Tuesday, October 27, 2009

- Give Up Meat To Save The Planet -

I came across a very interesting article titled, Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet. So essentially, stop the global warming crises by giving up meat. This is from a leading authority on the all-mighty quest to save the earth.

The article mentioned that methane emissions are twenty-three times more powerful than that of carbon emissions. It goes on to mention that methane emissions from cows and pigs play a significant part in the amount of greenhouse gases. Talk about a fart joke!

Essentially, what is being asked here is to simply give up meat because of the dangerous emissions it gives off. To quote Stern, "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

People want to feel important, they want to matter. If humans are to blame for global warming, the gut reaction of people is, "What can I do?" By doing this, you are willing to solve this so called problem, at any costs – even if it means higher taxes, more regulations, purchasing different light bulbs, driving fuel-efficient cars, and giving up meat. Essentially, surrendering your personal freedoms, liberties, and your way of time at the expense of contributing to the "cause."

It amazes me to think that the United States it the leading country to fight this "challenge." Why haven’t more populated countries, like China and India caught on to this, or even share the blame? Look at their pollution size to ours.

The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and has endured volcano eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, meteor impacts, earthquakes, tsunamis, and so on – so how can it be that breathing CO2 emissions is going to make or break us?

Yes, recycling and conservation is crucial and a vital piece of survival. There are only so many resources in the world, and it is important to conserve them. And of course, if you witness someone deliberately polluting such as littering, polluting the oceans, dumping chemicals in a lake and so forth, that’s stoppable. That can be fixed. But to go to the drastic measures of claiming that man made actions are altering the climate is absurd.

One more thought – how are the proposed taxes on all energy usage in the future going to stop the alleged man-made global warming – ah, excuse me, I mean climate change, or whatever name this will be changed to in the future to help further this cause?


  1. kyle, a lot of the questions you ask are ones we see in the culture a lot, but are quite answerable in my view, and the answers are not hocus pocus. yet if you don't believe in the validity of the scientific method and careful research and concensus over time, then i think you may have missed the point of the long essay you read on emissions and why carbon dioxide is a factor in climate change.

    in a nutshell, it causes the greenhouse effect, which leads to warming. there are many other factors involved that can cool the earth and may help balance out the effect of greenhouse gases, but the problem is that the level of man-made gases is so high now, that it looks very unlikely that these natural factors will be able to slow the warming trend. i think a careful reading of the essay reveals this, although the language i realize is somewhat hard to wade through.

    to me, it's not much of a debate that man's activity since the industrial revoulution has indeed caused climate change. but like the essay said, whether man caused it or not is a mute point. the science shows it is a fact of our planet that probably should be taken very seriously, no matter what the exact causes are.

    so i have to call into question the logic behind some of your thinking here. you seem to suggest it's all a big joke or hoax. i don't believe climate change is a joke or scam, based on what is the best evidence out there.

    the problem for me is that, well, we are basically still a rich country and we'll do the best we can and adapt to climate change, but people in poverty in third world countries and our own great country will not have that luxury. if careful planning and consideration of the catastrophic results of climate change are not faced, and reductions in emissions are not curtailed, the poor of the world will face the brunt of the impact. and they will face it for centuries.

    to me, that's not fair, so if we can do something, we should. and if climate change is real, we should act accordingly.

  2. One of the difficulties in studying or researching information on global warming is that scientist, on both sides of the issue, will study it within the confines of their own lifetime. “Twenty years ago it was this, now it’s this” – of course by doing this, your margins are going to be thin and variation can be drastic due to the fact that little time has elapsed from their particular time of the study, to the scope of the planet’s lifetime.

    So when you hear that temperatures have changed within the past hundred years or so, or even when weather records were first considered (not that long ago), you’re going to see alternations with the temperature trends and so forth. It is my belief that the earth recycles itself, from its numerous occurrences.

    I will admit to the fact that I believe that there is most defiantly a political agenda behind global warming, which is more control, oversight, regulations by the government which is going to save the planet with your tax dollars – brilliant plan. It’s a wonder why this wasn’t thought of centuries ago – maybe because the very thought is preposterous within itself!

    Yes the globe may be warming and temperatures might be changing, but is it really our fault? If man causes global warming then the solution is that man must fix it. Climate does change with or without man. If temperatures are always changing, then what is the perfect one? What is the one that’s not to cause frenzy? The quest behind proving global warming is defined by the sole word IF.