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 04-21-2010, 09:16 AM
 
39,484 posts, read 40,796,345 times
Reputation: 16309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe moving View Post
But in the meantime do you want your children to have asthma?
The six most common air pollutants as an aggregate have dropped more than 54% since 1980, common sense will tell you that is not the cause. While air pollution has decreased asthma cases have increased, especially over the last 2 decades.

My guess would be the main culprit is modern building techniques providing more efficiency that don't allow a home or living space to breath. It's also going to be diagnosed more as physicians have become more aware.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2010, 09:16 AM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,871 posts, read 10,569,444 times
Reputation: 9536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
able but not willing to sacrifice our carnivorous ways in order to save the world in which we live.
How do we coax other animals to sacrifice their carnivorous ways? Maybe if we ask them nicely.

If we didn't have any of these evil carnivores around, we wouldn't need any herbivores to feed them. But, wait, if the carnivores turned herbivore, we wouldn't need them either. It's settled, to save our species, we all need to eat bean sprouts, and we need to eradicate the herbivores and carnivores-turned-herbivore. But if we're herbivores, should we eradicate ourselves too? Yes, I believe this would save the planet--it would be as pristine as Mars was before we soiled it with our probes. It's the only way--should I mix the Kool Aid?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 09:40 AM
 
17,790 posts, read 19,809,651 times
Reputation: 7447
My question is... who eats meat every single day? I don't and I LOVE meat (can't afford to eat it all the time)... sometimes I just eat potato chips and call it a day... not too healthy but easier than cooking which I am lousy at...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 11:07 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,865,605 times
Reputation: 3012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
There's a major false premise at work here, especially in areas like Wyoming's grazing lands ...

the forage that cows or sheep eat is on lands that don't grow sustainable crops suitable for human consumption; ie, the grasses that cattle eat aren't useable by humans, nor will the lands otherwise grow crops that humans can eat. The assumption that grazing lands that will support livestock is at the sole expense of resources that will support human food production is false ... and a tour through "cattle country" in many states rather than sitting in an ivory tower pontificating about the waste of resources would be a first step in understanding the realities of sustainable livestock production.

While it is the practice in some feedlot operations to feed grain crops that come from land that might otherwise produce human consumable grains, most lands that produce the feed quality grains are not very well suited for human consumables. There's a big difference between feed/silage corn varieties and sweet corn, for example.

To assert that livestock producers are destroying the planet simply doesn't ring true. If you are a vegetarian, so be it ... that's your choice, and I can respect that. But don't come after those of us who raise livestock with sustainable natural practices as destroyers of the planet, it's clearly not so ... why don't you take a tour of the lands that are so marginally productive it takes well over a hundred acres per cow/calf unit to support one unit? Between poor soil quality, and low natural moisture annually, there's not much there that's usable for any other productive purpose.

Similarly, we free range our poultry production to take advantage of the bugs and insects and forage that is sustainable and available off of land that could otherwise not be productive.

By using sustainable organic and natural farming/ranching practices, we are not contributing to the problems asserted in the cited study. We don't use pesticides, nor herbicides, nor chemical fertilizers in our operations. With low pressure pivot irrigation in the fields and drip tape irrigation in our greenhouses, we are especially conservative in our use of water and the energy to provide it. There's a lot of government programs available to help others achieve these levels of efficiency, too .... NRCS, for example, is a great source of grants to help farmers/ranchers head toward sustainable efficient practices.
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/...ro_effects.pdf

Quote:
Grazing by privately owned domestic livestock is the most extensive economic use of the public's lands, occurring on 260 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service. Each year taxpayers subsidize approximately $100 million to support grazing on public lands, yet only 1.4% of U.S. cattle producers ranch on Western BLM and Forest Service lands. These few ranchers use 92% or 163 million acres of BLM land and 69% or 97 million acres of Forest Service land (Wuerthner and Matteson, 2002).
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/...e%20Change.pdf

Quote:
Whenever the causes of climate change are discussed, fossil fuels top the list.Oil, natural gas, and especially coal are indeed major sources of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). But we believe that the life cycle and supply chain of domesticated animals raised for food have been vastly underestimated as a source of GHGs,
and in fact account for at least half of all human-caused GHGs. If this argument is right, it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their
atmospheric concentrations—and thus on the rate the climate is warming—than actions to replace fossil fuels withrenewable energy.
Factory Farming, what is factory farm? - The Issues - Sustainable Table

Quote:
The True Costs
Industrially produced food appears to be inexpensive, but the pricetag doesn’t reflect the actual costs that we taxpayers bear. Factory farms pollute communities and adversely affect public health, thereby increasing medical costs for those living near such farms—costs that are often shouldered by public budgets.iv Taxpayers fund government subsidies, which go primarily to large industrial farms. Jobs are lost and wages driven down, as corporate consolidation bankrupts small businesses and factory farms pay unethically low wages for dangerous, undesirable work.

Because factory farms are considered “agricultural” instead of “industrial,” they are not subject to the regulation that their scale of production (and level of pollution) warrants.v Because they employ powerful lobbyists that can sway the government agencies responsible for monitoring agricultural practices, industrial farms are left free to pollute, to hire undocumented workers (and pay them next to nothing), and to locate their businesses without regard to the impact that has on surrounding communities.
Livestock a major threat to environment

Quote:
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.

But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns. When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
I could quote thousands of articles which detail the deterimental effect of raising livestock on the environment. If you are using sustainable practices to farm, then you are distinctly in the minority. Simply because cattle are foraging on lands that are not suitable for farming doesn't mean that this is a sustainable practice. The United Nation's Sustainable Energy states that if U.S. forests continue to be cleared at the present rate for livestock grazing, they will be gone in 50 years.

The largest ozone holes are over the rainforests because they are being cleared for livestock.

World Preservation Foundation | highlighting the detrimental effects of livestock production and consumption

Quote:
According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization’s 2007 report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, 70% of total Amazon deforestation, and over 90% of Amazon deforestation since the 1970’s, is due to clearing land for pasture and for growing soya bean crops to be fed to livestock.

Deforestation has been found to be responsible for 20-25% of global warming, due to the massive release of CO2 that had been captured and stored in the trees. To get a picture of just how much CO2 is being released, deforestation releases as much CO2 into the atmosphere in one day as would 8 million people flying from London to New York.

In addition, scientists have found that 60% of the black carbon particles building up on the surface of the ice in Antarctica were carried there by the wind from South American forests, which are burned to clear land for livestock production. Black carbon, or soot, is 680 times more heat trapping than CO2.
As I stated before, human beings are not obligate carnivores. Some animals are and to suggest that we should convince them to go vegetarian (when they aren't the ones promoting factory farming and rainforest destruction) is a ridiculous attempt to side step the debate.

As far as a meat free diet being healthier--a simple Google search will bear me out. But in the meantime--"The Scientific Basis for a Vegetarian Diet."

Cancer and the Vegetarian Diet

People are willing to do most anything for the environment as long as it doesn't require an actual sacrifice of something they really don't want to give up. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,864,118 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
There's a major false premise at work here, especially in areas like Wyoming's grazing lands ...

the forage that cows or sheep eat is on lands that don't grow sustainable crops suitable for human consumption; ie, the grasses that cattle eat aren't useable by humans, nor will the lands otherwise grow crops that humans can eat. The assumption that grazing lands that will support livestock is at the sole expense of resources that will support human food production is false ... and a tour through "cattle country" in many states rather than sitting in an ivory tower pontificating about the waste of resources would be a first step in understanding the realities of sustainable livestock production.

While it is the practice in some feedlot operations to feed grain crops that come from land that might otherwise produce human consumable grains, most lands that produce the feed quality grains are not very well suited for human consumables. There's a big difference between feed/silage corn varieties and sweet corn, for example.

To assert that livestock producers are destroying the planet simply doesn't ring true. If you are a vegetarian, so be it ... that's your choice, and I can respect that. But don't come after those of us who raise livestock with sustainable natural practices as destroyers of the planet, it's clearly not so ... why don't you take a tour of the lands that are so marginally productive it takes well over a hundred acres per cow/calf unit to support one unit? Between poor soil quality, and low natural moisture annually, there's not much there that's usable for any other productive purpose.

Similarly, we free range our poultry production to take advantage of the bugs and insects and forage that is sustainable and available off of land that could otherwise not be productive.

By using sustainable organic and natural farming/ranching practices, we are not contributing to the problems asserted in the cited study. We don't use pesticides, nor herbicides, nor chemical fertilizers in our operations. With low pressure pivot irrigation in the fields and drip tape irrigation in our greenhouses, we are especially conservative in our use of water and the energy to provide it. There's a lot of government programs available to help others achieve these levels of efficiency, too .... NRCS, for example, is a great source of grants to help farmers/ranchers head toward sustainable efficient practices.
99% of livestock are raised in factory farms. Eating corn and soy, not feeding on grazing lands.

World Watch, the Sierra Club, the Pew Commission, Greenpeace, and other major environmental watchdogs have singled out factory farms as among the biggest polluters on the planet.

A report from Science News(via Food Times) argues that beef produces 19 kilograms of CO2 for every kilogram served; that grass-fed beef is worse — yes, worse — for global warming than feed-lot beef Read more

A United Nations report, released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on 29 November 2006, "Livestock's Long Shadow", states that the livestock sector produces more greenhouse gasses than all the cars, boats, planes and trains in the world COMBINED.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 01:26 PM
 
1,882 posts, read 4,116,968 times
Reputation: 2661
Kele, Random, how many farms have you visited? How many farmers did you visit with while you were there?


May I ask what you do for a living?

I'm here to learn, as I'm sure you are too.

Take care

Capt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 05:58 PM
 
39,484 posts, read 40,796,345 times
Reputation: 16309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
The United Nation's Sustainable Energy states that if U.S. forests continue to be cleared at the present rate for livestock grazing, they will be gone in 50 years.
LOL..... Wrong, not even close.

Quote:
http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefin...actsMetric.pdf

Land and Forest Area

It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—
in 1630 the area of forest land that would become
the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46
percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest
land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or
34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land.
Kele, I wouldn;t even both reading any of your links or inofrmation until you an show me some resources from some sources that could be deemed even somewhat unbiased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2010, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Vermont
5,439 posts, read 14,783,011 times
Reputation: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man View Post
"Sustainable natural practices"? Sustainable has been proven, natural is a whole new ball game. As far as beef goes, I'd say it is a very high number. As far as poultry, I can't say. I've never visited a farm that raises poultry for a living, nor have I talked w/a farmer who does raise them.

What do you call natural, Joe?
What I would call natural is cattle grazing on grass.

I question sustainability when corn fed cattle is at the very least unlikely to be economically sustainable without government subsidies to farmers which probably go on to give us artificially low prices of beef, soda, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2010, 08:45 AM
 
1,882 posts, read 4,116,968 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe moving View Post
What I would call natural is cattle grazing on grass.

I question sustainability when corn fed cattle is at the very least unlikely to be economically sustainable without government subsidies to farmers which probably go on to give us artificially low prices of beef, soda, etc.
Without subsidies, people will still eat corn fed beef, imho. Cattle start out on grass, then are finished w/corn in their diet. Cattle like corn, they will pick thru the grass to get to the corn. Just some fyi, not that ya asked for it, guess I felt like type'n it.

I'm slow, but what is an artificially low price? Do you mean too much consumption? Who is in control of consumption? Arent' I responsible for me and what I consume?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2010, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Greensboro
627 posts, read 1,864,118 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man View Post
Without subsidies, people will still eat corn fed beef, imho. Cattle start out on grass, then are finished w/corn in their diet. Cattle like corn, they will pick thru the grass to get to the corn. Just some fyi, not that ya asked for it, guess I felt like type'n it.

I'm slow, but what is an artificially low price? Do you mean too much consumption? Who is in control of consumption? Arent' I responsible for me and what I consume?

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/images/pyramid.jpg (broken link)
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.

© 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