• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vegetarianism fights Global Warming

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Photosynthesis relies on CO2, the more we produce the faster, healthier, and more drought resistant plants are- the less water is needed for crops.

not to mention a longer and more reliable growing season (hypothetically- if we were ever to produce enough CO2 to actually affect the GH effect to any significant degree)

Isn't this a win win win?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Photosynthesis relies on CO2, the more we produce the faster, healthier, and more drought resistant plants are- the less water is needed for crops.
Our producing it faster does not make plants healthier or more drought resistant, and it doesn't make them absorb CO2 any faster, especially when we keep killing trees and other plants off.
And, no, it won't produce a longer or more reliable growing season because many plants have a growing cycle that revolves around the sun. Artificial lighting is the only way to control such things. Plants "know' to do what they do based on how much sun per day they get. They don't have a calendar to tell them when autumn has arrived, but they know based on the reduced amount of sunlight they are getting every day.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Our producing it faster does not make plants healthier or more drought resistant, and it doesn't make them absorb CO2 any faster, especially when we keep killing trees and other plants off.
And, no, it won't produce a longer or more reliable growing season because many plants have a growing cycle that revolves around the sun. Artificial lighting is the only way to control such things. Plants "know' to do what they do based on how much sun per day they get. They don't have a calendar to tell them when autumn has arrived, but they know based on the reduced amount of sunlight they are getting every day.

it most certainly does, that's why greenhouse farmers pump in CO2- it is utterly unambiguous that it drastically helps plant growth. No computer sims needed to demonstrate this!

Most plants arose with far far higher levels of CO2 >7000ppm during the Cambrian. Plants depleted this over millions of years, down to a near starvation level of 275 pre-industrial- opening up vast deserts on earth.

We are merely restoring a tiny fraction of this vital nutrient.

Growing seasons are limited primarily by late freezes in spring and early freezes in fall. If we were ever to increase the GH effect- it would stabilize temperature variation- especially day/night contrasts and especially at high latitudes where overnight freezing is the greatest threat.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you notice, that doesn't say meat eating in general, but "diets rich in animal products:" It doesn't vegan/vegetarian, but "plant-based diets."
What is your point? The findings do not suggest that a diet consisting of "meat eating in general" are ever better for the environment, the climate or the animals than a diet that doesn't consist of meat-eating.

And still it fails to mention that our farming practices, be it for plants or animals, are very wasteful and contribute excessive amounts of carbon emissions and resource consumption.
Right here:

"Other approaches such as food waste reduction and precision agriculture and/or other technological advances have to be simultaneously pursued; however, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable."


And then the authors go on to explain:

"Raising animals for human food is an intrinsically inefficient process. As we move up in the trophic chain there is a progressive loss of energy. Grass-fed livestock subsists, but this is not the main source of meat for human consumption in developed nations. Modern husbandry (animal farms) is based on intensive feeding of grain crops to animals (5). This grain could be a source of food for humans. The same standards apply to the production of other animal products such as eggs and dairy. Several authors have computed the efficiency ratios of animal compared with plant foods for human consumption. The amount of grain needed to produce the same amount of meat varies from a ratio of 2.3 for chicken to 13 for beef (Table 1). Pimentel and Pimentel (8) established that, on average, 11 times greater fossil energy is required to produce animal protein than plant protein for human consumption. However, the energy-to-protein efficiency ratio varies greatly by type of meat. More specifically, it is only 4 times greater for chicken protein compared with grain protein but 40 times greater for beef protein compared with grain protein. We have previously reported that the ratio for water used in the production of soy protein compared with the same quantity of animal protein is from 4 to 26 and showed that the ratio between soy protein and the different types of animal proteins varies from 6 to 20 for fossil fuel usage (9). The land required to raise the feed to produce animal protein is 6–17 times greater than for soy protein (9).Thus, the conversion of plant foods to foods of animal origin is an intrinsically inefficient process (~10:1)."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Photosynthesis relies on CO2, the more we produce the faster, healthier, and more drought resistant plants are- the less water is needed for crops.

not to mention a longer and more reliable growing season (hypothetically- if we were ever to produce enough CO2 to actually affect the GH effect to any significant degree)

Isn't this a win win win?
The effects of CO2 increase are already happening.

A longer growing season also means sea level and river rise as icecaps and glaciers melt and oceans expand by heating. Most of the planet's population live near rivers and seashores and would be rendered climate refugees.
Tidal wetlands and mangrove swamps are vital for climate control and are the nurseries for much of the life in the oceans. They'd be submerged.

Most of the planet's great agricultural regions are watered by snowmelt. Glaciers are already retreating, many of the world's great rivers are in danger of becoming streams. Expect mass starvation and more climate refugees.

The Co2 is absorbed by the oceans, creating carbonic acid and acidifying the seas. This is already having catastrophic effects on marine ecosystems.
How is this a win-win?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
The effects of CO2 increase are already happening.

A longer growing season also means sea level and river rise as icecaps and glaciers melt and oceans expand by heating. Most of the planet's population live near rivers and seashores and would be rendered climate refugees.
Tidal wetlands and mangrove swamps are vital for climate control and are the nurseries for much of the life in the oceans. They'd be submerged.

Most of the planet's great agricultural regions are watered by snowmelt. Glaciers are already retreating, many of the world's great rivers are in danger of becoming streams. Expect mass starvation and more climate refugees.

The Co2 is absorbed by the oceans, creating carbonic acid and acidifying the seas. This is already having catastrophic effects on marine ecosystems.
How is this a win-win?

Can you name one river in the lower 48 US states that are fed by glaciers? Or can you name one river in any temperate area of the world that depends solely on glacial melt-off?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The effects of CO2 increase are already happening.

A longer growing season also means sea level and river rise as icecaps and glaciers melt and oceans expand by heating. Most of the planet's population live near rivers and seashores and would be rendered climate refugees.
Tidal wetlands and mangrove swamps are vital for climate control and are the nurseries for much of the life in the oceans. They'd be submerged.

Most of the planet's great agricultural regions are watered by snowmelt. Glaciers are already retreating, many of the world's great rivers are in danger of becoming streams. Expect mass starvation and more climate refugees.

The Co2 is absorbed by the oceans, creating carbonic acid and acidifying the seas. This is already having catastrophic effects on marine ecosystems.
How is this a win-win?

Glaciers are already retreating?

Ice caps / glaciers have been retreating since the last glacial maximum- about 19000 years ago- The land my house sits on was covered by a mile of ice - which melted without a single SUV.

if this ever stops or reverses, we might have a real problem to worry about!

The oceans are alkali, not acid, so we are making them very very slightly more neutral and less bleach like- again life thrived with far far higher levels.

The only 'climate refugees' I know of, leave the cold snowy Midwest to go live near the beach in Florida.. not the other way around!!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
it most certainly does, that's why greenhouse farmers pump in CO2- it is utterly unambiguous that it drastically helps plant growth. No computer sims needed to demonstrate this!
No, it doesn't. Plants need CO2, but more of them isn't going to make them healthy. We need oxygen, but more of it isn't going to make us healthy, and too much will make us sick.
Most plants arose with far far higher levels of CO2 >7000ppm during the Cambrian. Plants
CO2 levels were lower during the Cambrian period than what they are today.

Growing seasons are limited primarily by late freezes in spring and early freezes in fall. If we were ever to increase the GH effect- it would stabilize temperature variation- especially day/night contrasts and especially at high latitudes where overnight freezing is the greatest threat.
That is not true because plants respond to the amount of sunlight the get everyday. GH gasses will not extend growing seasons because even if it's warm and temperate into the winter, there is still less sunlight which will trigger the same responses in plants.
What is your point? The findings do not suggest that a diet consisting of "meat eating in general" are ever better for the environment, the climate or the animals than a diet that doesn't consist of meat-eating.
The point was about vegetarian/vegan diets being better for the environment. My point was that that alone doesn't address the real problems.
Right here:

"Other approaches such as food waste reduction and precision agriculture and/or other technological advances have to be simultaneously pursued; however, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable."

And then the authors go on to explain:
I read that. But it doesn't seem to realize that "modern husbandry" is industrial based, and of course it will consume more because the goal is heavier animals for more profit. Feeding people is only secondary.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
No, it doesn't. Plants need CO2, but more of them isn't going to make them healthy. We need oxygen, but more of it isn't going to make us healthy, and too much will make us sick.

CO2 levels were lower during the Cambrian period than what they are today.


That is not true because plants respond to the amount of sunlight the get everyday. GH gasses will not extend growing seasons because even if it's warm and temperate into the winter, there is still less sunlight which will trigger the same responses in plants.

The point was about vegetarian/vegan diets being better for the environment. My point was that that alone doesn't address the real problems.

I read that. But it doesn't seem to realize that "modern husbandry" is industrial based, and of course it will consume more because the goal is heavier animals for more profit. Feeding people is only secondary.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times ...


Image3.gif




Note the Ordovician ICE AGE occurred with 10x today's CO2, CO2 simply does not drive climate on Earth, the GH effect is driven by water vapor, not CO2-

and for sure not the trace amount, the couple extra molecules of CO2 we have added in 10,000 of air!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times ...
It's not just levels, but how fast carbon emissions are being pumped into the atmosphere. Of course levels have been much higher in the past: Life itself emerged when there was way more CO2 in the atmosphere and very little, if any, oxygen. But what we do see is that mass extinctions have happened in the past because carbons were put into the atmosphere faster than what many species could adapt to. Also, there is more to temperatures than just carbons (such as the jet stream and gulf stream), but we have plenty of evidence to show that carbon trapped in the atmosphere do reflect sunlight back towards the Earth (rather than these rays being reflected back into space), and it does cause detrimental effects for the environment and living organisms. And the predictions of Global Warming we do see happening, such as increasingly hotter temperatures, erratic weather patterns, increasing acidity of oceans (which causes it's own range of problems), and melting ice caps. The Earth does go through cycles of change, but what we are seeing today is way out of line to be a part of the normal cycle, in which that case the warming would not be happening until the distant future, and it would be a more slow and gradual warming that what we are seeing now.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Again, here are the documented facts of the effects on the environment due to raising, using and slaughtering animals for human consumption. If ever come across any fact to the contrary, be sure to let us know:

Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population. Other approaches such as food waste reduction and precision agriculture and/or other technological advances have to be simultaneously pursued; however, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable. For millennia, meatless diets have been advocated on the basis of values, and large segments of the world population have thrived on plant-based diets. “Going back” to plant-based diets worldwide seems to be a reasonable alternative for a sustainable future. Policies in favor of the global adoption of plant-based diets will simultaneously optimize the food supply, health, environmental, and social justice outcomes for the world's population. Implementing such nutrition policy is perhaps one of the most rational and moral paths for a sustainable future of the human race and other living creatures of the biosphere that we share.

[. . .]

Raising animals for human food is an intrinsically inefficient process. As we move up in the trophic chain there is a progressive loss of energy. Grass-fed livestock subsists, but this is not the main source of meat for human consumption in developed nations. Modern husbandry (animal farms) is based on intensive feeding of grain crops to animals (5). This grain could be a source of food for humans. The same standards apply to the production of other animal products such as eggs and dairy. Several authors have computed the efficiency ratios of animal compared with plant foods for human consumption. The amount of grain needed to produce the same amount of meat varies from a ratio of 2.3 for chicken to 13 for beef (Table 1). Pimentel and Pimentel (8) established that, on average, 11 times greater fossil energy is required to produce animal protein than plant protein for human consumption. However, the energy-to-protein efficiency ratio varies greatly by type of meat. More specifically, it is only 4 times greater for chicken protein compared with grain protein but 40 times greater for beef protein compared with grain protein. We have previously reported that the ratio for water used in the production of soy protein compared with the same quantity of animal protein is from 4 to 26 and showed that the ratio between soy protein and the different types of animal proteins varies from 6 to 20 for fossil fuel usage (9). The land required to raise the feed to produce animal protein is 6–17 times greater than for soy protein (9).Thus, the conversion of plant foods to foods of animal origin is an intrinsically inefficient process (~10:1).

[. . .]

The ratio of energy inputs to protein delivery is also qualitatively different for animal compared with plant foods. As the concentration of protein increases in plant foods, so does the efficiency. It does not change or may even decrease in animal protein sources (Figure 3) (10). High-protein plant foods such as soy beans and other legumes have greater protein delivery energy efficiency than cereals, which have a lower protein concentration. Therefore, less energy is needed to produce the same amount of protein from soy than from corn. However, very similar amounts of energy are used to produce equivalent amounts of protein from different sources of animal protein. In animal foods, the degree of protein concentration seems to decrease the efficiency ratio of energy inputs compared with protein outputs.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN Food and Agricultural Organization

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.

[. . . ]

Growing populations and incomes, along with changing food preferences, are rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, while globalization is boosting trade in livestock inputs and products. Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and that of milk to grow from 580 to 1 043 million tonnes.

[. . . ]

Land degradation

The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring -- 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas.

[. . .]

Atmosphere and climate

With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes – especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

[. . . ]

Water

The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.

The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.

[. . . ]

Biodiversity

We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline.

Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change,overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species. In addition, resource conflicts with pastoralists threaten species of wild predators and also protected areas close to pastures. Meanwhile in developed regions, especially Europe, pastures had become a location of diverse long-established types of ecosystem, many of which are now threatened by pasture abandonment.

Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) – ranged across all biomes and all biogeographical realms, reported livestock as one of the current threats. Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
I think it's great that you're a full time vegan.
But I'll remain only a part-time vegan.
The rest of the time I'm eating meat.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can you name one river in the lower 48 US states that are fed by glaciers? Or can you name one river in any temperate area of the world that depends solely on glacial melt-off?
No river depends solely on meltwater, but many would be severely affected by warming, desertification and glacial retreat.
The most demographically significant may be those originating in the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau.The Ganges, Yamuna, Indus and Brahmaputra feed much of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Yangtse and Yellow rivers water much of China and the Mekong waters Southeast Asia.
The breadbasket of the US depends largely on groundwater, and the aquifers that enable American agriculture are rapidly being depleted, as well.
Glaciers are already retreating?
Ice caps / glaciers have been retreating since the last glacial maximum- about 19000 years ago- The land my house sits on was covered by a mile of ice - which melted without a single SUV.
And you've been dying since the day you were born. That doesn't mean something speeding up the process like Ebola or smallpox isn't cause for concern.

The oceans are alkali, not acid, so we are making them very very slightly more neutral and less bleach like- again life thrived with far far higher levels.
The present pH doesn't matter. It's changing; becoming more acid.
Ocean life is adapted to specific pHs, salainity and temperatures Sudden changes cause problems.
The only 'climate refugees' I know of, leave the cold snowy Midwest to go live near the beach in Florida.. not the other way around!!
How about the millions of Middle Eastern refugees? Wasn't the "Arab Spring" or "revolution of the hungry," and subsequent cascade of political upheaval, precipitated by drought?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Again, here are the documented facts of the effects on the environment due to raising, using and slaughtering animals for human consumption. If ever come across any fact to the contrary, be sure to let us know:

Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population. Other approaches such as food waste reduction and precision agriculture and/or other technological advances have to be simultaneously pursued; however, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable. For millennia, meatless diets have been advocated on the basis of values, and large segments of the world population have thrived on plant-based diets. “Going back” to plant-based diets worldwide seems to be a reasonable alternative for a sustainable future. Policies in favor of the global adoption of plant-based diets will simultaneously optimize the food supply, health, environmental, and social justice outcomes for the world's population. Implementing such nutrition policy is perhaps one of the most rational and moral paths for a sustainable future of the human race and other living creatures of the biosphere that we share.

[. . .]

Raising animals for human food is an intrinsically inefficient process. As we move up in the trophic chain there is a progressive loss of energy. Grass-fed livestock subsists, but this is not the main source of meat for human consumption in developed nations. Modern husbandry (animal farms) is based on intensive feeding of grain crops to animals (5). This grain could be a source of food for humans. The same standards apply to the production of other animal products such as eggs and dairy. Several authors have computed the efficiency ratios of animal compared with plant foods for human consumption. The amount of grain needed to produce the same amount of meat varies from a ratio of 2.3 for chicken to 13 for beef (Table 1). Pimentel and Pimentel (8) established that, on average, 11 times greater fossil energy is required to produce animal protein than plant protein for human consumption. However, the energy-to-protein efficiency ratio varies greatly by type of meat. More specifically, it is only 4 times greater for chicken protein compared with grain protein but 40 times greater for beef protein compared with grain protein. We have previously reported that the ratio for water used in the production of soy protein compared with the same quantity of animal protein is from 4 to 26 and showed that the ratio between soy protein and the different types of animal proteins varies from 6 to 20 for fossil fuel usage (9). The land required to raise the feed to produce animal protein is 6–17 times greater than for soy protein (9).Thus, the conversion of plant foods to foods of animal origin is an intrinsically inefficient process (~10:1).

[. . .]

The ratio of energy inputs to protein delivery is also qualitatively different for animal compared with plant foods. As the concentration of protein increases in plant foods, so does the efficiency. It does not change or may even decrease in animal protein sources (Figure 3) (10). High-protein plant foods such as soy beans and other legumes have greater protein delivery energy efficiency than cereals, which have a lower protein concentration. Therefore, less energy is needed to produce the same amount of protein from soy than from corn. However, very similar amounts of energy are used to produce equivalent amounts of protein from different sources of animal protein. In animal foods, the degree of protein concentration seems to decrease the efficiency ratio of energy inputs compared with protein outputs.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN Food and Agricultural Organization

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.

[. . . ]

Growing populations and incomes, along with changing food preferences, are rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, while globalization is boosting trade in livestock inputs and products. Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and that of milk to grow from 580 to 1 043 million tonnes.

[. . . ]

Land degradation

The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring -- 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas.

[. . .]

Atmosphere and climate

With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes – especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

[. . . ]

Water

The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.

The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.

[. . . ]

Biodiversity

We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline.

Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change,overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species. In addition, resource conflicts with pastoralists threaten species of wild predators and also protected areas close to pastures. Meanwhile in developed regions, especially Europe, pastures had become a location of diverse long-established types of ecosystem, many of which are now threatened by pasture abandonment.

Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) – ranged across all biomes and all biogeographical realms, reported livestock as one of the current threats. Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

I think it's great that you're a full time vegan.
But I'll remain only a part-time vegan.
The rest of the time I'm eating meat.
Obviously I didn't say anything about myself, or ask you a question about yourself. I was responding to your claim that the raising, using and slaughtering animals for human consumption need not be environmentally destructive. The scientific evidence shows it to be a false claim.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

The point was about vegetarian/vegan diets being better for the environment. My point was that that alone doesn't address the real problems.


Choosing to eat a vegan diet is the most effective thing that any of us can personally do to reduce the environmental destruction wrought by the raising, using and slaughtering of animals for human consumption.

I read that. But it doesn't seem to realize that "modern husbandry" is industrial based, and of course it will consume more because the goal is heavier animals for more profit. Feeding people is only secondary.
I don't know what any of that is suppose to mean. The paper cites and deals with facts--propositions that can be substantiated as true. If you know of any fact that the authors misrepresented or any relevant fact that they failed to include, then present it.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times ...


Image3.gif




Note the Ordovician ICE AGE occurred with 10x today's CO2, CO2 simply does not drive climate on Earth, the GH effect is driven by water vapor, not CO2-
Here is the response given by the website Skeptical Science:

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.​

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Do you dispute any of that?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
It's not just levels, but how fast carbon emissions are being pumped into the atmosphere. Of course levels have been much higher in the past: Life itself emerged when there was way more CO2 in the atmosphere and very little, if any, oxygen. But what we do see is that mass extinctions have happened in the past because carbons were put into the atmosphere faster than what many species could adapt to. Also, there is more to temperatures than just carbons (such as the jet stream and gulf stream), but we have plenty of evidence to show that carbon trapped in the atmosphere do reflect sunlight back towards the Earth (rather than these rays being reflected back into space), and it does cause detrimental effects for the environment and living organisms. And the predictions of Global Warming we do see happening, such as increasingly hotter temperatures, erratic weather patterns, increasing acidity of oceans (which causes it's own range of problems), and melting ice caps. The Earth does go through cycles of change, but what we are seeing today is way out of line to be a part of the normal cycle, in which that case the warming would not be happening until the distant future, and it would be a more slow and gradual warming that what we are seeing now.

Okay, so it was far higher in the past- including the Ordovician ICE AGE when levels were TEN TIMES higher

we are regularly exposed to vast changes in CO2 levels- when we enter a crowded room, where they can be a couple of thousand ppm - with no detrimental effects. it's an entirely odorless, non toxic harmless gas

the amount we have added to the atmos is a little over 1 molecule in 10,000 of air..

If you think that this trace amount can reflect any significant, noticeable amount of heat- you can argue that even with climastrologers.

The entire theory relies 100% on hypothetical positive feedback loops as exist purely in computer simulations- involving primarily water vapor, H20 not CO2

water vapor is what governs the GH effect, not carbon dioxide.

The only causal correlation ever observed between temps and CO2- is that fluctuations in CO2 LAG global temps by about 900 years

(900 years ago was the medieval warm period).

This is the science, global warming is anything but, it's a humiliation to the scientific method.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Here is the response given by the website Skeptical Science:

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.​

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Do you dispute any of that?



Point being, look at the chart- similar ones can be seen from many sources, it's not just the Ordovician ice age (speculations of hypothetical missing supporting evidence not withstanding) if there were an obvious observed, measured (i.e scientific) causal correlation where CO2 directly, significantly. influenced global temps- fine- that's empirical evidence, but this simply is not the case is it?

The only clear scientific causal correlation we have ever observed is where on smaller timescales- fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 LAG temperature fluctuations by around 900 years. warmer temps = more CO2. This does not require any imaginary missing evidence, or hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops and indirect causes/effect- it is an utterly unambiguous observation. One that in itself, is a pretty good indication that the opposite cannot happen to any significant degree, otherwise we already have a runaway feedback loop without a single SUV involved.

So CO2 during the Ordovician ice age was a whopping 1000% higher than today, while the sun was a mere 4% dimmer...

And yet a massively higher level of CO2 was utterly overrun by a fairly small relative decrease in sunlight.?. almost as if CO2 is not really a primary driver of climate.

we are talking a little over 1 extra added molecule CO2 in 10000 of air- as a result of revolutionizing agricultural, industrial productivity, vastly increasing the standards of living for humanity worldwide

there is no scientific mechanism by which this can have any direct significant effect on climate- a slight greening of vegetation perhaps.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
No river depends solely on meltwater, but many would be severely affected by warming, desertification and glacial retreat.
The most demographically significant may be those originating in the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau.The Ganges, Yamuna, Indus and Brahmaputra feed much of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Yangtse and Yellow rivers water much of China and the Mekong waters Southeast Asia.
The breadbasket of the US depends largely on groundwater, and the aquifers that enable American agriculture are rapidly being depleted, as well.
And you've been dying since the day you were born. That doesn't mean something speeding up the process like Ebola or smallpox isn't cause for concern.

The present pH doesn't matter. It's changing; becoming more acid.
Ocean life is adapted to specific pHs, salainity and temperatures Sudden changes cause problems.
How about the millions of Middle Eastern refugees? Wasn't the "Arab Spring" or "revolution of the hungry," and subsequent cascade of political upheaval, precipitated by drought?

sea level rise is extremely consistent- a little over 3 mm a year, had you lived the last 100 years in Florida, it is unlikely you would even have noticed it, far less cite it as one of the great 'global challenges' you witnessed in your lifetime. It has been happening for tens of thousands of years, and will continue to do so whether we subsidize electric cars for wealthy people or not, and we will continue to have real problems to face that this is distracting from. People have also been blaming bad weather on other people for 10's of thousands of years, it;s the oldest superstition known to mankind

nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg

http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg

I didn't see any mass social upheaval or exodus from Dubai or Doha, when I was there- quite the opposite, massive growth in wealth and standards of living, many westerners are moving there to find work:

Downtown%20Dubai%20Header%20Image_tcm186-81143.png


Again we have real problems to tackle in the world, one of them common to problematic ME countries is socialism
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Choosing to eat a vegan diet is the most effective thing that any of us can personally do to reduce the environmental destruction wrought by the raising, using and slaughtering of animals for human consumption.
That still won't address the issue of the inefficiencies of how plants are grown and harvested. It won't address the water wasted in food processing plants. It won't address the carbon emissions from heavy equipment and transportation.
I don't know what any of that is suppose to mean. The paper cites and deals with facts--propositions that can be substantiated as true. If you know of any fact that the authors misrepresented or any relevant fact that they failed to include, then present it.
It's not a misrepresentation, but rather something not mentioned. Chickens, for example, become so abnormally and unnaturally large from how they are raised that their bones can't even support them. It's not just a problem for the chickens, but a problem because of the excess going into making them bigger as well as the extra needed to sustain them since they are so much larger. The more something weighs, the more calories it burns, which means the more food it needs to maintain that weight. And modern farming, be it livestock or plants, is about making things bigger to make more money. And as long as profit is driving agriculture, we are going to have problems.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
sea level rise is extremely consistent- a little over 3 mm a year, had you lived the last 100 years in Florida, it is unlikely you would even have noticed it, far less cite it as one of the great 'global challenges' you witnessed in your lifetime. It has been happening for tens of thousands of years, and will continue to do so whether we subsidize electric cars for wealthy people or not, and we will continue to have real problems to face that this is distracting from. People have also been blaming bad weather on other people for 10's of thousands of years, it;s the oldest superstition known to mankind

nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg

http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-satellite2.jpg

I didn't see any mass social upheaval or exodus from Dubai or Doha, when I was there- quite the opposite, massive growth in wealth and standards of living, many westerners are moving there to find work:

Downtown%20Dubai%20Header%20Image_tcm186-81143.png


Again we have real problems to tackle in the world, one of them common to problematic ME countries is socialism
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10
The president of Kiribati, Anote Tong, is in talks with Fiji's military government to buy up to 5,000 acres of land in order to relocate the 102,697 people that live in his country.
President Tong tells The Telegraph that this is their last resort: "Our people will have to move as the tides have reached our homes and villages."
...
The Maldives, consisting of over 1,100 islands to the west of India, is the world's lowest-lying nation. On average the islands are only 1.3 meters above sea level. The 325,000 (plus 100,000 expatriate workers who are not counted in the census) residents of the islands are threatened by rising sea levels.
...
The Independent talked to locals who have been living by the sea for generations. One named Maria Passi said "at night I can't sleep if the tide is high," because she is no longer comfortable living by the sea after her house was flooded one night.
Her husband Ron remembers the night. "There was water everywhere, and rubbish floating around, and coconuts under the bed." Maria added: "When I saw how it looked, I just sat down and cried."
...
Much of the flooding was because the island sunk nearly five inches between 1997 and 2009, but the sea level also rose, causing about a quarter of the flooding.
...
Micronesia is made up of 607 mountainous islands and low-lying coral atolls and is being eroded away by rising sea levels and has even made cemeteries disappear.
...
Palau consists of eight principal islands and more than 250 smaller ones, about 500 miles southeast of the Philippines. Their population of 20,000 is being threatened by rising sea levels.
The president of Palau, Johnson Toribiong, describes the damage he is seeing as “a slow-moving tsunami.”
...
The Carteret Islands are located in the south-west Pacific Ocean and is home to about 2,500 people. The Telegraph states that some people believe these islands will be uninhabitable by 2015, as high tides have inundated the islands, destroying crops, wells, and homes.
Bernard Tunim, a clan chief from the islands, tells The Telegraph: “In the last 10 to 20 years the change has been dramatic. We have experienced many king tides and when the wind blows, it comes right through the island, destroying our vegetables and fruit. The salt water destroyed bread fruit trees and poisoned the wells.”
...
In 2003, Saufatu Sopoanga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, told the United Nations General Assembly: "We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...development/b4eCLXFdwk5d8hUHcYdIeI/story.html
From downtown to East Boston to Dorchester, rising sea levels are posing an increasingly urgent threat to developers’ plans to build hundreds of homes, offices, stores, and parks along Boston Harbor, with many acknowledging the need to reinforce existing properties and redesign new ones in case of flooding from another Hurricane Sandy-like storm.
https://toolkit.climate.gov/taking-action/quinault-indian-nation-plans-village-relocation
In March 2014, the seawall that protects Taholah was breached by storm surge, flooding the lower portion of the village. “We have been experiencing an increasingly dangerous situation with sea level rise and intensified storms,” said Quinault President Fawn Sharp. “Our people must be protected. We will take whatever measures are necessary to see that they are.” The QIN declared a state of emergency, and the seawall was repaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a temporary measure. But the impacts continued.
There very much are challenges and very noticeable effects from the rising sea levels.
 
Top