Here is the kicker on global warming:Methane

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]If one source is 1000 times greater than another source which is if anything, an understatement,…

not true:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LDxHrnkt2NghJqkSVvhvcRyv03dfQssPhbcXJJxj8G42MJcFdpJ3!265817683?docId=96521409

It states:

“…Researchers have attributed 15 percent of global methane releases to emissions of ...[text shortened]... netic bottleneck nor inbreeding depression and will not make them in danger of becoming extinct.[/b]

Maybe culling wildebeests would reduce the amount of methane but the numbers are far smaller than the amount of cattle in the world so it wouldn't have much overall effect. There are nearly 1000 cattle to every wilder.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Maybe culling wildebeests would reduce the amount of methane but the numbers are far smaller than the amount of cattle in the world so it wouldn't have much overall effect. There are nearly 1000 cattle to every wilder.

I would support the idea of first eliminating all farm cattle (only in part to reduce methane release) and then that would make the wildebeests outnumber the farm cattle -wouldn’t it!

If I arbitrary talked about, say, just the farm cattle in north Wales in the UK, I could argue that the farm cattle there would be vastly outnumbered by all the farm cattle in the world and thus culling them would make very little difference to methane release. I could make exactly the same argument about the cattle in each and every small part of the world with its totally arbitrary boarders drawn around it (e.g. southwest of Florida, southwest of Brazil, southeast of Brazil northwest of Brazil etc) and thus conclude that we shouldn’t eliminate ANY farm cattle in the world to reduce methane release. But the fact will remain that all the farm cattle are contributions to methane release along with the wildebeests and thus only if we do all we can to reduce ALL sources of methane release, no matter how small each one is, can we make the maximum significant reduction in methane release. -I hope you understand my logic here.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I would support the idea of first eliminating all farm cattle (only in part to reduce methane release) and then that would make the wildebeests outnumber the farm cattle -wouldn’t it!

If I arbitrary talked about, say, just the farm cattle in north Wales in the UK, I could argue that the farm cattle there would be vastly outnumbered by all the fa ...[text shortened]... make the maximum significant reduction in methane release. -I hope you understand my logic here.

Of course there is the fact that wildebeests have been around for millenia and I don't think they have been responsible for any global warming, maybe I am wrong about that but the killing of millions of these wild free beasts seems a bit over the top, a moral minefield.
I can say for sure nobody is going to be lowering the numbers of herds of cattle to satisfy the 'tree huggers' to use the pejorative.
I think there would be rebellion by many nations if that ever happened, much as you and I would want such a thing.
The other thing that goes hand in hand with such culling is what do you do to replace the protein lost in such a venture? Right now, there is so much farm land being used to generate alcohol for fuel the amount used for food is going down drastically with its attendent rise in food prices. What happens if all of a sudden there are no more cattle and we have to grow more food crops so now we can't grow alcohol. I think we need to get to the bottom line here. That bottom line: Too dam many people. If there were say, 1/10th the # of people then by definition, we would automatically need only 1/10th the cattle and 1/10th the fuel even at today's rate of consumption. I think a half billion people is plenty for this planet. I think 6, 7,10 billion is just bloated beyond recovery. It's not wildebeests we should cull.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course there is the fact that wildebeests have been around for millenia and I don't think they have been responsible for any global warming, maybe I am wrong about that but the killing of millions of these wild free beasts seems a bit over the top, a moral minefield.
I can say for sure nobody is going to be lowering the numbers of herds of cattle to sat ...[text shortened]... hink 6, 7,10 billion is just bloated beyond recovery. It's not wildebeests we should cull.

…I think there would be rebellion by many nations if that ever happened,
. …

I fear you may be right. I haven’t seen much evidence of people thinking rationally about these things.

…The other thing that goes hand in hand with such culling is what do you do to replace the protein lost in such a venture?


I would suggest growing soya and other protein-rich crops. -this would take up for less land area than the grazing land (about only one-third if I remember correctly! -but I could be wrong) needed to feed the number of cattle to make the equivalent amount of protein thus freeing-up more land for food production.

…Right now, there is so much farm land being used to generate alcohol for fuel the amount used for food is going down drastically with its attendent rise in food prices .…

I personally think that, right now, growing biofuel crops is a terrible mistake because it currently is far to inefficient to make either any environmental or economical sense. We should stop growing biofuel crops until the biofuel-technology improves enough (and it is just a matter of when, not if) to make it both environmentally and economically sound.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I think there would be rebellion by many nations if that ever happened,
. …

I fear you may be right. I haven’t seen much evidence of people thinking rationally about these things.

…The other thing that goes hand in hand with such culling is what do you do to replace the protein lost in such a venture?


I would suggest growi ...[text shortened]... and it is just a matter of when, not if) to make it both environmentally and economically sound.[/b]

Yes as to your last, the thing has such a huge momentum now I don't know if it can be stopped. Progress has been made, however, in the field of using the stalks and such from fuel corn to process to alcohol. If that tecnology gets perfected it would probably quadruple the alcohol production from the same acreage so that has to be a good thing. There is also a technology that produces green biodiesel from a bioengineered algae, supposedly one acre of algae can produce 15,000 gallons of green biodiesel. By green I don't mean green in the sense of environmentally friendly, I mean the fuel oil comes out green as a result of the process and produces less CO2 than oil from the ground.

Have you seen this kicker: " Permafrost blanketing the northern hemisphere contains more than twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, making it a potentially mammoth contributor to global climate change depending on how quickly it thaws."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm

Originally posted by flexmore
Have you seen this kicker: " Permafrost blanketing the northern hemisphere contains more than twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, making it a potentially mammoth contributor to global climate change depending on how quickly it thaws."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm

Yeah, saw that one. It's a double whammy. If the left hand don't get you, the right hand will.

Hi, I just wanted to say that even though you're right with the whole methane destroying us thing, I think that turning our entire population into vegetarians would be far too stressful for the earth. With the current trend of population growth, we can't afford such an idea. And also, about the biodiesel, I think you're talking about the mixtures of biodiesel-diesel which is currently being used today, and not about pure biodiesel which is a very clean and effective source of energy.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
Hi, I just wanted to say that even though you're right with the whole methane destroying us thing, I think that turning our entire population into vegetarians would be far too stressful for the earth. With the current trend of population growth, we can't afford such an idea. And also, about the biodiesel, I think you're talking about the mixtures of biod ...[text shortened]... sed today, and not about pure biodiesel which is a very clean and effective source of energy.

I agree completely, it's the population we should reduce, that cures the underlying problem, too dam many people. Reproducing like rats now. The algae produced diesel is in the test phase and will soon be expanded. It can use desert land so you could use millions of acres in southwest Arizona alone doing not much. A million acres is an area of about 40X40 miles, and at 15,000 gallons per year per acre, that would be 15 billion gallons a year or 357 million barrels a year, or about 1 million barrels a day per million acres.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
Hi, I just wanted to say that even though you're right with the whole methane destroying us thing, I think that turning our entire population into vegetarians would be far too stressful for the earth. With the current trend of population growth, we can't afford such an idea. And also, about the biodiesel, I think you're talking about the mixtures of biod ...[text shortened]... sed today, and not about pure biodiesel which is a very clean and effective source of energy.

…I think that turning our entire population into vegetarians would be far too stressful for the earth.…

The “stress” on the Earth resources would actually be REDUCED by us all becoming vegetarians!
(when I talk here about “vegetarian” in this context, I mean excluding FARM meat from warm-blooded animals but not totally exclude fish and other sources that are not farmed providing it is only taken from the natural environment where and when not so much is taken from the environment as to make it unsustainable)
How much recourses are used in our current farm meat production?
The answer is a lot more than the recourses needed to produce the same amount of calories through farm vegetable production!

If we all became vegetarians, we would need less land area to grow the same amount of food and that alone would put considerable less pressure on our resources. It would mean we can produce more food using less land area and that would mean we would have the option (if only we are intelligent enough to use it) to plant up the remaining freed-up land with trees for sustainable forestry that would soak up carbon dioxide and reduce the unsustainable logging of tropical rain forests for timber. Also, no farm animals means no farm animal methane release. So, going vegetarian will increase our world food production (thus preventing famine) AND reduce global warming and even has the potential to save the world’s tropical rain forests. -so however you look at it, going vegetarian will REDUCE the pressure on our Earth resources -I cannot see how we can afford NOT to all become vegetarians!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I think that turning our entire population into vegetarians would be far too stressful for the earth.…

The “stress” on the Earth resources would actually be REDUCED by us all becoming vegetarians!
(when I talk here about “vegetarian” in this context, I mean excluding FARM meat from warm-blooded animals but not totally exclude fish and o ...[text shortened]... e pressure on our Earth resources -I cannot see how we can afford NOT to all become vegetarians![/b]

…(when I talk here about “vegetarian” in this context, I mean excluding FARM meat from warm-blooded animals ..…

Sorry! That was a misprint on my part. It should have been “..I mean ONLY FARM meat from warm-blooded animals…” -and NOT “..excluding FARM meat…”!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
...but not totally exclude fish and other sources that are not farmed providing it is only taken from the natural environment where and when not so much is taken from the environment as to make it unsustainable)...

our effect on the oceans has been huge ... out of sight out of mind ...

I don't think fish would be a wise choice in the near future, seeing how the levels of pollution in water is so big. I think we as a society should come up with a plan to turn every spare piece of land green. What I mean is that if we take at least part of our backyards and turned them into our own mini farm (planting lettuce, tomatoes, etc.) we could help improve the pollution and also the economy, at least by a bit each. I did this in my backyard and quite frankly, I don't have to worry about pesticides or other toxic compounds accumulatted in my vegetables. Doing the little things, like that and riding more bicycles, turning off the lights, etc. would help reduce our levels of pollution, thus allowing more time for a more permanent solution to come to light.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
I don't think fish would be a wise choice in the near future, seeing how the levels of pollution in water is so big. I think we as a society should come up with a plan to turn every spare piece of land green. What I mean is that if we take at least part of our backyards and turned them into our own mini farm (planting lettuce, tomatoes, etc.) we could he r levels of pollution, thus allowing more time for a more permanent solution to come to light.

The heart of the problem is not pollution this, climate that, its the fact that we have too many frigging PEOPLE on the planet. Cut the population by 90% and all these problems go away. We are screwing ourselves to death.

I think you're right, overpopulation is the root of the problem. Everything else is just side effects.

The sad news is that the population is growing at about 77 million persons per year. I don't care what other people think, but this growth rate has to slow down.