Global Warming

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants Although Methane is a big player in the atmosphere, it's still 2nd place compared to Carbon dioxide so in short, reducing our methane emissions will not have significant impact unless we curb that of the CO2.

Pooey, I think you are being a bit myopic in regards to CO2, and taking a more not so concerned view of methane is unfounded, and that probably has more to do with the implications it would have in demanding one do as much as possible.

Your comparison with vehicles does not hold much water, unless one is within cycling distances. Then there is a substitute. IF one is not within cycling distance, then public or private transportation with an engine is needed. With eating, the vegetarian diet is a substitute to be had at all times for making an impact on global warming and doing your most to do so -- unles you live in the arctic circle.

I find it great you are willing to cut down, but down is not the maximum of what you are able to do without diminishing your quality of life -- save for the pleasure of one's palate. But then, pleasure cannot be an excuse to ignore responsibility, for surely those who drive monster SUVs derive pleasure in their choice of vehicle.

The whole article is interesting, but here is an excerpt:

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation. The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Bingo, Pooey isn't willing to do all he can do to stop the threat that he is so sure, so certain, so AFRAID or so he claims.

If I truly felt that AGW was such the dire threat they claim it is, I'd damn sure do everything I could to do my part. But then... this isn't about "global Warming" it's about power. The methods to fight global warming are just socialism in the name of mother earth. And that's what this boils down too, isn't that right pooey?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Pooey, I think you are being a bit myopic in regards to CO2, and taking a more not so concerned view of methane is unfounded, and that probably has more to do with the implications it would have in demanding one do as much as possible.

I did not brush aside the issue but I have cited an article that puts it into context. I have also stated that we do need to cut down on our ridiculous diet but I am just not willing to submit to ban of meat eating.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Your comparison with vehicles does not hold much water, unless one is within cycling distances. Then there is a substitute. IF one is not within cycling distance, then public or private transportation with an engine is needed.

When did I mentioned such an analogy with vehicles? I was talking about Energy production in general.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin With eating, the vegetarian diet is a substitute to be had at all times for making an impact on global warming and doing your most to do so -- unles you live in the arctic circle.

We can also live our lives like the Amish and be carbon neutral, they have shown that it can be a relatively pleasurable life too, but obviously, we are not going to do that, are we?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I find it great you are willing to cut down, but down is not the maximum of what you are able to do without diminishing your quality of life -- save for the pleasure of one's palate. But then, pleasure cannot be an excuse to ignore responsibility, for surely those who drive monster SUVs derive pleasure in their choice of vehicle. The whole article is interesting, but here is an excerpt:

I can't help but think that you are actually pushing this vegetarianism for an alter motive seeing as you've got such a strong stance on it. I personally am not going to persecute people for driving larger cars as they only contribute a minor amount of the greenhouse gases.

Also, how much of the methane released can be attributed to our livestock? How does that compare to the rice paddle fields?

[StrongHeartsWin]

I don`t agree with your assessment Mr.Vichio about it being a conspiracy to put us under socialism, but I do think it is hypocritical of those who are waiting and who say the government and corporations have to enact policies to stop global warming but do not do themselve what actions could be done RIGHT NOW at the individual level.

I just think they don`t want to be bothered with individual sacrifice. So, theyu will say, "hey, I'll make one day a week a meatless day" and then pat themselves on the shoulder and feel they've done something. Well, yes, they have done something, but obviously there is a LOT more they could do just by going vegetarian -- giving up the pleasure of their palate like they would like drivers to give up the pleasure of monster SUVs.

It's hard to be a nonvegetarian environmentalist and not be a hypocrite. The issue is doing what we are all possibly able to do so. Not going vegetarian for self professed environmentalists is just not stepping up to the plate to do all you can do at the individual level and still not hurt the quality of your life in any real significant way.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants Also, how much of the methane released can be attributed to our livestock? How does that compare to the rice paddle fields?

Rice paddies are an inefficient use of recources and sources of high methane release. The practice of paddy cultivation should be discontinued. You have no argument with me there. I support doing away with both.

[Mr.Vicchio]

It's not a "conspiracy" per say, it's more of a means to an end. Look you just called it out how it is, these people that demand the world be changed to stop this "huge threat" aren't willing to do all they can do to stop it. But they want the government to make us behave a certain way. Ergo, Socialism. And if you look at the solutions proposed.. all big government control, regulation and all under the eye of a world body.

[Pooeypants]

I don't quite understand where you got the idea that I was a staunch environmentalist from, for example, I think that we should all be embracing nuclear power as it's a feasible solution (compared to the other renewable energies) for replacing our fossil fuel burning power stations. With ITER making some head way, we may even see fusion being introduced with the next 2 decades.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants I don't quite understand where you got the idea that I was a staunch environmentalist from, for example, I think that we should all be embracing nuclear power...

The mainstream environmental movement has been moving to embrace nuclear power. You embracing it does not set you apart from them.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The mainstream environmental movement has been moving to embrace nuclear power. You embracing it does not set you apart from them.

Is that so? Because Greenpeace seem to be still in opposition, similarly for FOTE, now they may have just be lazy in updating their websites but from what I can see, that doesn't look much like positive opinion of nuclear power...

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants Is that so? Because Greenpeace seem to be still in opposition, similarly for FOTE, now they may have just be lazy in updating their websites but from what I can see, that doesn't look much like positive opinion of nuclear power...

While Greenpeace and FOTE are large environmental groups, they are not the whole, and many former scientists who were supporters of Greenpeace and FOTE have over time have come to call for embracing nuclear energy (no, I don`t have a list of them, but have been reading more and more op-eds by them in papers). I would bet that there is a struggle within the orgs about their changing policy on this and I am quite certain we will see them accept it.

But again, if you google key words "nuclear power environmentalists" you will begin to see that the movement to embrace it is well under way.

Here is one interesting piece I got on the first google try.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin While Greenpeace and FOTE are large environmental groups, they are not the whole, and many former scientists who were supporters of Greenpeace and FOTE have over time have come to call for embracing nuclear energy (no, I don`t have a list of them, but have been reading more and more op-eds by them in papers). I would bet that there is a struggle within the orgs about their changing policy on this and I am quite certain we will see them accept it. But again, if you google key words "nuclear power environmentalists" you will begin to see that the movement to embrace it is well under way. Here is one interesting piece I got on the first google try.

Well, let me know when they've sorted their position out, until then your statement about the movement is but a projection.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Pooey, that article link comes from this site, aptly named Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants Well, let me know when they've sorted their position out, until then your statement about the movement is but a projection.

Their position is fractured, but the movement is underway. Again, your position for nuclear power does not separate you from environmentalism.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Their position is fractured, but the movement is underway. Again, your position for nuclear power does not separate you from environmentalism.

Okay, here's a question for you, does the acceptance of the IPCC report automatically qualify someone to be an environmentalist?
In the meantime, let's return to the topic at hand Global warming...

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Pooeypants Okay, here's a question for you, does the acceptance of the IPCC report automatically qualify someone to be an environmentalist?

Yes, if they're not a hypocrite.

In the meantime, let's return to the topic at hand Global warming...

Yes. So, why won't you do as much as you can at your level? You do want the government and corporations to do as much as they can to address the problem, don`t you? Or do you want them to only give it half effort?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Yes, if they're not a hypocrite.

I'm not quite understanding your logic here, surely that's a fallacy? I mean, does that automatically make Xyzer and Mr Vicchio anti-environmentalists?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Yes. So, why won't you do as much as you can at your level? You do want the government and corporations to do as much as they can to address the problem, don`t you? Or do you want them to only give it half effort?

For the same reason why I am still using a computer,
You've yet to show me the maths of how much livestock contributes to global warming.

Now, I'm not sure if you can read this (I still have University journal access) but this article outlines the emission culprits.
I shall post some excerpts from it

1. Global Methane Emission 1. Precision of available methods allows estimates of total global methane emission to vary between 400 and 600 Tg yr -1. About 80% of that emission is biogenic, with major contributions by ruminant livestock, wetlands and rice paddies, reflecting the narrow relation between methane emission and population increase. 2. Animal Methane Emission 2a. Methane emission from ruminant livestock amounts to 80 Tg yr -1 -4- 15% (mean value -4- variation coefficient). Problems for a more precise estimation, especially for developing countries carrying the majority of the ruminant population, relate to the characterisation of cattle populations and the correction for intake restriction bias. 2b. Monogastric animals contribute less to methane emission than ruminants. Swine, equine and humans are estimated to produce 1.0, 1.7 and 0.3 Tg yr -1 respectively. Methanogenesis in the hind gut is most likely controlled by a genetic predisposition and may be affected by the presence of non methanogenic hydrogen sinks. 2c. Insects, including termites, may theoretically produce substantial amounts. Estimates vary between 8 and 380 Tg yr -1 . Actual emission is probably determined to a large extent by oxidation of methane. .... 3b. Rice paddies contribute to methane emission by about 60 (+ 40) Tg yr -l' High organic inputs stimulate emission. High emission rates coincide with high rates of water surface flux.

Further more, this paper from 1994 gives a better insight into the problem and even mentions possible solutions;

Modest reductions in methane emissions are possible with current technologies, while maintaining or enhancing productivity. Of most general use, but with particular application to developing countries, is to enhance productivity by improving diet quality, eliminating nutrient deficiencies, and using growth promotants and appropriate genotypes. Enhancing level of productivity decreases the maintenance subsidy and, thus, decreases the obligatory methane emissions from fermentation of the feed associated with animal maintenance. Other additional strategies are available including the increased use of ionophores that will reduce total feed fermented and decreased methane per unit of product. Methane can be reduced with diets containing higher levels of nonstructural carbohydrates through earlier harvesting of higher quality forages or the inclusion of starchy feeds that act to enhance propionic acid and dilute maintenance subsidy. Methane production per unit of animal product formed will also be reduced by any method that will reduce the excess lipid content of meat or milk products. Longer term future technologies may develop methods to alter the microbial population in a way that would provide a hydrogen sink of more usefulness to the animal and less damage to the environment.

So there are alternate methods to reducing livestock emissions.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I'm not anti-environmental, I'm anti-hysteria, anti-political power grab and money games using "consensus" science.

Read my sig, that tells it all.

[Vivid]

Vegetarianism: Another Possible Solution to Global Warming:

What would happen if whole world turns vegetarian????

[rmnunez]

Cracks in the Consensus:

Meanwhile, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called for an end to the "hysteria" over global warming in the lead-up to the summit. The topic is "hysterical, overheated, and that is especially because of the media," Schmidt told Germany's Bild daily. There has always been climate change on earth, Schmidt said. "We've had warm- and ice-ages for hundreds of thousands of years," he said, and added that the reasons behind the multiple climate changes have been "inadequately researched for the time being." To assume that global climate change can be altered by any plans made at the Heiligendamm summit is "idiotic," he said. Former German Chancellor Calls For End of Media Hysteria Over Global Warming | NewsBusters.org

Now socialists leaders are jumping the man made global warming ship. Will Al Gore follow?

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Cracks in the Consensus: Now socialists leaders are jumping the man made global warming ship. Will Al Gore follow?

So a former German Chancellor dismisses global warming, huh? Well, I don't get any scientific information from German chancellor's or from Israel's trade minister. I prefer to get my scientific input from people who actually study the subject--like, say, scientists.

There is this bizarre assumption that Climate Change is just a matter of faith and that those with the faith are merely followers of Al Gore.

The fact is that global temperatures are increasing, weather patterns are becoming more erratic and there is every reason to believe much of this is related to human behavior.

Grandpa h.