Well
now, this brings up a whole new dimension of climate change.
Evidently, not only is your SUV killing the environment, your
food is too.
People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
This idea is really nothing new. Sadly, so many actually fall for this. Regardless of not whether or not one believes global warming exists (though in recent times, the "stronghold" of global warming seems to have fallen a bit), one can not simply agree with this idea. This is not because methane may be twenty-five more times potent than carbon dioxide, but rather because this deals with the idea of putting the "global environment" above life (albeit animal life).
However, life isn't the only issue here. Take a second to imagine what would happen if this passes. Suppose there is a "methane cap" put in place. Each cow would most certainly be given an approximate methane value, and of course, the livestock population would be forced to dwindle. This would result in an incredible spike in the prices of beef and dairy, due to mass lowering of supply without proportionate lowering in demand. Combine this with a spike in production costs due to the new technologies one would have to implement to ensure that the methane caps are not exceeded (which, of course, the consumer will pick up the tab for). Just for fun, let's throw in a dollar at a 14 month low. What are they thinking? Our economy is struggling to recover enough as it is. There is a large portion of the American society sees beef and dairy products as necessities as opposed to luxuries. I firmly believe that should this cap take place, it won't effect demand (if anything, shortages - whether natural or manmade - have been known to increase demand), but rather, it will just cause vast rises in the prices.. This spike, coupled with an already recessed economy seems to me just to be turning a bad situation to worse. Again, I am a capitalist. If one feels so strongly about this, then by all means, turn to forums and debates and express your ideas out there. Allow supply and demand to take care of it's own. With only 21% of the US population approving of Congress, isn't it clear that the American population isn't looking to government for more (failed) resolutions and legislation?
Beyond that, however, is the fact that cows are only responsible for so much methane output. There is one (among others) major source of methane: humans. Now, it is true that on average, a cow "methane release" is generally less than that of a human (due to mass differences between the two). It has been estimated that there are 1.3 billion cows in the world. However, the world population (of people) is just shy of 6,800,000,000. How then, are they going to control the human methane producers? Are there going to be caps on the maximum allowable "gas passes" per day (with, of course, hefty fines for offenders)? Are we going to have to pay an "environmental clean-up" fee to get "methane-prone" foods? Are we going to have to go to a station once a year to receive a "methane rating" for tax purposes? Following this idea of "capping the methane producers" to it's logical extent would include restrictions on human population (as a whole, not just individual methane production) as well. This is clearly an unacceptable answer to the global warming question.
In short, I firmly believe in helping the environment where you can. Regardless of whether one believes that global warming exists (and is a problem) or not, one can not argue that newer, more energy efficient technologies are a "good" thing. Personally, I do use energy efficient light bulbs. My appliances are energy efficient as well. However, my car packs a V8 and heated leather interior (cows!), and I'm quite proud of it. Being good stewards of the environment is always a good thing, regardless of whether or not one believes that the environment needs to be saved. By all means, if one wishes to drive a hybrid, do so, and I shall respect you for it. But that is where I believe it should end. I do not believe that anyone (individual or entity) has the right to tell me that I can not use my hard-earned dollars to buy a large SUV if that is what I so desire. Environmentally friendly choices should be a personal decision, not a legislated one. Democracy was founded on personal choices. As history has so often shown us, once a government takes "responsibility" for the people, they are no longer responsible (free to decide) for themselves.
---TNJ
Leave a comment