When are Global Warming Advocates Going After Your Beef Consumption?

It is obviously only a matter of time until they start to restrict the number of cows in the US. I really wish that these articles would discuss 1) what percent of global warming is due to greenhouse gases (there are other factors such as the sun), 2) what percent of the change in greenhouse gases are manmade, and 3) why exactly this warming is "bad" (after all the UN's recent claim that over the next 100 years ocean levels are only supposed to rise a small 7 to 21 inches) versus all the benefits (more usable land that is currently frozen, higher temperatures improve people's health, increase the growing season, and increase the number of plants and animals).

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive. . . .

I had mentioned a similar discussion here.

Labels: ,


Blogger Dad29 said...

Actually, the GloboWarm crowd has already scored a victory against "beef consumption."

The enviros were the ones who forced ethanol into gasoline, which has significantly raised the price of corn.

Corn is a large part of the diet of beef-cattle (if you want beef which is reasonably tasty.)

So the price of beef is going to go up, and will continue to escalate; ethanol could be as much as 85% of auto fuel in 20 years.

2/20/2007 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Lott: Do we have more cows than we had Buffalo ?

2/24/2007 6:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home