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

Backwards thinking
By Thetech on 12/18/2006 10:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised there is so much backwards thinking coming from people in the comments. Is it such a crime for there to be a push for us to reduce the emissions that we add to the atmosphere? And why can't this be discussed in a civillized manner without so much ignorance, intolerance and flaming?
I had the misconception that people who read the news at sites like this would be more progressive then people who just watch the news because nothing they want to see is on, and don't really have any consideration for someone other then themselves.

RE: Backwards thinking
By Dfere on 12/19/2006 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone here has offered that we should not be concerned. I think the main topic has been that when considering what we need to do about our future, it should be from an informed, logical and responsible decision. Asher's story line presents the argument that Hummers have a very minimal impact on climactic change.

We need to unemotionally identify the largest and strongest drivers and see if we can affect them, and indeed if we have to. From the above facts presented (if correct), it seems highly illogical to only target Hummers in attempting to "save the planet".

BTW, I do not or never have driven, or wanted to drive or own a Hummer. I consider them ostentatious, decadent, and a placebo for people who are bad drivers as well as an ego statement. They are hugely profitable knock offs of a very capable military vehicle. God love GM for deciding to sell them, else my own car ( a turbo 6 cyl sedan, would most likely be considered the "evil vehicle".

Am I more green becuase I bought the sedan, but have a lead foot?

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

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