jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
STFU, hypocrite.You shut the fuck up, asshole.
You know you are wrong, so you engage in personal attacks.
Weak....
Are you a vegan yet?
Not only am I not a Vegan yet, and never will be, I was down "home" checking out property and the deer herds. This time next year, I will be tuning up my rifles, and will supply my freezer from the deer and elk herds, rather than the store.
Just two hundred years ago, there were vast herds of bison, wildebeast, and other ruminents. I dare say that the numbers matched the present domestic herds. The primary CH4 source from man's activities was not our domestic animals, but the wet cultivation of rice. As many nations shifted to more dry land rice, the CH4 levels stabalized. Then the Arctic clathrates started outgassing, and now the level is rising again.
The primary GHG at present is CO2, and we are creating the increase there through our use of fossil fuels. Your rants concerning CH4 and meat is simply a strawman. That you cannot debate or face the real issue shows the weakness of your arguement.
Whatever...
Your personal impact on global warming may be influenced as much by what you eat as by what you drive.
That surprising conclusion comes from a couple of scientists who have taken an unusual look at the production of greenhouse gases from an angle that not many folks have even thought about. Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies.
If you want to help lower greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in a report to be published in the journal Earth Interactions, become a vegetarian.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that both researchers are vegetarians, although they admit to cheating a little with an occasional sardine. They say their conclusions are backed up by hard data.
Eshel and Martin collected that data from a wide range of sources, and they examined the amount of fossil-fuel energy -- and thus the level of production of greenhouse gases -- required for five different diets. The vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy efficient, followed by poultry, and what they call the "mean American diet," which consists of a little bit of everything.
There was a surprising tie for last place. In terms of energy required for harvesting and processing, fish and red meat ended up in a "virtual tie," but that's just in terms of energy consumed. When you toss in all those other factors, such as bovine flatulence and gas released by manure, red meat comes in dead last. Fish remains in fourth place, some distance behind poultry and the mean American diet, chiefly because the type of fish preferred by Americans requires a lot of energy to catch.
Eating Red Meat Like Driving an SUV?
Can changing your diet really have much of an impact?
"It is comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan," said Eshel, who drives a Honda Civic, and only when he has to.
Eshel, who grew up on a farm, has always been interested in ecology and the impact we have on the planet. He got into this research, he says, because "now that I'm a professor of geophysics, I have tools in my tool kit that I can apply much more quantitatively and rigorously to evaluate what we do."
and more at....
Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming? - ABC News