tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post112603820033144009..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: GW, methane and vegetarianism: http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htmWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-25225808256750807042007-04-10T17:32:00.000+00:002007-04-10T17:32:00.000+00:00This is a little late, but I wanted to comment. A...This is a little late, but I wanted to comment. As far as "not becoming vegan" is concerned, I agree with Noam's response. I'm vegetarian, and I've tried being vegan, and it has hard enough that I went back to eating cheese and eggs. However, in light of the possibility that veganism could stop global warming, I'm willing to consider it. It's the same thing I would say to people who refuse to take the bus or ride a bike: if global warming is really important to you, you'll make the necessary changes to address it. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that Noam's article is entirely correct. One thing that comes to mind after reading it was that there is danger in presuming that by doing *any one thing*, and only that one thing, such as not driving or not eating meat, we can stop global warming. We need to consider the impact of every single one of our choices. An activity he seems to be encouraging.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the article!<BR/><BR/>Peace!Rockmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13767525255075878402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1140126184147913452006-02-16T21:43:00.000+00:002006-02-16T21:43:00.000+00:00Noam - this reply will likely never reach you. But...Noam - this reply will likely never reach you. But anyway. You say <I>I hope you can agree at least that methane sources *may very well* be far more important than CO2 sources for current and near-term global warming.</I> - no, I can't agree with that. I agree that you have a point, but I think you have overstretched it.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1137281451446252072006-01-14T23:30:00.000+00:002006-01-14T23:30:00.000+00:00By the way, as for the comment on limiting methane...By the way, as for the comment on limiting methane emissions by adjusting their feed, this effect is small and swamped by skyrocketing increases in the number of animals with increasing meat consumption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1137281340422222922006-01-14T23:29:00.000+00:002006-01-14T23:29:00.000+00:00I know I’m responding several months after this po...I know I’m responding several months after this post, but as author of the report, I thought it might be valuable. The most important thing is that you do not disagree with the central point of the report – that vegetarianism is an extremely effective strategy against global warming – but only question whether it overstates the case by calling it far more effective than targeting cars and power plants in the near term.<BR/><BR/>You point out that aerosol emisisons are predicted to decline, so the fact that these are roughly cancelling out the effect of CO2 emissions are “not much use.” This is not a fair criticism, because it is acknowledged in the report, which stresses that cuts in fossil fuels are critical in the long term. The report simply asserts that methane sources are a far more important cause of warming currently observed and likely in the near future.<BR/><BR/>You also point out that the offsetting effect of aerosols is very uncertain. Fair enough – the effect could be very small, negating the entire premise of the report. But it could also be so strong that fossil fuel burning has a net cooling effect on climate, and cuts will only exacerbate global warming. I hope you can agree at least that methane sources *may very well* be far more important than CO2 sources for current and near-term global warming. Certainly the effect of aerosols are generally ignored by environmental activists, causing them to overstate the influence of CO2 compared to methane, an effect which I believe is a critical oversight.<BR/><BR/>You complained about the use of US statistics rather than worldwide ones. Though I cite the US EPA, I cite their estimates for global emissions, so I think this is just a misunderstanding of the report. In fact, while animal agriculture is the largest source of methane worldwide, it is barely edged out into second place in the US. However, since the US imports a lot of meat – and in any case, this report is not just meant for a US audience – global numbers are far more relevant. Note that most estimates of methane emissions from animal agriculture are misleading, because they only include emissions from animals, and put manure in a separate category.<BR/><BR/>Note too that animal agriculture is increasing astronomically – fivefold in the last fifty years with no sign of slowing. It isn’t very meaningful to look at the relative dominance of fossil fuels and agriculture since 1860, as the rise of factory farming is only a few decades old, and since agriculture includes plant agriculture.<BR/><BR/>Your final complaint was that “not many can cope with becoming vegan.” I think this is overly pessimistic. It was also said people wouldn’t recycle, and that they won’t give up their gas guzzlers. But more important, even if people don’t become vegan, any cut in animal agriculture is good for the atmosphere. Surely people can cope with reductions in meat consumption? After all, only a couple decades ago, people ate half as much meat as they do today. And not everyone has to change their diets: the more people who do, the better for our climate.<BR/><BR/>To summarize, I think your criticisms are in any case on the fringes of the main point: that environmentalists should be pushing reductions in the consumption of animal products just as they push reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels. <BR/><BR/>I should also point to a new paper (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18825304.800), which calculates the reductions in global warming of switching from the average American diet to a vegan diet, and finds the effect more than 50% greater than switching from the average car to a Prius. This paper does not include the effects of aerosols that I highlight, which would only increase the relative importance of diet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1127164124258306822005-09-19T21:08:00.000+00:002005-09-19T21:08:00.000+00:00Cows wouldn't fart under the radical vegetarian (o...Cows wouldn't fart under the radical vegetarian (or rather, as they admit, vegan) solution, because they would all be dead. Or rather there would be far far fewer of them, because in a vegan world you hardly need any cows.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1126983477076852802005-09-17T18:57:00.000+00:002005-09-17T18:57:00.000+00:00"The normal digestive processes in ruminant livest..."The normal digestive processes in ruminant livestock (known as enteric fermentation [known as cows farting - WMC]) account for the largest portion of methane emissions."<BR/><BR/>...how would becoming vegetarian stop cows from farting? I'm not a GW expert and half of your references are over my head but I don't see the logic here. I could be wrong though.<BR/>If you could answer my question about how it would work I would love to know about it. Email is rgrtoms@yahoo.com .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1126386660449970112005-09-10T21:11:00.000+00:002005-09-10T21:11:00.000+00:001 - yes. Also I remember some stuff about CSIRO tr...1 - yes. Also I remember some stuff about CSIRO trying to ?inoculate? cows or sheep against producing poots.<BR/><BR/>Story: at a conference some time ago some colleagues went to a talk I missed about estimating sheep emissions of methane. There were, apparently, very funny pix of sheep with balloons or something strapped to their backsides. I was sorry not to have gone... All very serious though, really.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1126232301089541562005-09-09T02:18:00.000+00:002005-09-09T02:18:00.000+00:001. You can limit methan emissions from cows by ad...1. You can limit methan emissions from cows by adjusting their feed.<BR/><BR/>2. There was a great New Scientist cover about this more than ten years ago, with a farmer in a gas mask leaning into a pasture....<BR/><BR/>Eli RabettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1126075807993162452005-09-07T06:50:00.000+00:002005-09-07T06:50:00.000+00:00Thanks so much for doing this!Thanks so much for doing this!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com