OT: Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet

So while we are eliminating "meat" should we also start a program to hunt down and eliminate wild animals? For that matter, how about people. Getting rid of congress should eliminate a lot of hot air. And reporters...

Ed

Nah, leave the wild creatures alone. Getting rid of congress and reporters good idea, LOL.

Hey, how's Becky Thatcher? Apparently the problem lies in your neck of the woods. Our farm animals are toilet trained and their run-off feeds electrical generators. How does it feel to live in a backwards community, dbu? Spend most of your day scraping crap off the bottom of your bare feet?

You are on the right track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is time to take a reality check....

According to the article, "meat eaters" cause 1.5 tons more CO2 per year than "vegetarians" to be emitted. I'd love to see the actual assumptions that came up with this number, but even assuming this is true you need to put this in context.

How much CO2 do Humans breathe out per year? I've seen it claimed that we omit around 1 kg per day (or 2.2 lbs). This means we emit around

800 lbs per year. This seems low to me.

A Prius driven 15,000 miles per year emits 3.4 tons or CO2 per year. A Grand Cherokee SUV emits as much as 13.6 tons per year of CO2 (assuming it is driven 15,000 miles).

What make more sense, attacking meat eaters, or Grand Cherokee drivers? Just converting Grand Cherokee drivers into Dodge Caravan drivers could save 5.3 tons of CO2 per year per vehicle or around

636,000 tons total (assuming GC sales of around 120,000 per year). That would allow over 400,000 people to eat meat without guilt. If they drove a Prius instead, over 800,000 people could eat meat without guilt. I moved from an Expedition to a Fusion as my primary vehicle. I drive around 30,000 miles per year, so I reduced my personal CO2 emissions by around 7.8 tons per year. Therefore me and 5 of my friends can now eat meat without guilt. Furthermore, I have been trying to reduce my total driving from 30k to 25k per year - good for another 3 or 4 friends to eat meat.

Pick your battles. Meat eaters are not much of a problem the overall scheme of things.

Ed

It's a tongue-in-cheek article by Christian Scientists.

Isnt that an oxymoron?

Or, as my dad used to say: "Neither Christian, nor scientific."

Ed, I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the case against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or just forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.

Nothing new here. In college bio 101 we learned how much energy it took to raise a chicken. 2 units of energy in for every unit out. Thus the excretion of CO2.

I knew I couldn't teach an old dog like you anything new, but I thought it might be informative for some others.

What are you going to do when they tax your farts?

In NC they charge sales tax on over the counter drugs including Gas-X and Beano so in a way they are already taxing some farts.

Why don't we just eat the Grand Cherokee drivers?

"Making the case against cattle" isn't attacking anyone? I don't see it that way at all.

It seems to me that people often pull out the "environment" card when arguing against some activity or behavior when the real reasons are completely different.

In the original article, a claim was made that "dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year." They researcher were carefully picking their comparisons to make it look like cutting out meat would make a large difference in greenhouse gas emissions. The statement borders on a lie. If you changed from a Yaris to a Prius you would only save about

1.1 tons of CO2, but almost any other comparison would result in much greater saving (you would save 1.8 tons by going from a standard Civic to a Civic Hybrid or 3.2 tons by changing from a Camry to a Prius - assuming 15,000 miles per year). The researchers do have plausible deniability since they said "roughly" and there are comparisons that actually only save "roughly" 1 ton per year. However, it was clear to me that the intent of the article was to place animal production in the worst possible light. I consider this an attack. Maybe you don't see it that way. I do. In defense of animal production, I was pointing out (or trying to), that other changes would be a lot more significant.

I wonder how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of the publishing of the Christian Science Monitor?

Ed

Your farts are far worse :)

I heard you have bad luck with canaries, dbu.

Hey!! It's not me. These lefties are the ones concerned about green air :)

I wouldn't be too concerned either if I was on oxygen 24/7.

I eat meat. I have to, I'm not allowed to eat beans or nuts. I bought my dad a T-shirt that said "World's Largest Source of Natural Gas." He had similar problems.

Charles of Schaumburg