Joel, Jerry and I got into a lively debate HERE. Joel mentioned the following and Jerry / I said in essence that we are not giving up our steaks. However I did say I would make it a topic for further discussion.
Food Facts : Meat vs Soy and Others
PNAS Report
Science Daily
The Atlantic
"The problem actually is that nobody talks about one of the biggest drivers of greenhouses gases...our consumption of animal protein.Personally I think this a population growth issue more than a food choice issue. Of course the question is how do we stop India and Africa from growing like a colony of bunny rabbits?
It takes up inordinate amounts of land and clean water, and returns pollution, excess methane, and bad human health."
Food Facts : Meat vs Soy and Others
PNAS Report
Science Daily
The Atlantic
33 comments:
I have added the comments from the other post and put them in order. And removed the moderation discussions. That will become another post.
"The problem actually is that nobody talks about one of the biggest drivers of greenhouses gases...our consumption of animal protein.
It takes up inordinate amounts of land and clean water, and returns pollution, excess methane, and bad human health." Joel
"I would need to see some proof that a vegetarian diet would save the planet any better than would turning off all the heat and lights. And since the only "cure" seriously being proposed is to reduce CO2, the amount of methane produced is irrelevant. The amount of CO2 produced by crops (and even worse, by ethanol) is far greater." Jerry
"Crops that, for the most part, go to feed animals that we eat, which produce methane, an even more problematic atmospheric gas.
And that quarter-pound burger? 660 gallons of water used in its production. That's disgusting.
I've had my bouts with veganism, and every time, my health improves. An anecdote, perhaps, but the evidence against meat consumption continues to mount." Joel
"Joel, you are free to eat anything you like but not to tell me what I will eat. And if you think that makes you healthier, great. But if you tell me you're doing it to save the planet from CO2 and/or methane, I'm going to laugh at you.
See, that's the thing. We have all these folks running around telling us where we should get our energy, or that we shouldn't be getting our energy, and how much we should pay for it, just to do something for which they don't have a lick of conclusive evidence for the necessity. IF AND WHEN these "catastrophes" occur, or as they are developing, human beings are the most adaptable critters on the planet, and they won't even have to know the cause, just the symptom. " Jerry
"I don't just "think" my health improved. The numbers back it up: lost weight, improved cholesterol enough to keep me off pharmaceuticals...
And you'll find that nowhere and at no time in my life have I ever suggested that the government mandate "such a radical totalitarian policy", so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
The science is all but settled on the effects of animal production. Very few are talking about it. I wonder why... " Joel
"Every US citizen could become a vegan and the effect on the global climate would be essentially ZERO-- proven fact. And having government mandate such a radical totalitarian policy (as they are doing with energy) just to accomplish NOTHING is indeed worthy of derision, were it not so serious." Jerry
"You jump to some very illogical conclusions, jerry." Joel
So back to the topic:
Raising animals takes a whole lot of resources and they pass a lot of gas.
The earth's population is staying on a geometric growth path. Thus they continue to need more food like a huge swarm of locusts.
If the population growth rate continues to grow unabated and people start to grow hungry, who is at fault? Those who like their steaks or those who keep having more babies than they can afford to feed?
On a related note.
Why aren't the CAGW folks pressing for the simplest solution to man made climate change? Slow the human propagation rate until the world population stabilizes at say 7,000,000,000...
"Why aren't the CAGW folks pressing for the simplest solution to man made climate change?"
How is that the simplest solution?
Plenty of food can be grown right now to feed the population of the planet, and that amount increases greatly if meat consumption declines. We don't need GMOs and we don't need population control. There's no doubt that human population can't grow unabated indefinitely, but our environment will have something to say about that if it gets out of hand.
Joel
Duh... :-)
"why so many scientists think global warming is manmade"
Of course reducing the number of people is the easiest solution. If there were 0 people, there would be 0 man made emissions. It would be just 100,000 buffalo out there pooping in the pasture.
Just imagine that maybe 150 years ago there were only maybe around .5 million people on this earth. Then came modern medicine, machines, plentiful food supplies and now we have over 7,000 million people on this big blue marble.
And the answer proposed by the climate change believers is that the people of the USA should give up their meat, pay more for their power, etc because the rest of the world does not know how to use a condom correctly.
Then even worse, many of these same people support giving these countries free food and medicine, which will cause their populations to grow even faster. Which will create even more carbon, methane, etc.
your three children each contribute much more carbon pollution than children born in less developed countries. The USA has like 5% of the world population and 20% of the carbon poluution.
Source?
There is a lot of Info Here, however since we export a lot of food... I am curious how they account for that.
Or the fact that China uses a lot of energy to produce products for the rest of the world...
I was going by memory, which turns out to be pretty accurate:
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
I would be very interested to see how they determine this with any accuracy in developing countries. I mean who is recording cook fires, deforestation fires, etc. I also assume that cold countries also use more energy.
I don't disagree that American's live large as I have said many times before. So are you ready to move into a small condominium in a big building to minimize your carbon foot print. Maybe sell your cars and not take an airplane when travelling?
Or maybe shutoff the street lights?
"Of course reducing the number of people is the easiest solution. If there were 0 people, there would be 0 man made emissions."
I guess I just see controlling people's sexual activity as a much more difficult proposition than teaching people how to eat less meat.
Joel
"So are you ready to move into a small condominium in a big building to minimize your carbon foot print."
My boyfriend and I have discussed at length the possibility of living in a tiny house and finding a small piece of land on which to grow much of our own food. But I would say that we'd be doing it for our own benefit more than for the benefit of the planet. Growing our own food and eating much less meat (which we already do) significantly cuts down on our carbon foot print.
Joel
I don't think anyone wants to control their sexual activity, I think we need to just stop having society absorb the costs of their having children they can not afford. Same problem in the USA.
Sex or a good juicy medium well done rib eye... Choices, choices...
"...stop having society absorb the costs of their having children they can not afford."
Forced abortion? Mandatory adoption? What are your proposals?
Joel
Nothing so forceful...
How about we just severely cut welfare, food programs and medicare? Preferably while making condoms and long acting reversible contraception readily available.
Currently Liberals believe that society should pay a huge portion of the financial burdens for those who bear more children than they can afford to care for.
My most draconian recommendation was that a woman / couple who can not prove that they are financially capable of caring for the child must either abort it earlier or give it up for adoption.
From the moderation link.
"I think you are ignorant if you don't understand the huge impact that meat consumption has on the environment and human health." Joel
Since you are apparently smarter than Jerry and I. What exactly do you think the world will look like 100 years from now if we keep eating meat, burning fuels, geometrically growing the world population, using even more energy, etc?
I want to understand this "huge impact" in detail from your perspective.
"I want to understand this "huge impact" in detail from your perspective."
I'm not talking about the future. I'm talking about now.
Did you not read the links you posted?
Joel
I read the links... I don't know if I am concerned by what they say.
Besides you seem very concerned that something terrible is going to happen... Almost apocalyptic... I want you to explain exactly what you fear.
I live in MN where there are no oceans and an increase in the average temperature of even 4 degrees C will be accepted with open arms by many...
So why are you so emotionally invested in this topic? What do you fear?
"...even 4 degrees C will be accepted with open arms by many..."
Interesting. I wonder what happens to our insect populations when the plants and flowers they used to rely on to bloom at a specific time of the season are now spent and gone at that same time because of the change in climate. And what happens to the plants that relied on those insects but now bloom too early for those insects to help them procreate? And what happens to the fauna that feed on those plants and insects when their populations crash?
Your vision is extremely narrow and short-sighted.
Joel
IAWJ (I agree with Joel)
also, I am providing a link for you, John, so you can become better informed about the possible (probable) impacts of climate change on the food supply and farming, which pertains to some extent to MN.
Climate Changes and Food Supply
Your welcome.
(after skimming the topic on moderation I decided to be more respectful and changed my words from "less ignorant" to "better infomed"in the above comment)
I wrote a comment earlier in which I implied John was ignorant, maybe it was removed with the new standard or tighter moderation, or maybe I messed up and just thought I posted it.
anyway it said I agree with Joel (IAWJ) and included this link:
Climate Changes and Food Supply
I think you totally minimize climate change impacts, John, to a very surprising degree for someone with a science background. I guess this just illustrates the strong influence of ideology on one's views.
Same old standards... "G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc."
Usually you say that I post stupid thoughts... Not that I am a stupid person...
That is a pretty huge difference.
Or... It may mean that some one with a science background knows how to analyze all of these scare articles to pick out what is the truth and what is Scientists begging for more grant money.
This sentence from your link caught my eye. "Many untested assumptions lie behind efforts to project global warming's potential influence on crops."
Now you understand that means... "We are just guessing at this time. Please give us further funding and we will look into it further."
Joel,
Narrow and short sighted... Really?
See there was this guy named Darwin who explained what happens as environments change... Especially with insects. The nice thing about insects is that they have short lives and therefore adapt quickly.
You are correct though that things will change and likely faster than in the past. Whole species of some animals may die, and it is likely others will thrive. Crops that were viable in one area may need to be raised elsewhere. Even stranger, maybe we will need to develop different crops. And thanks to Genetic Modification this can be done much faster than via the old hybridization process.
Plants, animals and insects have been coming and going from the Earth for many millennium. It is only certain humans who fear and grieve this natural evolution and change.
"minimize climate change impacts"
By the way, if you live on the Marshall Islands... The change will likely have a very large impact. My advice to them and everyone who lives near the ocean... Sell your property now and buy a new property further away from the ocean... :-)
"minimize climate change impacts"
By the way, if you live on the Marshall Islands... The change will likely have a very large impact. My advice to them and everyone who lives near the ocean... Sell your property now and buy a new property further away from the ocean... :-)
The big problem facing the climate change hustlers is that they cannot prove that this "climate change" is historically unprecedented, in speed or magnitude, from many that have gone before. And "rich" humans, as well as the natural world, are better able to adapt, as they have before. Humans survived the last Ice Age, the little Ice Age, the Medieval and Roman Warm periods, all of which were more extreme than the current climate. The problem with the science on the subject is they start out with the ASSUMPTION that manmade CO2 will drive the global temperatures higher by X degrees, then conjure up doom-and-gloom scenarios of what could happen from that. It's called "reasoning from a false premise." And it's very lucrative. On the other hand, what you do not hear is fewer deaths from cold weather, better crops, longer growing seasons, etc..
"the Medieval and Roman Warm periods, all of which were more extreme than the current climate."
Proof please...
a source
Hint: do not use Mann's thoroughly-discredited "hockey stick," since it erases these well-known historical facts.
Here's another puzzler for you: Suppose the prophets of Climate Doom are correct, and that Minnesota will be (1,2,)3, 4 or even 5 degrees hotter a hundred years from now. Why are all of the predicted catastrophes not already happening in parts of the world which are right now (1,2,)3, 4 or 5 degrees hotter than we are now?
jerry, do you have a source for a graph of Atmospheric CO2 concentration to compare against the temperature graph above?
Joel
I would have to look. Al Gore had a very good one, over 400,000 years, in his movie and it is how I immediately knew that his whole theory was hot air. CO2 consistently went "up and down" with temperature, just as Al Gore said, but CO2 rose 400-800 years AFTER temperatures went up, and similarly lagged on the way down. In other words, global warming causes CO2, not the other way around. Any fifth-grader can prove it.
In recent years, you've heard about the "pause" in global temperature rise, but CO2 has continued to increase all this time (and there are charts available, someplace). If CO2 was the principal driver of global temperatures, this would not be possible. The computer climate models which assume this have thus been proven unreliable and unfit as a basis of public policy.
Post a Comment