From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:05:52 GMT

From article <1993Jan25.191806.24542@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>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.  

Is this your honest opinion, Rich?  

For example, did you really agree with Alex Pace's claim that an 
increase in world temperature of ten degrees or less would be a 
good thing, because it would allegedly increase the number of 
regions suitable for multiple crops?  And, did you agree with his 
claim that grain would produce methane gas by rotting in the 
fields if it weren't otherwise consumed by cattle?  

>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.  

>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!)

I agree with you that your analogy is farfetched.  We'll need to 
address the problems posed by greenhouse gases by doing whatever we 
can do to reduce the problem as painlessly as possible.  And 
cutting back on meat consumption is a choice with multiple 
side-benefits as well.  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.  

>> 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.

It's accurate to say that cardiovascular disease is the biggest
killer in the US, since it accounted for roughly 366 deaths per 100,000
in 1990.  And, it's also accurate to say that fat-laden meat and
dairy diets are largely responsible for this problem.   It's not
so accurate when someone who wishes to distract attention from the
problem comes along and claims that non-heart-disease is truly
the "single biggest killer" since non-heart-disease accounted for 495
deaths per 100,000 people in the same year. 

>> 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.

Rich, I took the liberty of editing in the full-text.  Please answer
the question at the end.

===========================================================================
Right off hand, I'd say that there isn't too much that we can do 
to reduce termite-methane-production, and even if there 
was, it would have no bearing on our decision to-produce or 
not-to-produce cattle for consumption.  Vis-a-vis the methane 
that you say is produced by rice paddies, bear in mind that the 
global production of rice is 450 million metric tons or 
thereabouts, whereas global meat production (including non-ruminant
animals) is roughly 100 million metric tons (carcass weight).

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 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.

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)?  Or better still, do you really think the tiny 
Masai herds compare in size with the cattle produced by the US 
or Argentina or Brazil?  If not, then surely you'd agree that
such tiny herds represent a tiny fraction of the problem.

>> >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.  You claimed that termites and rice
paddies produce "almost twice as much methane" as cattle... presumably
hoping to distract attention.    Do you agree that a major cutback
in rice production would cause famine on a global scale, whereas
a cutback in livestock production would actually increase the world
stores of human food?

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