- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
and you have to get all the facts straight.
Only one letter noted that the (typical) conversion ratio for feed to beef is 16 to 1, not 6 to 1 as indicated in the article. 10 to 1 is about the best achieved for feed to beef; grass-fed with poor husbandry can be 20 to 1 or worse, depending on how long the cattle are left alive -- they keep eating their entire lives.
No "beef" with advocates of less reproduction or reduced population growth, but those who talk about getting rid of humanity should start with themselves or they are being hypocritical. Or start advocating genocide. Personally, I have no intention of ending my life or anyone else's to save the world for other species.
Several have noted important overlooked variables such as landfills, bulldozing forests for pasture OR farming. Even grazing is an issue; ungrazed grass absorbs more carbon. If everyone buys only local agricultural products, you do save on transportation.
Anyone who has owned a horse can tell you how much more they cost to operate than a car, particularly on a per mile basis, and remember, they are a 16 to 1 feed grain animal. De-mechanizing farming (returning to animal or human power instead of tractors) would probably produce more carbon, but I have never seen a detailed analysis.
Even walking is a problem. I walk a lot for both health and environmental reasons. It believe it beats driving my car, but given the extra calories I burn and therefore the carbon output used to produce the extra food I eat, it may well produce more ultimate carbon than using existing public transport, which produces very little incremental carbon per passenger until capacity is exceeded. This is another topic needing study.
All grass eaters produce methane. If we got rid of all humans and domestic animals entirely, antelope, deer, bison, etc. populations would expand to the limits of disease and starvation, producing huge amounts of methane and N2O. Of course, if you eliminate humans from the equation, who will care? The polar bears?
There are few free lunches in the carbon output realm. Most are already well known, i.e., direct energy savings or efficiency (turn off lights, A/C, more efficient vehicles and appliances), use carpooling and public transport, stay home, stop killing trees.
Most others involve complex trade offs. As you raise income and education levels, population growth declines, per capita energy consumption increases, but cleaner energy sources also become available, i.e., use of gas or solar / wind / nuclear electricity, instead of chopping trees and burning firewood or coal.
The one thing we rich folks cannot do is tell the world's poor to stop having babies. They will not listen, suspecting selfish ulterior motives. Morally speaking, I would much rather try to adapt to global warming than advocate genocide or totalitarianism.
