Misrepresentation of cattle, green house emissions
https://www.businessinsider.com/giv...c21a7rbRGwtEG7M
Quote:
Okay, and the basis for his criticism; Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here the author loses me somewhat. The comparison is distorted. The actual contribution of meat production to greenhouse emissions is not. Quote:
What, livestock only 5 percent? Fair comparison is one thing--fair attribution of greenhouse gas emissions to a sector is another. I don't see the problem here as being the contribution of meat to greenhouse gases is inflated--but more the underestimation of contribution from transport. Everything involved in getting beef to my table is still a genuine contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. |
Quote:
This can be said of everything we " consume" from food to goods. I would like to know if the original population of buffalo, the herds that took 2-3 days to finish crossing the railroads tracks made as much or more than the current cattle production? And does the cattle production make up for the loss of the thousands and thousands of white tail deer that used to roam the entire northeast??? And at what point will human " emissions" be added to the equation? Maybe the real answer is to stop the population explosion. AND to increase the foliage to absorb the waste gases......instead of continuing to strip the land of trees. Instead of burning crop residue, mulch it. Lot to be said for grassfed meats. |
If we switch to all grassfed beef, I'm not sure I get any.
If you lined up all today's cattle and marched them across that railway track, I'm pretty sure that would take quite a while. In the same way that the land supports more humans through agriculture than it could with hunter gathering, it also supports more cattle. Grain feed is a part of that. Quote:
That's Alberta. I'd bet Texas has a few more. Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:44. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.