Because each cow, bisson or bull dishes out the equivalent gas as a trip to NY in an Airbus 300 (per person equivalent, that is!)
Or is it Bull?
2007-08-24 22:15:17 · 19 answers · asked by K. Marx iii 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Decent rant Pachl! LOL
2007-08-24 22:41:16 · update #1
Let's kill all the pooping Moose in Norway, then the flatulent Elk in Canada, and work our way south until we come face to face with the biggest climate culprit in the world: the farting cows of Wisconsin. Yes, the "Dairy State" should be renamed "The Dastardly Planet Killer", don't you think?
Wisconsin could change their road signs. Instead of showing signs to beware of deer crossing the road, they can show a sign of "Bessie the Heifer" with a big red line through her image, with the ominous title, "Eco Terrorist" as her new, politically correct moniker.
Here's something to consider: the Alaskan tundra should be an environmentalist's dream: millions of acres of pristine tundra as far as the eye can see. It's also a huge contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere. So, Al Gore would have to take his Hollywood chums up to Point Barrow and start spraying defoliant as fast as they can. How's that for an Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore?
2007-08-24 22:27:06 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
There is a report in the Telegraph UK indicating that the amount of energy consumed and methane gas released during the process of getting beef steaks to the table is more than driving a car for 3 hours at 50 mph. The study, done by in Japan includes not only the amount of methane released from the intestinal tract but also the amount of energy consumed transporting the beef. This is a ludicrous argument.
The amount of methane released is a valid argument though it would have been released if the cow lived so it is pretty much a wash. As for transportation issues and the claim made in the article that by not eating beef we can reduce carbon footprints, they do not make sense. Suppose that we decide not to eat meat and go strictly with vegetables. There would be no release of methane from the dead cows (the live ones would still fart) but we would still have the same carbon footprint when we transported the vegetables. Unless I missed something, fruits and vegetables do not walk to our houses. They must be transported in the same kinds of refrigerated trucks that transport meat. We still have to drive to the store to get them and farmers have to use equipment that uses fossil fuels to plant and then harvest them (unless they use ILLEGAL immigrants in which case they must be housed and fed which uses energy).
For years cows have been blamed as a major producer of methane. People eat them and this reduces the number of them producing methane but now, we are told that they continue to have a carbon footprint when they are killed for consumption. The study ignores the impact of non meat products on the environment and focuses on meat as the sole problem. This is poor scientific study.
But then again, we’ve become accustomed to this in the Global Warming debate.
2007-08-24 22:29:52 · answer #2 · answered by lilly4 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yeah, this is ridiculous.
these so-called scientists MUST be the same ones who've falsified 'missing link' fossil skulls, only to be forced to admit their hoaxes later on... and then programs like 'Nova' talk about some of those 'pioneering' scientists as if they were gods....
i feel as excited as a little kid on a sugar buzz when i think about how simply ASTONISHED these bums are gonna be on the day when God sends His Son back down here.
2007-08-24 22:47:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What if you just shot Al Gore; look at all of the gas that passes through his mouth every time he talks
2007-08-24 23:13:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would have no problem shooting a cow.. the steaks are tasty when properly prepared, ad go well with mashed potatoes and a salad. So is peta upset with al gore?
2007-08-24 22:23:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, good idea because I ate just part of a cow the other day and it gave me gas.
2007-08-24 22:35:06 · answer #6 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If that were actually valid you would think the price of beef would go down... however my trip to the supermarket yesterday says there's big money in beef
2007-08-24 22:22:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a lot of bull to me.
2007-08-24 22:32:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore will be there with his knife and fork and will show you how to cook the meat using only sunlight.
He likes his rare.
2007-08-25 00:44:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The main source of carbon in the atmosphere is animals breathing. Compared to that, burning fossil fuels is trivial.
Save the planet: Hold your breath.
2007-08-24 22:27:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋