What many of us oldens have long since suspected has been confirmed, to some extent, by a story hidden away in today's Daily Mail.
It reports that cows are responsible for generating more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined, according to its release by the United Nations.
See:
tinyurl.com/yfzbml
I wonder how the powers-that-be get around this one...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Apparently Kangaroos live on exactly the same diet as cows, but do not 'expel' methane at all. According the Stephen Fry on QI (so probably not true) there are scientists trying to work out why this is, in the hope of creating an environmentally friendly cow.
|
there are scientists trying to work out why this is, in the hope of creating an environmentally friendly cow.>>
Ah, but if it's an environmentally-friendly GM cow, then the anti-GM idiots won't want it ;-)
|
>> there are scientists trying to work out why this is, in the hope of creating an environmentally friendly cow.>> Ah, but if it's an environmentally-friendly GM cow, then the anti-GM idiots won't want it ;-)
Yes. It's a bit of a laugh really. There's not a cow or sheep in Britain today that isn't genetically modified. Not to mention all those pedigree dogs and cats.
|
|
|
|
Termites also generate methane. I think there is around 1 ton of them per head of world population. Bovine flatulence is a well known issue. Cows are worse if they aren't fed on grass. It's feeding them on grain and other things which has caused the problem.
teabelly
|
>>Bovine flatulence is a well known issue.>>
I was well aware of it being in the public domain, but not of its somewhat unexpected level of impact...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Indeed agriculture is an industrial process. Without it there would be far fewer cows, so even methane produced this way is as a result of human activity. It is well known that meat production is a highly inefficient use of resources.
Luckily as this report shows transport is not the only area of human activity where greenhouse gas emissions are being examined. So the implied attack on policies that "persecute the motorist" which the Mail is no doubt hoping to get through to its less able readers is somewhat undermined.
I'm not sure what the Daily Mail is trying to achieve by ths article. Is it suggesting we should all be vegetarians? Actually I can't understand why anyone would read the Daily Mail. The paper is itself a waste of resources and a pointless contributor to carbon and other emissions.
|
>>Actually I can't understand why anyone would read the Daily Mail. The paper is itself a waste of resources and a pointless contributor to carbon and other emissions.>>
If we all did exactly the same or even read the same papers life would be extremely boring.
I'd rather read the observations of Richard Littlejohn than Polly Toynbee...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>I'd rather read the observations of Richard Littlejohn than Polly Toynbee...
They are both deeply irritating. But hang the opinion pieces. It's the quality of the Mail journalism that I find shocking. It seems to trivialize and misreport as a matter of course.
|
>>It's the quality of the Mail journalism that I find shocking. It seems to trivialize and misreport as a matter of course.>>
I could claim the same about some of the red top tabloids...:-)
The story which we are discussing makes none of the claims which you infer - in fact the belief clearly arises from a sub-editor trying to be a bit too smart for his/her own good, with a headline "quote" that doesn't exist in the body of the copy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>I could claim the same about some of the red top tabloids...
Um, yes, and I would agree with you.
But no excuses. The sub-editors at the Mail and the Indy did the same thing. They know, I know, and you know, that headlines colour the way you read a story. "Motorist persecution" is a hot topic just now so they both exploited it, and so did you in your posting. The only thing (slightly) in favour of the Indy is that the article is longer and more detailed.
|
>>"Motorist persecution" is a hot topic just now so they both exploited it, and so did you in your posting. >>
With all due respects my original thread introduction makes absolutely no mention of motorists....:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>makes absolutely no mention of motorists....:-)
If that's not what you intended the thread should be deleted, shouldn't it? Silly mistake to make, assuming that postings on a motoring forum are intended to relate to motoring ... Sorry to hear you fell for that headline anyway.
|
assuming that postings on a motoring forum are intended to relate to motoring ...>>
So motoring isn't transport?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
If that's not what you intended the thread should be deleted,
If the discussion doesn't turn around to being motoring related then I'll lock the thread.
Besides that, hasn't all this "green issue" stuff already been done to death on here recently anyway? It's becoming more common a subject than speeding. Haven't you lot got anything else to discuss?
|
|
|
|
|
Cows generate methane by eating grass and passing wind. They produce lots of gas, but it's all coming from plant life that's just grown and been eaten.
CO2 is a problem as it's putting gasses back into the atmosphere that have been locked in coal and gas reserves for millions of years. That's why log burning heating systems are rated 'zero carbon' - short term cycling doesn't matter.
|
>>So the implied attack on policies that "persecute the motorist" which the Mail is no doubt hoping to get through to its less able readers is somewhat undermined.>>
Seems to me that this comment is misplaced - the report states "all forms of transport combined."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
It's ok, the Mail isn't the only one. Look, the Independent is doing it too, though the article is rather more developed, mentioning not only methane but the water, land, and fuel required to keep cows producing:
news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484....e
|
Auberon Waugh used to go on about "hamburger gasses" years ago in the Telegraph, I thought then that he was mad, but it looks as if he was right.
I think that they use cows for transport in some parts of the world. ( motoring link)
|
|
I now eagerly await the legislation for the fitting of catalysts to the backsides of all cows born after January 1st 2007 . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
It reports that cows are responsible for generating more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined, according to its release by the United Nations.
The UN must be a bit slow in their release of information. I've known about this for several (if not more) years.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I'm not sure what the Daily Mail is trying to achieve by ths article. Is it suggesting we should all be vegetarians?
in replyn to baskerville and stuartli:
as l'escargot says, "The UN must be a bit slow in their release of information. I've known about this for several (if not more) years" and as i have said before - see just one example below:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=46...6
".... have said many times here and i say it again: ......
.... why oh why do people think carbon dioxide is the only or the main cause of warming? as midlifecrisis says, it the methane from cattle and sheep, plus the destruction of rainforests to grow more feed and pastures for the livestock that are the major culprits. .... ..
vegetarianism is the solution. ...... "
|
>>as i have said before ->>
I also recall mentioning the topic in a previous thread, when I quoted the emissions from various forms of transport including 747s, ships, trucks, cars and livestock published back in 2003 in a well known motoring magazine.
One of the points made by the magazine was that a 747 flying from London to Sydney produced emissions equivalent to two years' Formula 1 qualifying and racing sessions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Surely if the Daily Mail are involved, then it MUST be an imminent drop in house prices that causes bovine flatulence? : )
Quick motoring, before DD snips me (ouch). Serious point on stuartli's point above: the government removes any credibility from itself by penalising motorists and simultaneously approving multiple airport expansion. IMHO.
|
Surely if the Daily Mail are involved, then it MUST be an imminent drop in house prices that causes bovine flatulence?
Ah yes, but the drop in house prices will probably be caused by those pesky immigrants. It is, as you say, the Daily Mail after all.
|
|
|
|
