Enormous Threat to the Environment

Apparently, livestock account for around 18% of the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.  Learn more in link below.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_3540.cfm

Most greenhouse gases come from construction, that is the real problem.

lol, i wonder how many environmentalists actually make the personal sacrifice and become vegans.  I'm betting its a slim percentage.  Lazy bitches want to push their agenda on everyone else without changing their own lifestyle first.

Those statistics seem slightly overemphasized to me, but I've read that article 'Livestock's Long Shadow,' about the phenomenon as well.  Seems like fairly legitimate science.

While it's amusingly true, there's just really not a whole lot we can do about it; finding and maintaining a food source that isn't cattle is a lot more difficult and costly than reducing emissions through reduction of fossil fuel use (something which is good for most countries in the long run anyway).

>>3
lol i wonder how many environmentalists think that we should stop eating meat because of cow farts. I'm guaranteeing its a slim percentage.

Spoiler: All animals release CO2. If we didn't convert wild plains into grazing, the buffalo would fart 18% of greenhouse gases.

Also fuck you people who think we should plant corn instead of feed cattle for meat. I don't want to live in a world where the GDP matters more than the GDP per capita. Low population + steak and pancakes > high population + 1 cup of rice per day.

>>5
Of course, because that would infringe on people's freedom, and no environmentalist wants to do that... they just want to tell industrialists and businessmen what methods of powering their facilities are acceptable and which are not, regardless of what effect this will have on the economy.

>>7
You're right, damn hippies not letting my pour nuclear waste into the water supply, VOTE LIBERTARIAN 08!

>>8
Because libertarians support crime. Even though crime is an infringement of a person's liberty. Wait that doesn't make any sense whatsoever! You must be bullshitting to a degree of absurdity that implies your argument is so shitty and you are so obsessed with it you have to stoop to these levels in a last ditch desperate attempt to cling on to it.

>>9
well, that was a mouthful. I was just fighting bullshit with bullshit.

>>10
Lies. You are retarded.

>>8
ha, Libertarians environmental policy is the only reason I'll never vote for one

>>6
"All animals release CO2. If we didn't convert wild plains into grazing, the buffalo would fart 18% of greenhouse gases."
All animals release CO2. The total release is number of individuals*release rate. Cattle get food, antibiotics, barns, water, protection from preds etc. Wild animals do not. That means that cattle can be grown in higher densities than wild animals, meaning that if we would convert farmland into prairie grassland and let the buffoloes roam free, they still wouldnt reach the same ammount of CO2 respiration that cattle have, meaning that it would be a net decrease in emissions. Btw, its not the CO2 that is the kicker with cattle, its the CH4 (methane) wich is a 23 times more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.

Libertarians need a less naive position on commons, but trying to frame them as science-deniers is not very correct.

http://johannorberg.net/ this fellow is quite sensible, for example.

>>13
If the cattle didn't decompose it, then the bacteria would instead. I don't see what the liberal obsession is with attacking the meat industry. Do you want everyone to eat lentils instead so that their brains don't develop properly and they are easier to fool?

>>15
"If the cattle didn't decompose it, then the bacteria would instead."
This is not necessarily true, and bacterial CH4 respiration is generally low from most natural ecosystems (it demands anoxic conditions to occur, so its common in wetlands, where grazers are uncommon anyway). The cellulose decomposition rate is faster through a cow than through just litterfall and hyphae, meaning that cattle increases the rate of emissions. This has nothing to do with your dietary choice, its just a fact that todays meatindustry is a major pollution source and a major water user and degrader. Meat is no problem if it is done in a sustainable way, and its this that most rightists have a problem with, bevcaues it means increased prices.