Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10520Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?

Expand Messages
  • Eric Dupre
    Oct 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The LA Times article (and possibly the respondent
      below) bases their conclusions on corn-fed cattle. It
      would seem that grass-fed cattle would have less
      impact (less methane), and would actually contribute
      to soil fertilization, reducing the usage of natural
      gas for man-made fertilizers. (Section 3 of The
      Omnivore's Dilemma) Does anyone know how to calculate
      the difference?

      Eric Dupre


      --- Erik Sandblom <eriksandblom@...> wrote:

      > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Todd Binkley
      > <todd_binkley@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > An editorial in yesterday's LA Times claims that
      > the methane and
      > > nitrous oxide produced (worldwide) by cattle,
      > coupled with the
      > > pollution associated with producing their feed,
      > and clearing
      > forests
      > > for them to graze combines to create more
      > greenhouse gases than
      > all
      > > the planes trains and automobiles on the planet.
      > Therefore a
      > > westerner could do more for climate change by
      > eliminating beef
      > from
      > > their diet than giving up their car. Can anyone
      > document or
      > refute
      > > any of their assertions?
      > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-
      >
      > > methane15oct15,1,848859.story
      >
      >
      >
      > It is self-evident that meat requires much more
      > energy to make than
      > vegetarian food. Either you eat the produce directly
      > or feed it to
      > the cow and then eat the cow -- obviously it is more
      > efficient to eat
      > the produce directly. You can make the meat in
      > different ways, but
      > you can't escape the simple physics. Meat is not
      > green.
      >
      > Manure is used for fertilizer and it is not trivial
      > to replace manure
      > with sustainable, inorganic fertiliser. One
      > possibility is to use
      > human manure.
      >
      > Regarding the car issue, there was an interesting
      > study published in
      > Sweden last summer. It concluded that people driving
      > their cars to
      > the grocery store caused more emissions than the
      > rest of the food
      > transportation chain put together! This is because
      > the food industry
      > makes more money if they make their logistics more
      > efficient. Also
      > because 10kg of groceries can never support 1000kg
      > of car used to
      > move it. So driving to the grocery story can never
      > make green sense
      > for consumers.
      > http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?a=637433
      >
      > Anyway, why choose? Why not drive less *and* eat
      > less meat?
      >
      > Erik Sandblom
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > (Yahoo! ID required)
      >
      > mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic