Posts
I've only been married for a short while now (almost 2 years), but discovered quite early in the game that I had inherited a whole new set of social manners. It is actually not appropriate, I learned, to lift one side of your bum to fart at the dinner table, (yes even if it makes it quieter). Nor is it acceptable to pull out your hanky and blow your nose before dessert. What once seemed to me the freedom and dignity of my earthly existence now proves to contain disastrous long-term consequences for my marriage.
Such is the case with our bovine friends.
Australia announced this week to invest $26 million in seeking a way to lower cow emissions. Yes, cow emissions. Yes, 26 million. It seems as climate change takes greater priority among world leaders and possible consequences loom on the horizon, beef-friendly countries are seeking solutions now. (Find the official statement here.) Australians are not the first to study this. Argentina has taken the approach of strapping large plastic tanks to each cow to collect their burps. This might seem silly, but when your country has approximately 40 million people and 55 million cows, you might think again. As climate change becomes more and more pressing around the world, many are surprised to discover that the methane produced by your Big Mac contributes 15-18% of global emissions (that is more than your Honda.) In fact, the 18% of global emissions exceeds that of cars, planes, and all transport put together, according to this UN study entitled Livestock's Long Shadow.
Some scientists are even experimenting with garlic as a way of reducing cow flatulence. Well, I'd like to find that garlic for a little testing of my own. My favorite report, however, was from this Times article, which claims, "Scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say they have developed a diet that has done the most to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows."
They could've all saved time and money by speaking with my wife.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Australian scientists to tackle bovine gas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've heard of this argument before-- that the methane produced by cows is cause for concern. But I'm still not buying that it should be a central enough concern to pour money into addressing it. It seems to me, that it is simply a means of skirting the real issues that surround human overconnsumption. After all, the world was created to sustain a certain degree of 'pollution,' or methane, or what have you. This is part of the natural cycles of digestion (tell that to the Mrs., by the way).
Bottom line: I'm not convinced that this issue should receive our time, money, and effort, when it seems to be more of a smokescreen for the truly guilty parties behind (no pun intended) the overabundance of greenhouse gases.
ummm, so FYI - it is also rude to fart at the dinner table...anytime. I don't care if it is a natural cycle of digestion. Natural cycles can still be kept private.
I have to say that I am in agreement with what Aaron says. It seems clear to me that as consumption of meat products increases, so the decline of the health not only of our bodies but also of the world in which we live. Simply strapping a burb bin to a cows back won't fully address or provide long term solutions to the problems we now face.
Yeah, good thoughts here Aaron...
(Roxy - I think we still have some room for 'compromise' on natural cycles...)
I think the great irony is that nobody has proposed less cows! (heaven forbid I give up my quarter pounders.) Certainly there is a good money in 1.5 billion cattle around the world, but at what point must we face the music? $26 million is quite a lot of money which, to my mind, is better spent promoting a whole foods diet, perhaps even to help farmers transition off of feedlot cattle to a more sustainable program.
The same sentiment, it seems to me, exists across the board as environmental news trickles in... WIth hybrid cars, new light bulbs, what have you... the idea that we can 'solve' the problem without it 'costing' us anything. Just trade in your car for a hybrid, trade your lightbulbs, buy some organic produce, wave the magic wand of the markets, and POOF! a healthy planet!
Aaron: you can try to make the argument that this is part of the 'natural cycles of digestion', but that seems to me akin to making the argument that 'God said be fruitful and multiply so that means 9 billion can't be a problem'. Surely the planet is able to sustain us, but I'm doubtful it is able to sustain us in the lives of luxury we think we deserve. I know we're in agreement on this but I think we need to be extremely careful about that sort of argument as it easily pulls us into self-justification.
However, where we are in full agreement is that human over-consumption - (an interesting blend of arrogance, greed and pride) - is the real cause of our creaturely ailments.
The bottom line for me is if feedlot cattle are producing 18% of our current 'emissions', we need repentance and to actively seek a new way of life which is healthy for the cosmos, not a techno-fix.
matt,
this was my point exactly, although i realize my response was unclear.
instead of addressing the issue of human overconsumption that is creating the problem of too much methane, we have naturally turned to science to address the problem by interrupting the natural digestive cycles of the cattle. right now, the speak of garlic as an experiment, but i dare say, that it won't be long before a chemical drug will be developed to reduce (or, eliminate entirely) the flatulence of these poor beasts.
again, i would argue that the way in which this issue is being addressed is simply a way to hide the blood that is on our hands. we have been known to blame the earth itself for global warming, or deny the very reality of global warming; and now, we using the cattle as a scapegoat. in short, humans are to blame-- not the cattle. we need to address the human consumptive impetus that creates the 'need' for such a large cattle population. this slippery slope technologizing species to accomodate our addictions is what has created opportunites for the development (and acceptance!) of GMO technology and other harmful innovations. i find it interesting that rather than seeking to address the actual problems that arise, we often pursue options that accommodate the lifestyle that has created the problem and introduce new technology to support our habits and problems. reverting is never a consideration in a world of 'progress'.
it's not until we have addressed our consumption (the primary issue that is at the centre of environmental degradation) we will forever be pursuing 'solutions' that never truly address the heart of the problem.
Post a Comment