From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Methane Release
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:09:11 GMT


From article <1jshviINNjkr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article <C1Bsvx.JCA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>Is this truly a fact?  You haven't posted the figures.  Instead,  
> 
> Yes, it is a fact.  Its also a fact that more methane is emitted from the
> florida everglades in one week than from all the cattle in the nation.

What's your source, Alex?   

>>In any case, it's obvious
>>that the methane emissions/capita brought about by rice eaters
>>is far less than the methane emissions/capita brought about by
>>beef eaters.  Pointing one's fingers at termites may distract the
> 
> Your terrible logic really glares out here Russ if you realize the much
> more of the world relies on a rice based diet than a beef based diet.  Much
> for the far east relies on production of rice as a staple in their diet.

I agree completely that many people in the world would starve if 
rice production were significantly reduced in order to reduce 
methane emissions.  How many people would starve if north 
american or european or asian cattle production were 
significantly reduced for the same reason?   Perhaps, I'm mistaken
but I suspect the following:

 -- that global human food supplies would increase, not decrease, if
    cattle production were significantly reduced; and
 -- that global methane emissions would increase, not decrease, if
    all rice-eaters were to replace the rice in their diets with
    an equivalent amount of meat.

> Its really a shame that you try to use gloabal warming as a partial
> foundation for your anti-beef stance.  

It's merely one element, Alex.  There are many others.

> The issue of changing climate is
> especially mute when you realize that climate change has been around as
> long as the earth, it wasnt that long ago when we had a baby ice age if
> you've studied history.  

This doesn't make much sense.  It's true that the world has 
experienced climate changes in the past, but this doesn't mean 
that climate changes will henceforth be desirable.  

> The doomsdayers of global climate are particularly
> useless if you consider that humans are now more flexible as a species than
> ever before in our existance.  

Yes, we are flexible.  "Flexibility" means that we can change old habits
in order to deal with growing threats.  Unfortunately, some of us are
inflexible and insist on sticking with the ideas that we learned as
children, regardless of newer, scientific evidence.  

> Speaking of humans, you know of course that
> people emit not only methane but also carbon dioxide as part of their
> normal body functions?  Does the fact that the world population has double
> in the last 30 years and will double again in your lifetime scare you?
> IMHO we could do with an average increase of about +10 degrees to make
> places like wisconson more liveable.  

What sort of impact would it have on the productivity in temperate,
inland areas like the great plains states?  What would happen in 
coastal regions when the polar ice caps melt?  What would happen in 
the tropics 

> In fact, such an increase would
> probably increase the hospitable landscape of the earth by opening up areas
> of Canada and the old Soviet Union that now are just too damned cold.

Would you change your opinion in the face of new evidence?  Or, 
would you cling to the idea that cattle production is good, no
matter what?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals