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.
--

Billy
Republican and Democratic "Leadership" Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

Billy wrote:
The Greenhouse Hamburger

February 2009 Scientific American



Wouldn't it be more appropriate to mention the article and then post a
link to it? Copying and reposting an entire article without permission
is a violation of the author's and publisher's rights. Besides, it's
good netiquette.

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:47:19 -0800, Billy
wrote:

The Greenhouse Hamburger

snip

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.

sighhhhh.......it seems that your effort to educate the Great Unwashed
yet again results in disparagement and attempted diversion from the
importance of the message, dave a.

'Twas ever thus.

In response to this particular study, we have discovered, and availed
ourselves of, a local (26 miles) source of bison that is entirely
grass fed. Butchered at two years of age. (You ever have bison nuts?
Damn, they are good!!)

This here buffalo flesh is some good stuff, Billy. The omega ratios
are proper. Fat content is minimal and of the proper composition, so
that "saturated fat" is of no concern. Having said this, our red
flesh consumption is way down, as is flesh consumption overall.

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. " ....Pollan

Yer old pal, peering out from unner the log

Charlie

I wish I had words :O)

Hi!
--

Billy
Republican and Democratic "Leadership" Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

In article ,
dave a wrote:

Billy wrote:
The Greenhouse Hamburger

February 2009 Scientific American



Wouldn't it be more appropriate to mention the article and then post a
link to it? Copying and reposting an entire article without permission
is a violation of the author's and publisher's rights. Besides, it's
good netiquette.

True, true, but I didn't make the graphs available, those that make the
best argument. So you'll either have to buy the magazine, which is on
your news racks as we communicate or borrow it from your local library.
In any event, it gives you information that you can act on. You want a
planet that your descendants can live on? Right?

And what kind of anally retentive type goes around telling people how
they should communicate?

If I want to communicate with you, I'll let you know. Dumb . . .
--

Billy
Republican and Democratic "Leadership" Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

Billy wrote:

And what kind of anally retentive type goes around telling people how
they should communicate?

If I want to communicate with you, I'll let you know. Dumb . . .

What kind of person goes around stealing other people's work? You might
not realize it, but the author makes a living by publishing original
work. When you steal it, it's no different than if I walked into your
house and took whatever I felt like.

Finally, I should point out that I do not need your permission or anyone
else's to state my opinion on the internet. If you aren't interested,
don't read it. At least I'm civil, unlike yourself.

In article ,
dave a wrote:

Billy wrote:

And what kind of anally retentive type goes around telling people how
they should communicate?

If I want to communicate with you, I'll let you know. Dumb . . .

What kind of person goes around stealing other people's work?

I have never had an original thought. However I have combined those
other thoughts into a new format. Not always better I'd add.

You might
not realize it, but the author makes a living by publishing original
work. When you steal it, it's no different than if I walked into your
house and took whatever I felt like.

Down with Libraries!! And lets get those geeks that try to find out
what a wonderful tool can do. Share Ideas sure Music is a hot topic but
I give a guess those pirates bought more than most. Like what if Dilemma
is not on limewire? What to do?

Finally, I should point out that I do not need your permission or anyone
else's to state my opinion on the internet. If you aren't interested,
don't read it. At least I'm civil, unlike yourself.


Some things below to ponder.

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

http://www.eff.org/

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

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)?
Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?
Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?
I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?
Is CO2 a green house gas also?
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?

My chemistry is week. 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?

Just wondering ........ Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

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
--

Billy
Republican and Democratic "Leadership" Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

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 ....

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

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

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

"Dan L." wrote in
:

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").

she's unemployed & her disability payments have run out. she's
currently living on SS disability payments to 3 of her 6 kids
(approx. $2600/month). if any of the octuplets have health issues
from the premature birth, she'll get more government SS disability
for them. in her case, i think the state should be looking to the
sperm doner (all the kids are from the same father) and the
fertility doctor that treated her for child support.
i agree that taxes should go up for any children over 2
unmedically assisted pregnancies (so as not to penalize those with
natural twins/triplets). for folks like the Duggins (18! kids, or
the octuplets mother the tax penalty should get higher for every
child after #4...
OTOH, deductions for adopters of multiple US born kids should not
be raised.

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.

very little of the Federal taxes go to schools/education, &
because education benefits society as a whole, no, the childfree
don't get off paying taxes.
that would be like saying i don't have to pay taxes because most
taxes go to highway funding & i don't drive...
lee

Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the atmosphere.
Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to look at the
numbers and evaluate the net effect. Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources that
we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You can reduce the rate of
using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them, or
for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. 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?


You do have to wonder.

David

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.
It eventually oxidizes into CO2. If there was an appreciable amount of
it in the atmosphere, we would all be dead.

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").
No job, no husband, no brains and it will be the children who will
suffer from her monumental, egregious, egotistic stupidity. We may have
to emulate the draconian measures that the Chinese took to save the
planet from selfish people like this woman.

As for gay marriages or singles, should they be allowed to have kids;
cloning, adoption or envitro?
I'd think that whatever rules constrain straight couples should apply to
gays.
I say yes, if they have the money and
raise their taxes! Single people that never had kids, pay little to no
taxes.
Then you make children status symbols of the rich. My understanding is
that in America, we are all supposed to be equal. Single people and
childless couples already pay property taxes which support schools.


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.

Care to share any of your learning? What was the cost?

Enjoy Life ....

Hoping to start germinating this week end.
--

Billy
Republican and Democratic "Leadership" Behind Bars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Dan L. wrote:

Hmmm ....

I have questions.

Carbon dioxide CO2 is that the gas we humans exhale (Good)?

Yes, it is essential that we do so, the same with other animals.

Do not plants take in CO2 and keep the carbon and release oxygen O2
(Good)?

Yes. Put very simply animals and plants consume each other's by products,
it's a good system.

Do not cars exhale carbon monoxide CO (Bad)?

Only small amounts, mainly they burn hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel) with
oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The CO2 has the major greenhouse effect
compared to CO.

I am not sure but comparing machines to living things different?

You can compare living and non-living things in their contribution or
consumption of greenhouse gasses (well any gasses really) in the
atmosphere. Rather than say one is 'good' and the other 'bad' you need to
look at the numbers and evaluate the net effect. Which isn't at all easy.
Net effect of balance and stability = things go much as they are
Net effect of imbalance and instability = rapid change = collapse human
society as we know it.

Is CO2 a green house gas also?

Yes indeed. So is methane which is more significant per molecule, it is
produced by bogs, ruminants (cattle) and coal mines amongst many things.

If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save the
planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because we have
many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses, many resources
that we need are running out and many pollutants that we make, including
greenhouse gasses, are harming the environment. You can reduce the rate
of using up resources and generating pollutants per head but unless you do
something about the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of
collapse as you cannot reach stability.

Those who suggest that there is no need to limit human population (say
because of technological advances) will find that it is limited for them,
or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be limted by the Four
Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. 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?


You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The planet will
heal itself its just a matter of time.

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

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.