asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Al Gore and the Unholy Airlock
Posted March 9th, 2007 by El Burro Loco
Anybody that has ever lived near a stockyard can identify its very peculiar scent. Unfortunately, cows, pigs and chickens are not particularly discreet about where they defecate or the regularity with which they pass gas. At times, the odor can be oppressive, especially in the summer months. However, the scent isn't simply offensive, it is also having an extremely detrimental effect on the climate.
According to PETA and a new report from the UN titled "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options", the methane released by livestock when they pass gas or defecate is fueling the climate crisis at a greater clip than all of the cars and trucks in all of the world combined. Indeed, it seems that the methane emitted from animal dookie is one of the primary engines driving global climate change.
With these facts in hand, PETA has urged Al Gore to become a vegetarian. They argue that if Al Gore is truly committed to preventing global warming then he should not participate in the slaughter of livestock by consuming the flesh of animals.
Needless to say, there are a few problems with this line of thinking.
Fist of all, refraining from meat eating will not will not silence the "ass chatter" of domesticated livestock. If Al Gore were to stop eating meat, the effect it would have on global meat consumption patterns would be minimal. Further, if everyone in the world were to stop eating meat, the great brown cloud being emitted by livestock would not be abated, becuase the livestock would still be there.
What, then, would PETA have us do? What is their solution, or should I say "final solution", to the climate crisis? Surely, an organization devoted to the ethical treatment of animals isn't suggesting that mankind "cleanse" the animal kingdom of unnecessary flatulence by eradicating entire species of domesticated animals. However, if this is what PETA is suggesting, I propose we begin by doing away with that gas-bag Rush Limbaugh. There's enough steak there to keep me fed for months.
Secondly, domesticated livestock are not the only inhabitants of the planet that are prone to "nature's little surprises". Humans expel pollutants through the old methane exit also. So, why end at asking Al Gore to stop eating meat? Why don't we also ask Al Gore to stop farting! Truly, if Al Gore is dedicated to stopping the emission of methane and other atmospheric pollutants he should begin by not permitting his mud ducks any opportunity to quack.
I respect vegetarians and I admit to having tried my hand at it a few times and failed, miserably. But, I'm tired of organizations like PETA and other left wing groups trying to hitch their wagon to the Al Gore Express. If you don't want to eat meat, fine. But going after Al Gore with a subdued charge of hypocricy over an issue that has been with mankind for the last few thousand years is completely inappropriate. Go get your publicity somewhere else, PETA.
- El Burro Loco's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
Al Gore and the Unholy Airlock
El Burro Loco got some things wrong in his blog. In the first place, the vast majority of the methane emitted by cattle (and other ruminants) is *burped*, not farted. It's the byproduct of "enteric fermentation" that goes on in one of their stomaches to digest grass. A significant amount of methane and other noxious greenhouse gases do come as the byproduct of manure from farm animals, but methane burped by cattle is the biggest source of livestock greenhouse gases. And the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by humans has already been calculated, and it's not a big factor.
It's also wrong to believe that if meat consumption stopped we have all these farm animals around. No change in behavior happens overnight, and farmers would have plenty of time to reduce their herds by selling what they have and not breeding any more. When it comes to commercial production, cattle live only a few years and all other farm animals live less than a year so it wouldn't take long to clear the herds. Farmers go through boom and bust cycles all the time, and they don't survive if they don't learn to deal with them. Besides, farmers can't afford to keep livestock as pets, and it would be cheaper to give them away rather than keep them alive. PeTA might not be happy, but it would be a one-time final event.
Also, while PeTA may want all of us to go vegan, simply reducing meat consumption and moving away from beef to other meats will still make a change. It's no different when you sell your SUV and buy a Prius. Al Gore doesn't want us to stop using gasoline right away; it's the same with meat. Reducing meat consumption will be very difficult for many, but we all have to face a few "inconvenient truths" in dealing with climate change.
While I don't approve of many of PETAs tactics
They are correct in the claim about methane. In addition to that, the conversion of corn and soybeans to meat is an extremely inefficient process (much of the energy from the feed goes into those unappetizing byproducts, rather than meat). We use an enormous amount of energy raising the livestock, wasting much of the energy that went into raising the feed. Were more people to eat the corn and soy directly, less land would be required to supply human nutritional needs, making more available to supply ethanol fodder.
These are all valid points, and worthwhile to be considered in an overall long-term "proper usage" plan for sustaining a human population on this planet.
Nobody needs to be a strict vegetarian to accomplish this though, and certainly calling on AG to do so is presumptious, combative, and arrogant.
I fear PETA will shoot themselves in the foot on this one - they have a good point and may blow it through their typical overly-zealous approach.
"Grass roots - to elect a president, and to save the planet
PETA
A pretty radical group.
Now let's take a minute to think here...
Just say, hypothetically, that they are correct in their claim that methane from living things
really causes Global Warming?
What's the next step?
Kill everything living?
Nope, I don't think so. Rather I think PETA is a Radical fringe group. These are the same
folks who go nuts when anyone wears a fur. Malarky as my Grandfather would say.
Like I said to someone else here, let's get real because if we start this foolishness no one will listen to us and Al Gore will not win.
Getting family farms back would be worth more than cow farts
I guess I am more concerned with the clearing of forests, particularly old growth forests, to make room for more farming in areas that aren't really conducive for it, or degrade the top soil, or threaten the genetic diversity that has adapted to that particular environment.
The big feed lots are horrible, and I would be all for PETA targeting something like a mandatory maximum density for living livestock that wouldn't require stacking them on top of each other. The concentration of waste, the over-use of anti-biotics and the potential for outbreaks is not worth the profit margin... And I just think it's inhumane.
The big goal, however, is to bring back the middle-class, and I think the family farmer has to be a part of the equation. If we go on "Biggering" our farms, of any kind, we are keeping a whole lot of eggs in fewer and fewer baskets. I wish we had all those little family farms back... Farting cattle or pooping goats would be a very fair trade for that.