Classical Values :: Number one cause?

February 26, 2007

Number one cause?

I moan and groan about Global Warming, and I'm a double skeptic, in the following two ways:

1) I'm not convinced that the CO2 produced by man is capable of warming the planet to any appreciable degree. I don't think that has been shown.

2) Even if I were convinced that anthopogenic gases were heating the planet, I still think that the type of massive interventions and regulations being proposed would have more disastrous consequences than the carbon itself.

However, I try to be fair, and I am fond of playing Devil's Advocate because I find it helpful to examine all sides of arguments, and one of the best ways to do this is to assume that what your opponents say is true, and use that as a starting point.

So, for the purpose of this blog post only, let me assume not only that the planet is heating up, but that our carbon is doing it, and that it is absolutely imperative that we put the brakes on those human activities which are most responsible for producing the carbon.

I have read repeatedly that the biggest single cause of carbon production is not the use of fossil fuels, but the human production of animals to be used as food.

In other words, our meat eating. Dr. Joseph W. Fox is a man whose general philosophy I disagree with, but he states the case rather eloquently:

The natural world is being turned into what some call a biological desert or industrialized wasteland by various human activities. Our singularly most damaging environmental footprint upon this planet, now recognized and documented by the FAO (1) is caused by our collectively costly and damaging appetite for animal produce. Some 3.2 billion cattle, sheep and goats are now being raised for human consumption, along with billions more pigs and poultry. These extensively and intensively farmed animals produce less food for us than they consume, and compete with us for water; they result in an increasing loss wildlife and habitat, and of good farmlands and grazing lands. Linked with deforestation, loss of wetlands, over-fishing and ocean pollution, our appetite for meat is the number one cause of global warming and loss of biodiversity.

OK, now meat-eating is either the number one cause of Global Warming or it is not. I've read about this phenomenon and commented upon it a number of times in this blog. I admit, I have enjoyed using it to poke fun at the Global warming crowd, greenie weenies, the vegans, and the animal rights crowd, because it's not too often that so many leftists congregate on the same issue.

Well, I am being serious now. Let's assume there is anthropogenic global warming. I have a legitimate, lingering question that has not been answered to my satisfaction.

Why is all the focus on the number two cause of Global Warming?

Isn't it easier to ask Americans to switch to beans and tofu than to give up their cars and switch to bicycles? Aren't high taxes meat easier to swallow than high taxes on oil?

As a skeptic, I'm not about to give up either one of my noxious addictions. But as addictions go, I think it would be easier to give up meat than to give up heat, and give up driving. I think most people, if they really thought about it, would find it far easier to give up meat than to give up oil, because we can live without the former, but not without the latter.

So why am I being told I'm addicted to oil, but not that I'm addicted to meat?

What am I missing?

AFTERTHOUGHT: To play my devil's advocacy game fairly, I probably should factor the usual political hyperbole into the argument that meat is the number one cause of global warming. OK, let's say it's only the number two cause. That it's not the number one cause, but it's a major cause. There's still a problem -- because I hear and read about global warming constantly, and at least in the conventional mainstream media, the culprit is, simply (in a very steady drumbeat) oil, oil, oil.

Where's the meat?

Can it be that we have an addiction that dare not speak its name?

UPDATE: I am not forgetting about methane -- CH4 -- which not only contains carbon, but which I mentioned in the last post about global warming. Again, my question is, if meat is a major cause of what the global warming proponents allege is happening, why is this being downplayed?

posted by Eric on 02.26.07 at 01:42 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4676

Comments

The carbon dioxide rise is piddling, of course, and the biodiversity issue just pushes the diversity of vertabrates... termites and cockroaches abound in diversity as do bacteria. But lets assume that the change in greenhouse gases are the culprit! Yes and even worse than carbon dioxide is methane, which retains 20 times the heat that poor carbon dioxide does. Well now, what is the #1 producer of this killer? Termites. From Facts on Farts: "What kind of animal has the highest worldwide output of flatulence?
Believe it or not, the animal that wins this honor is the humble termite. Because of their diet and digestive processes , they produce as much methane as human industry. Termite farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming."

And the worse place for this is? Brazil, where Amazonian rainforest is being cut down for unsustainable agriculture that then allows soil to be eroded and then, and only then, do you get a few years of cattle on it until so much soil is gone that even cattle cannot be kept on it. That lovely 'ethanol' and 'bio fuel' must come from someplace and it is Brazilian agriculture. So stop cutting down the rainforests and that will curb termite population *growth*. Of course the 'bio fuels' will also be curbed and the entire 'green fuel' of Brazil idea is shown as a major cause of global warming, as compared to nice, safe, fossil fuels... but that is assuming that one is serious about the man-made global warming meme.

To end it, end methane over production.

To do that end termite population growth.

To do that, stop cutting down rainforests in Brazil, stunt agricultural growth that is unsustainable and that will also end up curbing ethanol production puttting them back on fossil fuels.

Well, better that than termites and methane...

ajacksonian · February 26, 2007 02:19 PM

It's not the CO2 that warms things up, it's the heat trapped by the CO2. And don't forget the methane.

Have you seen a picture of the Arctic Ocean recently? The water from the central Canadian Arctic coast to Murmansk is open. If Russia was a functioning country Canada would be swamped with industries and developers working their asses off getting ports and ships ready for cross Artic Ocean shipments. Hell, by mid-century you may well see Canadian and American colonies established along the old Russian Arctic Coast, trading with former Russian city states and scattered tribal lands.

It doesn't take that much extra CO2 to impact average global temperature. After all, there really isn't that much CO2 in the atmosphere as it is. What's a small amount to you is a substantial amount compared to current levels.

However, acording to a new theory regarding two astronomical and one planetary cycle, the extra greenhouse gases we keep producing may be what we need to keep the next ice age away.

BTW, it's easier to get protein and B complex vitamins from meat than it is vegetables.

Alan Kellogg · February 26, 2007 02:22 PM

Thanks Alan, I have read about the greenhouse gas theory and I understand how it is supposed to work. I just don't think it's been proven how much CO2 and CH4 is needed to affect climate change. But that's not my question.

I'm asking why the focus is on oil if meat production is the primary factor in generating the gases that are said to be warming the planet.

And if we assume methane is a bigger culprit than CO2, I think the question of meat production looms even larger.

Eric Scheie · February 26, 2007 02:44 PM

What about those giant (size of a whole state, reportedly) herds of Buffalo (Bison, if you must) that we white men are guilty of killing off? I bet they produced a lot of Methane.

David Ohlerking II · February 26, 2007 03:43 PM

Beans! You're kidding! Beans are the #1 cause of human farting, which adds to the crisis.
No, we must ban beans.

BTW, the climate is always either going up or down, and never stands still. We summarize:
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/4590-Prayers-for-Global-Warming,-and-Greenland.html

bird dog · February 26, 2007 06:30 PM

If we were taking global warming seriously, the easiest and cheapest place to strike is at the world's hunger for electrical generation through the burning of coal. New nuclear plants are economically competitive with the best coal technology on Earth, and give off no greenhouse gases:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

But, of course, we know why oil is targeted. It is the same reason people say things like, "All wars are for oil." Oil is targeted because it is so important, it is so political. If political entertainers concentrated on dry stuff, even if it were to save the Earth, no one would pay attention.

And now, two fun links.

Animal protein causes osteoperosis:
http://www.drmirkin.com/joints/8847.html

Trees cause global warming:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm

Jon Thompson · February 26, 2007 06:49 PM

Some people have pointed out that we should've been headed for an ice age back around 6,000 bc. About the same time wetland rice farming got going in southern China. Guess what you get when plant material rots underwater?

There's also the possibility our long run of steady climate isn't coincidental, but our doing. It does, after all, coincide with the start of agriculture. :)

Alan Kellogg · February 27, 2007 11:59 AM