From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:26:20 GMT

From article <1993Jan22.233938.20777@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>In article <C19u5u.83B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> 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).
>
>Your point?  The fact remains, assuming we can believe the statements
>each of us posted, that the largest cause of atmospheric methane
>is not the farming of livestock.

Is this truly a fact?  You haven't posted the figures.  Instead,  
you posted a vague quote from a newsletter alleging that
termites and rice paddies pump out "almost twice as much methane"
as cattle.   It's entirely possible that termites and rice paddies,
taken individually, each contribute less methane than cows, yet 
together produce "almost twice" as much.   In any case, it's obvious
that the methane emissions/capita brought about by rice eaters
is far less than the methane emissions/capita brought about by
beef eaters.  Pointing one's fingers at termites may distract the
attention of a guy like you, but it won't distract ecologists or
environmentalists or government planners.

BTW, I was reading the almanac yesterday afternoon and noticed that
it contained an essay that (correctly) pointed out that heart disease
is the US's biggest killer, thanks to our consumption of fatty
foods like meat and dairy products.   Maybe you should write the
editors a letter and let them know that non-heart-disease is the
biggest "single" problem in america, rather than heart-disease per se.
I'm sure they'll enjoy one of your handwaving demonstrations.

>> Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>> we cut without causing famine?
>
>Famine for whom?

For human beings, Rich.  We know that you don't care about the
plight of animals.  Are you equally callous about the plight of
other humans?

>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)?
And, what are their alternatives?

>Eliminating
>the production of rice wouldn't be a major impact on the diet
>of most North Americans, but elimination of livestock production
>certainly would.

If this is true, then it's obvious that eliminating rice from
US diets wouldn't have much impact on our methane emissions.  In 
view of the fact that the US produces and consumes roughly 20% 
of the world's livestock, however, it's clear that cutting back 
on beef production clearly would.


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