Print 39 comment(s) - last by brute1248.. on Jan 13 at 2:39 PM

The UN treats us to good news... and bad

Among all the debate on global warming, The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long been one of the loudest voices. Despite accusations of bias and political motivations, the IPCC has been persuasive in getting many governments to pass environmental legislation.

So when the IPCC releases a new report, downgrading man's impact on the environment by 25% (and lowing predictions of temperature and sea level rise by 50%), one would think this good news would make headline news across the nation. Think otherwise. Such happy news apparently isn't fit for public consumption, according to our mass media.

The media has been even less forthcoming with the details of another UN report, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This 400 page report expresses what people who study global warming have long since known-- that the world cattle population is responsible for some 18% of all greenhouse gases, a larger contribution than planes, trains, automobiles, and all other forms of transportation combined.

The report also blames livestock farming for over 100 other polluting gases, including the number one source of ammonia, a major contributor to acid rain. It further blames ranching for deforestation, and ends with a slap at the massive amounts of drinking water used to feed cattle herds, which presumably is taking water from the mouths of thirsty children.

So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Merry on 12/14/2006 9:39:20 PM , Rating: 0
I was just about to post the same thing. Whilst I do not doubt this guys' intelligence I do doubt the reasoning behind some of his posts, as it does often seem like hes' clutching at straws in order to put this argument across, indeed perhaps Mr. Asher should just write about something else.

I find it laughable that the title of this piece is, in its simplest form, 'don't eat meat, buy a hummer', I mean thats really not going to happen now is it? I mean what exactly is your (I'm talking to Mr. Asher here, by the way) solution to this problem of cow fart? Control of the human population in order to reduce the demand for meat ergo allowing you to go and purchase your hummers safe in the knowledge that, now there isn't as much methane knocking around you can waste resources as much as you desire, with you being the key word here. As i said, i don't mean to personally insult you here, indeed some of your arguments have changed my views on global warming, to a certain degree. However, i do believe that some resources will run out, and therefore they should be used wisely, I do also believe that, while the amount people are contributing to global warming is a somewhat contentious issue (i note that in this article you only mention transport figures and not those regarding industry, power generation and such)i do believe they are contributing, and that therefore they should not contribute more than they need to (and by 'need to' i don't mean in a hippy live like a caveman way, i mean in such a way which ensures the maintenance of a modern economy).

I know where you're coming from with these articles, I mean i would love to own a big powerful car and all that but perhaps we need to realise that moderation, with regards to using non-renewable resources, is needed.

RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By TomZ on 12/15/2006 10:17:29 AM , Rating: 3
You guys are missing the point. Politicians and mass media are strongly communicating a message that we must take "urgent action" to reduce "global warming" because it is "human caused." The point of Mr. Asher's articles is to show that, if you research the "global warming" problem for more than 5 minutes, you quickly realize that the facts don't really support the assertions or the proposed solutions. For example, it is clear that further reducing automobile tailpipe CO2 emissions is not an investment that is likely to produce anything more than a feeling like you "did the right thing" - clearly it is not going to affect global warming one bit. Is anyone suggesting that we eat more fish and chicken instead of beef to reduce global warming?

The Bush administration may be wrong in many areas, but their resistance against Kyoto was right on - this will become more and more clear as we begin to understand the reality of global warming, instead of the FUD that we are fed by today's politicians and mass media.

RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Merry on 12/15/2006 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is anyone suggesting that we eat more fish and chicken instead of beef to reduce global warming?

I believe the author of this blog is!

Besides having trawled through a significant amount of videos on this matter last night (as i've had nothing better to do since I got back from uni)I'm still not sure one way or the other, so my existing opinion stands.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki