English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

While some activists have been loudly saying that the meat farming industry is one of the major causes for accelerated global warming, the actual policy makers have been encouraging the production of synthetic fuel produced from beef tallow, pork lard, and chicken fat.

http://www.syntroleum.com/pr_biofining.aspx

There is a big push to make this the new international replacement to fossil fuels by global warming lobbyists:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/39263-syntroleum-and-tyson-to-open-plant

So much for going vegetarian!

2007-09-06 04:00:02 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Global Warming

Will the new Global Warming slogan be "EAT MORE MEAT!" ?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/25/business/NA-FIN-US-Tyson-Foods-Syntroleum.php

2007-09-06 04:09:26 · update #1

They used to say that you can't be an environmentalist and eat meat. Now are they going to tell us that you can't be an environmentalist and be a vegetarian?

2007-09-06 04:21:58 · update #2

Just imagine filling up at the pump and knowing your fuel is coming from some cruel meat farming industry that does not believe in the humane treatment of animals. Wouldn't you wish for the good old days of carbon fuel?

2007-09-06 04:34:53 · update #3

Mom will be telling their children, "Eat your meat! Do you want to cause global warming? Did you know that there are deserts in Cambodia because your not eating enough meat?"

2007-09-06 04:38:14 · update #4

11 answers

This has got to be the sickest energy source that's ever been thought up. I can't even imagine having my energy needs provided by the fat and suffering of poor animals. All because the government doesn't want to spend money on solar energy and hydro electric technology. This country sucks!

2007-09-06 08:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by Desiree M 1 · 0 0

Tyson is a "policy maker" ? When did that happen? The plant at Springdale is a major Polluter. They like to dump their wastes in rivers and streams near the state line of one state, so the stuff flows right into another state. That way, it's almost impossible to sue them, and the state that gets the wastes doesn't even get to tax them. It may be that a use like this is better than what they do with it now, and it's possible that with all the money the Bush Administration is spending to block efforts to address environmental concerns they may throw some of it in these guys' direction. This type of thing is a symptom of the problem, not a solution. I know the Northern Arkansas politics because I have friends and relatives in that area.

2007-09-06 04:20:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Cows consume grass. Grass gets its carbon from the ambience. Methane has an extremely short a million/2 existence and turns back into the CO2 very at as quickly as. Methane replaced into produced by ability of bison previously there have been cows. Did they reason worldwide warming? needless to say not. basically on account which you do in comparison to a minimum of a few thing, does not propose it extremely is a reason for worldwide warming. each and every leftists reason is by some ability tied to it. Obama promised he could stop the increasing seas. i assume your declare does not sound so idiotic while in comparison with that one.

2016-10-18 03:14:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Here's a fabulous concept: when you click on this site, Care2 makes a donation that will remove one pound of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. It doesn't cost you a thing and every click really counts. Check it out:
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Race to Stop Global Warming
Peace
GG

2007-09-06 13:45:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If the only way to fuel my car involved supporting animal cruelty, I would have to give up driving. Especially if it meant supporting Tyson, a company that is not only cruel to animals but cruel to people as well.

Fortunately, electric cars are catching on and improving. I'll keep hoping that one day people will realize that nuclear power isn't the big scary monster they think it is.

2007-09-06 05:50:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Besides if there was a little global warming it would open up huge tracts of land in Canada and Russia that is very fertile to farming. I know I could use lighter winters here in Michigan

2007-09-06 04:16:48 · answer #6 · answered by Sirecoke 5 · 1 0

Here is a question. What happened to the glaciers that covered Oregon, Washington North and South Dakota, Iowa and many other of our states. Did the Wooly Mammoths drive SUVs and heat their homes with carbon fuel?

Global warming is political, not scientific.

2007-09-06 04:09:15 · answer #7 · answered by Bob W 5 · 2 1

The process just takes the fossil out of the fossil fuel industry.

Don't you just love the ingenuity of man?

2007-09-06 04:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 2 0

And it's the cow farts causing global warming! If you kill the cows, there will be even less global warming!

Bob W hit the nail on the head, and it's also what I've been saying for years.

2007-09-06 04:09:57 · answer #9 · answered by Bill W 【ツ】 6 · 1 1

this is yet another example of environmental in-fighting.

dams are good

no there not

nuke power is good-
no it isn't

biofuel is god-
no it isn't

now..

meat is bad-
no it isn't

what's worse than a bunch of kooks?

a bunch of clueless kooks who want it both ways.

2007-09-06 04:23:46 · answer #10 · answered by afratta437 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers