On Apr 5, 3:08 pm, "oonbz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Apr 5, 8:13 am, "Trevor Wilson"





wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Apr 4, 7:52 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...http://www.alternet.org/environment/...g_effects_of_g...

SNIP Fascinating stats. Have they been verified? If they're correct,
then
it is certainly very sobering stuff.

I just have what I posted here but they seem plausible.

There are some other stats I've seen (google Philip Fradkin + pig
farms) which sound a lot more outlandish and may well have been
crafted to appeal to credulous vegetarians. Personally, I'd like to
see the modelling before I accepted them.

Yet the basic thesis -- that raising protein from animals is far more
water, pesticide and energy-intensive than raising it from plants is
incontestable. One estimate I saw suggested that about 25,000 litres
of water was ultimately needed to produce 8oz of prime beef. If this
is even close to being accurate, it is scandalous. It's also
apparently the case that the US government spends about $US10 million
each year culling animals that might be a threat to livestock
production and about 100,000 animals are killed each year as part of
these programs. We do know that culling programs either side of the
turn of the 19th century resulted in the wholesale extermination of
wolves and that that in turn had an unanticipated deleterious
secondary impact on the health of local waterways in Colorado.
Unintended consequences.

My partner and I have been vegetarians since 1982 -- long before we
took anthropogenic climate change seriously. We just did it on
humanitarian grounds. We had no idea then that there were other sound
reasons for adopting this lifestyle.

**I am slightly ashamed to admit that I eat meat. Not a lot, but small
amounts every few days. My partner is steadily turning 'hard core'. Not only
does she want us to cease eating all meats, but she doesn't want to consume
dairy products either, because of the suffering of male calves. She has no
specific objection to cows being milked, however. We are still discussing
the matter. She is likely to get her way in the end. Such is life.

The more salient matter here is keeping the cow lactating. I'm
wondering how that could be humane, in the long run.

Having said all that, one could extend the issue further. Much further. I've
heard figures relating to making bread (mostly related to growing wheat)
which would curl your toes. Loss of topsoil, massive water use, etc, etc.

I've read that whereas humanity is depleting topsoil at the rate of
about 1 inch every 2 months, it takes about 100 years to rfepalce that
same inch. Clearly, if that is close to being so, the current rate of
depletion is not sustainable. If this were simply what feeding,
clothing and housing people cost using the most rational and
sustainable measures, that would be regrettable. Of course, we know it
isn't.
Humans are demanding things that aren't needed and which are delivered
by resort to mean that are unsustainable.
************************************************** *********************

And after all this you and your ilk haven't yet committed suicide to "save" the planet?
Komrade, I am sorely disappointed in you!


What this shows is that your desire to post exceeds your capacity to
read and make accurate inferences still less compose logical
arguments. Even when the answer to your question is embedded in the
passage you have read and quoted, the text remains opaque.

It is little wonder then that your posts on AGW circulate such
persistent arrant stupidity and deceit.

Fran