Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yahoo!: Polluting Pets


MattFancy

Recommended Posts

The Meat consumption part confuses me. Wouldnt there be a carbon offset by the killing of whatever supplied the meat?

Like PITA saying that going vegetarian will help with global warming. It doesnt add up when looked at as a whole.

The problem is twofold. First, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and because of what they eat and the way they digest it, cows emit a huge amount of methane. Second, cows require pastureland, which replaces forest but does not do as good a job as forest at controlling greenhouse gas.

Livestock emit methane and other greenhouse gasses through excrement and belching. The FAO estimates that cow manure and flatulence generate 30 to 40 percent of total methane emissions from human-influenced activities.

As demand for meat grows, the report explains, so does the need for pasture and cropland, making deforestation an additional concern; currently, according to the report, the livestock sector occupies 30 percent of ice-free land on the planet. Extensive grazing also takes a toll on arable land.

The livestock sector also contributes to water depletion; currently, the livestock sector accounts for 8 percent of human water use globally. Animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, as well as chemicals from tanneries and pesticides from feed crops, also contaminate water supplies.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original article, I don't know if the calculations are correct but it makes the point that all our choices have an impact on the environment.

The person who commutes 50 miles each way in a Prius so that they can have a bigger home in the country probably has a much bigger footprint than someone who lives in a smaller house closer to where they work (even if the urbanite owns a Hummer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original article, I don't know if the calculations are correct but it makes the point that all our choices have an impact on the environment.

The person who commutes 50 miles each way in a Prius so that they can have a bigger home in the country probably has a much bigger footprint than someone who lives in a smaller house closer to where they work (even if the urbanite owns a Hummer).

Yep, too many wish to narrow the focus to specific things rather than a overall impact of our life choices.

They shoulda just bought a turbo diesel :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...