How Should Scientists Address Climate Change?
According to this article, scientists have put considerable effort into finding spots on the globe where newly planted trees will have the best shot surviving climate change.
This is all very interesting, but the obvious question that hits the reader immediately is: Why go to the trouble? Isn’t this akin to putting lipstick on a terminally ill cancer patient? If climate change is going to wipe out huge swaths of trees, aren’t we screwed anyway?
I think anyone would suggest that the best application of science is to find better and more cost-effective ways of mitigating global warming in the first place. This means cleaner energy and transportation, and less footprint associated with the beef industry.
Craig,
Perhaps you should stick to things you actually know something about.
I realize asking you to justify your claims regarding the beef industry will not generate a rational response.
I accept this is simply because you have no real knowledge and probably just parroting the inane rantings of someone with even less knowledge.
However, I hope you will forgive me taking issue with your inaccurate claims.
I candidly admit I come from a long line of farmers. I farms on two continents. It’s true I’m an absentee farmer, mostly leaving the actual manual work to staff and tenants, but if necessary I dare say can still help a cow give birth or shear a sheep, and I’m actively involved in the business side of my properties.
All farming, like any human industry, is a challenge regarding environment issues. It’s important to understand the Beef industry isn’t just one industry, it’s extremely varied with many different methods of raising cattle.
The industry competes for customers with poultry, sheep, deer, pigs and a range of other livestock. The beef industry is one of the world’s largest employers, and provides high level, sustainable nutrition for billions of people.
Like all industry, the beef industry is becoming more environmentally conscious, and increasingly sustainable.
In many instances the beef industry is environmentally beneficial, and certainly economically essential.
But here’s what really puzzles me. Why do you waste time attacking an essential industry which would be impossible to curtail without a massive loss of human (and animal ) life, yet never bother to speak out against the single largest cause of man made climate change, the usage of Marine Grade No 6 fuel (bunker oil) !
Don’t you realize,( or maybe you don’t care), that your attitude alienates a huge majority of your fellow citizens ? The citizens believe you are simply peddling a vegetarian agenda, disguised as environmentalism ?
Don’t you understand or care, how much harder makes getting farmers and the meat industry to adopt environmental attitudes?
Don’t you realize how much more difficult you make getting more support,investment and funding for research and adoption of better, more environmental farming?
If you can justify with reasoned argument why (or even how) the world should farm less beef, I’m ready to listen. But I know you can’t.
In contrast, I’m delighted to be able to inform anyone of the impending commercialization for, what we hope, will be the most successful of several methods being introduced to reduce all ruminant emissions to a tiny fraction.
The technology has cost years of painstaking research and hundreds of millions in investment.
Environmental problems of this nature are best solved by using technology to eliminate, or minimize harmful effects. Better than just posting stentorian condemnation, with no practical or positive effect.
If I sound a little impolite, I apologize, but you must understand for many farmers, their herds represent generations of hard work. Even large corporate farms have numerous employees. Off farm there’s a long chain of economic activity right down to the restaurant form where you eat your steak, or the burger you eat for lunch.
The beef industry’s (direct or indirect) economic contribution to the US economy is estimated at being worth more than $ 2 trillion dollars. The beef industry directly (or indirectly) employs 1 in 9 Americans.
So, I guess it’s kind of important eh ?
The reason I don’t engage with you on this is that I’m reluctant to spend time proving something that is so entirely noncontroversial. If you Google “beef environmental impact” you’ll come across more than a million articles on the subject. Here’s the very first one I found just now, that itself points to numerous other publications from the National Academy of Sciences, et. al. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/beef-environmental-impact_n_5599370.html.
From another article:
Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with one expert saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars.
The heavy impact on the environment of meat production was known but the research shows a new scale and scope of damage, particularly for beef. The popular red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.
MP: If for some weird reason you want to carry on this discussion, please do it with someone else. I’m finished here.
Craig,
That’s it ? I mean that’s all you can cite ? One article written by a Vegan advocate with completely unsupportable fact’s ? Followed by another quoting the same inaccuracies from the first article ?
Gidon Eshel,Peter Singer, and the other authors of the study you quote, are hard core vegetarian advocates and were so long before they discovered climate change.
Such studies are inherently dishonest as science because they begin with a fixed premise and gather or distort only those fact which support a preconceived premise.
I remember Peter and his wife Renata as typical student activists who abounded in the hot bed of left wing student activism of late sixties Monash University. Very bright and very talented. Unfortunately, also never grew out of the convictions formed in that ethos.
I’m not surprised you’re so dismissive. Like the authors, you spurn debate for fear your long held beliefs and prejudices may be in exposed to be in error.
Vegetarianism, like all ‘abstinence’ theories is based on ‘moral’ or philosophic need. Abstinence satisfies the need for adherents to feel virtuous and superior. That’s a powerful attraction for the human psyche.
Vegetarianism is an old and accepted movement.I have no objection to people practicing what ever dietary regime suits their personal philosophy.
However, when such ideological dogma disguises itself as ‘science’ and tries to compel others to follow the path of ‘righteousness’ that’s when it becomes dangerous.
I could provide reams of learned scientific studies by equally reputable and better qualified scientists refuting and exposing the countless flaws and errors in anti-beef propaganda, but what would be the point ? You have no interest in listening.
( The quote ; “The popular red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions”, has been conclusively proved inaccurate, but the myth persists).
What’s really disturbing is your dismissive “If for some weird reason you want to carry on this discussion, please do it with someone else. I’m finished here”.
Why is it ‘weird’ for a beef farmer to defend his livelihood ?
Such an admonition displays a closed mind and intolerant attitude.
It’s exactly such intolerance which creates doubt and disquiet among the general public when considering environmental issues. Just as the violent demonstrators outside the G20 , caused a downturn in “green” support, among the citizens of Hamburg.
Continuing to preach such erroneous and biased dogma is counter productive, and creates support for populist politicians. The general public has lost faith with hypocritical activists preaching intolerant agenda.
The beef industry doesn’t just feed humans. nearly 2 billion meat eating pets also need to be fed. (No, cats can’t live on a vegetarian diet).
(Oh, and while I like Wiki, it’s a little lazy to rely on such a publication as a sole source of reference.)