Green | November 29, 2009 | 11 comments

'Cows' far more responsible than C02 from cars in global warming

source: http://www.greendiary.com/entry/cow-emissions-far-more-responsible-than-co2-from-cars-in-glo...

Image
interditx
Who do you think is the world’s top destroyer of the environment? Emissions from Car or the planes or George Bush. However, these all have contributed to the great extent in destroying the environment but meet the new one- it is the cow.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Green,   WTF
  2. tags:
    Green,  Climate Change,  Cow Videos & Cow News
  3.     
    |

11 comments // 'Cows' far more responsible than C02 from cars in global warming

  • futurehempfarmer
    • 0
      futurehempfarmer  

    • btw it's not just cows it's the whole modern industrial approach to agriculture: the use of tractors to plant, harvest, prepare the soil, spray pesticides and herbicides, etc. The last one is a big problem by itself. There's also the diesel that it takes to get your food to your local store. Furthermore with any animals there's the shit question, especially in factory farms, many of those farms don't manage their shit properly.

    • 2 years ago
  • chiefgreendaddy
  • InformedTexan
    • 0
      InformedTexan  

    • This is not new. This has been known and is not the driving force of the growth in pollution seeming to cause global warming. Decreasing demand for cows and meat would only mean increasing demand for other food obtaining processes that involve many similar detrimental effects. I think it's not yet clear as to what the severity of the effects of each greenhouse gas on the warming of the global climate is over time. The cow increases methane gas, but to what extent that gas affects long-term climate change relative to other gasses is not yet obvious.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dr_Jerm
  • futurehempfarmer
  • asherp
  • InformedTexan
  • Vibrant_Sounds
    • 0
      Vibrant_Sounds  
    • asherp:

      Not so sure about that, but if you watch the documentary Food Inc. it states how if cows were fed grasses instead of corn, then the amount of E-Coli bacteria in there stomachs would be severely reduced.

      Of course that's what this film says, it doesn't give any scientific proof.

      So there could be a positive aspect to changing the feed cows receive, as well as reserving more corn for human consumption and energy production.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vibrant_Sounds
    • 0
      Vibrant_Sounds  

    • Not only is this not news, but it's also extremely biased. I Like how in the end it suggests that then entire world should go vegetarian....I'm sure in the long run that would cause more problems itself, such as over-production and over-consumption of man-grown crops for example?

    • 2 years ago
  • iPedro
    • 0
      iPedro  
    • Vibrant_Sounds:

      Actually, the opposite is true. Did you know that 70% of vegetation grown is for feed in industrial animal farming? That's right. Millions of acres of wheat and other vegetation are grown to feed cows, chickens and other animals we eat while people go hungry because there isn't enough left over veggies and animal meat to feed the entire human population.

      The water consumed and soil eroded could be used to feed humans directly. Nobody would go hungry as a result of the current backwards system.

      It's a double whammy on the planet. We use up precious resources such as limited fresh water and arable soil while also farming a massive quantity of animals who's methane contribute to global warming.

      I don't expect the majority of humans to become vegans but if that were to happen, the resulting massive reduction in greenhouse gases (methane from cows and CO2 from their feed production in factories) would alone be sufficient to reverse the tide of Global Warming.

    • 2 years ago
  • squidteeth
more from Green:
from the community

top videos