# The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN'T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET

https://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

The Most 'Inconvenient Truth': According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined

Norfolk, Va. - This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux "fried chicken" as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth-which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for "Best Documentary"-has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock's Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

"The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian," says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he's truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

That's good, ksinc. I'm sure you agree with the whole PETA program, because I'm sure you wouldn't post something from a group you disagree with just to get in a dig at a Democrat you don't like.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> That's good, ksinc. I'm sure you agree with the whole PETA program, because I'm sure you wouldn't post something from a group you disagree with just to get in a dig at a Democrat you don't like.


This does not address the argument nor show a great deal of respect for ksinc. I think ksinc's point is very valid, that a group which holds itself even more "green" than Gore is challenging him to further match his actions to his stated _raison d'etre_. I would suggest Jack that you deal with the point, not give us a personal inuendo, designed to incite flames, against the person bringing this information to our attention.

Regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As an anthropologist I know our rapid higher brain development came about by our genetic progenitors consuming proteins, aka meat. Cattle, more than any other animal until the horse's domestication shaped our world. From the great cave bulls of France to the Minoan bull dancers, Spanish bullfights and our own american mythic hero the cowboy, rice farmers and plains indians humanity has been 'having a cow' as Bart Simpson would phrase it. As an enironmentalist I know our vast animal herds cause negative impacts. As an environmentalist, and tieing in nicely with my chosen religous expressions, fasting and meatless days reduce my personal responsibility. I also know many PETA members go to the extreme of feeding dog and cat pets vegetarian diets. PETA is goofy, usefull idiots for more mainstream animal welfare and environmental groups to be more appealing in the national dialog. And Gore? WW2 cartoonist and writer Bill Mauldin recorded a word for him-Garritrooper. From the Saigon offices of journalism to his portly display of overconsumption at the Academy big Al has earned another moniker, poseur.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough March 7th said:


> That's good, ksinc. I'm sure you agree with the whole PETA program, because I'm sure you wouldn't post something from a group you disagree with just to get in a dig at a Democrat you don't like.


Wow, Jack. Short term memory loss?



jackmccullough March 4th said:


> ... it's pretty contemptible to blame the messenger ...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just surprised to hear that PETA is your kind of guys. Or, as I said before, maybe you really do subscribe to the values that lead to their views on Gore.

Did they say anything about Bush, by the way?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

So are you suggesting that PETA sets the debate terms for global warming? What /are/ you saying?

How does the position of a group that many here consider extreme to the point of labeling terrorist (I don't agree) discredit the (perhaps imperfect) efforts of Gore?

And I say that having not eaten an animal since 1994.



ksinc said:


> PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN'T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
> Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET
> 
> https://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' I think it is in this spirit that ksinc is posting. Politics is a circus full of Jan's hated clowns and mimes. The audience can hardly be as true to the code as Chuck Norris when the cremepies and water balloons start flying. Laurel and Hardy maybe, Chuck,no.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie, for shame! Millions of sentient, unique and created by God critters in your intestinal tract die converting those soy shakes, bananna and peanut butter on 7 grain bread sandwiches daily. They do so without complaint, redress or representation. And theres not a statue ( cough) or even a plaque ( cough) at the farmer's co op to honour them. But this ( cough) is the (cough) business we choose.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not blaming anyone. *I'm just surprised to hear that PETA is your kind of guys.* Or, as I said before, maybe you really do subscribe to the values that lead to their views on Gore.


Where did you "hear" that?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> So are you suggesting that PETA sets the debate terms for global warming? What /are/ you saying?


No. I didn't suggest/say anything. You're really out there, Bertie.



BertieW said:


> How does the position of a group that many here consider extreme to the point of labeling terrorist (I don't agree) discredit the (perhaps imperfect) efforts of Gore?


Huh? Maybe you can provide the answer to your own question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gentlemen:

Ksinc has given us an interesting article to read. I find attacks and innuendos against him for providing this to be disrespectful and clearly attempts at nothing but inciting a flame war. Does anyone disagree with the article's point as that is the only valid issue here. Dragging Bush in is a straw man and the disrespectful snide comments directed at ksnic are merely chafe. Does anyone have data to introduce that would indicate PETA is incorrect?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Gentlemen:
> Does anyone have data to introduce that would indicate PETA is incorrect?


According to the Policy Summary of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:




> Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increasedmarkedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, *while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture*


According to a 2000 report from the EIA, anthropogenic methane emissions in the US declined slightly from 1990 - 2000; however agricultural anthropogenic methane emissions increased 9.3% during the same time period, from 8.3 million metric tons to 9.1 million. The report describes the source of these emissions as follows:




> At an estimated 9.1 million metric tons, methane emissions from agricultural activities represent 32 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions . . . *Ninety-five percent of methane emissions from agricultural activities result from livestock management. About 65 percent of these emissions can be traced to enteric fermentation in ruminant animals, and the remainder is attributable to the anaerobic decomposition of livestock wastes. *A small portion of U.S. methane emissions result from crop residue burning and wetland rice cultivation. Estimated agricultural methane emissions increased slightly between 1999 and 2000 due mainly to an increase in emissions from enteric fermentation associated with continued growth in average cattle size.


 

Thus, it appears that, as of 2000, 8.65 million metric tons of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US, or about 30% of the total of such emissions, were attributable to domesticated cattle belching, farting, and shitting. This is both incredible and hilarious on a cosmic scale. So I guess PETA has a point: anyone truly concerned with the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases should at least lay off beef. On the other hand, the increase in agricultural methane emissions from 1999 to 2000 was attributed to the increase in average cattle size, so perhaps any modest decline in consumption would be offset by a corresponding increase in the size of the remaining livestock: the bigger the cow, the bigger the cow patty, I suppose.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for the research on a rather...crappy....topic Lushington, lol.

So there we have it. PETA has a point to Mr. Gore, than part of walking his walk would be to, as PETA would say, kick the meat habit. Point to PETA and ksinc.

Just for the record, I plan on having a pasta with chicken Italian hot sausage tonight for dinner, with Parma cheese no doubt made from farting Italian cows


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

PETA's position overlooks the fact that widespread vegetarianism may do nothing to effect methane emissions; The cows have gas becasue they eat plant products exclusively (and they've been highly evolved to do this). It's my understanding that Vegan and Vegetarian diets can also lead to excess gas and flatulence. If true we're merely decreasing cow flatulence and increasing human flatulence. Personally, I prefer the risk of cow flatulence which, at least can be eliminated in low density population states such as Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, etc. over the risk of human flatulence in and about my office. In short, though I have no empirical studies one way or the other, I think wide-spread vegetariansim/veganism would do nothing to curtail these harmful emissions.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ever try to cater an treehugger protest? A local eatery braved illegal police roadblocks to deliver some soup and bread. These two patchouli drenched and dreadlocked armchair activists from Humboldt State responded by giving them an interogation about it's vegan purity. The donators quietly began loading the food back in the VW bus until I interceded. Meanwhile, My gifts of bagged basmati rice, bulk restaurant pasta and individual soup portions was being critiqued for the excessive packaging. The final silyness was a Indian who showed up with Buffalo meat.Oh the horror! Then somebody mentioned buffalo was to the plains indians almost a sacrament. Us omnivores were already crowded around the fire as a few others made the moral decision to join in group solidarity and support the regeneration of the herds. By now the sweet aroma of buffalo meat with potato, carrots and onions was drawing a few rookie cops ( typically, Pacific Lumber had arrogantly gone to lunch and forgotten they were out there) We gave them the lentil soup and bread, and seeing their sad looks the last of the buffalo, much to the anquished cries of the two patchouli partisans overwhelmed by the rich aroma of hot food, abandoning their lookout stations and racing down to the camp.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thanks for the research on a rather...crappy....topic Lushington, lol.
> 
> So there we have it. PETA has a point to Mr. Gore, than part of walking his walk would be to, as PETA would say, kick the meat habit. Point to PETA and ksinc.


Well, I don't know about kicking the meat habit entirely: most of these industrial farts come from ruminants, i.e., cattle. Swine aren't ruminants, nor are poultry or fish, and goats aren't widely raised for the table in the US. Thus, merely eliminating beef would seem to accomplish whatever might be accomplished on an individual consumer level. Given that most beef commerically available these days tastes like it belongs on the sole of one's AE, Alden, C&J, or EG this really wouldn't be much of a sacrifice.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> PETA's position overlooks the fact that widespread vegetarianism may do nothing to effect methane emissions; The cows have gas becasue they eat plant products exclusively (and they've been highly evolved to do this). It's my understanding that Vegan and Vegetarian diets can also lead to excess gas and flatulence. If true we're merely decreasing cow flatulence and increasing human flatulence. Personally, I prefer the risk of cow flatulence which, at least can be eliminated in low density population states such as Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, etc. over the risk of human flatulence in and about my office. In short, though I have no empirical studies one way or the other, I think wide-spread vegetariansim/veganism would do nothing to curtail these harmful emissions.


If it isn't one thing, it's another.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I wonder if overall food production would go down if cattle were removed world wide from people's diets. I wonder this because I often drive through open ranges here in Arizona that simply have no ability what so ever to grow a food crop. I am willing to bet huge swaths of non-arable, or marginally so, land would stop being productive. 

So Rocker, are you saying PETA vegans are full of hot gas? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wayfarer, One of the failures of humanity is insisting on imposing familiar patterns on unfamiliar turfs. Your stomping grounds are hardly non productive and supported peoples for thousands of years. The irony is those same people now suffer one of the highest diabetic % in the world. This is solely from adopting our kleenex tissue bread, bologna and pepsi diet. www.nativeseeds.org have fun visiting if you haven't and also catch the butterfly garden in Tucson. The successful people during our great era of geographic discoveries shared one formula: They listened to the native people. If an Inuit says don't eat polar bear liver don't eat it. We can cut our global impact and improve our lives simply by not insisting on a mediterannean climate with a Starbucks on every corner.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Wayfarer, One of the failures of humanity is insisting on imposing familiar patterns on unfamiliar turfs. Your stomping grounds are hardly non productive and supported peoples for thousands of years. The irony is those same people now suffer one of the highest diabetic % in the world. This is solely from adopting our kleenex tissue bread, bologna and pepsi diet. www.nativeseeds.org- have fun visiting if you haven't and also catch the butterfly garden in Tucson. The successful people during our great era of geographic discoveries shared one formula: They listened to the native people. If an Inuit says don't eat polar bear liver don't eat it. We can cut our global impact and improve our lives simply by not insisting on a mediterannean climate with a Starbucks on every corner.


Kav, you're right on some stuff, but got hung up on my example vs. global.

Yes, the area did support peoples for thousands of years. Yes, you do not have to tell a guy that sees tribal folks every single day of his working life about what the Western diet is doing to them. The diabetes is the least of it, the sequellae such as amputations, non-healing wounds, etc. are the truly gut wrenching things.

However, I was looking at numbers of people and overall production of nutritive calories. Do not let my example of the Tucson area set the paradigm for this concept, i.e. marginal prarie land, marginal mountain areas, mongolian steppes, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if you removed ruminants from the indigenous people of the Mongolian steppes, for instance?

You gave a good point about local knowledge of food production.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> The successful people during our great era of geographic discoveries shared one formula: They listened to the native people.


Listening to native peoples in most of the southwestern US would entail abandoning virtually every settlement much larger than a pueblo, wouldn't it? Phoenix and Tucson now have population densities of close to 4000 ppsm, in environments that naturally would support, what, 1 ppsm? The Hohokam had a good run, but they couldn't possibily have had population densities near modern levels, could they?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I wonder if overall food production would go down if cattle were removed world wide from people's diets. I wonder this because I often drive through open ranges here in Arizona that simply have no ability what so ever to grow a food crop. I am willing to bet huge swaths of non-arable, or marginally so, land would stop being productive.


I remember reading extracts from a WWII era government report during college which analyzed this. Given that food was being rationed, the study was designed to analyze whether raising cattle (as I remember it - the study was restricted to cattle) was inefficient with respect to the cost of production (food, land use, etc.) v. calories produced (don't remember it going into discussions or analysis about vitamins, etc.) In short, the conclusion was that cattle production was inefficient when compared to raising various types of food crops, but that the reduction in meat availability would have a huge detrimental efect on morale and was not worth considering.


----------

