U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2009, 02:01 AM
 
Location: Tennessee/Michigan
28,194 posts, read 47,550,306 times
Reputation: 19705

Advertisements

Vilified as an environmental disaster, the meat industry, abetted by science, is now trying to change its ways.

Few creatures would seem as beneficent as the cow. Properly grazed and groomed, it gives us burgers and brie, boot leather and fertilizer.

Meat Industry Tries to Turn Itself Green | Newsweek Environment | Newsweek.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2009, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,861,595 times
Reputation: 432
It's interesting, when the topic of livestock's impact on the planet comes up (51% of the annual worldwide GHG), no one is interested in discussing it.
I mean, livestock produces more green house gases than all transportation COMBINED. Why are so many environmentalist mum when it comes to meat?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 01:32 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,937 posts, read 22,228,192 times
Reputation: 9041
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_Random View Post
It's interesting, when the topic of livestock's impact on the planet comes up (51% of the annual worldwide GHG), no one is interested in discussing it.
I mean, livestock produces more green house gases than all transportation COMBINED. Why are so many environmentalist mum when it comes to meat?
Wildlife, perhaps. When you have articles coming out attacking native animals like the moose as responsible for global warming (look it up, real story) it's a bit over the top...

Automobiles are a bigger threat, and it isn't just CO2 or methane they're letting out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 6,630,172 times
Reputation: 835
If we are talking about CO2 problems with cows, etc. - how about all those raging wildfires in California?

What, no one is suggesting we make everyone move out of Cal and ban tourists to drastically reduce the chance of wildfires.....or.... just lopping the whole state off into the ocean?

Quote:
Ozone, which depletes over time, is just one pollutant caused by fire. Pfister said carbon dioxide - the most abundant global warming gas - and methane stay in the atmosphere for years.
The fires in 2007 emitted almost 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in just one week in October, according to data from the research center. That’s equivalent to 25 percent of the monthly emissions from all of the fossil fuel burned in California,
This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and was written byPeter Fimrite, pfimrite@sfchronicle.com]
Air Pollution from California Fires | kurt kamm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,248,720 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101 View Post
If we are talking about CO2 problems with cows, etc. - how about all those raging wildfires in California?

What, no one is suggesting we make everyone move out of Cal and ban tourists to drastically reduce the chance of wildfires.....or.... just lopping the whole state off into the ocean?
LOL no vec we aren't talking about CO2 problems with cows. Please do some reading before you embarrass C-D
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 03:20 AM
 
Location: Way South of the Volvo Line
2,777 posts, read 7,118,706 times
Reputation: 2834
Geez, I remember 4th grade science teaching us that plants breathe in and metabolize CO2 on a regular basis. I think the domestic cow/methane formula is vastly over simplified. There may well be a component of the domestic livestock biomass creating a significant global warming product, but that is also countered by plant respiration. I think we are getting away from the more threatening factors of hydrocarbon gas effluence from vehicles and industry and the destruction of large swaths of forested growth.

Of course changing the feed of domestic stock reduces methane output but also gives us meat-eaters the bonus of healthier meat products.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,791 posts, read 53,980,503 times
Reputation: 30118
People are so gullible that it continually amazes me. If you have even been around a swamp, you can see first hand how methane bubbles up from the rotting vegetation. Yet the ecologists decry the loss of wetlands (totally ignoring the reduction in methane production) at the same time they moan about cow farts. They want to eliminate the cows and try to turn more land back into swamps. That means we would have less meat and more malaria and yellow fever and more mosquitoes. Good move.

If you have ever put mulch around and had it disappear, or had a compost pile and have it shrink in size, guess where all that carbon went. Yep. CO2 and methane. Yet both activities are considered good for the environment.

I go along with the idea of cattle being pastured and grass fed because it makes sense and gives some farmers and ranchers a few more bucks, rather than feed lot operators. As for these proselytizers for the religion of composted vegan idiocy, I suggest that they make the ultimate sacrifice immediately, and eliminate their carbon footprints.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,861,595 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Wildlife, perhaps. When you have articles coming out attacking native animals like the moose as responsible for global warming (look it up, real story) it's a bit over the top...
That is an interesting subject, the impact of wildlife. The reason I think it does not have the impact that livestock does is that the vast majority of the grains we grow in the U.S. go to feed livestock. A 12-year-old Cornell study found that livestock, “consume more than five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.” When you consider the GHG emissions from all that grain production including transportation and the fossil fuels used to make artificial fertilizers you start to get the picture of just how resource intensive industrial food animal production can be.

Quote:
Automobiles are a bigger threat, and it isn't just CO2 or methane they're letting out.
Cows and cars probably produce similar amounts of greenhouse gas contaminants per year. However estimates of the number of cars in the world vary from 500-600 million and the number of cows are estimated at 1.5 billion so the conclusion has to be that cows are more harmful to the environment than cars. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Cows-Vs-Cars---The-Methane-Versus-Carbon-Dioxide-Battle&id=2877531 - broken link)

Last edited by Tart Green Apple; 11-02-2009 at 09:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,861,595 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Of course changing the feed of domestic stock reduces methane output but also gives us meat-eaters the bonus of healthier meat products.
Grain-fed beef produces less greenhouse gases than grass-fed beef.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,861,595 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
People are so gullible that it continually amazes me. If you have even been around a swamp, you can see first hand how methane bubbles up from the rotting vegetation. Yet the ecologists decry the loss of wetlands (totally ignoring the reduction in methane production) at the same time they moan about cow farts. They want to eliminate the cows and try to turn more land back into swamps. That means we would have less meat and more malaria and yellow fever and more mosquitoes. Good move.
Good point.
The largest anoxic sources (Plant) of methane are wetlands and rice fields...these sources make up two-thirds of the 600 million tonnes worldwide annual methane production.

But...
...livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:11 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top