Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Cows absolved of causing global warming

12 posts in this topic

Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.

In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.

However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.

The research will reignite the argument over whether to eat red meat after other studies suggested that grass fed cattle in the UK and US can also be good for the environment as long as the animals are free range.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

the cows in the south pastor is bad for the environment.

the cows in the north pastor are good for the environment.

so we'll eat the cows from the south pastor and leave the ones in the north alone.

and they wonder why no one wants to listen to them.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cows in the south pastor is bad for the environment.

the cows in the north pastor are good for the environment.

so we'll eat the cows from the south pastor and leave the ones in the north alone.

and they wonder why no one wants to listen to them.

More of that complexity stuff upsetting you again :blink:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.

Sir Paul McCartney? Sir Paul McCartney of the Beatles? An environmentalist?

Sir Paul McCartney formerly of the Beatles an environmentalist concerned about cattle farting?

Tell me what's not to laugh about this!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of that complexity stuff upsetting you again :blink:

Br Cornelius

What complexity?? it is simple chinese cattle are better than american cattle. but then again the same car in america pollutes and in china it soaks up that pollution. never mind that china has the worse pollution problem on the planet and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have a new emmisions tax (from 1/7/10) that included a tax on farmers who raise cows because they are one of our "biggest poluters", I wonder if the tax will be dropped, but i wont hold my breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Paul McCartney? Sir Paul McCartney of the Beatles? An environmentalist?

Sir Paul McCartney formerly of the Beatles an environmentalist concerned about cattle farting?

Tell me what's not to laugh about this!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know. The whole idea totally sounds ridiculous, but apparently methane is pretty serious.

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas. Compared with carbon dioxide, it has a high global warming potential of 72 (calculated over a period of 20 years) or 25 (for a time period of 100 years)

And humans seem to be responsible for some of it, or at least indirectly. And it's probably cattle belches not farts. (Which sounds just as dumb, I know.)

Cattle belch methane accounts for 16% of the world's annual methane emissions to the atmosphere. The livestock sector in general (primarily cattle, chickens, and pigs) produces 37% of all human-induced methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the green house effect was caused by polar molecules because they are able to retain heat better than non polar and methane is a non polar molecule. CO2 doesn't retain in heat as well as some others but they call it a green house effect cause there is so much abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere. There couldn't be that much methane in the air compared to CO2 right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if im wrong but i thought the green house effect was caused by polar molecules because they are able to retain heat better than non polar and methane is a non polar molecule. CO2 doesn't retain in heat as well as some others but they call it a green house effect cause there is so much abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere. There couldn't be that much methane in the air compared to CO2 right?

Methane is a greenhouse gas which is 21x more powerful than CO2. Methane is a very abundent gas because it occurs wherever anaerobic decomposition takes place. Permofrost melt is one of the feedbacks which is most concerning because it leads to massive release of Methane and is one of the reasons for pining our hopes on stabalizing temperature increase below 2 degree.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...by not eating meat they also want to wipe out cattle because of methane gases??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like such an awesome deal:

We stop eating cattle and start eating vegetables. That way we can let the cows live to fart another day, and cut down more plants for food.

Yes I know it's not as simple as that. But I personally am not really convinced of the legitimacy of the Global Warming idea. I do think that Humans contribute, but nowhere near as much as we are being credited for.

I also think that people like Al Gore should be flogged in a town square somewhere, because of being a major stockholder in Apple, while at the same time saying we should consume less power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ignore the politicians, listen to the scientists on this, at least take what they say as the basis for your opinion, even if you end up disagreeing with the whole thing, it'll be safer reacting to scientists than politicians.

The Politicians don't want you to cut anything out, they want us staying put. They talk about taxes, and that in itself should tell you everything. If they're serious, they're not going to tax you into something. They're going to make a law whereby if you don't follow the goal, your place of business gets shut down contingent on you fixing your problems. They can do that, you know. Certain violations can shut down businesses, and if the politicians were truly taking this serriously, they could use the EPA to enforce it.

Edited by J.B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.