From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:18:06 GMT

In <C1DuIx.4LB@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>From article <1993Jan24.061729.2841@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>
>>Is the raising of cattle the largest contributor of methane to the
>>atmosphere, Russell?  By your own admission, all LIVESTOCK contribute
>>only 15 to 20 percent.  How much of that is from cattle?
>
>For the purpose of my argument, it doesn't make any difference.  My
>point, as you know, is that there are important ethical, medical,
>and environmental reasons for cutting back on the production and
>consumption of all livestock, not just cattle.  Methane emissions are
>just one of those reasons.

	And it seems that Alex Pace has addressed those concerns quite
	well.  Especially when he points out that methane is less than
	10% of the greenhouse problem.  If cattle produce 10% of the
	world's methane, that's still only 1% of the greenhouse gases.

	Eliminating cattle to solve the greenhouse gas problem is like
	trying to eliminate the federal deficit by taking over my bank
	account.  (Actually, I only WISH that my bank account approached
	1% of the federal deficit!)

>Would you say, then, that "non-heart- 
>disease" is the "single biggest" cause of deaths in the US, thereby 
>demonstrating your latest handwaving technique for diverting attention
>away from a key point or observation?

	No, I would use an inclusive term or phrase, as is the word
	"agriculture."  Your suggested construction, while technically
	correct, is awkward; "non-heart-related disease" would be less
	strained, but I would use a different phrase entirely to convey
	the concept.

>Is there some reason why
>starvation of human beings ought not to concern us, simply because
>they don't belong to the national or racial or cultural group to 
>which you belong?

	Of course not, but that's not what you asked.  See below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Russell wrote (>>>):
>>>>> Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>>>>> we cut without causing famine?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>I could do no more than speculate regarding the answer to your
>>>>question.  I would guess that any answer would depend heavily on
>>>>the circumstances of the one supplying the answer.  A Masai, for
>>>>example, might well answer differently than you.  
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but let's put the Masai's cattle in proper perspective.
>>>How much do they contribute to methane emissions (if anything)?
>>
>>Have the Masai found a breed of cattle which does NOT emit methane?
>>Remarkable!
>
>I suspect that the Masai cattle rely more on grass and less on 
>protein-and-fat-rich grains and I also suspect that Masai cattle 
>don't spend their lives in small pens where their manure could 
>accumulate in oxygen-free ponds.  Both of these would, I believe,
>reduce the level of their methane emissions.

	You actually mean this seriously, don't you?!  Amazing.

>>Would removal of the Masai cattle cause a famine in Masai society?
>
>I don't know.  However, it's obvious that the removal of american
>and european and asian cattle would not cause a famine *anywhere*.
>In fact, such an action would increase global grain supplies
>enormously.

	We already produce enough grain to feed both cattle and people
	adequately.  Why would we want to increase this?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals