[kiwichick]

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]

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!

[Sixstrings]

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

Are you really sure that being an omnivore is "inefficient"? You may be right from a technical, global warming without population control outlook. But I would argue that having a wide range of dietary options is a big part of the success of our species. If food is scarce, is it really smart to be limited to just one or the other?

And besides, food is culture. It's ludicrous to expect everyone to become a new age Vegan and just throw thousands of years of heritage out the window.

SPG is right on this one.. if it comes down to it, what we'll need are international agreements on population control. The freedom to have five kids is not enough compensation for a life of potato-eating (ironically though, so much of everything most people consume already comes from corn anyway).

[Narz]

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.

[ki11ercane]

Good thing sheep and cows don't exhale the most amount of CO2 and methane; TERMITES DO!

Pound for pound termites exhale up to 20% more methane and CO2 than sheep or 25% more than cows.

Guess we should start eating all the termites.

[Ludi]

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]

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.

We could breed them in giant farms.

Or we could just eat lower on the food chain.

All the grain we feed to food animals in the US could probably feed the whole continent of Africa.

Not that feeding as many people as possible without any thought of sustainability is a good goal, just saying large scale meat production is inherently evil, morally & ecologically (small local ranches & raising your own is totally fine, IMO).

The amount of grain fed to the animals that ultimately become pet food alone could probably feed a few hundred mil at least. Yeah cats are soft & cuddly but the two I got are the last ones I will willingly take on. From now on any animals I get will pull their own weight!

[smallpoxgirl]

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.

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]

It's not what you eat, it's how and where it was raised.

[Narz]

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.

I don't deny overpopulation, I just am refuting your claim that what the people already in the clown car eat doesn't matter.

http://www.alternet.org/story/134650/

I know you're on a paleo-diet kick right now but fact is we don't live in a paleolithic world with only a few million humans & millions upon millions of wild game animals.

MonteQuest for example is all about letting people die prematurely (sorry Aaron old buddy ) but not addressing lifestyle changes that will have far more of an impact than geezers living another 5 or 10 extra years. I don't really get it. It's like he's trying to come up with ridiculous & unrealistic ideas so he can be a martyr.

It's not what you eat, it's how and where it was raised.

You could raise enough meat sustainably in the US for perhaps a couple million people or so but not enough for three hundred million.

[Slowpoke]

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.

[Tanada]

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.

OK you make me wonder, do you have a list of farm animals by food input vs food output? Seems like swine rate better, but what about horses? If you are breeding for meat what about Zebra or Antelope or even Buffalo roaming on grass instead of domesticated critters? I have also read some time back that Kangaroo are better than Cattle on both the calorie in/calorie out measure and the Methane expulsion measure.

[rattleshirt]

slowpoke-That doesn't take into account the CO2 from raising the grain to feed the animals. Nor the effect of using petrofertilizer instead of manure.

[Keith_McClary]

Satellite data shows livestock emitted more methane than oil and gas industry in 2004

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).

[dohboi]

Yep, meat raising is 40% more methane productive than we thought.

But just try to suggest around here or just about anywhere else that anyone reduce even by a bit the amount of meat that people eat--they will go bat shit crazy.

We are deeply, deeply fucked.

[vtsnowedin]

Wow a five year bump. You couldn't just let it go Keith?

[basil_hayden]

Something's got to go and it ain't gonna be the bacon.

[Keith_McClary]

Wow a five year bump. You couldn't just let it go Keith?

Isn't it the rule on PO (contrary to usual netiquette) to avoid creating new threads?

I actually did a bit of looking, and was surprised that there was nothing recent on that topic. Did I miss something? Some threads seem to become unsearchable if they offend certain moderators' delicate sensibilities.

I did find:

scientists-strap-plastic-bags-to-cows-to-capture-ch4-t42921.html#p718609

[joewp]

lmao Keith.

And dohboi sorry. I'm a meat eater and I don't do well eating rabbit food. At this point, since we're going down from something this century anyway, I'll continue to eat my hamburgers, methane or no. And anyway, the desire of some to eat lower on the food chain would just pump up the population overshoot even more and cause more deaths when the crash comes. And in this case, it's kind of a Jevons Paradox that if people ate lower on the food chain, there would be more people, emitting more CO2 (and methane from all that roughage, why do you think cows fart?) and probably end up warming the planet even more.

It's damned if you do and damned if you don't, so you might as well do or don't as you please.

[dohboi]

I understand your attitude, but rationalization is not reason.

Do consider at least looking for more sustainably raised meat than the conventional stuff, if that is available in your area. It's likely to be better for you, too.