Columbia Basin Herald Online Newspaper
Local News - Moses Lake, WA - Grant County
Greener pastures?
Groups claim cows are worse than cars
Put down the hamburger. Stop eating steak. One more bite and you could help create more greenhouse gasses than ever driving a Hummer.
We're not talking about methane.
The Group of 8 economic summit is taking place in Kobe, Japan, where the legendary, succulent Kobe beef is grown.
As they began the three-day summit, the United Nations was joined by vegetarian groups in pushing for a new way to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide buildup.
"One way to combat climate change is reducing meat consumption," Ragendra Pachauri of the International Panel on Climate Change told G8 leaders, according to The Japan Times.
Pachauri is an economist and environmental scientist who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former American Vice President Al Gore.
Born in India, Pachauri is also a vegetarian because he is Hindu - the religion where cows are sacred and thought to be the reincarnated souls of human beings.
But this scientist wouldn't base his assumptions and theories on his religious views would he?
Nope. He says it all has to do with the release of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases and he is not alone.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization provided a report in 2006 on the environmental costs of "excessive" beef consumption. The organization claims livestock creates 18 percent more greenhouse gas emissions "than the transportation sector."
This means the U.N. believes cattle create more greenhouse gases than all of the emissions from all of the cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, trains, planes, ships, space shuttles, etc., burning oil-based fuel.
We're not making this up and the U.N. never gave a direct reason for the connection.
Pachauri went on to talk about the other ill effects of cattle production on the world.
According to The Japan Times, he presented information from the U.N. report including the statement: "The livestock sector now uses 30 percent of the Earth's land surface. Most of the use consists of permanent pastures. But 33 percent of the global arable land is now used to produce livestock feed."
This means more than one-third of the world is used to grow cattle or feed for cattle.
Wow. (Note sarcasm and disbelief.)
The U.N. also stated deforestation of old-growth forests for grazing land reduces the world's ability to absorb carbon dioxide. This includes "some 70 percent of forests in the Amazon region (that) have been turned over to grazing."
But there is good news for the cattle ranchers. Despite the U.N. and Pachauri claiming you are destroying the planet, the U.N. projects the demand for beef to double from the roughly 299 million tons grown in 1999 by 2050.
"The meat industry causes extensive damage and is linked to climate change and diversity loss. It's clear the planet can't sustain current levels of meat consumption and the people need to cut back," said Jurgen Maier, representing the German non-government organization Forum on Environment and Development, according to The Japan Times.
Living amongst cattle producers, looking at how much land is used for grazing and growing feed, leaves us with the conclusion that these people may be infected with "mad cow." They seem pretty mad at cows.
More than a third of the Earth is used for cattle production? Only 30 percent of the Amazon jungle remains? Have they used Google maps to review the Amazon basin? Have they really toured cattle ranches in North America? Or did they sit at a desk, writing a nice bureaucratic report to support their vegetarian ways?
It may seem like a great tactic to link beef with destruction of the world to stop people from eating meat, but it can discredit the environmental movement. Such hyperbole should be saved for real threats, not used to push personal religious-based and culinary ideals on the world.
"Save the cow. Save the world."
Sorry Pachauri. We plan to continue to eat beef. It is a cultural food to the United States, same as rice is to Japan, curry to India and spaghetti to Italy. We are glad you are a vegetarian. It means more beef for us.
- Editorial board
Email this story
Printer friendly version
|
POST YOUR OPINION
|
* All comment posts will encounter a possible delay of up to 24 hours.
Heathen wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:18 PM:
" OK dc, perhaps I did overstate my point. I don't believe that science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. Much science is informed by religious principles. However, there are instances wherein the two can be mutually exclusive. I think that's one of the points of the editorial. The editors feel that Pachauri is incapable of being a good scientist because of his religious beliefs. My point was that most scientists, to be truly objective, must learn to take some of the tenets of their faith with a grain of salt, as Darwin did. Darwin remained a Christian throughout his life (although the much-told story of his deathbed conversion is a load of hooey.) He never renouced Christianity or God, but his scientific way of thought allowed him to revolutionize how humans see themselves.
"Superstitious Claptrap" is perhaps too strong a term, but don't you agree that a true scientist will have the facility to re-conceptualize his model of faith when presented with compelling enough evidence that the existing model is insufficient? "
"Superstitious Claptrap" is perhaps too strong a term, but don't you agree that a true scientist will have the facility to re-conceptualize his model of faith when presented with compelling enough evidence that the existing model is insufficient? "
dc wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:16 AM:
" "Superstitous claptrap"? Your palaver is insulting to religious people of all denominations, scientific or otherwise. A scientist's views might be tinged by religous beliefs, but not invalidated by them. Scientific principles and religious principles have the same foundation: God. I know that conflicts with your secular humanist paradigm, but it's still the truth.
I just can't understand how you can say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They're not. And your persistent efforts to undermine the faith of good and decent people are straight out of the Marxist playbook. Do you have a picture of "Uncle Karl" in your home? Do you think Stalin was just misguided or overzealous? Do you think Kim Jong-il is truly helping the North Korean people? Is Fidel a hero of yours? I hope not.
As far as Pachauri is concerned, he can believe whatever he wants and say something else entirely. It's called freedom of choice. My freedom allows me to disbelieve your vaunted theories and sophistry, no matter how well you package your argument. The fact that some people espouse a religion does not neutralize their desire to understand things scientifically or to conduct research to discover the physical laws of nature. "
I just can't understand how you can say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They're not. And your persistent efforts to undermine the faith of good and decent people are straight out of the Marxist playbook. Do you have a picture of "Uncle Karl" in your home? Do you think Stalin was just misguided or overzealous? Do you think Kim Jong-il is truly helping the North Korean people? Is Fidel a hero of yours? I hope not.
As far as Pachauri is concerned, he can believe whatever he wants and say something else entirely. It's called freedom of choice. My freedom allows me to disbelieve your vaunted theories and sophistry, no matter how well you package your argument. The fact that some people espouse a religion does not neutralize their desire to understand things scientifically or to conduct research to discover the physical laws of nature. "
Heathen wrote on Jun 2, 2008 2:37 PM:
" I have to get back to this Hindu thing. It's true that Hindus believe in reincarnation. I'm not convinced that makes any difference in Dr. Pachauri's scientific capabilities. Darwin was a Christian. Christians believe that we were made out of dust that someone breathed on. Science lifted him out of that superstitious claptrap and allowed him to see things for what they really were. Some scientists (like "intelligent design" proponents) truly are hampered by their religious beliefs and should be questioned. However, in Pachauri's case you're looking at a Nobel Prize winner whose theories clash with many tenets of orthodox Hinduism, thus I think it's highly doubtful that he lets religion get in the way of his scientific inquiry. "
DoctorSteve wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:54 AM:
" Mike, you're pretty quick to oversimplify and dismiss things. While it's true that there were 35 million head of Bison on the American plains, their situation was completely different from that of the approximately 100 million domestic cattle currently in the US. First off, Bison were grass-fed rather than grain-fed, which makes a huge difference in gases produced. Secondly, their wastes were spread across the continent, not stockpiled in high concentrations. Other factors are also quite different. Comparing Bison to domestic cattle as though there's no difference? That sounds like "junk science" to me. "
Dennis wrote on May 31, 2008 10:39 PM:
" Gosh, another anti-environmental editorial from the CBH staff. I suppose that if they really don't like the planet, they are free to leave at any time. "
AM wrote on May 31, 2008 8:27 AM:
" HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.
WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher."
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result."
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there actually are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 PhDs, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors, and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state "
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.
WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher."
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result."
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there actually are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 PhDs, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors, and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state "
Doctorsteve wrote on May 31, 2008 8:20 AM:
" Bob wrote: "DrSteve - Well put. I disagree but respect how you stated your belief."
I'm sorry Bob, but you'll have to be more specific than that. First off, what I stated wasn't a "belief." It was a clarification of a scientific theory which is easily understood, but was misrepresented in the above editorial. Secondly, I don't understand where you "disagree." What I stated was factual information from scientific reports. Do you have factual information which justifies your dispute of what I've stated? If not, it occurs to me that you simply don't want to accept the conclusions that were drawn, so you choose not to believe in them. "
I'm sorry Bob, but you'll have to be more specific than that. First off, what I stated wasn't a "belief." It was a clarification of a scientific theory which is easily understood, but was misrepresented in the above editorial. Secondly, I don't understand where you "disagree." What I stated was factual information from scientific reports. Do you have factual information which justifies your dispute of what I've stated? If not, it occurs to me that you simply don't want to accept the conclusions that were drawn, so you choose not to believe in them. "
Mike wrote on May 30, 2008 4:06 PM:
" 35Million head of Buffalo used to roam the plains of America...and now animals are a problem...more junk science... "
Heathen wrote on May 30, 2008 10:35 AM:
" Bob, I don't "blindly accept" the report. I read it, which is more than the editors appear to have done, or at least to have done carefully. I also considered the ideas presented, and I compared them to other ideas I already had from other sources. As a matter of fact, the Japan Times figures for land use appear to be exaggerated. They're up to ten percent higher than estimates from other sources. Perhaps all the figures are exaggerated. This still doesn't justify the editorial board's stance that the US' historical cultural practices override our need to take care of the earth, or to lessen our consumption. "
Bob wrote on May 30, 2008 10:12 AM:
" DrSteve - Well put. I disagree but respect how you stated your belief.
Heathen - When are you going to stop attempting to discredit people who disagree with you? I am surprised the editor continues to let you blog with all of the garbage you type about them.
From what I personally know and can find on the Web, the paper is right about Hindus.
"According to Hinduism a soul reincarnates again and again on earth till it becomes perfect and reunites with its source." - hinduwebsite.com
Nice try with the fictional connection between Hindus and Christians. We know how you feel about Christians.Your blogging handle says it all.
I am happy for you being a vegetarian. But please do not force me to be one and I won't force you to eat beef. Agree?
A responsible journalist would print anything showing a conflict of interest (Hindu vegetarian saying eating beef destroys the world) and anything that provides reasonable suspicion on the action of a government agency. Why do you blindly accept the UN report? After traveling eight countries, I have yet to see anything but homes sitting on 30% or more of the land. Their claim about land use - which is what the editorial is targeting as part of the ridiculous nature of the anti-beef attempt - makes as much sense as the UN telling you it is sunny outside while rain is landing on your face.
Please, question these reports. Compare them to what you know and apply common sense. I hope since you like to target credibility you will take time to question the creative "facts" being used to manipulate you. You might find not all of them are telling the truth. In this case, I sought out the Japan Times article and found they scoffed at the UN comments too. Wow. Liberal media not buying an environmental theory. What does this say? "
Heathen - When are you going to stop attempting to discredit people who disagree with you? I am surprised the editor continues to let you blog with all of the garbage you type about them.
From what I personally know and can find on the Web, the paper is right about Hindus.
"According to Hinduism a soul reincarnates again and again on earth till it becomes perfect and reunites with its source." - hinduwebsite.com
Nice try with the fictional connection between Hindus and Christians. We know how you feel about Christians.Your blogging handle says it all.
I am happy for you being a vegetarian. But please do not force me to be one and I won't force you to eat beef. Agree?
A responsible journalist would print anything showing a conflict of interest (Hindu vegetarian saying eating beef destroys the world) and anything that provides reasonable suspicion on the action of a government agency. Why do you blindly accept the UN report? After traveling eight countries, I have yet to see anything but homes sitting on 30% or more of the land. Their claim about land use - which is what the editorial is targeting as part of the ridiculous nature of the anti-beef attempt - makes as much sense as the UN telling you it is sunny outside while rain is landing on your face.
Please, question these reports. Compare them to what you know and apply common sense. I hope since you like to target credibility you will take time to question the creative "facts" being used to manipulate you. You might find not all of them are telling the truth. In this case, I sought out the Japan Times article and found they scoffed at the UN comments too. Wow. Liberal media not buying an environmental theory. What does this say? "
Heathen wrote on May 30, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Bob, you seem to have the same misunderstandings of Hinduism as the editors of this newspaper. Claiming that a scientist will alter his findings because of his religion is disrespectful, especially when one doesn't have the slightest idea of how that religion works. The editorial also misrepresented the Hindu religion, which is also quite disrespectful.
Hindus do not protect cows because of a belief in reincarnation. They protect cows because they believe that cows embody the spirit of sacrifice--much like Jesus in Christian theology. "
Hindus do not protect cows because of a belief in reincarnation. They protect cows because they believe that cows embody the spirit of sacrifice--much like Jesus in Christian theology. "
Doctorsteve wrote on May 30, 2008 8:27 AM:
" Matthew, you are correct in stating that all animals emit carbon dioxide. However, the carbon impact of raising livestock goes far beyond the CO2 breathed into the atmosphere. The UN report is based on other more problematic gases like nitrous oxide and methane--gases which are not naturally produced by these animals but which come instead from the concentrated stockpiles of manure they generate, and from their difficulties in digesting the grain-based diet we feed them. The UN report also factors in the immense stretches of land in South America which are being cleared of rain forest (a very effective absorber of CO2) and converted into grasslands (an inefficient absorber of CO2.) Animals may not be the culprit, but the way we raise animals is certainly a major component in the production of greenhouse gases. "
Matthew J Cherni DVM wrote on May 30, 2008 5:45 AM:
" Carbon dioxide is emitted by every animal walking the face of the earth including humans. The carbon dioxide is recycled into carbon fiber by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is enhanced in young active growing plants. The process of grazing keeps grass plants vegetative for a much longer period of time during the year, much like mowing the lawn. In addition the fields of corn grown in the midwestern part of the united states does much more to reduce carbon dioxide from our environment than thousands of acres of concrete and asphalt that are now part of the landscape. Animal production is not the culprit in global warming, humans are. "
Heathen wrote on May 29, 2008 6:59 PM:
" Well Bob, perhaps that's the difference between us. When it comes to scientific theory, I tend to believe people with scientific credentials more than I believe angry newspaper editors. Perhaps you believe pundits more than you believe scientists?
I treated the editorial staff as I would anyone who indulges in irresponsible argumentation. All I see in this editorial is that someone doesn't want to believe a statistic because that statistic implies that they are acting irresponsibly, so they claim that the statistic is unbelievable. Here's the thing--even if this particular scientist is wrong about the particulars, there's no reason to mock those who believe that reducing our reliance on grain-fed beef will improve the environment. The negative effect of our livestock-management procedures on the environment is quite well documented.
And for the record, I AM vegetarian. Now watch as everyone calls me a weirdo instead of congratulating me for taking some responsibility. "
I treated the editorial staff as I would anyone who indulges in irresponsible argumentation. All I see in this editorial is that someone doesn't want to believe a statistic because that statistic implies that they are acting irresponsibly, so they claim that the statistic is unbelievable. Here's the thing--even if this particular scientist is wrong about the particulars, there's no reason to mock those who believe that reducing our reliance on grain-fed beef will improve the environment. The negative effect of our livestock-management procedures on the environment is quite well documented.
And for the record, I AM vegetarian. Now watch as everyone calls me a weirdo instead of congratulating me for taking some responsibility. "
Bob wrote on May 29, 2008 6:17 PM:
" Oh Heathen. I agree with the opinion the paper printed. Heck, I think I will treat you like you did them.
(Heathen,) this is a new low for you. Rather than research these statistics, you (embrace) them. You don't provide a single statistic to (endorse) what is claimed by these organizations. Instead, you mock the (newspaper) who (opposes) them because of their cultures and their (opinions). First off, that's irresponsible (blogging.) Worse than that, it's an irresponsible attitude for any human being to have. I'd expect no worse from like likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. I'd expect much better from (you.)
They didn't mock any religion. Either you have trouble with your reading comprehension or just see what you want to see. They pointed out an admitted Hindu does not believe in eating beef and why. I felt it is the same as asking why Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Ireland even when their same God gave a commandment to not kill.
Your last blog was pointless and never addressed the issue. Are you a vegetarian? Do you see a third of all of our land being used to raise cattle or feed? Travel the world a bit and you will know the UN report is either a lie or very, very wrong. "
(Heathen,) this is a new low for you. Rather than research these statistics, you (embrace) them. You don't provide a single statistic to (endorse) what is claimed by these organizations. Instead, you mock the (newspaper) who (opposes) them because of their cultures and their (opinions). First off, that's irresponsible (blogging.) Worse than that, it's an irresponsible attitude for any human being to have. I'd expect no worse from like likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. I'd expect much better from (you.)
They didn't mock any religion. Either you have trouble with your reading comprehension or just see what you want to see. They pointed out an admitted Hindu does not believe in eating beef and why. I felt it is the same as asking why Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Ireland even when their same God gave a commandment to not kill.
Your last blog was pointless and never addressed the issue. Are you a vegetarian? Do you see a third of all of our land being used to raise cattle or feed? Travel the world a bit and you will know the UN report is either a lie or very, very wrong. "
Heathen wrote on May 29, 2008 4:52 PM:
" Guys, this is a new low for you. Rather than research these statistics, you laugh at them. You don't provide a single statistic to counter what is claimed by these organizations. Instead, you mock the people who promote them because of their cultures and their religions. First off, that's irresponsible journalism. Worse than that, it's an irresponsible attitude for any human being to have. I'd expect no worse from like likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. I'd expect much better from your editorial board. "
Guest wrote on Jun 8, 2008 10:19 AM: