A Cause Looking For An Excuse
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The theory of climate change has become a very effective Christmas tree to use and hang whatever ornament of a cause you have. Paul McCartney and his desire to inflict on the rest of us his choice for what to eat on Mondays (actually more to the point what NOT to eat) is using the stage of the climate change for such an excuse, claiming that the sooner we all stop eating meat the sooner the devastation will cease.
A University of California professor, Frank Mitloehner has bravely come out to indicate that it is not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change. He said in a recent University of California Davis (U.C. Davis) news release that when McCartney and the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change launched their “Less Meat – Less Heat” campaign that they were ignoring science. Given the fact that science is now based on how many people you can line up to be on your side – I’m not sure that Professor Mitloehner won’t end up under the bus of the elite’s desire to install policy for their favorite cause, but you gotta give the guy credit for standing up to the witch-hunters.
Mitloehner said leading authorities agree that in the United States (which is certainly the most offensive of all countries on the earth for production of green house gases…until the Environmental Protection Agency gets control of “fixing” us anyway) raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation on the other hand is supposedly pumping out an estimated 26 percent.
Mitloehner is promoting the idea that developing countries need to adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices in order to make more food with less greenhouse gas production. That seems to be something other than the U.N. desire for everyone in the world to have a hoe and rake, grow their own lettuce and keep starving. That is supposedly the model that they seem to believe a better approach (as long as those countries like the U.S. give them – the U.N. – more funding to save the starving people of the world).
He’s taking exception to the UN report from 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which equates livestock production as a major contributor to the supposed global warming problem. Mitloehner’s analysis of the UN’s calculations are presented in a recent study titled, “Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change”.
Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change”.
While the debate and discussion continue over whether or not farm animals are melting glaciers the real issue involves much greater public policy pursuits that are going forward to regulate regardless. EPA is planning on going forward with their centrally-planned, command and control measures and perhaps at some point in time the U.S. Senate will pass legislation to tax us all on top of it. Based on the Kool-Aid our U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering for those willing to guzzle the challenges of being in the livestock business are only going to get worse (with the global warming excuse being used in lots of ways).
Someday we could look back and wonder whatever happened to our nation’s agriculture and why is it that we can no longer provide food to feed ourselves?
The theory of climate change has become a very effective Christmas tree to use and hang whatever ornament of a cause you have. Paul McCartney and his desire to inflict on the rest of us his choice for what to eat on Mondays (actually more to the point what NOT to eat) is using the stage of the climate change for such an excuse, claiming that the sooner we all stop eating meat the sooner the devastation will cease.
A University of California professor, Frank Mitloehner has bravely come out to indicate that it is not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change. He said in a recent University of California Davis (U.C. Davis) news release that when McCartney and the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change launched their “Less Meat – Less Heat” campaign that they were ignoring science. Given the fact that science is now based on how many people you can line up to be on your side – I’m not sure that Professor Mitloehner won’t end up under the bus of the elite’s desire to install policy for their favorite cause, but you gotta give the guy credit for standing up to the witch-hunters.
“Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat,” Mitloehner says. “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.”
Mitloehner said leading authorities agree that in the United States (which is certainly the most offensive of all countries on the earth for production of green house gases…until the Environmental Protection Agency gets control of “fixing” us anyway) raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation on the other hand is supposedly pumping out an estimated 26 percent.
Mitloehner is promoting the idea that developing countries need to adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices in order to make more food with less greenhouse gas production. That seems to be something other than the U.N. desire for everyone in the world to have a hoe and rake, grow their own lettuce and keep starving. That is supposedly the model that they seem to believe a better approach (as long as those countries like the U.S. give them – the U.N. – more funding to save the starving people of the world).
He’s taking exception to the UN report from 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which equates livestock production as a major contributor to the supposed global warming problem. Mitloehner’s analysis of the UN’s calculations are presented in a recent study titled, “Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change”.
Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change”.
While the debate and discussion continue over whether or not farm animals are melting glaciers the real issue involves much greater public policy pursuits that are going forward to regulate regardless. EPA is planning on going forward with their centrally-planned, command and control measures and perhaps at some point in time the U.S. Senate will pass legislation to tax us all on top of it. Based on the Kool-Aid our U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering for those willing to guzzle the challenges of being in the livestock business are only going to get worse (with the global warming excuse being used in lots of ways).
Someday we could look back and wonder whatever happened to our nation’s agriculture and why is it that we can no longer provide food to feed ourselves?
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/10/2009 2:18 PM 
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Livestock Production Global Warming
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Livestock Production Global Warming
Comments