From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Methane Release
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:03:19 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


`From article <1jshviINNjkr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
`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.

"Suspect" is obviously the operative term here.  This is mere speculation
based on your opinion.

`> 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.  

What makes you think that they won't be?  And better yet, what makes you
think that all environmental changes must be desirable?  Those that adapt
survive.  The number one rule of nature that even we can't overcome.  Try
as we may, many species will still go extinct.  If that is because man
changed the world, I doubt that it will be the first time that one species
has caused the demise of another, or a multitude of others.

But perhaps the best question is, that thought weather has changed much
over the history of the world, what do you use as solid proof for your
staunch opinion that climate change is going to be drastic and catastrophic?

`> 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.

Intelligence means that we hear both sides and decide for our selves whether
or not we forsee a threat or just someone shouting that the "sky is falling."
Fortunately, not all of us buy into the doomsdayers of global climate and
put the skids on advancement and humanity based on the opinions of a few.

`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 

What if nothing happens at all?  What if someone told you to drink poisoned
Cool-aid so you can reach the promised land?  Would you drink?

`> 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?

Well Russell, I think we all know your answer to that same question!

swood
-- 
 All Month  Rabbit and Crow are legal to hunt all month in Michigan
  Current   Michigan Canada Goose special late season still open
      (Southern Michigan Game Management unit only w/stamp)
         <<<<<<  Only nine months until bow season!!! >>>>>>