Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 15° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than currently estimated, according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.

In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.

They claim that United Nation's figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.

Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics – come amid increasing from climate change experts calls for people to eat less meat.

In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated animals cause 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.

"If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.

"In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate changes to climate change.

Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 review into the economic consequences of global warming, added his name to the call last week, telling a newspaper interviewer: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."

Scientists are concerned about livestock's exhalation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows and other ruminants emit 37 per cent of the world's methane. A study by Nasa scientists published in Science on Friday found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.

According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue that the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect – and the latest recommendation from the UN – rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5bn tons of CO2e to livestock emissions – 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.

Similarly, they claim that official figures are wrong to ignore CO2 emitted by breathing animals on the basis that it is offset by carbon photosynthesised by their food, arguing the existence of this unnecessary animal-based CO2 amounts to 8.7bn tons of CO2e, 3.7 per cent of total emissions.

On land use, they calculate that returning the land currently used for livestock to natural vegetation and forests would remove 2.6bn tons of CO2e from the atmosphere, 4.2 per cent of greenhouse gas. They also complain that the UN underestimated the amount of livestock, putting it at 21.7bn against NGO estimates of 50bn, adding that numbers have since risen by 12 per cent.

Eating meat rather than plants also requires extra refrigeration and cooking and "expensive" treatment of human diseases arising from livestock such as swine flu, they say.

One leading expert on climate change and food, Tara Garnett, welcomed Goodland and Anhang's calculations on methane, which she said had credibility, but she questioned other aspects of their work, saying she had no reason to dispute the UN's position on CO2 caused by breathing. She also pointed out that they had changed scientific assumptions for livestock but not for other sources of methane, skewing the figures.

She said: "We are increasingly becoming aware that livestock farming at current scales is a major problem, and that they contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. But livestock farming also yields benefits – there are some areas of land that can’t be used for food crop production. Livestock manure can also contribute to soil fertility, and farm animals provide us with non food goods, such as leather and wool, which would need to be produced by another means, if it wasn’t a byproduct from animal farming.”

While looking into the paper's findings, Friends of the Earth said the report strengthened calls for the Government to act on emissions from meat production. "We already know that the meat and dairy industry causes more climate-changing emissions than all the world's transport," said Clare Oxborrow, senior food campaigner.

"These new figures need further scrutiny but, if they stack up, they provide yet more evidence of the urgent need to fix the food chain. The more damaging elements of the meat and dairy industry are effectively government-sponsored: millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent propping up factory farms and subsidising the import of animal feed that's been grown at the expense of forests."

Justin Kerswell, campaign manager for the vegetarian group Viva!, said: "The case for reducing consumption of meat and dairy products was already imperative based on previous UN findings. Now it appears to have been proven that the environmental devastation from livestock production is in fact staggeringly more significant – and dwarfs the contribution from the transport sector by an even greater margin.

"It is essential that attention is fully focused on the impact of livestock production by all global organisations with the power to affect policy."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]catherineib wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:49 am (UTC)
I'm not usually an annoying smug vegetarian, but after reading this I do feel a little that way inclined!
Meat and greenhouse gases
[info]rbtgoodland wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
From Robert Goodland: As the Telegraph reports today, my co-author and I have assessed the life cycle and supply chain of meat and dairy products. We have deduced that at least 51% of worldwide human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are attributable to livestock, and our full report is viewable on Worldwatch's website.

We show that a 25% reduction in livestock products worldwide can be achieved at minimal cost, while yielding at least a 12.5% reduction in human-caused GHGs. This is about as much reduction as is considered possible to achieve in an agreement at the upcoming U.N. conference on climate change in Copenhagen.

The FAO’s prior estimate is based on a simple model of the carbon cycle. However, a virtuous carbon cycle model does not work these days in the real world, which is much more complex. A simple carbon cycle model does not account for the tens of millions of hectares of forest converted in recent decades to grazing land and cropland to feed tens of billions more livestock each year.

In ranching in tropical regions, forest is cut and burned to create new pastures. Soil is depleted in a few years, so then more forest is cut and burned. That, added to by livestock’s breath and other excretions, has resulted in high levels of atmospheric carbon, significantly fuelling climate change.

In responses to Lord Stern, meat and dairy producers claim that their products use grass more efficiently than in tropical regions, and therefore should not be targeted in Copenhagen. However, in British pastures and other temperate regions, large amounts of soil carbon are released over time.

Moreover, while meat and dairy producers do not often reveal this, most British cattle – as elsewhere – graze for the first part of their lives, and then are fed carbon-intensive grains and legumes for the second part. In fact, a majority of the world’s crops become feed for cattle and other livestock.

Feed, meat and dairy products are global commodities, so they get flown, shipped and trucked all over the world. Then British and other tables get laden with highly carbon-inefficient foods. And global warming is trans-boundary, which means that Lord Stern and others must look beyond British borders in considering the impacts of meat and dairy products on climate.

In both tropical and temperate regions, much of the same land used to graze livestock and grow feed could instead regenerate tall grasses and forest, among which -- as well as in the soil beneath – much more carbon could be absorbed and sequestered than in land set aside for grazing and feed.

If regeneration of pasture and forest would occur on a large, global scale, then as much as half of today’s atmospheric carbon could potentially be absorbed. At the same time, many carbon emissions from livestock’s breathing and other excretions could be stopped. Most important, carbon absorption in forest, grasses and soil reclaimed from livestock and feed would be the only feasible way to absorb a significant amount of today’s atmospheric carbon in the near term. This analysis shows why Lord Stern dares to imagine a world where not all land today dedicated to livestock and feed would remain so.

Following submission of our article for publication, we learned that the number of livestock worldwide in 2007 was actually 56 billion, many more than we accounted for in our article. That would raise our estimate of GHGs worldwide attributable to livestock. On the other hand, our article noted that further work remained to be done on producing a reliable estimate of global carbon from methane not attributable to livestock. Once that estimate is available, it would offset some carbon attributable to the new numbers of livestock that we have learned about.

It will not suffice to substitute one meat product with another that has a somewhat lower carbon footprint. Marketing campaigns should pitch meat and dairy substitutes that can be eaten all week long – because they are tasty, economical, easy to prepare, and healthful. Most important, by replacing meat and dairy products with better alternatives, consumers can collectively take a single powerful action to reverse climate change. Action is needed now, before it is too late.
Re: Meat and greenhouse gases
[info]reinertorheit wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 01:07 am (UTC)

Thank you for this vitally important and ground-breaking research. Let's hope it puts the misleading information about carbon footprints into context.

Carbon Offset is a fraud. It's like going to the swimming pool, pissing in the pool, and then buying Fairtrade biscuits in the Cafeteria after your swim. The answer is not to piss in the pool in the first place, not to salve your conscience without altering your behaviour at all.
I rather suspect...
[info]thisanthat wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 04:05 am (UTC)
the gas emissions allegedly produced from livestock retained for the use of human consumption pails almost into insignifigance, when compared to the gasses produced in the wild by Wildebeest's, variety's of Antelope of which there are many and other great consumers of vegetation. Plus the fact the greatest producer of methane gas can be laid at the door of the trillions and trillions of termites who run amok across the globe.
Meat is destroying our habitat
[info]frigalo wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 07:10 am (UTC)
Now for the farmers and other vested interests backlash. Never mind, we vegetarians will weather the storm, I feel the hand of history...........
Uk countryside exemption
[info]1fontana wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 09:59 am (UTC)
Some of our most beautiful countryside rich in nature exists for no other reason
than meat and dairy production. We must resist any attempt to destroy this sustainable and ecologically sound land use.
Re: Uk countryside exemption
[info]andy108 wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:32 am (UTC)
How was it before farming???????
Vegetarian Emissions
[info]muttonbone wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
Has anybody calculated the potential methane emission tonnage of six (or nine) billion brussels sprout, baked beans, artichoke and onion baji eating vegetarians?

Peter in Wales
Re: Vegetarian Emissions
[info]moresomaplease wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
Very good point!!
Re: Vegetarian Emissions
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 11:54 am (UTC)
Re: Vegetarian Emissions
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
Let others break first
[info]1fontana wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
Its clear how this will pan out politically with Britain taking the self destructive moral high ground thereafter we will have to import meat and dairy from the rest of the world, bulldoze hundreds of thousands of miles of hedges and plough up ancient pastures for soya, or would the uk government go for an outright ban on consumption?.
Nothing about a union of governments attempting to tackle global warming will result in fair policies, to my mind our government must act with considerably more self interest than it has for instance in power generation. If global warming is a real threat then its the likes of America China and India that will have to take the lead not a little country off the coast of Europe.
Meat is murder
[info]frigalo wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
1 Fontana: Where we lead, others follow. Besides, India and China don't eat huge amounts of dead animal do they? They pollute, of course, but meat consumption is nothing like the West. Hence the Chinese diet means they live longer and suffer less from stomach cancers etc.
Re: Meat is food
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 03:46 pm (UTC)

India is mainly vegetarian because of their religion. China is not mostly vegetarian and as it gets rich, meat consumption is increasing.
Not as much CO2 as concrete manufacturing
[info]therealsomniac wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)

Concrete manufacture is a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Something we could change without causing starvation.
Re: Not as much CO2 as concrete manufacturing
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:01 pm (UTC)
The alternative to meat is plants and such a switch increases the amount of food available.

No one is proposing an alternative for concrete. It is the 2nd most widely used material on the planet.
Mad Cowboy
[info]fjerins wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 07:23 pm (UTC)
Want to know more about the cattle industry? then read " Mad Cowboy" you will learn more about the effects Cattle have on the environment. They stomp the land, let out gases, drink to much water in order to keep the heard growing. If you all knew how cattle are treated as they go to slaughter, then I think you would stop eating meat. The "Mad Cowboy" is a true story about a cattle rancher who after many years realized that the cattle did more damage to the environment then cars or industry. Buy the cattlemen' s Association tells a different lie.
It's all about the money. Just follow it. and you will come to see for yourself.
livestock farming
[info]dug4truth wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 07:48 pm (UTC)
animals help make the soil. crops take the soil. no animals=no soil=no humans. ive read that for every ton of grain produced 4 tons of top soil is lost.
Re: livestock farming
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
Re: livestock farming
[info]nofarmsnofood wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC)
well, where do you think that grain goes? into human mouths? nope. it goes to feed the livestock. plus, livestock sewage does not go back to fertilize the soil, it is accumulated into huge waste lagoons that create noxious fumes and contaminate water supplies. soil can be regenerated purely with plant based materials.

Daisy-Mae
[info]daisymae1976 wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 08:56 pm (UTC)
I'm keen to tread lightly on the world, so I'm not going to have any children and I have not eaten milk/cheese/meat for 2 years now. I feel very healthy and happy and have loads more energy. I can highly recommend a more compassionate lifestyle.


It's not just carbon dioxide either:
http://fruityfunday.com/?q=node/29

1. Antibiotic pollution (my grandad died from C. Diff, a 'superbug')
2. Chemical pollution
3. Deforestation and biodiversity
4. Overuse of fresh water
5. Pesticide pollution

It will be very important to keep give our farmland back to nature as we need less of it as people more to a more compassionate lifestyle and cut out eating animals from their diet. We can let the old 'farmland' go back to the woodland it originally was, rather then the highly sprayed, chemical sodden huge grass to feed our unatural, hideous, bulging 'cows'.
DaisyMae1976
[info]daisymae1976 wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 08:56 pm (UTC)
I'm keen to tread lightly on the world, so I'm not going to have any children and I have not eaten milk/cheese/meat for 2 years now. I feel very healthy and happy and have loads more energy. I can highly recommend a more compassionate lifestyle.


It's not just carbon dioxide either:
http://fruityfunday.com/?q=node/29

1. Antibiotic pollution (my grandad died from C. Diff, a 'superbug')
2. Chemical pollution
3. Deforestation and biodiversity
4. Overuse of fresh water
5. Pesticide pollution

It will be very important to keep give our farmland back to nature as we need less of it as people more to a more compassionate lifestyle and cut out eating animals from their diet. We can let the old 'farmland' go back to the woodland it originally was, rather then the highly sprayed, chemical sodden huge grass to feed our unatural, hideous, bulging 'cows'.
[info]ecohealth2003 wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:47 pm (UTC)
I read a quote that I quite enjoyed, though I don't remember the author:
A vegetarian driving a hummer
leaves less of a carbon footprint
that a non-vegetarian driving a Prius.
Thank you for an excellent article.
Jennifer Gray Charnoe
Meet to eat....... but what?
[info]sandn09 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
Now we are having new figures on the effects of farmed animals on climate. People are also animals! Has anyone calculated the amount of Green-house gases expelled by each person in the growing human population? How does it compared with the quantity expelled by farmed and wild animals?
Re: Meet to eat....... but what?
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
[info]nonpareilone wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
May I suggest that those of you who want the truth about livestock production's impact on our planet contact the Vegan Society and ask for the excellent leaflet 'Are your meals costing the Earth'. All the information in it is verifiable, unlike some of the rubbish quoted by irritatable, head in the sand uninformed people and the information is presented in a simple format even they should understand. The Vegan Society always tell the truth even if it is not in their favour. Please do not use the health excuse as a reason not to change, I have been a vegetarian for sixty years and a vegan for fifteen years. My chances of getting many of the cancers are a lot lower than average and I have been told by my doctor I have a very low risk of heart disease (this is based on the test results of my yearly MOT, my cholestrol is 4) By the way DIGFORTRUTH I grow most of my own veg in raised beds and I have had to raise them twice, needless to say I use only geen manures and vegatable based compost.
I am not smug but I am really angry that I am living on this beautiful planet surrounded by a species that want to destroy it. It is like having house guests that are destroying the home you are trying to preserve for your grandchildren. Face up to it you cannot have a meat/dairy eating environmentalist.
P S I heard on BBC Farming Today they are trying to breed a cow that does not fart so much!! honest, it's the truth. At first I became veggie for the animals I now find it is better for my health and finally it is better for my world. Come and join me.
The CO2 v Methane war
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)
Eat pig and save the planet from rotting vegetation.
Methane v CO2 - confusion reigns amongst Climate Alarmists
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:36 pm (UTC)
CO2: Cheap affordable energy from fossil fuels are the mainstay of rich western countries.

Methane: Domesticated animals are the mainstay of the poor in third-world economies.


The facts:

1. One acre of rainforest produces more methane than one acre of pasture.

2. One acre of rice fields produce more methane than one acre of pasture.

3. Beef cattle in the developed world produce 120kg of methane per animal per year.

4. For sheep it is 8Kg.

5. For pigs it is 1.5kg.

6. Most of the cattle in the world are reared in developing and third world countries and are reared as working animals.

I am afraid the Climate Alarmists have become increasingly confused over their blame game and what to do about it.
Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]livevegan wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:38 pm (UTC)
Thank you for this. Green groups have been ignoring this other inconvenient truth for years. They should be embarrassed. Animal groups have been trying to bring this issue to the public for years.

There is also another inconvenient truth - human overpopulation. We are in overshoot and collapse. Adopt, don't breed. Vasectomy is green.

The best way to address this issue is to adopt a plant based (vegan) diet. It's time for a vegan planet. If people want to find out more about veganism, there is plenty on the web and there are wonderful tasty recipes by the thousands. Go vegan. It's good for the planet, for us, and most importantly, it's the morally right thing to do for the 60 billion nonhumans murdered for "food" each year.


Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
Eat pig and save the planet from rotting vegetation.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]livevegan wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 03:14 am (UTC)
Hi muckle10,
Since there's an overpopulation of humans, maybe you should consider eating humans instead since humans are destroying the planet and making it unlivable and a hell for 95% of the planet's population who are nonhumans.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC)
Humans are destroying the planet. I wish I had a £ every time that nonsense was repeated as I would be able to afford a steak dinner every night of the week.

Denying your own evolution is dangerous nonsense. Humans are omnivores. Going vegan is bad for humans, as it leads to smaller growth, ill health and under-developed brains in vegan children.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]livevegan wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:53 am (UTC)
Hi Muckle, your state of denial and inability to educate yourself or look at facts makes you are a part of the problem and not the solution.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]moresomaplease wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 12:38 pm (UTC)
You're in denial, prove for your theory on over population. If youcan take your self away form your Al Gore temple worship.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]livevegan wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC)
Hi Moresomaplease
You wrote: "Al Gore temple of worship"?
lol

Al Gore has never addressed the issue of animal use industries contribution to global warming. He is as much a part of the problem as Green groups who purposefully ignore this issue. It's much easier and popular for Green groups and Al Gore to suggest people ride to work, change a lightbulb and drive a Prius than it is to change their diet.

You wrote : "Prove your theory of overpopulation"
oh please ;) Do your own research. There's plenty of info on the web.
Re: Go vegan. It's easy. It's good for you, for the planet and for nonhumans.
[info]moresomaplease wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC)
Why exactly are we over populating the planet, Women can naturally have a baby every couple of years or so. Are you trying to tell us that that is un-natural. What is it going to take for people like you to wake up, a tax on babies, a tax on breathing. This planet could hold a lot more of us. Do you like David Rockefeller think that the Chinese state controlled population control is a good thing. Anyway if you think there are to much of us why have you not killed your self already, put your life where your mouth is. Go on if you are so correct what are you waiting for.

IM SICK OF THIS BS!!!

[info]ian710 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:59 pm (UTC)
Yes eating less meat will be better for the environment. But then so would giving up the use of modern appliances, living in a smaller home, or staying home more. Where does it end? Do we want to live in a world of 15 billion people living at subsistence level?
Eating different meat is the answer.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 04:00 pm (UTC)
You can eat as much pork and lamb as you want. Pigs emit less than 1% of methane than beef cattle. Sheep graze on land where you cannot grow crops.
[info]roxanek wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:29 pm (UTC)
This is read herring argument. This article was presenting scientific information about the effects and emissions of ONE industry. The goal is live at a Sustainable (not subsistence, as you put it) level. Mass meat production is not sustainable. The point being that reducing/eliminating meat consumption in your life would do more good than any of the other things you listed there. If you agree that eating less meat would be better for the environment, why are you resistant/skeptical about changing your lifestyle a tiny bit?
Mass meat prouction is perfectly sustainable.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
Your arguement is purely political and not economic.
[info]ian710 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
well, one man's meat is another man's poison. i will argue that not using the airconditioner, LCD TVs, computers, washing machines, not driving, and having less than 2 kids per couple are all potentially just as helpful if not more, than giving up meat consumption. the point i was making is that sustainability is relative to size of the population. afterall total impact is impact per capita X population. we are fighting a losing battle if we merely focus on reducing per capita impact without considering the other half of the equation.
[info]roxanek wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
I am not at all saying that all of these other things you mention are not beneficial to the environment....the point was that this particular article was based on a scientific study of one industry and that the results were that reducing meat consumption is a step in a positive direction. I am all for people turning off the central air, etc. I was merely commenting on the issue at hand and pointed out that some people were veering from the initial topic with irrelevant information.
[info]steviefp wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
Not subsistence but sustainable. And that will mean using less of everything except our brains.
More climate con carbage
[info]moresomaplease wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 08:23 am (UTC)
Life loves Co2!!

This climate con is about making people like Al Gore richer, its got nothing to do with saving the planet or helping the third world. The worrying thing is Carbon Taxes will be some sort of Futures market with toxic financial instruments like derivatives or CDOs and we are just seeing how good they were for our economy.

Co2 is not a poison, don't believe me watch 'Jimmys Food Factory Whats in My Sandwich' on BBC iplayer - A tomato farmer in England pumps all his Co2 by product in to his tomato green house.

A) he is able to work in the green house all day with no adverse affects to his health
B) he grows the best tomatoes this side if the English channel.

P.S.

Dear The Independent

Is it not about time you started reporting the truth about climate change, do you really think that this con can be kept up forever?
[info]alisonburnett wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 06:19 pm (UTC)
All of the above is merely equal to the void of ethics regarding the humane treatment of farm animals.
Dutch Oven Effect
[info]dutchoveneffect wrote:
Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC)
If we stop eating meat the animal population is only going to boom, causing even more 'greenhouse' gases... I call it the dutch oven effect.
We actually have to eat even more meat than ever if we really want to lower the gas levels.
Introduction of Cattle to common areas.
[info]oscar1234 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:14 pm (UTC)
Where I live the local Commons Conservators are proposing to introduce cattle to graze the common because they claim it is the best way to conserve the habitat. This is happening all other the country, supported by BBont, Natural England and the National Trust. This will involved fencing a area of 3 kilmetres with 23 gates. The area at the moment has developed naturally from the heathland of 100 years ago to secondary woodland with oak, beech, silverbirch, paths that open onto beautful glades that have been managed mechanically with volunteers up until now. They are determined to extend the glades which local residents object to and are cutting down young oaks and other tees to do so, the fencing with 23 gates etc will truely ruin what is a natural and beautiful wild area that needs to be preserved, all for 6 cattle for 4 months of the year. We all agree and campaign to stop the destruction of the rain forest for grazing so why is this happening all over our tiny country that has so little wild areas.
the locals have formed a group called Kingwood Common Preservation Group and have an website called www.kingwoodcommonpreservationgroup.co.uk so if any of you are also fighting this madness please get in touch.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date