In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article ,
Bill wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

The Greenhouse Hamburger

February 2009 Scientific American


Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric
power
and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment.
Until
recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the
discussion.
Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the
meat
in
them cause more greenhouse gases‹carbon dioxide (CO2), methane,
nitrous
oxide, and the like‹to spew into the atmosphere than either
transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy,
thereby
warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse
potency,
every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with
the
same global-warming potential.)

The FAO report found that current production levels of meat
contribute
between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of
"CO2-equiva-lent"
greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that
producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch‹a patty of
meat
the size of two decks of cards‹releases as much greenhouse gas into
the
atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included,
incurs
hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel
for
farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all
lead
to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a
report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the
University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just
half
a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent
to
1.2 ounces of CO2‹as a result of applying insecticide and
fertilizer,
pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To
refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table
generates another two ounces of C02-equivalent greenhouse gases,
for
a
total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces

But that is nothing compared to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an
ecological
economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found
that,
depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7
ounces
of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane
has,
roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those
emissions
are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2
into
the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.

Raising animals also requires a large amount of feed per unit of
body
weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and
Sam
Sorer of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of
beef
protein for the table requires more than 10 pounds of plant
protein‹with
all the emissions of greenhouse gases that grain farming entails.
Finally, farms for raising animals produce numerous wastes that
give
rise to greenhouse gases.

Taking such factors into account, Subak calculated that producing a
pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding
operation
(CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2‹pound
for
pound, more than 36 times the C02-equivalent greenhouse gas emitted
by
producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the
impact
of
beef; I estimate that producing a pound of pork generates the
equivalent
of 3.8 pounds of CO2; a pound of chicken generates 1.1 pounds of
CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. And the economically efficient
CAFO
system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in
terms
of
CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions. is far better than most: the
FAO
data I noted earlier imply that the world average emissions from
producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.

Solutions?

What can be done? Improving waste management and farming practices
would
certainly reduce the 'carbon footprint" of beef production.
Methane-capturing systems, for instance, can put cows' waste to use
in
generating electricity. But those systems remain too costly to be
commercially viable.

Individuals, too, can reduce the effects of food production on
planetary
climate. To some degree, after all, our diets are a choice. By
choosing
more wisely, we can make a difference. Eating locally produced food
for
instance, can reduce the need for transport‹though food
inefficiently
shipped in small batches on trucks from nearby farms can turn out
to
save surprisingly little in greenhouse emissions. And in the U.S.
and
the rest of the developed world, people could eat less meat,
particularly beef.

The graphics on the following pages quantify the links between beef
production and green-house gases in sobering detail. The take-home
lesson is clear: we ought to give careful thought to diet and its
consequences for the planet if we are serious about limiting the
emissions of green-house gases.
-------

Nathan Fiala is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University
of
California, Irvine, focusing on the environmental impact of
dietary
habits. He also runs evaluations of development projects for the
the
World Bank in Washington, D.C. In his spare time he enjoys
independent
movies and sailing. In his study of the environmental impact of
meat
production on which this article is based was recently published in
the
journal of Ecological Economics.

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?
Come from oxidized organic material in our diets. If we didn't get rid
of it, our blood would acidify and we would die.
Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?
The carbon cycle is where animals and plants keep handing the carbon
back and forth. The plants use the CO2 to make sugar, which is turned
into wood.
Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?
CO raises the amount of methane and ozone in the atmosphere.
I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?
We got to look at the sources of greenhouse gases, mechanical and
organic.
Is CO2 a green house gas also?
Oh, ja sure, ya bet'cha.
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?
A sterling idea, if you want to save the planet and it's bio-diversity.
Instead of suppressing gay marriages, maybe we should encourage them as
a way to reduce population growth ;O)

My chemistry is weak. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not
a
chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this world
know
what they are saying, let alone how this world operates?
He's just adding up the numbers. Good ideas are where you find them.
Tell everyone you meet not to fart, because if they do, the terrorists
win ;O)

Just wondering ........ Dan

So the human/animal and plant relationship is strong. So we, as
gardeners can grow more plants which will help our environment. Then the
natural Carbon dioxide CO2 can be countered with more plants.

Tax the hell out of fossil fuels and tax breaks and subsidies for clean
energy (if such a thing exist). As far as I know there nothing that can
counter carbon monoxide CO.

As for population growth, I lean towards economic means, the more kids
you have, the higher your taxes for the rest of the parents lives.
I do like the phrase "Good ideas are where you find them".
However, One persons "good idea" maybe a "bad idea" to others.
I am sure the person who just had 8 kids on top of 6 more kids will hate
my tax idea of raising taxes on the more kids parents have (In her case
"the more kids ONE have").

As for gay marriages or singles, should they be allowed to have kids;
cloning, adoption or envitro? I say yes, if they have the money and
raise their taxes! Single people that never had kids, pay little to no
taxes.

One note: Taking the Master Gardener class this winter, has to be one of
the best decisions I made in the last few years. Learning allot about
gardening and most of it is in the area in which I live within. The
massive book alone was worth the money, It has to be the best book on
gardening I have ever read.

Enjoy Life ....

Sort of reminds me of 1500 Italy nobility or there about. Seems they
thought the world was close to ending and upped to be childless. They
self imposed extinction.

I have 5 kids. My brother 2 children and my sister 2. My wife has two
brothers and one sister. One brother has 1 and other brother has 2 and
sister has none.

So my 5 kids vs.

My brother 2
My sister 1 due to car accident
Wife brother has 1
Wife brother has 2
Wife sister 0

So it is 5 to 6 in favor of propagation.

Only if it was just math.

My 35 and youngest 25 are not married and have no children and time and
economics seem more effective than planned parenthood. I really do not
think I will be a grandparent.

I want grand kids. So far just one grandchild but not in my line.

Kiss off )

Bill

Nothing finer in life than stirring up a hornets nest

I expected most people would hate the tax idea. After all who wants to
be taxed? The true answer to over population is that most people will
have to suffer starvation and die in poverty. Like every one else, we
live in a selfish world, not to give up anything for the betterment of
the world. It is basic Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

Enjoy Life ... Dan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA