Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

Oil companies? Car companies? No, I am speaking of animal agriculture, of course.



Animal agriculture causes 51% of our contribution to AGW. That is an outright majority, yet it rarely gets any mention.

Quote:

In 2006, FAO estimated that grazing occupied an area equivalent to 26 per cent of the ice- free terrestrial surface of the planet, while 33 per cent of total arable land was dedicated to feedcrop production – maize and soybean in particular. Thus, livestock production accounted for 70 per cent of all agricultural land and 30 per cent of the land surface of the planet,15 and the expansion of pastures and feed crops is a major source of deforestation, especially in Latin America. The FAO study estimated that the livestock sector was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent – a larger share than transport. Once livestock respiration and the loss of greenhouse gas reductions from photosynthesis that are foregone by using large areas of land for grazing or feedcrops are taken into account, livestock is found to be responsible for 51 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, so that a 25 per cent reduction in livestock products worldwide between 2009 and 2017 could result in a 12.5 per cent reduction in global atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions.16 The precise figures remain debated, but there is no doubt in the scientific community that the impacts of livestock production are massive.

Linky.



We don't have to radically transform our infrastructure and city planning or develop any new technologies or turn to a hippy stone age lifestyle or cull the number of humans. Just stop using animals for production of goods.



Yet we are not doing that:

Quote:

The researchers were in the vanguard of food scientists, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming. Some climate-change activists dismiss the work, which is just getting underway, as a distraction and a concession to industrial-style agriculture, which they blame for compounding the world's environmental problems. Those leading the experiments, however, say new, heat-resistant breeds of farm animals will be essential to feeding the world as climate change takes hold. The experiments reflect a continued shift in the federal government's response to climate change. With efforts to reduce carbon emissions lagging behind what most scientists believe will be needed to forestall further warming, the government increasingly is looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact. In agriculture, "we are dealing with the challenge of difficult weather conditions at the same time we have to massively increase food production" to accommodate larger populations and a growing demand for meat, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. ... "Even if you believe we should be conserving our resources and putting more emphasis on eating plants, the reality we deal with is that worldwide the demand is growing for meat," he said. "There will be more and more pressure to produce it more sustainably and of consistent quality." Some climate experts, however, question the federal government's emphasis on keeping pace with a projected growing global appetite for meat. Because raising animals demands so many resources, the only viable way to hit global targets for greenhouse gas reduction may be to encourage people to eat less meat, they say. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to climate change "is like trying to promote driver safety while helping the car industry make faster cars," said Alan Miller, who recently retired as a principal climate-change specialist at the World Bank. The meat industry should be more radical in confronting climate change, Miller said, pointing to an approach backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that takes animals out the process altogether. The billionaire is bullish on technology that would use pea proteins to create replicas of beef and chicken that are indistinguishable from the real thing.

Linky.



Surely this is a problem of the evil factory farms and not the good, old fashioned ones with organic, grass-fed, pasture-raised, petted on the way to the slaughter animals? Nope.

Quote:

On the environmental front, studies by Yan et al (2009) in Ireland used growth chambers to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from cattle with varying levels of forage and grain in the diet. Coupling these results with a 30% increase of harvest age of grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed, it becomes clear there is a 500% increase in greenhouse gas emissions for each pound of beef produced from grass-fed compared to grain-fed cattle. Uncontrolled nitrogen and phosphate release to the environment, 35% more water use, and 30% more land use for grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed increases the environmental impact of strictly grass feeding. A model reported by Canadian workers (Janzen et al, 2008) accounts for carbon loss from fossil fuels for corn production and other factors of production for both grass- and grain-fed cattle and shows the added efficiency of animal production and resource use from intensive grain feeding will reduce the collective environmental impact of grain-fed compared to grass-fed beef.

Linky.



Now some are playing games by saying "reduce" meat consumption, but that is just a cop out.



Prepare to see more ridiculousness like this before we start trying to actually address the issue.



The ridiculous thing is that it is so uselessly optional/preferential. Transport and energy have actually enable us to greater achievements. Hamburgers and milk, not so much.

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1lqdOy4