From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: You just dont get it...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:10:33 GMT

From article <1k2r41INNgo8@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> 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?
> 
> I know this cant be 15 to 20 percent of the total methane emmission.
> Perhaps 15% of the manmade emmissions.  Are the elephants, caribou, llamas
> and zebra of the world counted in the LIVESTOCK figure?

If you have reason to believe that my figures aren't correct, 
please tell the figures that are correct.  And be sure to specify 
your sources.  

> Russell Lawrence:
>>>> 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.
> 
> Rich:
>>>And it seems that Alex Pace has addressed those concerns quite
>>>well.  
> 
> Russ:
>>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?  
> 
> You can argue this all day russ but it wont make you right.  The
> temperature of this planet has varied much more than 10 degrees in the past
> and we're doing just fine.  

Perhaps the planet was once a molten pool of rock, and yet we're 
doing just fine now.  Would we truly continue to do "just fine" 
if the global temperature increased by ten degrees?  

> Your hot air wont change the fact that rotting
> releases methane.

Again, anaerobic decay produces methane... not aerobic decay.  There's
quite a difference between 10,000 cow patties that are distributed
over ten acres and 10,000 cow patties in a sewage pond.  Uh, I'm
sure you realize that oxygen can be readily depleted in such an
environment.

> Rich:
>>>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.
> 
> My point exactly Rich, I would even go as far to say that all livestock
> produce 10% of manmade emissions and that natural release from marshes and
> bogs, other non-domestic animal farts and deaths, decay of the forest, etc.

You're making a factual claim here.  I've cited my sources.  Would
you kindly do the same?

> If man were responsible for half worldwide emissions then that would make
> total livestock release one half of one percent.  Considering all of the
> natural decay, I would estimate that man would be responsible for much less
> than half of the total.

Again, please specify your sources.

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