Environment, International, Society

Hamburgers and Hummers: Scientists Denounce Meat As Major Cause of Global Warming

300px-hamburger_sandwichAnother scientific report has denounced the environmental damage caused by beef consumption in the United States. Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada has released a study showing how cows consume a disproportionate amount of food (more than they produce in meat) and cause 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Beef is responsible for 78 percent of the emissions of meat consumption, even though it represents only 30 percent of the meat products.

A single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide — four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry. Thus, a switch from beef to chicken would cut emissions by 70 percent.

Hamburgers are therefore the hummers of our diet.

For the full story, click here.

31 thoughts on “Hamburgers and Hummers: Scientists Denounce Meat As Major Cause of Global Warming”

  1. I have found a website that gives the opposite side of the fence to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Very interesting site and has a lot of information contrary to ?AGW.

    They posit that the sun is the sol cause of global warming and that average temperatures have been dropping since about 2000 regardless of CO2 levels. They also say that CO2 levels have no effect on temperature, which is what I have always thought based on looking at historical data in the form of atmospheric CO2 from artic/anartic ice cores. So it looks like, if this is true, we are indeed going into the iceage or at least a cooling off phase. They say sun is going into a quiet period, so if this is true better buy stock in LL Bean and Eddie Bauer.

    one caveat though this is a website put out by a political party but they are quoting independent scientists. I offer as counter information.

    here is the link: http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/climate-change.html#notstopped

  3. well actually I am with you on the oil. I believe it is too important a resource to just piss away on running the car or bus.

  5. No, it doesn’t, but neither does saying a biological mechanism of unknown and unexplained origin magically refills oil deposits. As Carl Saga is famous for saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I’ll believe in Bigfoot when you bring me a tissue sample. What I said was accurate and I didn’t say your proposition was impossible, just unverified and highly unlikely. And still . . .

    None of this changes that just because oil is easy to extract energy from doesn’t mean that burning it is a good idea, renewable resource or not. Oil free power is a political goal (for various and apparent reasons). Carbon free power is the scientific goal.

  6. Buddha:

    it was a thought based on some things I have read.

    bigfoot gotta exist I see size 24 shoes in the big and tall magazines. That logic dosent cut it does it.

  8. Bron,

    Now you are treading into geological “bigfoot” territory. The idea that oil is generated by the substrata biomass is fringe science at best. As a liquid, petroleum can diffuse into porous rock layers. Also as a liquid, it will tend to seek the path of least resistance. When a void is created, either naturally or by drilling and pumping, the “pressurized” liquid (and by pressurized I mean pressure created by the very nature of being in the porous strata instead of a void) in the substrata would naturally migrate to fill a void. Gases behave the same way to a degree based on density. This refilling phenomena being based in subterranean biomass can be discounted when you consider a certain percentage of oil and gas well are artificially pressurized to aid in pumping. When you add pressure, it is logical that a certain amount of the material being pumped up will also go out into any surrounding porous rock to later return when lower pressure allows. Think of a leaky and drippy sponge being filled under pressure.

    Any geologists feel free to chime in or correct me, but I don’t think I’m out of my tree on that. I’m more comfortable in other areas of science. What can I say? So many books, so little time.

    None of this changes that just because oil is easy to extract energy from doesn’t mean that burning it is a good idea, renewable resource or not. Oil free power is a political goal (for various and apparent reasons). Carbon free power is the scientific goal.

  9. Gyges:

    thanks for the links.

    Here is another thought – the earth is not running out of oil it is full of oil in the form of methane one of the most prevelent compounds in the universe. Oil wells in Saudi Arabia refill and also the wells in La. that were slightly offshore in the 50’s and abandoned many years ago are refilling. Why?

    Personaly I never did think that decaying plant and animal life caused oil, oh maybe a portion of it but not all of it.

    the farther we go down the technological road the cleaner we will get. In 200 years our great great great grandchildren will look back at us and laugh their collective asses off.

Comments are closed.