Climate activists’ anti-beef campaign is only so much flatulence

Caption: How climage change activists want you to see cows.

Climate Change activists are not unlike C. S. Lewis? apocryphal schoolboy?s God: ?The sort of person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and then trying to stop it?. The joyless narks of the Church of Gaia have no truck with overseas holidays (unless it?s them, flying to their endless 5-star ?summits?), cars or cheap electricity. As for a good, juicy steak?that sort of planet-killing hedonism is well out. Beef farming, environmentalists would have us believe, is so evil that cattle might as well be fed on the corpses of orang-utans and freshly-clubbed baby seals.

But it looks like, yet again, environmentalists? scaremongering is only so much cow flatulence. Quote:

A fuller picture is emerging of the environmental footprint of beef in the United States.

An Agricultural Research Service (ARS)-led team has completed a comprehensive life-cycle analysis quantifying the resource use and various environmental emissions of beef cattle production in the United States?

“The environmental footprint of producing beef has long been debated. One challenge is that the impacts extend beyond just those associated with growing the animals and include the impact of producing feed and other inputs. This is further complicated by the diversity of ways that beef cattle are managed and fed,” commented Marlen Eve, ARS deputy administrator for natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. “It is important to have an accurate quantification of these impacts to provide a baseline against which production system sustainability can be assessed and improved.” End of quote.

Greens are too often driven by emotion, knee-jerk gullibility, and cherry-picking from far-too-limited data. For instance, greens in the West are waging war on single-use plastics. Yet, almost none of the plastic in the oceans gets there from the West. Almost all of that turtle-killing plastic originates in Asia and Africa. Even worse, greens? virtue-signalling ?solutions? are often worse than the solution. Life-cycle analysis of single-use plastics compared to cotton bags shows that cotton bags would have to be used at least once a week for four years just to break even, environmentally, with a single-use plastic bag re-used once as a garbage bag (as they typically are). Ceramic or plastic cups have to be washed and re-used hundreds of times to have less impact than a single-use paper cup.

It turns out that the demonisation of beef is based on similar disinformation and emotive knee-jerking. Quote:

Among the results to emerge thus far:

? The seven regions’ combined beef cattle production accounted for 3.3 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions (By comparison, transportation and electricity generation together made up 56 percent of the total in 2016 and agriculture in general 9 percent).

? Fossil energy (for example, fuel) use in cattle production accounted for less than 1 percent of the total consumed nationally.\

? Cattle only consumed 2.6 pounds of grain per pound of beef cut weight (or, butchered carcass weight), which was comparable to pork and poultry. End of quote.

content.govdelivery

So cattle produce less greenhouse gases than smartphones ? yet, try and spot the climate-botherin? green activist without the latest model phone glued to their ear. Those electric cars don?t run on smug, either: they?re charged by the electricity generation that contributes ten times more greenhouse gases than cows.

So enjoy that steak, completely guilt-free.

40%
×