brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



Link between beef production and global warming sparks denialist outburst

The article in the Vancouver Province, written by Jay Ambrose of Scripps Howard News Service, refers to a 400-page United Nations report saying the world’s 1.5 billion cattle and other livestock account for 18 per cent of greenhouse-gas emissions.

Ambrose then goes on to berate former Vice-President Al Gore for his “meat-aided chubbiness,” and assert that reducing livestock emissions could ruin farmers and cause food shortages. “And the consequent cutback in greenhouse gases would still fall far short of what Gore-ilk worriers say is required to save the Earth from eventual devastation.”

The day before Ambrose’s missive appeared, an article in The Lancet medical journal said reducing global red-meat consumption by only 10 per cent would reduce animal gases that contribute to global warming. With world demand increasing, however, experts fear more methane and nitrous oxide heating up the planet.

Two months earlier, a Japanese study found producing 2.2 pounds of beef generates more carbon dioxide than an average car does every 160 miles. And producing those 2.2 pounds consumed nearly 170 megajoules of energy, mostly for raising and transporting feed -- the same energy a 100-watt light bulb would consume if left on for 20 days.

Ambrose made no mention of either study, nor did he give details of the UN report. So either he’s not doing sufficient research or he’s ignoring his findings. Maybe both.

What's next?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
#119677
rob. +0; Fri, 2007-09-14 16:57; Interesting comparison.
rob (not verified)

It is interesting to read the amount of carbon dioxide generated in producing 1 kg of beef versus driving a car for 160 miles.

I was also surprised to learn that producing the same amount of beef requires the same amount of energy to run a 100 watt lightbulb for 20 days.

However, it then occured to me that I can't eat a car, any more than I can drive a slab of roast beef 160 miles. And although someone may argue that lightbulbs have no cholesterol, they may be a little hard on the digestion.

Maybe the significance of these bizarre non sequitur comparisons is lost on me because, as Ian Forrester would (and likely will) say: I obviously don't understand science!

#119818
FEMACK. +1; Sat, 2007-09-15 07:23; It's a simple concept really . . .

. . . called putting things in perspective

#119858
rob. +0; Sat, 2007-09-15 11:21; Hmm, yes, I see your point.
rob (not verified)

But please excuse me, I have to drive my roast beef to the supermarket and pick up some 100 watt lightbulbs for dinner.

#119860
VJ. +1; Sat, 2007-09-15 12:01; To put it very simply,
VJ

To put it very simply, energy is used to do different things, such as raising cattle, lighting light bulbs, and driving cars. Just like money, which you spend to buy beef, to pay for your electricity, and to buy gas to put in your car. And just as we do with money, we need to decide what is the best way to use the energy we have, since it is a limited resource. We have to stop wasting it.

#119919
rob. +0; Sat, 2007-09-15 19:10; Oh.
rob (not verified)

Thanks for patiently explaining that, VJ. Luckily, as a reward for turning in a counter-revolutionary thought-criminal to the state security police, the Central Planning Committee has granted me extra ration cards for meat and electricity. So, hurray! I can have both!

#119964
Steve L. +0; Sat, 2007-09-15 22:04; okay
Steve L (not verified)

but please voluntarily use less of each.

#120006
FEMACK. +1; Sun, 2007-09-16 02:58; Advice to VJ

Here we go again. My advice is consider the source and ignore him. Maybe he'll go play somewhere else if nobody pays attention.

#120059
VJ. +1; Sun, 2007-09-16 07:34; He's such a bore. So is
VJ

He's such a bore. So is this post of yours going to survive, Femack?

#120083
FEMACK. +1; Sun, 2007-09-16 07:44; Dunno

I think the glitch was with that one particular thread. No problems lately.

#124954
Sir Ms. Fantastic the second. +0; Thu, 2007-10-11 07:06; LGobal warming and shitty beef
Sir Ms. Fantastic the second (not verified)

To put it rather plainly meat is fucking destroying the enviroment. No matter what way you put it. The Beef industry is responsible for 18% of green house gasses resulting in global warming. Cars only cause roughly 14%.

When you put things into perspective changing to a smartcar might help the enviroment but going vegan woulb be an even more massive change. You also get better health benefits and guess what? You even get lower rates for health insurance because your less likely to get cancer or heart desease because you aren't clogging your arteries with steroids animal priones and shit.

You save money. Meat costs a hell of alot more than veggies.

#124953
Ms Kiks. +0; Thu, 2007-10-11 07:03; global warming
Ms Kiks (not verified)

Did any of you know that in addition to saving at least 96 animal lives per year, being vegetarian cuts down on greenhouse gases than driving a smart car? If everyone in the world veg*n then greenhouse gas emissions would be leveled to almost nothing.
Go to www.myspace.com/VEtrill for more information. READ ALL THE BLOGS!!

-Proud Veg*n

#125062
Sir Ms. Fanatstic the second. +0; Thu, 2007-10-11 11:17; penis
Sir Ms. Fanatstic the second (not verified)

I went to Vetrill and it rocked my sox! Gold star for the makers!

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!



DeSmog Tip Jar

DeSmog Tip Jar

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
Richard LittlemoreJames Hoggan - Black and WhiteHoggan, Robertson, HarcourtJames Hoggan - Colour

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers