The NYT has an editorial today about the UNFAO's new report on the environmental degradation caused by increasing numbers of livestock. Money factoid: More greenhouse gases are produced by livestock than the entire global transportation sector.
Livestock’s long shadow 42
-
Posted 12:49 AM on 27 Dec 2006
by Jason D Scorse -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Jason Scorse, PhD
Associate Professor
Chair of the International Environmental Policy Program
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Institute Webpage: http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/node/936
Related Stories
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 6:47 pm
26 Dec 2006
(Comparisons, with numbers, are not my cup of tea. Jason will surely give everyone all that is required, for the pencil-and-paper set.)
Frances Moore Lappe' would not have said much about animal welfare as an important cause in itself, I think (I could be wrong). But she certainly wanted animals that were "livestock" to be phased out, humanely.
I await with great interest this new tactic of Jason's, to associate animal welfare with environmentalism. It shows great promise.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:57 am
27 Dec 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:55 am
27 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:06 am
27 Dec 2006
I've heard that pets are a luxury. We devote energy and land to keeping animals solely as pets. We feed other animals to our pets. This is certainly as inhumane as raising animals to feed ourselves. A list of ingrediants found in pet food inlcudes various animal by-products. Now one might argue that we slaughter animals for our own consumption, so why not feed the waste material to our pets. But this only further props up the meat industry. It also helps prop up the fishing industry. If slaughter houses had to pay to dispose of processing by-products instead of selling them to pet owners, meat would cost more and consumers would pay more for the pain they inflict. This would reduce consumption.
Even apparently benign pets cause environmental damage. Menhaden going into fish flakes for one's goldfish. (Not even taking into consideration damage to reefs because of the tropical fish industry). Vast amounts of land devoted to growing plants not for human consumption or reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, but for feeding parakeets and other caged birds. And additional land devoted to growing seed to feed wild birds when it would be much more appropriate to enrich one's yard and parks with plants that provide natural sources of food for more than birds. The land devoted to growing seed for birds could then serve as natural habitat.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:19 am
27 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 2:28 pm
27 Dec 2006
The respiration of livestock makes up only a very small part of the net release of carbon that can be attributed to the livestock sector. Much more is released indirectly by other channels including
burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production;
methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure;
land use changes for feed production and for grazing;
land degradation;
fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; and
fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products.
-- Livestock's Long Shadow, p. 85-86
From this I conclude the impact from the animals themselves is small. What's needed are much improved, more sustainable agricultural and soil conservation practices, sustainable transport and processing systems and much more forest preservation and restoration.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:27 pm
27 Dec 2006
There are indeed a number of ethical issues associated with our keeping animals in our houses, whether as companions or as spectacles. Many have to do with animal welfare, and strictly speaking have nothing to do with environmentalism. Among those that do pertain to environmentalism, the collection of exotic species, such as certain birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, does indeed have an effect on the biodiversity of those animals' native ecosystems. And the release of exotic species into alien ecosystems -- which IMHO is stunningly stupid but not, alas, really surprising -- , e.g. as with Burmese pythons in south Florida, while not strictly necessary, must statistically be considered a necessary effect of the trade in exotic animals.
But it would be surprising if there were a direct effect on climate, related to our keeping animals in our homes.
On the environmental effect of the diet of cats and dogs, especially large dogs: That is an interesting question. In our case, we have a small dog, and my husband makes her food, mostly a combination of the breast meat of free-range turkeys, and organic whole-wheat couscous, with some chopped green beans. But not all dogs are so lucky.
Laurence, thank you for your analysis. Presumably we are clear that farting is not a part of respiration. It would be interesting to know if the farting of cattle is naturally typical of the digestive processes of all hooved mammals, especially artiodactyls, or if it is increased by the artificial diet that we feed to cattle. It would also be interesting to know how the methane emitted by the farting of cattle compares, quantity-wise, to the methane emitted by the decomposition of manure.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:40 pm
27 Dec 2006
(NYT editorial)
Eat less meat and more veggies. And milk and eggs are the inbetween foods. Much more efficient than meat, but not as efficient as beans (for instance). That way you can afford to buy the more expensive organic meat from animals fed on grass, and that rotational grazing uses a lot less fossil fuel and emits less GHGs. That's the personal choice that can help.
The public policy choice is converting manure, human waste, farm waste, garbage and so forth to biogas. Then use the biogas to generate clean backup energy for the grid, the CO2 from biogas energy to feed algae in solar collectors that produce liquid fuel for transportation.
The biogas backup generation and added energy from algae residue (after biofuel production)would allow near 100% renewable energy for the electric power grid. then that power would be used to charge electric vehicles. Vehicles that have backup generation onboard that uses the biofuel, at 10 times the mileage of internal combustion powered vehicles.
That way the 18% of GHG effect for meat production, the 18% for transportation, and most of the rest, for electricity production will be nearly gone.
These steps and new conservation land (like a Prairie National Park/wind farm) can actually reverse global climate change. An area of chemically depleted farmland the equivalent of a square 70 miles on a side, that was converted to natural prairie would sequester all present US GHG emissions.
To quote Donald Sutherland's character, "8 ball", in "Kelly's Heroes"; "This tank has been modified by our mechanical genius Moriarty. It goes faster in reverse than it goes forward. That way we can get out of trouble quicker than we got into it."
That's what this sort of energy plan would do, reverse global climate change from GHGs faster than it formed. We surely need that effect given the disastrous rate of melting ice caps, greenland's ice, glaciers,permafrost, and methane hydrate ice in the sea bed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:48 pm
27 Dec 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:32 am
28 Dec 2006
This is an absurd proposition. Humans are as natural as any other creature on Earth and it would make no sense for the species to commit mass suicide. But to work with this for a moment... if environmentalists avoided having children, the remaining human gene pool would lose interest in caring for the biosphere and, therefore, such self sacrifice would not be helpful. Even if some charasmatic environmentalist persuaded 99.9% of humans to stop reproducing, the remaining 6 million people would eventually repopulate Earth and inflict the same damage we are doing now. So I reject the notion based on absurdity and as impractical.
Returning to the pet issue... I was attempting to extrapolate from Jason's position. It seems to me that if it is immoral to enslave and kill animals for food when alternatives are available, it must also be immoral to enslave and kill animals to feed other enslaved animals. I believe he earlier pointed out that there must be a good reason to kill an animal. If human consumption of animals as food is not acceptable -- even though we evolved to do so -- than killing animals to feed to other animals must also be wrong -- even if we evolved along side those creatures. Now that we are more aware of the pain we inflict, is it time to not only let go of eating meat, but also let go of our attachment to pets?
I am not advocating a specific position here. I'm trying to understand where we are supposed to draw the line. When, exactly, is it acceptable to kill an animal for our benefit or another animal's benefit?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:38 am
28 Dec 2006
Mr. Aurbach,
Excellent find. I had been under the impression all this time that the problem was methane coming from the cow itself. The vast majority of it is coming from the waste material and the industry in general, including deforestation for pasture.
This suggests that the problem can be addressed with level playing fields; rules and regulations applied across the board to all beef producers. They should be hit with air and water pollution controls like other industries. Imported beef would need to comply as well. This would drive the cost of beef way up, which would also limit its consumption.
Canis,
I think that if you look at the pet industry, you will find that it certainly does impact the environment. The high coliform bacteria count in urban creeks is from dogs and cats, not to mention a lot of food and energy goes into pet food.
Lap dogs that live in apartments have far far less impact than owning two golden labs or four roaming cats. Similarly, having two kids instead of four will have half the impact. Maybe pets (and kids) should be taxed by the pound.
DrX,
Excellent points.
"The public policy choice is converting manure, human waste, farm waste, garbage and so forth to biogas [and other biofuels as well as fertilizer for crops]".
Again, regulations creating level playing fields would work. And, the idea that we can use some technologies to actually pull carbon out of the air is hopeful. Future carbon incentives should strongly favor such ideas. By the way, did you notice that A123 just received 15 million for car battery research?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:54 am
28 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:39 am
28 Dec 2006
Come on Gates! Anty up dood!
I wonder what their production level is now of the power tool batteries? I suppose that's a trade secret.
That 18% estimate for methane from livestock kind of gives some idea of just how much GHG might be saved by stopping runoff of manure and other high nitrogen waste. I'm not sure if that takes into account the effect of manure on the carbon nitrogen ratio in wetlands, lakes, and river sediment?
The optimum ratio is 30 parts carbon (as in plant cellulose in wetlands) to 1 part nitrogen. So very little nitrogen breaks down 30 times the mass of cellulose, and that emits methane from the aneroebic digestion in the sediment. Swamp gas. 20 times worse as a GHG than CO2, could be a HUGE effect! Reversed with biogas digestion and fuel cells to turn it into electricity.
More data is needed, as usual. Not much money left for vital basic scientific research though (oil wars are costly!), with science for sale to the highest corporate (and their government servant) bidders.
The military vehicle fleet in iraq needs 18 billion in repairs and replacement! Yikes. How many fuel cell, solar, and battery mass production lines would that incentivize? With private funds investing 10 times that much?
Primates make poor presidents! Ooo oo eee eee ahh ahhh.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:44 am
28 Dec 2006
There are probably alternative sources for many of these materials, especially with our ability to synthesize organic molecules or engineer organisms to produce just about any biological molecule. Also, some of the by-products are used for very nefarious purposes generally not celebrated by environmentalists or any other sane person.
Do any of the following justify the killing of a cow? Do any of the following suggest where humans should draw the line for acceptable use of other animals? What would you NOT give up or ask someone else to give up even if you learned it depended on killing an animal?
From Discover Magazine... http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-01/features/featcow/
B L O O D
Cell culture laboratories
Bovine serum albumin provides a wide variety of macromolecular proteins, low-molecular-weight nutrients, carrier proteins for water-insoluble components, and other compounds necessary for in vitro growth of cells, such as hormones and attachment factors. Serum adds buffering capacity to the medium and binds or neutralizes toxic components in the growth milieu.
Home and industrial uses
Plywood adhesives, fertilizer, foam fire extinguisher, chemical fixer for dyes
T A L L O W S
(fat derived from meat, bone, hooves, and horns)
Edible tallow
Used in shortening for baked goods and in combination with vegetable oils for frying foods. Also used in chewing gum
Inedible fats and oils
Various industrial tallows: Top White Tallow, All-Beef Packer Tallow, Extra Fancy Tallow, Fancy Tallow, Bleachable Fancy Tallow, Prime Tallow,Special Tallow, No. 2 Tallow, A Tallow, Choice White Grease, Yellow Grease
F A T T Y A C I D S
(derived from tallows)
General uses
Plastics, tires, candles, crayons, cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, fabric softeners, asphalt emulsifiers, synthetic rubber, linoleum (metallic stearate), PVC (calcium stearate), jet engine lubricants, carrier for pesticides and herbicides, wetting agents, dispersing agents, defoamers, solubilizers, viscosity modifiers
Oleic acid -> pelargonic acid -> synthetic motor oil
Oleic acid -> fed into gel cultures to produce antibiotics
Azelaic acid -> high-performance coatings for planes and cars, food packaging, fishing line, acne medication, furniture
Stearic acid-> aluminum tristearate -> cosmetic gels, pharmaceutical additives, grease additives, toner adjuvants, antifoam agents, explosive additives, waterproofing agents
Fatty acid amides
Lubricants in industrial processes
Fatty acid amines
Rubber, textiles, ore floatation, corrosion inhibitors,metalworking lubricants
Fatty acid esters
Emulsifiers, coating agents, textile sizers, lubricants, plasticizers, defoaming agents, lithium-based greases, textile lubricants, rolling and cutting oils, metal-machining lubricants
Fatty alcohols
Sodium alkyl sulfates, ultimately made into detergents
G L Y C E R I N
(derived from tallows)
Glycerin derivatives
A wide range of pharmaceuticals including cough syrups and lozenges, tranquilizers, eyewashes, contraceptive jellies and creams, ear drops, poison ivy solutions, solvent for digitalis and intramuscular injection, sclerosing solutions for treatment of varicose veins and hemorrhoids, suppositories, gel capsules
Glycerol
Solvent, sweetener, dynamite, cosmetics, liquid soaps, candy, liqueurs, inks, lubricants, antifreeze mixtures, culture nutrients for antibiotics
Glycerin mist
Aftershave preparations, shaving cream, toilet soap, toothpaste, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, bath salts, bubble baths, body lotions, cleansing creams, moisturizing creams, external analgesics and counterirritants, shampoos, hair coloring preparations (bleaches, dyes, rinses, tints), hair dressings (brilliantines, creams, pomades), hair mousse, hair and scalp conditioners, hairspray, topical antibiotic preparations, hemorrhoidal preparations, pharmaceuticals for veterinary use, liquid household hard-surface cleaners, laundry aids (ironing and dry-cleaning spotting solutions), agricultural chemicals, automobile body polish and cleaners
C O L L A G E N
(derived from connective tissues and beef skins)
Hemostats, vascular sealants, tissue sealants, orthopedic implant coatings, vascular implant coatings, artificial skin, bone graft substitutes, corneal shields, injectable collagen for plastic surgery, injectable collagen for incontinence treatment, meat casings, food additives, artificial dura maters, dental implants, wound dressings, antiadhesion barriers, platelet analyzer reagents, research reagents, antibiotic wound dressing, lacrimal plugs
G E L A T I N
(derived from collagen)
Food uses
Powdered gelatin, leaf gelatin, gelatin hydrolysate, instant gelatin, jellies, confectionery (jelly beans, jelly babies, gums, pastilles), aerated confectionery (marshmallows, meringues, nougats, fruit chews), caramels, sugarcoated almonds, desserts and dairy products (Bavarian creams, mousses, piecrusts, margarines, dietetic products, yogurts, ice creams and sorbets), clarification of wines (fining agent), decorations (garnishes, galantines, foie gras, eggs in jelly), gel reinforcement for cooked meats to improve slicing, gels for the liquor exuded from hams during cooking, gels to preserve pâtés, dietetic products (dietary breads, biscuits, powdered soups)
Cosmetics
Protective creams, beauty masks, lotions, shampoo basesHealth-pharmaceutical productsSoft capsules, hard-shell two-piece capsules, hemostatic sponges, biological adhesives, blood serum, binder in pills and suppositories
Industrial uses
Binder for flammable substances in matches, binder to improve "crispness" of banknotes, coating for microparticles of self-copying papers,glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, electrolyticsurface treatment of metals
Photographic uses
Emulsion gelatin, dispersion gelatin, protective-layer gelatin, backing gelatin, baryta gelatin, modified gelatin
O R G A N S A N D G L A N D S
Lungs: heparin (blood thinner), pet food
Heart: pericardium patches
Trachea: chondroitin sulfate (arthritis treatment)
Tendons: elastin, peptone
Gall: cleaning agent for leather, paints and dyes
Intestines: glycosaminoglycans (for cartilage and joint treatment), sutures, musical strings, racquet strings
Liver: catalase, used in contact-lens care products
Pancreas: insulin, chromotrypsin, glucagons
Placenta: glycosaminoglycans, alkaline phosphatases, fetal calf serum
Testicles: hyaluronidase (cartilage and joint treatment) Umbilical cord: hyaluronic acid
Uterus: glycosaminoglycans
Spinal cord: pharmaceuticals, laboratory reagents, source of neural lipids and cholesterol
Bile: bile acids used to make industrial detergents, bilirubin to measure liver function
Nasal septum: chondroitin sulfate
Nasal mucosa: heparin
Bone: charcoal ash (for refining products such as sugar), ceramics, cleaning and polishing compounds, bone and dental implants
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:47 am
28 Dec 2006
Ruminant methane production has occured always with large ruminants. The majority of the increases of domestic livestock came at the expense of wild ruminants (think of now largely exterminated bison), which also produce methane. Cow shit? Well, bison shit too. Large waste lagoons probably produce more methane vs. CO2 compared to cow and bison patties, but I'm not sure that the difference is significant on an overall scale, and there is much more potential to utilize that energy from waste lagoons.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 3:53 am
28 Dec 2006
All of our cats were rescued, either adopted from shelters or from barns overrun with cats. They were not brought into this world intentionally as pedigree animals are. With us they are loved, and treated with respect and care. When we open our minds and hearts and spirit to an animal we are keeping the connection between humans and nonhumans alive. And I feel this is important
What I find troubling (besides animal abuse which seems to be worse then ever these days) is the fact that so many pet owners use their animals as another reason for overconsumption.
Re: the environmental costs of animal ag: it seems to me the solution is to downsize, localize/regionalize, and to develop closed loop energy cycles for "waste" products. There would be less meat to eat, which is a good thing, but what there is would be higher quality and as environmentally neutral as possible, which is also a good thing.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:56 am
28 Dec 2006
or
Get rid of that whole entire chain- all of the waste- because about 90% of it is waste- it's keeping cows alive for years before we kill them- and just eating the grain directly- unsubdized completely?
Which do you think would be more efficient and better for the environment? Which do you think takes less energy, less land, and is better for the soil? And if you want to eat meat fine. Eat it from grass-fed systems that again are completely separate and short-circuit the industrial meat madness. Many of what you all are proposing are like band-aids on a shot-gun wound.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:29 am
28 Dec 2006
I would fully support replacing industrial meat production with dependence on a free-range system. I do not know if it is economically viable. What I envision is restoration of natural grasslands in North America and their use as a commons for raising appropriate animals. The animals would be harvested as humanely as possible. Large predators and hunting would also be employed to control herd sizes.
This would be an ideal compromise for everyone invloved. Humans would fill there natural roles as hunter/omnivores. Wild herbivore populations would be restored. There would be a place for wild predators. The naturally managed grassland would be excellent habitat for endangered birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, et cetera. There would also be natural stands of plants available for people interested in gathering other resources. The grassland would be a carbon negative, so it would not only reduce methane emissions from industrial agriculture, but actually reduce overall CO2. And we would not use all that fossil fuel that currently goes into farming and moving material around just to support the meat industry. There would also be the bonus of preserving threatened, but popular parts of our culture, such as the use of horses for moving herds when necessary.
Perhaps this would be a great public works project for the Plains states currently losing jobs.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:55 am
28 Dec 2006
Get rid of that whole entire chain- all of the waste- because about 90% of it is waste- it's keeping cows alive for years before we kill them- and just eating the grain directly- unsubdized completely?
Therefore, the above idea rates very low because of a low probability of implementation. Asking humanity to voluntarily give up the consumption of meat won't sell.
I propose another idea. We lobby that people should crawl rather than walk. By convincing billions of people to crawl we will greatly reduce the amount of time available for commuting, forcing people to find shorter commutes. It will take far longer to build houses, greatly slowing urban sprawl. Bush meat hunters will kill fewer animals and it will take forever to cut down a rainforest.
Dumb idea? You bet. Human beings have a strong genetic urge to walk, asking them to go against their programming has zero chance of working.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:01 am
28 Dec 2006
So... restored native grassland, herds of native herbivores, sustainable ecologically responsible protein where we should not be growing domesticated plants anyway, environmentally friendly electricity, and new jobs that cannot be exported... who could disagree?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:04 am
28 Dec 2006
You're right, getting rid of ag subsidies, water subsidies, taxing carbon, etc. are going to take a long time, but if we don't even have our eye on the ball we will never get there. The world isn't on the verge of collapse so I'd prefer to work on real solutions than "fixes" that really don't do anything.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:23 am
28 Dec 2006
I think you have a reputation of strongly advocating vegetarianism for moral reasons, two of them being concern for animal welfare and the impact of industrial meat production on the environment.
Both are serious concerns and I support your effort to minimize the pain inflicted by consuming meat, but there appears to be some skepticism regarding whether you can persuade 6 billion people to fully agree with you and quit cold turkey, especially when there is more driving the consumption of meat than simple dietary preference. You are trying to override tens of thousands of years of evolution. Humans can't even quit a habit that is clearly life threatening and has no apparently useful feature.
And you did mention -- somewhere above -- that it would be better to skip the meat and just eat the grain directly, which sounds a bit like suggesting people give up meat.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:36 am
28 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:15 am
28 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:26 am
28 Dec 2006
34 - deforestation
30.5 - manure management
25 - farts
7.4 - tilling, fertilizing and overgrazing
2.2 - fossil fuel for transport, processing & fertilizer
The amount of enteric fermentation (farting) depends on the quality of feed. Grain diets are higher quality in this respect, and generate slightly less farting:
Crop by-products and rangelands (typical of developing countries) - 6 percent methane conversion factor
High quality feedlot grain diets (typical of North America) - 7 percent methane conversion factor
Here are two other interesting factoids:
The study's estimates of livestock farting are generally close to previous EPA estimates.
A chart on page 9 shows meat consumption vs. income. The two extremes among wealthy nations in per capita meat consumption are the U.S. (120 kg per person) and Japan (40 kg per person).
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:30 am
28 Dec 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:34 pm
28 Dec 2006
"Bring Back the Buffalo!: A Sustainable Future for America's Great Plains" by Ernest Callenbach
From Publishers Weekly...
"Callenbach (Ecotopia!) envisions two fundamental changes for the Great Plains: restoration of great herds of buffalo (bison) with accompanying pronghorn, deer and elk and widespread development of wind power. He makes a cogent case for restoring buffalo to sparsely settled regions poorly suited to cattle. Once close to extinction, nearly 140,000 bison are thriving today in parks, on ranches and on Indian reservations. Callenbach points out that bison have a less damaging ecological impact than cattle on streams and grasses; their meat is a healthy choice over beef; and the animals are a tourist attraction. Also, bison require no winter care, and fewer hands can manage them."
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 4:12 am
29 Dec 2006
Let's say there is a cattle ranch. It's been established for a while and the herd is rotatated so that the ranch creates no major deforestation, desertification or depletion impacts. All the biomass on the ranch is grown without any outside inputs like fossil-based fertilizers.
This year, the cattle eat a certain amount X of CO2 equivalent (in the carbohydrates of the biomass). Some of X is released to the air, some of X is excreted on the ground, and some of X goes into the bodies of the cattle so they live and grow.
Next year, some of the range/pasture biomass that was grazed in the past will regrow. Here's my question:
What percent of X will be taken up by the growing biomass? In other words, to what degree is this ranch carbon-neutral?
Permalink
willa Posted 9:53 am
29 Dec 2006
No one is suggesting killing humans, so there is no mass suicide.
The argument that we responsible people should have kids because otherwise the world will be overrun with irresponsible people and their kids is an old, tired, amply-disproven one. Oh, and it smacks of eugenics, but that aside.... What evidence do you see that people with superior intellectual or moral qualities pass those on to their children? I know some people whose children, for better or for worse, are exactly like them, but I also know plenty of people whose children are their polar opposites. The only factor that makes it seem otherwise is that children inherit their economic status, educational advantages, etc, largely from their parents, and those factors can create some similarities.
Also, have you so little faith in humanity that you think people wouldn't understand, in the future, how necessary it is for us to never again come this close to the brink? If we could somehow take the steps, including population reduction, necessary for the continued survival of the maximum number of earth's species, I think it would mean that we had learned the lesson and figured out how to control our destructiveness. And if, in another millenium or more, population again became a problem...well, we still would have given all the other species in the world a thousand years of not being extinct. I guess that's not worth the effort, though, according to you.
It makes me wonder why you care at all, if that's how you feel.
BioD:
Sure, a dog in the back of a pickup is enslaved and abused. Plenty of "pets" are. Most animals of species commonly kept as pets, though, are kept as pets because there's a mutual benefit. You could say we've bred dogs to be good pets, or you could say dogs have adapted in ways that make them able to keep us trained to feed them. It doesn't really matter.
The point is, if you truly think that the average dog doesn't want to be a pet, you don't know dogs very well. Sure, there are some who are not completely enthralled with their lives all the time, who need more mental and physical exercise...but the fact that a dog wants to play with you doesn't mean the dog has a miserable life, any more than it would mean that your friends' kids had miserable lives if they did likewise. If you don't understand animals, you can't know whether they're happy or not.
When you really pay attention, take the time to get to know individual animals, they will tell you when they're happy and when they're not, and for goofy active types like Golden Retrievers, wanting to play is hardly a usual not-happy sign.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:40 pm
29 Dec 2006
Willa, it did indeed surprise me that WiscIdea should have missed the point of my facetious, over-the-top suggestion that "true environmentalists" should refrain from having children. Thanks for responding to his needlessly panicked objection.
On the other hand, I suspect Biodiversivist, on dogs as slaves, was just teasing, in that playfully sardonic way that he has. In fact, it seems likely that you agree on how certain breeds, expecting much outdoors activity, and much running and chasing, are ill-treated when they are kept indoors for very long.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:43 am
30 Dec 2006
Caniscandida brought up the issue of environmentalist not having children. I did not believe she was actually advocating it, but is something I often here from "conservatives". If one truly cares so much about the world, why don't they just off themselves? I think this is absurd. So I pointed that out... and decided to offer what I consider a practical reason for anyone who might not buy the absurdity argument.
I wish I had more time to go into the morality issue. For now, I'd like to point out that I believe there is a genetic basis for moral behavior. It is not a thin veneer covering up a more violent nature. There are numerous examples of "moral" behavior in non-human animals; I don't think they all got together and said "hey... if we our all nice to one another, our species will be better off." There must be more than a few genes at work.
Now if you arranged 6 billion people along a spectrum from most caring about the environment (if you managed to define that) to least caring and removed 99% of one end or the other, I am confident that the descendent of the remaining 1% will tend toward the extreme views of the group that repopulates Earth.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:19 am
30 Dec 2006
The carbon of biology is sourced from the atmosphere. The only carbon cycle not carbon-neutral is that forced from fossil fuel fires (and maybe magma).
I kept a pet fly free to fly and dine in our home for the past two months. I named her Phylis and loved watching her routines. I learned much from her. She has been missing the last few days. She taught me that life flys by.
Kids can improve the environment, or degrade it. It depends on what they know, and what they learn from watching adults.
Permalink
willa Posted 10:23 am
31 Dec 2006
As for where I draw the line: I constantly redraw it. I go back, as needed, to my basic guiding principle that suffering is bad and I should avoid causing it, and I try to see in each situation--and in the broader scheme of things, when I have the brain cells--how I should proceed on that basis.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:49 am
01 Jan 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:08 am
01 Jan 2007
Even though I have pets and see nothing wrong woth keeping pets, I asked the earlier question because I am trying to underestand, a bit more precisely, where Jason would like me to REDRAW the line FOR NOW, pending collection of additional data on the matter.
Jason has provided some important reminders, and I am currently reading a book about morality and it roots in evolution, that are causing me to question whether I should consume meat. And rather than stand firm and resist Jason's suggestion, I am trying to understand his view. Understanding someone's view often requires asking them question to clarify matters. I hope that is okay with you. My original question regarding pets was intentionally phrased in a way to not advocate a position. I wanted to know what Jason thought about it. And he politely answered.
I do not believe I have to endorse a specific side of an issue in order to discuss it . I hope this is okay with you. Caniscandida raised the issue of environmentalist having children and I added my opinion. I never even suggested mass suicide. I intentionally said "stop reproducing". I would never suggest anyone off themselves. It is not at all productive.
And for the record, my opinion stands even though I have now learned that Caniscandida is a boy and not a woman.
I would like to add that I am very impressed by his -- Caniscandida's -- maturity, knowledge, and eloquence. If he is representative of the youth of today, there might be hope for the human species.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:38 am
01 Jan 2007
"The argument that we responsible people should have kids because otherwise the world will be overrun with irresponsible people and their kids is an old, tired, amply-disproven one. Oh, and it smacks of eugenics, but that aside.... What evidence do you see that people with superior intellectual or moral qualities pass those on to their children?"
I believe it is clearly understood that animals pass on traits to offspring. In the case of humans -- and a few other animals -- there is a layer of cultural evolution added to biological evolution and this can serve as a buffer preventing rapid change, but I do not believe our morality is primarily cultural. And if the environment -- our society or the natural world -- imposed sufficient selective pressure, the human species' moral standards could change. This has nothing to do with some absolute defintion of , as you put it, "superior" qualities. In the natural world, a trait is "superior" only if it furthers survival of the genes that make it possible. Furthermore, my comment does not, as you put it, "smack of eugenics". It is merely a reflection of an underlying biological process... random mutation, natural selection, and evolutionary change. I believe we can accept the science of evolution and still reject the perverse and arrogant application of that knowledge in the form of eugenics.
An aside... Apparently, eugenics is acceptable in one area. Our culture is very supportive of breeding animals for show, food, or enslavement (hee hee hee). We select for "superior" physical and mental qualities. In a way this serves to demonstrate the evil of eugenics policies.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:19 am
01 Jan 2007
"...have you so little faith in humanity that you think people wouldn't understand, in the future, how necessary it is for us to never again come this close to the brink?"
Well, I am a bit concerned. Various civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their local environment and we have yet to learn our lesson. We have archeological evidence and historical records. Yet large numbers of people still say it won't happen to us. More recently, we've passed laws to protect the environment. Yet, people are working very hard to reverse those laws. So, Willa, I'd have to say I don't have much faith that humanity will "never again come this close to the brink". I'm not even sure they will avoid going over the brink.
Willa also wrote...
"... if ... population again became a problem...well, we still would have given all the other species in the world a thousand years of not being extinct. I guess that's not worth the effort, though, according to you.
It makes me wonder why you care at all, if that's how you feel."
So, Willa, you are actually advocating a severe reduction in human population? I certainly never suggested this. I only countered the absurd -- though clearly not serious -- suggestion that environmentalist not having children could be beneficial. You think it would be worth it just to give the biosphere a brief rest from human pressure?
You wonder why I care at all. I struggle with this constantly. It seems we make great progress only to have it reversed by fools like George W. Bush and his supporters. It seems that people who tend to be agressive and not care about preserving the biosphere are generally more successfull. It seems that people who reject science, who actually hate science, are more successfull (though really only as long as there are scientist supporting their efforts) I hope it is not true, but I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Yet I still care. Why?
First there is pure selfishness. I like clean air, clean water, walking through my little prairie remnant and observing the life inhabiting it. I try not to think about what will happen to it when I'm no longer there to protect it... could end up being a Walmart parking lot. But I'll be around another 50 years or so.
Second, even if I feel like giving up, I still want my nephews, neices, their children, my friends' descendents, and people I will never meet to be able to walk through a prairie or any other biome. I have no right to deprive them of it, but an obligation to pass it down to them. And once I'm gone, it is up to them to keep up the fight.
Third, even if I had no selfish interest what-so-ever, even if I despised humanity, which I absolutey don't, I am very concerned about the other animals inhabiting the Earth. I do not wish to see any suffering beyond that necessary for maintaining biological natural cycles. (Thus, my interest in Jason's project.) So, I might have little faith in humanity actually learning to live in harmony with nature, but I have to continue supporting the effort to do so. Perhaps we have finally accumulated enough knowledge and experience to avoid destroying the biosphere that sustains our species.
Permalink
GMB Posted 7:31 am
01 Jan 2007
No thats NOT right.
And you cannot justify this statement unless you first show that this planet is more prone to catastrophic warming then catastrophic cooling.
Which none of you can show. On account of it being the opposite of the truth.
Its incredible just how sheep-like people can be. There isn't one of you here that hasn't fallen for some aspect of this scientific fraud.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:26 am
01 Jan 2007
But really, there is no reason that anybody online is saying anything truthful about himself or herself, and your idea about identifying ourselves will not improve matters. I trust that Willa is a woman, and that Jason Scorse is a man, but I do not really know that, do I.
The traditional genders that we assign to given names have mostly been accurate in printed literature, and so it is reasonable to carry that presumption over into online contexts. E.g., Charles Dickens and James Joyce are safely identified as men, while Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters were almost certainly women. (Thinking logically, I had to insert the "almost"; in our dealings with the past, certainty is asymptotic.)
But be careful: George Eliot, George Sand and Isak Dinesen were all women. And Walt Whitman and E.M. Forster were gay. And Mark Twain's real name was not Mark Twain.
I entirely agree with you when you write, "I do not believe I have to endorse a specific side of an issue in order to discuss it." Bravo! The neutrality option should always be available to us.
To Sunflower: Thanks very much for your account of Phylis. It is an admirably revealing little story. My grandmother -- who did not keep flies as pets; she did her best to slay as many as she could -- always referred to flies as "she," because the Italian word is "mosca," which is a noun of feminine gender.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 3:21 pm
02 Jan 2007
For the record, I think it would be completely fabulous if human beings all stopped reproducing immediately. I'm not in favor of killing anyone--well, I think there are certain particular individuals, who are responsible for the ongoing death and suffering of thousands, whose premature deaths wouldn't be an altogether bad thing--but I certainly think it's irresponsible to continue to breed. Evolution doesn't work so fast that my kids would automatically be better environmentalists than would the children of some Republican, assuming we're just talking genetics here. I can influence more people, albeit less strongly in each case, by teaching rather than procreating, so it's worth reducing the load on the planet by even one human.
Well, and then of course there's my complete lack of desire to surrender my life, liberty, and happiness to a squalling brat, but that's another issue entirely. Oh yeah, and my father's family are all violent paranoid schizophrenics, and my mom's family all die of cancer at 60, so, y'know, environmentalism aside, not much hope for my genes. But I'm ok, so far, so it's not at all clear to me that I suffer as a result of my compromised breeding.
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 2:11 am
18 Jan 2007
What am I to do? Are other cheeses made with animal rennet? I also learned that the only way to avoid the animal product is to use GE rennet, cloned into bacteria and grown in vats!!! SO NOW WHAT? I can't eat any cheese without thoroughly invesitgating source?
What do they use besides animal rennet and GE rennet? Chemicals?
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help me find safe cheese. No animal-based or GE rennet. Where? What kind of cheese?
Permalink
kanpolo Posted 5:25 pm
20 Apr 2007
Permalink