From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:43:17 GMT
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <C1G3Ht.H36@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan25.191806.24542@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>In <C1DuIx.4LB@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>That's a big "if", Rich.   
>
>  "Livestock account for 15% to 20% of global methane emissions ---
>   about 3% of global warming from all gases."
>
>From Durning, Alan and Brough, Holly. "Taking Stock: Animal Farming
>and the Environment", WorldWatch Institute: Washington, 1991.  BTW, 
>the source of info for this statement was a joint report from the Japan
>Environment Agency and the EPA.  

	Perhaps it has escaped the residents of Louisiana, but cattle are
	not the only creature included in the category of "livestock,"
	which means that, if "livestock" produce 15% to 20% of global
	methane, cattle must produce some fraction of that.  The rest
	belongs to goats, sheep, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc.  And we
	haven't begun to calculate how much methane your dogs contribute.

>>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!)
>
>You're free to wave your arms around and point in different directions 
>in an attempt to distract attention, but it won't change the fact that 
>livestock agriculture imposes heavy environmental burdens in terms of 
>water and energy resources as well as pollution.  

	What happened to the methane, Russell?  You're free to wave your
	arms around and point in different directions in an attempt to 
	distract attention, but it won't change the fact that your methane 
	argument has pretty well gone up in the proverbial smoke.

>===========================================================================
>Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>we cut without causing famine?
>===========================================================================
>
>Would you mind answering the last question... without pointing your
>fingers at the Masai, whose herds are truly tiny compared to those
>of the affluent nations where meat-eating is a matter of choice rather
>than necessity.

	I have already answered this question; the fact that you don't like
	the answer I gave leaves me unmoved.

>>>>>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.
>
>Yes, I do mean this.  Were you under the impression that cattle 
>would produce a constant amount of methane, regardless of their 
>diets?  Or that cattle manure would produce a constant amount of 
>methane, whether it's deposited in sparse droppings (aerobic 
>decomposition) or concentrated sewage ponds (anaerobic 
>decomposition)?

	I'm still waiting for the proof that they don't emit ANY methane,
	as implied by your question, "How much do they contribute to
	methane emissions (if anything)?"

>>>>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?
>
>Let me refresh your memory.

	No, let me refresh YOURS.  You said, "...removal of american and
	european and asian cattle....would increase global grain supplies
	enormously."

	I asked, "Why would we want to increase this," after pointing out
	that the world already produces enough food for both people AND
	cattle.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:11519 alt.peeves:19505