kiwichick wrote:bottom line animal protein from beef dairy and sheep is extremely inefficient;this from someone with a lifelong hands on involvement with farming
New Zealand produces approx. 45% of its GHG's from livestock production; 200 years ago (ie before European arrival ) there was a considerably lower level ; the Maori's didn't have any of the animals mentioned above
on a more positive note the animal industry in NZ is working on the problem; they still face a very tough future however
smallpoxgirl wrote:Oh FFS!! It's not about whether your kabobs belch or not. There's too many stinking humans already!
It's not a flipping contest to see how many people per square km we can pack onto the planet. Eat what you want, just STOP BREEDING!
ki11ercane wrote:Guess we should start eating all the termites.
Ludi wrote:ki11ercane wrote:Guess we should start eating all the termites.
Not such a good idea as termites are a keystone species for a lot of ecosystems, especially in the tropics.
Narz wrote:smallpoxgirl wrote:Oh FFS!! It's not about whether your kabobs belch or not. There's too many stinking humans already!
It's not a flipping contest to see how many people per square km we can pack onto the planet. Eat what you want, just STOP BREEDING!
No, that's not accurate of course.
That's like saying it doesn't matter what you drive or how you live or how big your house is.
smallpoxgirl wrote:Trying to turn people into neurotic vegan hi-rise dwellers in order to be able to pack a few more people into the planet before things go to hell is insane. It's insane. There is NO benefit to jamming that many humans onto the planet. You don't get points for cramming one more person into the clown car.
rattleshirt wrote:It's not what you eat, it's how and where it was raised.
Slowpoke wrote:The really freaky part is that cattle and sheep raised on agri-industrial pelletised feedstock are actually less polluting than free-range ones, since there's less cellulose to ferment (the main source of CO2 and CH4).
Anyway, the real point of contention is the very low returns on cattle and sheep from a per-calorie-of-feedstock p.o.v. (dairy production notwithstanding). If people converted to a majoritarily poultry, rodent and invertebrate-based diet, the gross inefficiencies noted by various authors would be considerably diminished.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Back in 2004, the ENVISAT satellite with a special sensor aboard took measurements of gasses in the atmosphere across the planet. The researchers used that data to create a map of methane emissions all across the U.S., focusing most specifically on areas where high volumes of methane emissions could be seen. They compared their map with other maps created by other teams using data collected from airplanes and found agreement in areas covered by the planes. In comparing what they found with data supplied by the EPA, however, the researchers found differences in the amounts reported for both livestock and the oil and gas industry.
Specifically, the researchers found satellite data showed livestock emitted 13 million tons of methane over the summer in 2004 (the EPA reported 9.7 million tons). They found the satellite data also showed that the combined emissions of the oil and gas industry amounted to 7 million tons (the EPA reported 9.9 million tons).
Isn't it the rule on PO (contrary to usual netiquette) to avoid creating new threads?vtsnowedin wrote:Wow a five year bump. You couldn't just let it go Keith?
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 304 guests