Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

" Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases. "
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.

http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • bernmodibernmodi Posts: 631
    Leave our cows alone!!
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    lmao...I was telling this to a friend of mine the other day. He was like wtf? Yep...cow farts. Old news but new evidence I suppose.

    Anyhow, that's why when PETA offers a $1 million reward for anyone who can invent a meat alternative, it isn't because they're a bunch of nutjobs.
  • "I'm not present, I'm a drug that makes you dream"
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    sponger wrote:
    Anyhow, that's why when PETA offers a $1 million reward for anyone who can invent a meat alternative, it isn't just because they're a bunch of nutjobs.
    fixed.
    Anyways very old news, half of the world problems (no, not Israel/Palestine) would be resolved if western countries stopped eating as much meat. Lower gaz emissions, more vegetable food for humans (including the ones dying of hunger in africa) less pressure on health care due to reduced incidence for cardiovasculary diseases etc. The question isn't how to find an alternative to meat, rather how to explain to everyone (including me most of the time I don't resist either) eating less meat would be better for everyone - including themselves.
  • Kann wrote:
    fixed.
    Anyways very old news, half of the world problems (no, not Israel/Palestine) would be resolved if western countries stopped eating as much meat. Lower gaz emissions, more vegetable food for humans (including the ones dying of hunger in africa) less pressure on health care due to reduced incidence for cardiovasculary diseases etc. The question isn't how to find an alternative to meat, rather how to explain to everyone (including me most of the time I don't resist either) eating less meat would be better for everyone - including themselves.
    I think the food abundance is the problem, not meat. Western countries (and now some eastern) have to stop eating as much FOOD in general. We don't need an alternative to meat, we need to lower our calories. That's the thing to focus on. There's no single evil food out there that's causing all the cardiovascular disease....people are just eating too much. In reasonable amounts, meat is extremely healthy...packed full of macro and micro nutrients.
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    Saturnal wrote:
    I think the food abundance is the problem, not meat. Western countries (and now some eastern) have to stop eating as much FOOD in general. We don't need an alternative to meat, we need to lower our calories. That's the thing to focus on. There's no single evil food out there that's causing all the cardiovascular disease....people are just eating too much. In reasonable amounts, meat is extremely healthy...packed full of macro and micro nutrients.
    I disagree. First of all, food isn't overabundant, there wouldn't be enough cows for the whole world to eat meat in the quantities we do. Second of all, I'm not calling meat evil, I'm saying the same thing as you : we eat way to much of it. But meat is the main problem, because to create 1 kg. of meat you have to use 10 kg. of cereals, so if we all eat 30-40 kgs. of meat/year we start to have a big problem. And in this equation the problem is the meat, not the cereals. Most people in wester societies eat animal proteins 1-2 times a day, when 3-4 times a week should be enough. It's going to have to happen, I just hope I won't be there to witness it.
  • Kann wrote:
    meat is the main problem, because to create 1 kg. of meat you have to use 10 kg. of cereals
    Not sure what you mean by this, but food is definitely overabundant in the U.S. Look at the portion sizes you get at any restaurant. It's crazy. The fact that obesity has become an epidemic proves that there's too much food available to people. I really haven't heard anyone question the idea that people are eating too much in the U.S....it's just a fact. And the only reason people are able to do this is because there's a food abundance...it's overly-available.
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    Saturnal wrote:
    Not sure what you mean by this,
    I mean exactly what I said. In order to grow a cow from which 600kgs. will be selled as food you have to feed it/use 6000 kgs. worth of cereals.
    but food is definitely overabundant in the U.S. Look at the portion sizes you get at any restaurant. It's crazy. The fact that obesity has become an epidemic proves that there's too much food available to people. I really haven't heard anyone question the idea that people are eating too much in the U.S....it's just a fact. And the only reason people are able to do this is because there's a food abundance...it's overly-available.
    Yeah I was thinking more on a worldwide scale. While people in the US (as well as in Europe btw) eat plenty, a lot of people don't eat anything. So no, food is not overabundant for the 6,1 billion people we are, just for the 1,2 billion who can afford this. And everyday more and more people can afford food (which is great) but obviously this will reduce the amount of food available. Hence what I said, we'll have to choose between using 10 kg. of cereals to eat or to create 1 kg of meat.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    this is definitely a huge problem ... deforestation, resource uses ... thing with cattle too is they graze right down to the roots ... they haven't figured out that if they eat all the grass - it won't grow back ... guess in large parts - they mirror human intelligence ...
  • Kann wrote:
    I mean exactly what I said. In order to grow a cow from which 600kgs. will be selled as food you have to feed it/use 6000 kgs. worth of cereals.
    Gotcha...that's an interesting way to look at it. I'm just thinking it'd make no difference as far as health is concerned. If we started eating less meat, people would just eat more processed breads/cereals/etc....and they'd still be taking in way too many calories (just from different sources). I think refined carbs are linked to heart disease just as much as meat is. I see what you're saying about eating less meat would mean that we're not wasting as much grain, but I don't think it'd take pressure off health care. If people kept eating the same amount of meat while eating less junk food, and less calories in general, THAT would reduce pressure on health care.

    Kann wrote:
    Yeah I was thinking more on a worldwide scale.
    Sure. Worldwide, food is definitely not abundant...there are tons of starving people out there (many times because all their farm land is used for agro-exports to the rich countries).
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    Here is another step in the right direction.

    http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2302/70/
Sign In or Register to comment.