Glass
24th September 2011, 06:32 PM
I have a serious problem with this argument. It lacks any application of critical thinking.
Some say cows are killing the earth. So do we need to ban beef?
When all those sheep, cattle and goats digest and burp, there are consequences.
THE QUESTION: When are we going to hear more about the great elephant in the room - animal agriculture? The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have jointly reported that it is responsible for more that 30 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Meaningful action in [reducing emissions] cannot be achieved without a general move towards a plant-based diet. PAUL MAHONY
AUSTRALIANS chew through more red meat a head than Americans, and we export more again. So attached are we to red meat and dairy products that the sheep and cattle population of this country outnumbers the human population by five to one, and 56 per cent of Australia's land mass is devoted to grazing.
As grass makes its way through the four-stomach digestive process of these ruminants, it ferments, and the animals burp, fart, urinate and defecate with such gusto that they pump out, on official figures, between 11 per cent and 15 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as every car, truck and bus in Australia.
To solve this problem, our questioner, vegan Paul Mahony, says there is only one option: a general move towards a plant-based diet.
Nutritionally, we could do it. All the nutrients found in meat can be found in vegetarian alternatives. And while eating lean red meat is an easy way to take in vital protein, vitamins and minerals, Australians eat 45 kilograms of red meat a person every year, much more than necessary.
So is it possible, or desirable, to create a nation of vegans? The British government is trying to reduce meat consumption, mainly for health reasons. But Australians are kings of the barbecue, weaned on the myths of the drover. Should we limit, even eliminate, our red meat consumption to help climate change?
The Meat and Livestock Association says no. ''Why wouldn't anyone living in this great country desire a balanced diet that includes red meat?'' says marketing general manager Glen Feist. ''That anyone could presume to tell someone else what to eat in a country where food is so bountiful and healthy is outrageous.''
But by simply existing, sheep, cattle, goats and buffalo pump out large volumes of methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is produced during digestion - what the scientists call ''enteric fermentation'' - and is 21 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It stays for less time in the atmosphere (about 12 years compared with carbon dioxide, a proportion of which can last thousands of years) but while methane is there, it traps more heat.
Nitrous oxide is produced when animal manure and urine decomposes. It is produced in far lower quantities than methane, but stays in the atmosphere for 114 years and is 310 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
But the picture becomes even more dire if you include, as Mahony does, the clearing of forests to create land for ruminants. Deforestation unlocks carbon dioxide from trees as they decompose, and releases it into the atmosphere. If you add that into the equation, according to Department of Climate Change figures, almost 20 per cent of Australia's emissions can be attributed to agriculture, most of which is to raise meat
yet more at the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/some-say-cows-are-killing-the-earth-so-do-we-need-to-ban-beef-20110924-1kr2a.html)
If the processing of grasses and grains produces gas is it going to make any difference if we the people produce the gas or the cows? Someone munching through that much vegetation is going to produce gas.
It also admits that meat is very high energy, protien and nutrient source. You have to think of the cow or sheep as an energy concentator. Almost like a battery. If there wasn't that concentration of energy we would spend all day grazing, because we would have to. How is that any better?
Currently the cows are charging up in energy while we are off doing something else. Multi tasking??
The land that has been cleared for ruminants would need to be cleared anyway to grow the huge mass of grasses and grains we would need to replace the meat. So I don't see how that's a valid argument. It's a borrow from Peter to pay Paul scenario. It's like claiming electric cars are carbon negative.
And are we going to genocide the cows and sheep? We would have to wipe them out because we can't farm them and we couldn't release them could we? OR would just some very few people be able to farm them and consume them? Special gas free cows or something?
Some say cows are killing the earth. So do we need to ban beef?
When all those sheep, cattle and goats digest and burp, there are consequences.
THE QUESTION: When are we going to hear more about the great elephant in the room - animal agriculture? The CSIRO and the University of Sydney have jointly reported that it is responsible for more that 30 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Meaningful action in [reducing emissions] cannot be achieved without a general move towards a plant-based diet. PAUL MAHONY
AUSTRALIANS chew through more red meat a head than Americans, and we export more again. So attached are we to red meat and dairy products that the sheep and cattle population of this country outnumbers the human population by five to one, and 56 per cent of Australia's land mass is devoted to grazing.
As grass makes its way through the four-stomach digestive process of these ruminants, it ferments, and the animals burp, fart, urinate and defecate with such gusto that they pump out, on official figures, between 11 per cent and 15 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as every car, truck and bus in Australia.
To solve this problem, our questioner, vegan Paul Mahony, says there is only one option: a general move towards a plant-based diet.
Nutritionally, we could do it. All the nutrients found in meat can be found in vegetarian alternatives. And while eating lean red meat is an easy way to take in vital protein, vitamins and minerals, Australians eat 45 kilograms of red meat a person every year, much more than necessary.
So is it possible, or desirable, to create a nation of vegans? The British government is trying to reduce meat consumption, mainly for health reasons. But Australians are kings of the barbecue, weaned on the myths of the drover. Should we limit, even eliminate, our red meat consumption to help climate change?
The Meat and Livestock Association says no. ''Why wouldn't anyone living in this great country desire a balanced diet that includes red meat?'' says marketing general manager Glen Feist. ''That anyone could presume to tell someone else what to eat in a country where food is so bountiful and healthy is outrageous.''
But by simply existing, sheep, cattle, goats and buffalo pump out large volumes of methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is produced during digestion - what the scientists call ''enteric fermentation'' - and is 21 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It stays for less time in the atmosphere (about 12 years compared with carbon dioxide, a proportion of which can last thousands of years) but while methane is there, it traps more heat.
Nitrous oxide is produced when animal manure and urine decomposes. It is produced in far lower quantities than methane, but stays in the atmosphere for 114 years and is 310 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
But the picture becomes even more dire if you include, as Mahony does, the clearing of forests to create land for ruminants. Deforestation unlocks carbon dioxide from trees as they decompose, and releases it into the atmosphere. If you add that into the equation, according to Department of Climate Change figures, almost 20 per cent of Australia's emissions can be attributed to agriculture, most of which is to raise meat
yet more at the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/some-say-cows-are-killing-the-earth-so-do-we-need-to-ban-beef-20110924-1kr2a.html)
If the processing of grasses and grains produces gas is it going to make any difference if we the people produce the gas or the cows? Someone munching through that much vegetation is going to produce gas.
It also admits that meat is very high energy, protien and nutrient source. You have to think of the cow or sheep as an energy concentator. Almost like a battery. If there wasn't that concentration of energy we would spend all day grazing, because we would have to. How is that any better?
Currently the cows are charging up in energy while we are off doing something else. Multi tasking??
The land that has been cleared for ruminants would need to be cleared anyway to grow the huge mass of grasses and grains we would need to replace the meat. So I don't see how that's a valid argument. It's a borrow from Peter to pay Paul scenario. It's like claiming electric cars are carbon negative.
And are we going to genocide the cows and sheep? We would have to wipe them out because we can't farm them and we couldn't release them could we? OR would just some very few people be able to farm them and consume them? Special gas free cows or something?