 |
| Global warming. |
George Monbiot appeared recently on Frankie Boyle's far-left political chat show, "New World Order." A columnist and environmental activist, Monbiot explained how we have to save the planet. And boy, does Monbiot have some ideas.
The easy things we need to change, Monbiot said, are to end air travel flying and cease consumption of meat. If that doesn't sound easy to you, then you're not alone. Indeed, those ideas are so destructive of modern life, economics, and the pursuit of happiness, that they could justifiably be regarded as insane.
But Monbiot was just getting started. Next up, he took us down the intellectual river, into the heart of activist darkness.
Read the rest here.
I have a better idea: have a country-wide lottery to pick 100 million people to be sent to Ethical Suicide Parlors to be "recycled". Socialists and migrants will be exempt from the lottery.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion livestock are the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG) is patently false. In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This claim was wrong, and has since been corrected but the correction has not received the same publicity as the initial claim.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the EPA its estimates for GHG emissions in 2016 are that animal agriculture represents 3.9% of total US GHG emissions.
The energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose, which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.
Source: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
According to: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301 removing animals from US agriculture would reduce agricultural GHG emissions by only 2.6%, but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements.
Not mentioned in the above is that the meat from ruminants feeding on grasses is of much higher nutritional value than plants humans are capable of digesting. This is mostly due to the high quality fatty acids and protein in these meats.
There have been some recent studies that indicate that grass fed cattle produce more methane than our typical grain, corn and soy fed cattle. This is due to the larger amount of meat derived from the “fattening” of these animals in feedlots that diminish the health of the animals and the nutritional value of the meat produced for human consumption. A true environmentalist would advocate for the more humane treatment and healthier pasture raised animals that produce the most nutritious food available for humans. Maybe just advocate for reduced consumption by us fat Americans to reduce the number of cattle emitting greenhouse gasses.
Superb comment Alex, thank you.
ReplyDelete