backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by LiveVegan.. on Oct 8 at 5:37 AM


Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
We all knew it was coming...

Back in 2006, this column reported on the UN's conclusion that livestock farming created more greenhouse gas emissions than all planes, trucks, and automobiles combined. Predictably, the UN is now asking that we "shun meat" to fight climate change. While various lawmakers have proposed banning everything from plasmaTVs to sports cars, this call came from a substantially higher level.

Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian economist who chairs the UN IPCC, has proposed the changes. Pachauri, who is himself a vegetarian, believes the only solution to prevent global catastrophe is for us to cut down on our burgers, steaks, and BBQ chicken.

Despite his lack of any formal credentials in climatology or physical science, Pachauri has just been reelected to his second six-year term at the head of the world's most powerful climate organization.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimates 18% of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions come from meat production. By contrast, only 13% of emissions come from transport.

Pachauri's remarks were made at a Compassion in World Farming Meeting in London yesterday, a group which believes killing animals for food is morally wrong. CIWF Spokesperson Joyce D'Silva, who attended alongside Pachauri, enthused over the possibilities of reducing meat consumption, "The climate change angle could be quite persuasive.”

"Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what's on their plate could have an even bigger effect", she said.

D'Silva called for a Kyoto-like International Treaty to regulate meat production and consumption. Pachauri himself favors a more indirect approach, the so-called "carbon tax" he has advocated on previous occasions:

If there were a (global) price on carbon perhaps the price of meat would go up and people would eat less. But if we're honest, less meat is also good for the health, and would also at the same time reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

In related news, an Australian researcher has proposed that we return to hand-washing of clothes to combat climate change. Hand washing clothes would be much friendlier to the environment, the study concludes

Even more exciting is his discovery that "smell-friendly" cotton can be worn without washing more times than a polyester blend, further reducing our energy consumption:

Mr. Navarro, who was commissioned to do a "cradle-to-grave" study of the energy costs of clothing manufacturers, said the use of "smell-friendly" fibers would assist in increasing the number of times a shirt is worn between washes.

"Research shows that polyester is related to more intense sweat odor than cotton," he said.

"This means it is easier to wear a cotton t-shirt more than once before washing than a polyester t-shirt.

Critics of the environmentalist movement have often claimed they're "trying to turn us all into stinky, unwashed vegetarians". With these technology advances in "smell friendly fibers", it's a relief to see at least we don't have to worry about the stink.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hahaha
By Polynikes on 9/9/2008 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what's on their plate could have an even bigger effect", she said.
Most people are cutting back on car trips because the price of gasoline has risen dramatically in recent years. Those that really "care" about the environment (clearly the rest of us don't) are driving hybrids or riding bikes.




RE: Hahaha
By whiskerwill on 9/9/2008 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 6
- The engineering approach to our problems: "build a better washer".
- The scientific approach to our problems: "find a new energy source".
- The environmentalist approach to our problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Golly I just can't decide which one is better!


RE: Hahaha
By DPercy on 9/9/2008 3:09:41 PM , Rating: 1
That was great.


RE: Hahaha
By mmntech on 9/9/2008 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
Lol. That's going up on my wall.

I wonder how much of a donation PETA gave to the IPCC scientists for that little tidbit of information. First it was cow farts, now it's eating meat. Maybe we should all resort to cannibalism since cutting global population would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Soylent Green anyone?


RE: Hahaha
By AlexWade on 9/10/2008 6:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am not wondering about PETA, I am wondering if his personal beliefs are affecting him. Mr. Rajendra Pachauri looks like he is from India and in India cows are sacred. Even if Mr. Pachauri is not Hindu, his culture may be affecting his viewpoint. Of course, I don't know where he really is from.

Even if none of that is true and I'm just making broad stereotypes (which I'm not trying to do), one thing is certain: his viewpoint is stupid. Animals have been on this planet longer than us and I guarantee some of them produced more methane than 1 trillion cows. What about dinosaur? I'm sure there could be a lot of hot air coming from their derriere.


RE: Hahaha
By jgvandemeer on 9/10/2008 7:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure there's nowhere near a trillion cows on the planet. Maybe a billion or two. One cow can feed a LOT of people.

Oh, and termites produce more methane than cows and people put together.


RE: Hahaha
By Fireshade on 9/11/2008 9:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Animals have been on this planet longer than us and I guarantee some of them produced more methane than 1 trillion cows. What about dinosaur? I'm sure there could be a lot of hot air coming from their derriere.

Actually, with cows most of the methane comes from belching from one of their stomaches.
By the way, kangaroos would be a good substitute, because they don't belch. In Australia there are plenty of kangaroo farms, and I hear kangaroos are excellent for steaks and burgers.
So we still don't have to cut down on red meat ;)


RE: Hahaha
By omnicronx on 9/11/2008 9:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe dingos? Two birds with one stone, meat, and stop them from taking our babies!


RE: Hahaha
By Flunk on 9/13/2008 3:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, if Kangaroo meat tastes good and isn't too expensive I'm all in for that.


RE: Hahaha
By omnicronx on 9/11/2008 9:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Animals have been on this planet longer than us and I guarantee some of them produced more methane than 1 trillion cows.
Cows, along with goats sheep and other animals classified as ruminants all digest their food in a different way. Unlike humans and most other animals, they digest their food in their four stomachs instead of in their intestines.

Basically they eat their food, regurgitate and throw it back up and eat it again. This along with the bacteria that helps digest the food, creates a large amount of methane in which they mostly burping or beltching and a smaller amount through.. you guessed it.. passing gas.

This unique way of digesting food is unique to these kinds of animals. Scientists estimate that each cow expels 200-500 liters of methane a day, that's comparable to well over a the pollution that a car expels in a day.

There are approximately 1.5 billion cows alone in the world, I really doubt that at any one time, that any group of animal on earth has created even close to as much methane as cows expel each year.


RE: Hahaha
By MrPickins on 9/11/2008 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
What about the American Bison (before the hunts) or the vast herds on the savannas of Africa? Not all ruminants are domestic animals, you know...


RE: Hahaha
By jgvandemeer on 9/11/2008 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really doubt that at any one time, that any group of animal on earth has created even close to as much methane as cows expel each year.
Termites produce a LOT more methane each year than cows. Yeah, there'll smaller, but they're's a hundred thousand times as many as cows.


RE: Hahaha
By d0gb0y on 9/11/2008 2:47:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There are approximately 1.5 billion cows alone in the world


Sounds like we need a cow dating service...


RE: Hahaha
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/11/2008 3:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am a member of PETA: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

I think if the problem is too much livestock, we ought to do our part by eating MORE of it, not LESS! How short-sighted can these people be?!


RE: Hahaha
By someguy123 on 9/9/2008 10:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
seriously. some of these extreme environmentalists don't seem to realize their perfect world would consist of us in caves farming wheat.....or they expect that THAT is how the world should be.

bet this vegetarian wouldn't be quite as supportive if they found CO2 emissions were decreased with MORE meat consumption.


RE: Hahaha
By borismkv on 9/10/2008 2:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
They also don't seem to realize that you would have to kill off over half of the world's population for it to be even remotely feasible.


RE: Hahaha
By MrPickins on 9/11/2008 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, some of the more extreme are actively wishing for just that.


RE: Hahaha
By Jedi2155 on 9/14/2008 1:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear war whoooo!!!!


RE: Hahaha
By borismkv on 9/10/2008 2:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh...Even better. By eating only vegetables, he's consuming greater quantities of the only things on earth that can actually *reduce* CO2 levels in the Atmosphere.


RE: Hahaha
By mindless1 on 9/10/2008 5:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's faulty logic. By consuming the veggies, a demand is created, thus they are being planted meaning they are reducing CO2 by existing. That is, if we ignored the other CO2 production inherant in farming and food distribution. The remaining question is what if neither livestock or veggies were being grown, if the land were never cleared in the first place.


RE: Hahaha
By bpurkapi on 9/9/2008 3:39:40 PM , Rating: 5
I ride a bike cause its cheap not because I give a damn about the environment. Its also a two birds one stone thing: I get to where I'm going in about the same time and get my exercise over for the day, rather than driving to work and then driving to the gym. Plus I can actually work on my bike and not have to take it to a mechanic.


RE: Hahaha
By Nik00117 on 9/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hahaha
By JustTom on 9/13/2008 5:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Most people on surveys will say things that they won't really do. People often respond in ways they believe are socially acceptable. Good respondent bias is a major confound in many studies that is often ignored.


By hellokeith on 9/9/2008 5:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Michael,

I'm a mmgw "denier". I have also been a vegetarian and a vegan several times in my life, and currently am observing a vegan diet over the last 6 weeks with a plan to stay on this diet indefinitely. A plant-based diet has a great number of health benefits (my cholesterol alone went from 200 to 140, and I've lost 15 lbs), as well as a positive effect on the environment (or at least a much less negative effect).

Are you opposed to a reduction in meat consumption? Is not the burgeoning overfat problem in America very alarming? I don't know if there is a link between cow methane and global warming, but certainly you can appreciate clean less-polluted air and a human diet with vastly reduced animal hormones and animal fats?




By brickd007 on 9/9/2008 5:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is, jackasses like these use climate change to pull crap like this to make it hard for people that don't necessarily agree with them on certain subjects. It sure seems like this guy like his veggies and wants others to share his views. So he comes up with this BS that influences legislation and raises the price on beef. Thanks jackoff...I like a burger every once and a while.

You be a vegetarian, I'll eat some tasty steak. I'm not trying to raise the price of a turnip.


By Ringold on 9/9/2008 11:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You be a vegetarian, I'll eat some tasty steak. I'm not trying to raise the price of a turnip.


Reminds me of the guy on that extreme low-calorie diet. Okay, so he may live a billion years. But his sex drive completely dried up. My god, why live?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you opposed to a reduction in meat consumption?"

From the perspective of free choice-- not in the least. There's no question that a reduction of dietary meat would be beneficial to the health of nearly everyone.

However, I don't believe that's a decision that should be forced upon anyone. If someone enjoys cheeseburgers enough to eat two for every meal-- more power to them. Beyond educating them as to the risks and benefits of their dietary choices, I don't believe there's anything else the government should do.


By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 8:01:19 AM , Rating: 3
The problems with fat people in America has absolutely nothing to do with eating meat. You can just as easily get fat from eating to much vegetables and fruit. The problem is that people are lazy and don't exercise. And eat tons of fast food. There is a big difference between eating a steak or cooking some ground beef to put in spaghetti and eating a double cheeseburger from McDonalds.

And a pure vegan diet has some health benefits and detriments. Mankind has been eating both meat and vegetables for thousands of years. There is no reason to stop eating either. Cow farts do not pollute the air. Make it smell bad where all the cows are, yes.

As others have said, I'll stop eating meat when I'm dead. So when you're ready to kill me to stop me from eating it, I'll have the gun loaded.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
> You can just as easily get fat from eating to much vegetables and fruit"

Well, not *just* as easily. Meat and oils do tend to carry a much higher caloric content per unit weight. Getting fat on a diet of carrots and celery is pretty difficult, and even potatoes tend to have about half the calories per gram as meat.

But your point is taken. The problem of obesity is more one of exercise and diet portions, rather than due to our eating of meat.


By hellokeith on 9/10/2008 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true that exercise plays a key role in health, the American diet is filled to the brim with unnecessary weight gainers. Look at the ingredients label to pretty much anything you purchase at the store, and you will see: high xxxxtose syrup, eggs, whey, milk solids, milkfat, butter, cheese, beef stock, chicken stock, and animal fats. You would not believe how prevalent animal products are in everyday foods.

And Michael is correct, it is very difficult to get fat on celery and carrots. Even vegetables which are high in oils (like avocados) pale in comparison to your average burger or fast-food animal fat french fries.

And no, there are no detriments to a well-balanced vegan diet. That is a myth propagated by uneducated meat eaters. http://www.mypyramid.gov/tips_resources/vegetarian...


By Kefner on 9/10/2008 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 3
high xxxxtose syrup, eggs, whey, milk solids, milkfat, butter, cheese, beef stock, chicken stock, and animal fats

mmmmm, all my favorite food groups, now I'm hungry!


By SoCalBoomer on 9/10/2008 3:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
There are some detriments - you just have to supplement your way around them. There are quite a few aminos or vitamins that don't come naturally in vegetables - Taurine, for instance, comes in red meat and is used in tissue recovery. You don't get it without supplenting. B12 (as mentioned in the article you cited) comes in animal or animal products so a Vegan diet would need to supplement to make it up.

My problem with Vegetarian and Vegan lifestyles is actually twofold - 1. that they tend to be activistic and to try and influence others to join them (TEND, not always but tendency) and 2. They are inherently imbalanced for a race that is biologically omnivorous. We need certain things that just are not available in plants OR are only available in certain plants which are not available everywhere. . .

in any case - you stick with your Vegan and absolutely, more power to you! I have friends who are Vegan or Vegetarian and I'll happily eat a cheese sammy if I'm out to eat with you. (as close as I'll come! LOL)

Cheers! (thank goodness beer is Vegan/Vegetarian/Omni! :D )


By mindless1 on 9/10/2008 6:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
yes, actually there are detriments. Only someone who is not very active and has low muscle mass can get enough calories and protein without eating extreme amounts of food (unless they turn around and put fat and suger on everything).

The supposed 2700 calorie for day recommendation for a male for example, is only a maintenance level for a thin geek-looking 18 year old body type. A full grown healthy male will have to be consuming more. Where do all these vegetables come from?

Do you realize how many beans and potatoes, veggies which are far higher than average in veggie calorie density, it takes to reach 3000 calories or more? Do you realize we simply do not HAVE enough vegetables for everyone to stop eating meat? Never forget that one of our meat sources is the ocean, it's not so simple as just saying we should convert the cattle farm feed crops into human feed crops.


By tmouse on 9/15/2008 10:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
The point is you have to actively work achieve a balanced diet. We are in fact omnivores; you can live as a vegetarian or even a pure carnivore if you are willing to work to achieve the balance. I will not deny, on average people eat more meat than we should, but since we are not designed to live on vegetable matter alone (no extra stomachs, too short of a digestive track, lack of specific enzymes, no symbiotic organisms for cellulose digestion or re digestion of our own waste) the amount of land to maintain even half of our population on a balanced vegan diet would devastate the planet. Genetics is also a major factor, high HDL and you have no worries about cholesterol (which is critical for our cell structure), similarly too low a level and you have very serious health problems also. More fat is generated from eating simple plant products in the form of the simple sugars than from animal fat, it’s probably the fries and soda and ketchup contributing to the overweight problems far more than the burgers. Balance is the best path.


By mindless1 on 9/10/2008 6:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fat and sugar added to foods account for most obesity, not the fat present in a lean cut of meat that's a portion sufficient for daily protein requirements, and certainly it's very hard to consume excess calories from veggies.

Back of the envelope calculation, a man with 2700 calorie a day requirement would have to eat approximately 10 cans of kidney beans and 11 cups of carrots, inbetween runs to the toilet (pun intended).


By knipfty on 9/11/2008 10:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but eating potatoes will make you fat. Diets high in carbs (and in particular refined carbs of sugar, flour, and high fructose corn syrup) will make you fat.

Studies have shown that eating meat, poultry, fish, cheese, eggs, and low starch veggies and fruits (berries come to mind) are most healthful for humans. When on such a diet calories really don't matter (unless you are trying to lose weight).


By hellokeith on 9/11/2008 6:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you guys really are uninformed. A well-balanced vegan diet has *everything* the human body needs to be healthy, active, and even gain muscle mass if necessary. There are prominent world-class athletes who are vegan.

And no, a well-balanced vegan diet does not have a person eating 18 potatoes or 6 cans of beans or any other ridiculous number of a single food type every day.

You want to be meat-eaters, that is fine because I grew up a meat-eater. But stop espousing non-factual talking points for the purpose of being sarcastic or combative.

My phone rings off the hook from the local blood donation organization due to my blood being high in iron and free of contaminants that >98% of the general population has.

My doctor has given me a clean bill of health and even said he might try a strict vegetarian diet for a while.


By Dove2Three on 9/11/2008 10:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My phone rings off the hook from the local blood donation organization due to my blood being high in iron and free of contaminants that >98% of the general population has.
Do you really have to lie to make a point? Do you think we're idiots? Blood centers don't test for "contaminants" except for things like AIDs and the like. And the only people ever called are those with rare blood types, not because your blood is somehow "cleaner".


By hellokeith on 9/11/2008 10:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
No lie, and yes they do. Only very pure blood can be transfused to infants, and therefore my blood is in high demand. Has nothing to do with blood type, Rh, or antigen. Look it up on your local blood donation organization's website or your state's health & human services division website.

It's funny (in a sad way) when people who think they know something about a process argue with someone who actually does the process.


By Flunk on 9/13/2008 4:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have to admit that eating properly as a vegan is a lot more work. Not only do you have to be more careful of what you eat but it is also harder to find foods you can eat. It's not like you can stop in at the local McDonalds and eat what they call "food" if you don't feel like cooking.


By hellokeith on 9/13/2008 6:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt at all. Anyone considering a Vegan diet needs to be prepared for constant food/cooking planning. After a month or two, it becomes easier. One of the outcomes is that you learn for the most part to completely avoid junk food, fast food, and even restaurants. You will lose weight.

For meat-eaters, I wouldn't recommend doing vegan for a short-term diet. A vegetarian diet would be better/easier for a meat-eater to adapt, if only doing it for a short while. Also, a vegetarian diet is a good segway to a vegan diet.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 11:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's 'segue'. And veganism involves more than dietary restrictions; it also involves neo-religous shunning of all animal products, including things like leather and fur, and even silliness such as avoiding zoos and circuses.


By hellokeith on 9/14/2008 12:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ah thanks for the diction correction. :)

I'm a diet-only vegan. Most of the vegetarians and the one vegan I know are mainly focused on the diet restrictions.

Interestingly enough, one could argue that non-food products made from animals are more "green" than synthetic products which might not biodegrade as fast.


By JustTom on 9/13/2008 6:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not whether we should eat less meat - we probably should - it is whether government should have the ability to compel us to do so. Why stop at meat? Why not have compulsive Tai Chi classes in the park, a government imposed bedtime, and mandatory pre-dawn calisthenics? All these things are arguably good for your health but how many of us really wants a government with that authority?


By hellokeith on 9/13/2008 6:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
The government already has that type of authority due to liberals/socialists/unions. I agree with you that I don't want the government controlling any more of my life than they already do.

However where public funds are involved, such as food programs in public schools or food stamps programs, the government should reduce the reliance on meat/dairy and encourage more vegetable/fruit intake.


What about
By Kefner on 9/9/2008 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
What about all the equipment used to farm fruits and vegetables, and then ship them to the stores/market etc..? What is their percent of world wide carbon emissions? Maybe we should just give it all up and scavenge for food.




RE: What about
By theendofallsongs on 9/9/2008 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 5
I'll give up my burger when the UN pries it from my cold, dead fingers. Not a minute before.


RE: What about
By Ringold on 9/9/2008 4:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that. I just happen to be having a double cheeseburger right now for lunch. If having a cheeseburger means coastal communities in a couple hundred years are screwed, well then, I suggest they begin preparations to move. I'm eating my burgers, my steaks, and my chicken, and not going to feel the least bit bad about it.


RE: What about
By onelittleindian on 9/9/2008 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're not going to have a choice. Oh they won't ban meat outright to start. They'll just keep passing laws to make it more expensive. Soon it'll have a sin tax just like cigarettes and alcohol. Then after that, it'll be a luxury item, something you can afford only for special occasions.


RE: What about
By Kefner on 9/9/2008 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 4
Then they will ban eating meat in public places. Vegetarians will complain it smells and gives them second hand cholesterol.


RE: What about
By Nik00117 on 9/10/2008 3:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
Then we'll have orgs like the CDC coming out and saying 22,000 poeple die each year from consumpation of meat, do you want to make it 22,001?


RE: What about
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 7:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
No. I want to make it 22,000,000.


RE: What about
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 7:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Damn straight.

I'm gonna go eat a double cheeseburger just to spite this @sshole.


RE: What about
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 8:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
Damn that was delicious.


Guy is a genius.
By AssBall on 9/9/2008 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
"Despite his lack of any formal credentials in climatology or physical science, Pachauri has just been reelected to his second six-year term at the head of the world's most powerful climate organization."

That says it all right there.




RE: Guy is a genius.
By atrabilious on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Guy is a genius.
By arazok on 9/9/2008 3:25:18 PM , Rating: 4
I picture him lurking in a strip joint. You know, the creepy guy who goes alone.


RE: Guy is a genius.
By ttowntom on 9/9/2008 11:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
It does look like he's got a trench coat on, doesn't it?


RE: Guy is a genius.
By AssBall on 9/10/2008 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
Looking further he does have PhDs in Industrial Engineering and in Economics. His Light up a Billion Lives program seems a bit off the mark though. Maybe it works okay in India.


RE: Guy is a genius.
By DPercy on 9/9/2008 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
AL Gore has no credentials in those areas either, nor does the govenor of Oregon, who, fired the oregon State Climotologist for not lock-stepping with global warming fear.


Sounds like college to me
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/9/2008 5:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even more exciting is his discovery that "smell-friendly" cotton can be worn without washing more times than a polyester blend, further reducing our energy consumption: Mr. Navarro, who was commissioned to do a "cradle-to-grave" study of the energy costs of clothing manufacturers, said the use of "smell-friendly" fibers would assist in increasing the number of times a shirt is worn between washes


You have the dirty pile and the funky pile, one can be worn again.




RE: Sounds like college to me
By rtrski on 9/9/2008 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 3
Just follow the Fruit of the Loom rule:

Day 1: Normal
Day 2: Inside out
Day 3: Backward and inside out
Day 4: Backward and rightside out
Day 5: wash (or, if you're an environmentalist), refer back to Day 1

Warning: not recommended for T-back, thong or banana-hammock type undergarments


RE: Sounds like college to me
By UppityMatt on 9/10/2008 11:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
+6 made me laugh out loud at work


Use food crops for ethanol and stop eating meat
By mattclary on 9/9/2008 6:39:45 PM , Rating: 4
WTF are we supposed to eat again????




By killerroach on 9/10/2008 8:43:26 AM , Rating: 3
Each other. Solves the overpopulation issue at the same time. It's a win-win-win situation :)


I just ate your god tonight...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2008 6:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
And he was delicious ! With bacon and grilled onions on top. Mmmmmmmm.




RE: I just ate your god tonight...
By FaceMaster on 9/10/2008 8:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Your Mum tasted better


By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 8:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
Pink Taco for dinner?


Stop wasting space
By Tanclearas on 9/14/2008 11:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Despite the complete lack of a "climate" category on the page for readers to submit news stories, we get subjected, once again, to a biased climate reference and commentary by Michael Asher.

A look at Asher's "blogs" (someone at DailyTech should perhaps read a definition of what a web log is supposed to be) clearly indicates that he has little to no interest in the types of "technology and science" that DailyTech started out to report on. His "blogs" are more like news clippings with only tiny amounts of biased commentary, and all simply seem to be to defend or justify the use of big engines and continued polluting rather than a legitimate interest in the climate.

At the very least, please, please, PLEASE, provide a method for readers to block content published by particular "bloggers". I think if you had have had that option all along, you would have already discovered that many people would have blocked Asher's content by now.




RE: Stop wasting space
By beerhound on 9/17/2008 1:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that Michael doesn't exactly come across as a pillar of unbiased reporting, but neither does his arch rival, Jason Mick. I often read both their posts just to find opposing views on a topic (usually climate change). Neither of them has satisfied me that they are going to tell me all of the arguments for/against, but they sometimes inspire me to dig a little deeper on my own to form an opinion. Isn't that a good thing? As to blocking him, I have this guestion, then some advice. Why bother to block anyone's post? Every blog post on DT has the author's name included, if you disagree with an author's view points that strongly, JUST DON'T FOLLOW THE LINK! Now wasn't that easy?


RE: Stop wasting space
By Tanclearas on 9/19/2008 8:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of "easy". The following is a very extreme example, but I'm trying to make a point.

If I work at the same place that employs O.J. Simpson, then the entire value of the whole workplace is lessened, even if it really is a good place to work.

That is how I look at DT. I think it is a worthwhile place to visit, but it's overall quality is lessened by the presence of Michael Asher.

As for the whole Jason Mick/Michael Asher situation, you need only look at their individual histories. Click on each of their blogs and compare how many tech vs climate/oil entries there are. You will notice that hardly any of Michael's entries are tech related. Also, I suspect that if DT drops Michael, Jason would likely further reduce the number of climate related entries.


Eat meat...
By IGoodwin on 9/9/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 3
Not sure I'm following the argument very well... is it animals that are creating the polution?

In which case, eating them stops the polution!




RE: Eat meat...
By atrabilious on 9/9/2008 2:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Lol good point!


Who is that guy???
By DPercy on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Who is that guy???
By jgvandemeer on 9/10/2008 7:51:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He looks like several folks that stand at intersections holding signs that say "need money for beer".
He was. Then the UN gave him a job and the rest is history.

Now he's making rules that will change our lives forever. Scary.


RE: Who is that guy???
By Arctucas on 9/11/2008 10:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
He looks like what I have always imagined Satan would look like.

Anyway, I am doing my part to stop GW; I try to eat as many of those damn GHG producing bovines as possible!


I like your post, but one comment
By NightAngel1981 on 9/9/2008 10:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
What about the hundreds of other animal related resources. Animals are used for clothes, furniture, fertilizer, glue, etc.. etc..., What are people gunna do when we start being told that we cant wear clothes that we want to or any of the other things related to animals who produce greenhouse emissions.

This is clearly a case of the few controlling the desire of the many. Let the people decide the rules that govern themselves, quit letting the lawsuits run this country and this world, the vocal few need to start being ignored instead of listened too.




By JustTom on 9/13/2008 6:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
People are already told not to wear fur and leather. In fact if you try in certain places people toss paint on ya. A lovely little act of kindness towards the planet.


Cultural difference?
By ttowntom on 9/9/2008 11:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
From the source article link,
quote:
However, he admitted that in Western society, t-shirt rewearing was only realistic under certain circumstances
So then are Eastern societies supposed to be more tolerant of body odor?




RE: Cultural difference?
By mindless1 on 9/10/2008 6:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Many are more tolerant of it already.


What to attack?
By ghost101 on 9/14/2008 6:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about some ridiculous comments? I bet there are thousands of ideas about how to reduce greenhouse gases. Doesnt mean all of them are wrong or even that the underlying science is wrong. That is ultimately what Michael attempts to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dm7d5/b00d...

Answers most basic questions and addresses the history of the debate. Also explains recent shift in US policy.




RE: What to attack?
By ghost101 on 9/14/2008 6:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
Also like to say that I'm glad the BBC came with a documentary which at least goes some way of redeeming the damage to the UK media over the terrible second rate Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which has been torn to bits.


Last time I checked...
By DanoruX on 9/9/2008 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 3
... humans were on top of the food chain. We can eat, breed, and slaughter animals as we damn well please. I'm not giving up most dishes I eat just to please some anti-progress political group.




Yes...
By wwwebsurfer on 9/9/2008 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, let's all live in huts and only eat rice for the rest of our lives because someone thinks the earth will flood in the coming weeks.

Imagine how mad these people are going to be when they forgo modern technology (TV, cell, MEAT for crying out loud) and die in a fiery nuclear explosion because their organization does a PISS POOR JOB ON REAL PROBLEMS.




I read this quote and chuckled
By vbNetGuy on 9/9/2008 2:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The climate change angle could be quite persuasive.


Is this what our world is coming down to now, everything that happens is going to be blamed on "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" even though it has yet to be proven?

When I read this I thought:
I'm not earning enough income, must be climate change.
A lot of my friends are having relationship trouble, must be climate change.
My car didn't start this morning, must be climate change.

Climate change is THE cause to ALL of our problems!




Please excuse me...
By maverick85wd on 9/9/2008 6:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
while I go barbecue my steak ;-)




Educate Yourself
By Blonden on 9/9/2008 8:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
I read your uneducated reactions. You heard the truth here first. So many actions are done mindlessly. Why don't you check it out, or are you too busy stuffing yourself to THINK?




oh the bright side
By omnicronx on 9/11/2008 8:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
McDonald's does not have to worry as cardboard is not a meat product.




wow
By BAFrayd on 9/11/2008 9:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think I saw that guy climbing out of an alley downtown today. I didn't realize that the UN has such low standards.
I guess that explains a lot.




By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like we are not driving engough?

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimates 18% of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions come from meat production. By contrast, only 13% of emissions come from transport.




Grass fed beef
By paul1149 on 9/14/2008 7:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have two comments. First, the problem with meat production seems to be modern agriculture's reliance on grains rather than nature's way, grasses, for feedstock. The high-powered grains ferment in the stomachs of the animals and create loads of methane, whereas grass takes its sweet time to yield its nutrients in a way more amenable to the animals' God-given metabolism.

Second, is it possible that this Indian economist's worldview, and science, is being driven by his Hindu culture?




By LiveVegan on 10/8/2008 5:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Parts of the following are taken and slightly changed for an Australian specific article about sheep and cattle emissions and the great contribution to climate change.

The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep.

"Enteric fermentation" is what goes on in the digestive systems of ruminants, like cattle and sheep. It produces methane, the world's largest but also most under-appreciated contribution to climate change over the next few decades.

The second-largest current contribution is coal.

Methane is so under-appreciated because there's political reasons. The political reason is that if telling the global community that they need to pay more for petrol and electricity is tough, telling them they need to consume or cease eating beef, lamb and dairy products is going to be tougher still.


Many people would rather turn off a light, ride a bike, participate in "Earth hour" rather than adopt a plant based diet. The thing is that adopting a plant based diet is an action EVERYONE can take and it is THE best personal action one can take to address global warming. Not everyone can afford to buy a Prius, but they can change their diet.

In the Amazon rain forest, most of the destruction is caused by cattle rearing and also soy production for cattle feed overseas. Thousands and thousands of miles are being cleared each month for cattle rearing. The Amazon rain forest is the lungs of the planet.

Let us also not forget the animal aspect of meat consumption and global warming. 60 billion plus animals are suffering and being killed for "food" each year and spend their whole lives confined, unable to move in factory farms. http://www.factoryfarming.com . Let us also remind ourselves of the increasing number of animal to human diseases eg Avian flu, "Mad Cow" disease etc. The many serious negative health effects of meat consumption are becoming apparent. Flooding and famine from global warming is on the increase. Species extinction is escalating and its predicted that 40% of animal species will be extinct in coming years. Human poverty is increasing "developing" countries because they are being encouraged to start factory farms a WSPA report revealed. The list goes on. The ecological insanity of overfishing, creating dead areas in the ocean, species extinction and the "by products" of billions of other sea animals being killed by line fishing and the possibility of the oceans being emptied by 2048.

The truth is that meat and dairy consumption and its great contribution to climate change is undeniable and it must seriously be addressed to save the planet.

The public needs to do their research on this, because green groups and governments are not going to educate the public, nor are they going encourage the public to adopt a plant based diet to address global warming because it is the other "inconvenient truth". They know about the connection because animal rights groups have been talking about it for years now, but they refuse to act on it.

Maybe people will start listening to Dr Pachauri, but the simple truth is, we ignore this issue at our own peril. Adopting a plant based diet is easier than people think. If you google "vegan" or "vegan health" or "vegan recipes" you will find vast amounts of resources.

Check out
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWNLvgU4MI

World Food Crisis: Is Meat Consumption a Major Cause
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGFjo62LdI




So many posts....
By PaxtonFettel on 9/10/2008 3:57:49 AM , Rating: 1
and yet no-one's suggested sending in Cartman to clear our hippy infestation yet. Shameful.




Terriffic
By gglenn on 9/10/2008 8:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
So now we can add Veganism to the list of political, economic, and professional hidden agendas tied to the global warming scare.




Truth Hurts
By Blonden on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Truth Hurts
By atrabilious on 9/9/2008 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please please PLEASE tell me you're joking.


RE: Truth Hurts
By blaster5k on 9/9/2008 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 5
I hope so. Meat is an important component in a healthy and balanced diet. We're omnivores for a reason.


RE: Truth Hurts
By Kefner on 9/10/2008 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 3
Want to know what happens when you don't eat meat? Just look at that guy's face above!


RE: Truth Hurts
By AlexWade on 9/14/2008 10:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
Also, meat-less diets make your brain smaller. This according to a study done over 5 years.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Eatin...

Meat is required to be healthy, just like vegetables are required to be healthy. The best source for protein and B12 is meat. The body does not absorb vitamin supplements well. And you can also tell people who don't eat meat because they look unhealthy. Their skin is pale.


RE: Truth Hurts
By kattanna on 9/9/2008 3:17:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
feed yourself plant based foods.


i do.

my beef gets its food from plants as do my chickens & pigs.


RE: Truth Hurts
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 1
In case you haven't noticed your front teeth are what? Sharp. Why? So you can tear meat. Like any good omnivore. Herbivores typically have flat teeth to smash up plant matter.

Nature's laws tell me I should be eating meat. Or are you going to tell a tiger that it shouldn't kill the gazelle? Oh wait IT WOULD EAT YOU! Hey this is sounding like a good idea...


RE: Truth Hurts
By Flunk on 9/13/2008 4:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
While you're at it, pass some of that Gazelle over here, that looks like good eating.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki