So the news this week spent lots of time covering the suggestion that humans give up meat as part of actions to save the planet from
global warmingClimate Change.
If that sounds familiar it's because the U.N. brought it up before, but this time it comes from the U.K.'s climate chief Lord Stern of Brentford, who told The Times of London: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better." - Fox News
The reason being that raising livestock is wasteful of nateral resources such as water and grains, resulting in a massive carbon footprint just for you to be able to enjoy that hamburger or steak.
This got me thinking. Just how much do animals contribute to CO2 emissions? After a little investigation, it turns out that the animal world is responsible for over 20 times the CO2 that humans are responsible for. Here are some numbers that I got from the documentary 'The Global Warming Swindle'
150 Gigatons - From Animals and bacteria
006.5 Gigatons - From Humans
So maybe these environmentalists have it wrong. We should not be doing away with meat products. After all, they are providing a need. Instead they should be investigating the need to kill off the planet's animals that are providing nothing to human needs. Take the Polar bears. Environmentalists are crying for action to be taken to save them. Why? All they do is exhale CO2 and kill off fish. As the numbers above show, humans can eliminate 100% of their carbon emissions and it will barely make a dent in comparison to the damage that wild animals do.
Is this idea crazy? Yes it is and no I do not support it. I am merely pointing out how ridiculous the liberal's are in their fight against 'climate change'. And for any liberals who look to criticize this suggestion, do keep in mind that not only was there a call to stop eating meat, there was also a suggestion by other liberals in this very same crusade for people to consider eating their pets.
“A typical medium sized dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. This gives your dog a footprint of 0.84 hectares, more than twice that of a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser. Cats, meanwhile, have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece (buy two, and you might as well have bought a plasma TV) and canaries half that. Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones.” - Telegraph
So if pets are responsible for large carbon footprints, just imagine how much damage all these animals out in the wild are doing. At least pets are providing enjoyment of some kind. So maybe these so-called scientists are onto something. They just picked the wrong animals to target.