It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet


www.timesonline.co.uk

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I think the global warming crowd has officially jumped the shark. This has got to be a joke. Our problems are because cows pass gas. Right. I guess this is where we all just give up and admit we are all doomed. You can take my car, you can take our factories, but keep off of my steak.

Animals have been breaking wind for a long time. I wasn't around when dinosaurs walked the earth, and therefore have no direct proof, but I submit that they passed gas as well. Perhaps the last huge global warming event is what killed off the Dinosaurs. They brought it on themselves.


www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I laughed until I realized the article was serious, and then I laughed harder.
I highly doubt that that people going vegetarian will miraculously save the planet from climate change. Wonder if he realizes that humans are omnivores and are supposed to eat meat?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I think the global warming crowd has officially jumped the shark. This has got to be a joke. Our problems are because cows pass gas.


What is sad is that you weren't aware of this basic fact. It was even used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh to make mockery of efforts to limit fossil fuel use -- what' the point if cow fart is such an important contribution to greenhouse effect?

So go and educate yourself.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


no, what is really sad is that people today in the year 2009 are trying to convince us the by taxing industry, we will solve this terrible problem.


I have educated myself a good bit on this particular subject. I tend to attempt top use common sense and not CNN produced psychobabble. Methane production has been around since the beginning of carbon based life forms. When they die and go into the ground, they decay and produce methane. When cows fart, yea same thing.

educate yourself a bit better before you claim superiority.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This is the blatant truth, this is what its all about:
"Change your behavioural pattern due to (insert "man-made" cause here), because we say so"

Eco-fascism.

This is conditioning like a pavlov dog



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dynamitrios
 


sadly you are correct. When the adult folks start to clear away the haze of deception, the children are blitzed with propaganda to ensure that the message doesn't die. I guess the only way to prove this theory is BS is to live to see the year 2020. After all, at the rate of global warming in the last few years, the polar ice caps will be liquid long before 2020 and we will mostly be underwater. I might have to force myself to watch that dreadful movie Waterworld again. I hope not though.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yep, going veggie will save us from certain doom.


This is actually just another incarnation of a push that has been going on for some time. The only thing 'new' is who is saying it. And to be perfectly honest, things like this are a primary reason I refuse to believe that man-made catastrophic Global Warming exists. It is just too convenient for the non-mainstream causes.

If we were to somehow stop human consumption of meat tomorrow, that would actually increase the amount of cattle on the planet. After all, who would go through the trouble of killing cattle if the meat were not valuable? So without us eating meat, the number of cattle would actually increase, assuming cattle were not slaughtered wholesale fashion in some sort of controlled genocidal attempt. More cattle, whether they be in fences or free-roaming, means more methane emissions. Wholesale slaughter of cattle would lead to a massive methane emission from the rotting corpses. Either way, if the amount of methane emission is the problem, then the actions indicated would have the opposite effect from the desired effect.

I suppose I can forgive Lord Stern, however:

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.

(emphasis mine)
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk...

I mean, after all, who would expect an economist to understand chemistry and climatology...

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Scientists I listen to, but I don't brake for economists.

Stern is widely known as a jumped up little doom monger. He's good with numbers, but his academic credentials in this area are essentially non-existent. That however didn't stop him being appointed head of an academic advisory panel on the subject.

I can only assume that his expertise on cows rear ends results directly from him having had his head up one for so long.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I was thinking the same thing about more cows=more methane. And here I thought I was doing my part to help the environment by eating my fair share of cows and pigs.

Here is the real question that I have to know now that I have this valuable information. Do vegetarians break wind?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
This is one of the reasons why i went veggi in the first place. I know theres lots of people here who think climate change is a hoax and i respect that but id thought id shed some light on why there saying go veggi for the planet.
Massive ammounts of land are being cleared to make way for grazing cattle around the world. lots of these places include areas what were vital forrests and rain forrests. Since the demand for meet espeically cattle is incredible high. lots of these places are needed. And the way the cattle are breed makes them produde a hell lot more methan.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by superdebz
 


Yup...same here....and what people don't realise is that crop production in terms of calories produced per acre is *so* much more efficient than meat production. We would need far fewer acres of farm land to feed us all a healthy vegetarian diet, and encouraging people to produce their own food, which in turn cuts down on the carbon miles involved, is also much simpler and more approachable when it comes to raising veggies instead of cows and pigs.

I'm not going to get into the carnivore versus herbivore debate here...been there, done that...but it is perectly possible to live healthily without meat. Millions of people do it. That point is beyond question. Our Western lifestyles have taught us that we deserve meat, that we can't be healthy without it....and more worryingly, that we have a right to it.

It's possibly not the cow farts that are the main problem here with regard to global warming, assuming it exists, but the massive deforestation of large tracts of land for cattle production to fuel our learned addiction to cheap burgers.

And to network dude....do vegetarians break wind?
Ummmm.....not that often in my experience! Unless we've been on the beans....


Edit for really rubbish spelling!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by caitlinfae]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae

And to network dude....do vegetarians break wind?
Ummmm.....not that often in my experience! Unless we've been on the beans....


[edit on 27-10-2009 by caitlinfae]


AH HA!!! an admission of guilt!

I will be sending Mr. Gore over straight away to do a methane survey on your posterior.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


He'd be sooo wasting his time....a few little beans worth of girl fart are really not worth the air miles.
Although if it makes the sciency types happy, I'm willing to undertake a survey of fart to bean ratio over time, but let me tell you.....it will be a sloooow read, and a very shallow graph. Really there is not that much....my colon is in very good shape. No rotting meat backed up here!
Do your research on this point please, and you might well be disgusted with what you find.

I can't believe I got myself into this conversation...what's wrong with me.........



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I see what he is saying. I also understand the point he is trying to make if in fact cows passing gas does contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some people have the mentality that it's only a problem if it's man made. Global warming, or climate change is something that is happening, even if we humans only make up a portion of the problem.

With that being said, we should not have the mentality that there is nothing we can do. However, there must be something else we can do
. I am not ready to give up meat.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


It kinda is a man made problem really, when you consider the number of cows on the planet today. I know it's a natural process for them to pass gas, but we breed them, we increase their number artificially, and therefore it MUST be our actions that are to blame, if indeed, cow fart is a big factor. I don't know what the origial natural cow population of the world was, even a hundred years ago, but I think I can safely bet that we have increased their numbers massively. I'm gonna do some research and see what I can come up with.


Edit to add...

It seems it might be around the 800 million mark today if this article is accurate. Still looking....

archives.cnn.com...

[edit on 27-10-2009 by caitlinfae]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by superdebz

Now these are problems I can get behind!

The amount of land being cleared for grazing is definitely a problem. However, it is a problem that is solvable without removing meat from the diet. Cows have no problem living in wooded areas, but they need large amounts of fodder. Grass simply doesn't contain much energy; therefore cows (and other grazers) need vast amounts of it.

A solution was proposed back as early as 1876:

Kudzu was introduced to the United States in 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Countries were invited to build exhibits to celebrate the 100th birthday of the U.S. The Japanese government constructed a beautiful garden filled with plants from their country. The large leaves and sweet-smelling blooms of kudzu captured the imagination of American gardeners who used the plant for ornamental purposes.
Source: www.maxshores.com...

Kudzu's main focus back then was as a livestock feed, although it is true that it gained acceptance in America as an ornamental vine instead. It makes a wonderful feed source, however, and at a growth rate of 1 foot a day combined with high protein yields, it makes an excellent livestock feed:

Kudzu can be used by grazing animals as it is high in quality as a forage and greatly enjoyed by livestock. It can be enjoyed up until frost and even slightly after. Kudzu hay typically has a 15–18% crude protein content and over 60% total digestible nutrient value.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Here in the South, it is fairly common knowledge that cattle will tromp through acres of alfalfa to get to kudzu. What is not common knowledge is that kudzu makes a great hay for winter feed as well; the one problem is that it cannot be harvested like more common hays. It has to be cut 'low' and baled 'high'.

Kudzu received much bad press back after it was produced because the long tough vines would have their way with farm equipment if this procedure was not followed. Also, those who became disgusted with trying to work kudzu found it has another attribute: the stuff is practically immortal! there are reports on top of reports of kudzu roots surviving decades of constant attempts by farmers to kill them using herbicides, fire, and manual extermination.

Kudzu has another characteristic that makes its use ideal: it does not need open areas to grow. It is as much at home in wooded areas as it is on farm fields, meaning there is no need to clear land to use it.

If we could convince farmers and ranchers that kudzu is a great feed source and workable, it would drastically decrease the amount of land needed per head of cattle. Attempts are underway to do just this, but old concepts die hard.

That is one solution; I would be surprised if others did not exist as well.

As to the methane production problem, there are also solutions:

Australian researchers have created a vaccine that inhibits gas-producing microbes in a sheep's gut. And high-grade alfalfa grass pastures have been found to reduce windy side effects in grazing cows.
Source: news.nationalgeographic.com...

New Zealand scientists trying to curb their country's influence on global warming may have found an answer to belch about: Livestock that eat plants high in condensed tannins produce up to 16 percent less methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Source: news.nationalgeographic.com...

But, thanks to research carried out in Queensland for the past four years, and released last month, the marsupial's cleverest trick is its ability to produce environmentally friendly farts. Researchers have isolated the bacteria in the stomach lining of kangaroos that means their farts contain no methane, a greenhouse gas far more damaging than carbon dioxide.

The team, led by Dr. Athol Klieve, believes that unlocking this secret could lead to the creation of more climate-friendly cattle. Between them, the flatulent farm animals produce so much methane that they account for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, second only to power stations. But if the kangaroo bacteria were added to cattle feed, the researchers hope they could create herds with much lower carbon footprints.
Source: www.alternet.org...

All of these are noble research efforts IMHO. The difference between them and the article that started this thread is that they focus on continued research within the bounds of what may be practical, as opposed to a poorly-considered quick fix that is unworkable.

Or, as I prefer to refer to it, human laziness...

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 


Yes, the passing gas factor has been significantly increased by us. That as well as other factors which have been part of our society for so long that it is hard to just change.

There are other natural sources that contribute to the green house effect and I think some people believe that we have no control over what's going to happen. That's just simply not true, we have come this far and it's ridicules to think that we would simply just give up. Unfortunately, we may not end up changing our lives now when we have the choice only to be forced to change our lives later, when it's no longer a choice.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by caitlinfae

Since when has efficiency stopped Al Gore from anything?


As to your research attempt, I want to point out something that might be helpful: at one time in history, before the advent of huge cattle ranches, buffalo herds roamed the plains that were so large as to cover entire states. Yes, we have drastically increased the number of cattle, but at the same time we drastically removed large numbers of buffalo. Both are ruminants.

I was just wondering how the numbers stack up between cows now and buffalo back then...

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Global warming can be slowed bu setting of several nuclear warheads to fill the skys with dust. Every year ws should set of 10 or 15 till thingscool down




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join