and cattle. Yes $15 per beef and cows and $7 on sheep. It didn’t get far? I don’t know what the hell this has to do with climate, fines for the dear old beast won’t stop them burping or farting, but would ruin the beef, wool and lamb industries and bi products.
mrainey47 says:
July 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm
This statistic concerns me more than the number of cow farts. . . .
The statistic is based on industrial beef production including corn fields, feed lots and the entire infrastructure. And notably, that figure, 400+ gallons of water per lb or beef is from the pro-beef side of that debate. If you watch Allan Savory’s TED talk, are linked to at least twice above, that figure could be reduced immensely by proper range management. More importantly, it could become a net producer of water if production emphasis was shifted to grass fed animals. Here’s the Savory link once again.
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
Don’t know where that stray “are” came from.
They still supporting all their green measures will alter the climate? Who do they think they are some almighty force that has earned the right to hold all humans to account for the way they live and eat. They are not only misguided they are mad!
“… That tasty hamburger is the real culprit,” Caldeira said. …”
Now watch the Australian Greens lobby in the Senate to introduce legislation to make burgers less tasty … unfortunately for them, and everyone else, McDonalds had that covered by about 1978 in the major cities (though Yanky burger-king meat-like substance does taste a tiny frag better) which demonstrates the relative merits and efficiency of the private sector mechanisms, compared to the slow-boat-to-Naru government program tax wastage approach. And if it comes to a vote I’d say the omnivorous have the numbers, presuming democracy and free-will have any role to play in our dietary choices.
But they take a dim view of that, too.
Anyone who takes a passing indifferent glance at proposals that insist we should all stop eating meat, will in a about half a second realize this has nothing to do with climate (Newsflash: the majority of people on earth don’t even know what climate is, let alone what a change of climate is, seriously, they don’t!). They will immediately realize it’s a vegan anti-animal-eating canard utilizing the fear-of climate-change meme, as their convenient stage-prop. In another decade they’ll use something else to try and convert everyone to their form of enlightened benevolence.
Well good on them, but please don’t keep trying to force your cucumber sandwiches and Chick pea and lentil soup down my throat, I don’t like cucumber and lentils make me fart far more volumetric GH gas than a fairly large spread of cattle (no joke, lentils are evil, a single family size pot of lentil soup can make enough methane to lay waste to a small city).
It’s Carbon MONoxide (one oxygen molecule, not two) that is released from vehicles. They are totally different regarding their effects on the human body.
======================================================================
Yes. Thanks!
(The ModSquad never gets thanked enough.)
I’ll be sure to spend a millisecond mulling this over while firing up the barbecue or some slow smoked brisket.
“The great American bison is a truly magnificent animal. It is the largest land mammal in North America since the end of the Ice Age. Estimates of the pre-European herd size vary from 30,000,000 to 70,000,000 animals and they ranged over most of North America.” http://www.sunsetridgebuffalo.com/bisonfacts.htm
Seems as if [then] our smaller cattle simply replaced their close cousins the bison. Back of the envelope calculations don’t show much of a net gain or loss in North American methane output based on cattle. Though it occurs to me that maybe Buffalo Bill was an early climate activist.
Who knew Buffalo Bill was
Over here a bison is something you wash your fice in.
Cheers
Roger
http://www/rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com