I have been advocating that people carry lighters as well as their ID cards.

Burning methane produces CO2 and H2O, so its not a solution.

I think the solution to that would be to introduce methane absorbing suppositories.

Silliness factor has just upped itself by 100

It's time to cull the herd.

Those will dislodge after the first discharge of the day.

CH4 has 20 times more of a greenhouse effect than CO2, so I've read somewhere. So burning would be a reduction of 20 times the normal effect of CH4.

are they from your private collection Tsonda?

No one is going to stop eatting meat at a rate that will cut down anything. How much wasted money did we spend studying this when that money couldve been put into other fuel research? People need to have change that doesnt effect their lives for years and put them out of jobs.

the meat industry isn't easy to attack, but everyone loves a good bout of american bashing. i blame the ridiculously huge cars everyone insists on driving in the good old US of A
I will also conviniently ignore the fact that Australia produces more CO2 per capita.

Your logic continues to astound me, Fatty. Sorry, i can't see your point at all. Something is extremelt carbon and energy-intensive (not to mention wasteful), and you come up with basically the same excuses the aerosol companies came up with in the 90s and the oil industry is doing now.

The beneficial effects of cutting down on meat have been known for a long time, especially in poor countries. And you wanna bitch about wasted money? What about the money being spent to develop SUVs and orbital sommercial aircraft?

Please, come down to reality. We need to live more efficiently if we are gonna stop global warming. Reducing meat is not an issue, its a fact that it cannot be sustained as it is now.
And green progress is gonna get rid of jobs that are polluting and create other jobs that are not. Deal with it. It will be the same for the transportation industry.

Speaking of which, what schemes for transportation do you see as rescuing us from our current predicament? I assume you must have something specific in mind, as you seem so convinced that it will save us from having to give up meat every meal.

So, are you sailing back to Canada from now on Oyuki in order to reduce your CO2 footprint?



source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Increase_of_greenhouse_gases

sorry but I find more reason in FTs point than yours.

Geez, what is so hard to figure out?
Look at the chart. Agriculture and land use are significant portions. Plus add on the fact that methane is 20% more potent that CO2, and stays in the atmoshere longer.

I'm not saying that all someone has to do is limit their meat intake to a couple times a week and everything will be hunky-dory. Its only part of the solution, as is Fatty's. Cleaning up just one sector is not gonna make a big enough cut. They ALL need to get more efficient.

All i am argueing for is that we cannot ignore the impact our diets have. If we truly believe that we need to live more gently on the Earth, then how our food is made (and transported) is extremely important. We have to look at ALL the aspects of our lifestyle. Not just how we move.

Which, by the way, i have not seen much immediate improvement in. Unless you are riding a bicycle, there is not magic cure for our transportation problem in the near future.

I agree we need it, but cutting down our participation in the meat buisness is immediate AND easy. Unless you want to argue that humans are so greedy that they won't give up chewing on a pigs rectum for 2 or 3 times a week, i don't see the problem.

I know you have passion about this man but you arent going to get the world to cut meat out of their diet.
Coming up with better power sources which will rise some to double what they are now. China fires up coal remember for power.
Cars that are hybrids or better electric. Heck My place would be great for an electric as I only need one long distance car and one short distance van. Those are more viable then getting people to eat less meat. They arent going to do it. The meat lobby wont let them do it. Price will go down if there is no demand and then people will just eat more of it. So you are talking about something that cant and wont happen mate. There is never going to be a meat tax.

I havent read this thread but why couldnt there be a meat tax? We have tobacco, alcohol, car, house, etc...why not? The govt sure loves taxing the F' outta us so it sounds reasonable to me

Mr. Wiggs, wasnt that in one of the English langauge papers like Yomiuri Shinbun the other day? I saw that as well mate. Looks quite interesting, especially since it seems to be working.

Id love to see alternative energy resources become the leading energy suppliers - especially for cars.

Think one major problems with cars, i.e. gasoline, is that the oil industries arent going to give up squeezing every cent they can outta the market until reserves are gone....Especially with somebody like GWB in office it wont change.

This sentence probably sums up all the problems introduced by meat production.

More than 80% of beef produced ends up being sold in fast food chains. The rest of the meet is sold to the consumers through supermarkets restaurants etc. It takes 10 times the energy and results in 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions to have a meal prepared by a fast food rather than cook the same meal at home. Unfortunately people base more and more their diet on fast foods, rather than cooking at home. Thats were the "lifestyle" factor enters and that is also the reason why the demand of beef has gone that high.

So instead of starting a crusade against beef and tell people to change their lifestyles by eating less meet, call for something that makes more sense.

Stop eating at fast foods and prepare your own meal at home.

You can fill you lust for pigs and beefs rectum 2 or 3 times a week and help to reduce 90% of the greenhouse emissions caused by the meet production distribution and food preparation industry, by cooking a stake at home.

There is no reason why everyone in the world should turn to vegans.
In fact, even if we all turn to vegans, then the fast foods will turn to shelling soya burgers over a night. Which means that the industry will still produce the above mentioned amount of green house gasses.

So don't declare war to people eating meet, declare war to fastfoods.

holy shit, how many times do i have to say (as well as the head of the IPCC) that its IT NOT ABOUT TURNING PEOPLE INTOP VEGANS.

Geez, stop trying to blow everything out of proportion.

It is asking people to cut back on their intake, and you guys act like it is the end of the world. Whats the big deal? You are acting like i am asking you to give up breathing or something ridiculous.

Fast Food is part of the problem, but the base of the problem is the production of meat itself. If you wanna say that noone is gonna change their eating habits, fine. Thats your opinion.

But i have, and i don't see the big deal everyone tries to blow this up to be. If you feel threatened by the thought of cutting back on your meat consumption, thats your problem.
You still can't escape the fact that the meat we eat caused a hell of a lot of pollution, and that one way to deal with it is to eat less. If that bothers you, and you wanna focus on other industries instead, go for it. But don't exaggerate what i am saying.

And in case you didn't catch what Mr Pachuari, head of the IPCC said, here it is again

"Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said meat was a very carbon-intensive commodity, a fact established by UN research showing that livestock production creates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined."

I don't think people are disputing what you are saying Oyuki, or the head of the IPCC, but convincing the world to cut back their meat intake because it will help the environment seems like something unachievable because it is a personal choice.

Having companies do the work for people i.e. making cars that produce less emissions, using cleaner fuel, building more energy efficeint buildings, better insulation etc will help with education process and at least make some small term gains in the global warming issue

I dont eat fast food.
Ive had 1 mcds in 1.5 years.
I eat beef maybe once a month
I eat pork fish and chicken yes lots as that is in my lunch.

By cutting back you are asking a very many people to become vegans or damn close to it. My point is by taking away one sector of agriculture you will just add more too it in another way. Thus the footprint will in effect not really change. Do you really think people will eat 50% less meat? What would happen to the depleted fish stocks? Many people are becoming allergic to soy, wheat, nuts and rice. What do they get to eat in this grand plan?

Supply and demand, lets look at it for a second. You raise the price of meat. That price rises and people either except the price or they dont. If demand goes down so does the price. Only when the price gets too low will you see meat production fall off. You need the farmers to loose money before they can give up or cut back on farming. In fact, your grand plan more than likely not change. farmers geared towards meat production will switch to milk. Thus your gas and etc from the cows will not really go down. Switching a food source is not as easy as you make it seem mate.

So what causes increase or decrease in meat production?
That would be market demand.

Who is the BIGGEST meat buyer in the market that defines demand?
Fast food chains

Who has turn food into mass production?
Fast food chains

What would happen if the biggest buyer went out of business?
The demand would drop.

If the demand drops?
Then the irrational high meat production would drop to normal levels.

How do you take the biggest buyer out of business?
By boycotting its products.

How do you do that?
By STOP EATING AT FAST FOODS

So why is it so hard to understand?