10551Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
- Oct 26, 2007Next to "clearing and clearcutting of land" you may also add up the
fossil fuel use for transporting, farming, warming and other processes
used for meat (but also other foods) production. Certainly every human
activity is disrupting of the natural processes, especially if it is
in industrial mass scale. However concentrating attention on cow
bleeches and comparing them to fossil fuels emissions is misleading,
because it is comparing problems of different scale and of different
nature. If tomorrow humanity and every human activity would disappear,
it will take months to return to the previous methane concentration
levels, but thousands or million years to return the extracted fossil
fuels carbon back to undrground deposits.
The problems of biofuels are more complicated (and include also food
prices, deforestation etc). But I see very often this line of argument
- comparing a big harm with a less one, so that it may more easily
accepted. It is like saying: "if you are against car use, you
shouldn't eat meat either". However (apart from the previous explained
fallacy of this approach) meat consumption is not limitless (modern
medicine is already suggesting to avoid it) while car use (and other
energy intense devices) may become virually limitless.
Almost every human activity is nowadays unsustainable. The difference
is that some can become easily sustainable, some less easily and some
is imposible to become sustainable at all (e.g. the wastful car
priority traffic policy)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jym Dyer <jym@...> wrote:
> > I have never understood how someone can compare methane
> > emissions from animals with the carbon emissions from fossil
> > fuels. The former belongs to the carbon cycle part between
> > atmosphere and biosphere, which has a recycle time of few
> > months or years ...
> =v= While this is true, carbon is carbon. By industrializing
> animals' lifespans, humanity has contributed carbon and other
> gases to the atmosphere at a rate that exceeds the capacty of
> plant life to reabsorb it. Another piece of this, of course, is
> the clearing and clearcutting of land for these very processes.
> =v= I have seen the above line of argument advanced to support
> the use of biofuels, no matter how wasteful (e.g. to run cars).
> The problem is too serious to split hairs over which carbon is
> okay to burden the atmosphere with.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>