Global Warming has gone too far...

bigdaddy

Banned
This is the only thing the republicans are correct about, global warming is hardly mans fault, however let's blame the cows and eat kangaroo!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/australiaclimatefoodkangaroosoffbeat

Eating kangaroos could help fight global warming: scientist

Wed Oct 1, 3:10 AM ET

An offbeat suggestion that Australians should eat kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep has been given a scientific stamp of approval by the government's top climate change adviser.
The belching and farting of millions of farm animals is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Ross Garnaut noted in a major report to the government on global warming.
Kangaroos, on the other hand, emit negligible amounts of methane gas.
If farmers were included in a system requiring industry to buy permits for the gas they produce, the cost of meat would rise and could lead to a change in eating habits, Garnaut said in the 600 page report released Wednesday.
"For most of Australia's human history -- around 60,000 years -- kangaroo was the main source of meat," he said.
"It could again become important. However, there are some significant barriers to this change, including livestock and farm management issues, consumer resistance and the gradual nature of change in food tastes."
Garnaut cited a study looking at the potential for kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle for meat production in Australia's rangelands, where kangaroos are already harvested.
The study concludes that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, allowing for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million now to 240 million by 2020.
This would be more than enough to replace the lost lamb and beef production, and kangaroo meat would become more profitable than cattle and sheep as the price of emissions permits increased.
Garnaut's report said livestock, mainly cattle and sheep, are responsible for some 67 percent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite being the national animal and appearing on the Australian coat of arms, millions of kangaroos are slaughtered in the wild each year to control their numbers and much of the meat is used for pet food.
The idea of farming them for human consumption is controversial, but many health-conscious Australians already eat kangaroo meat.
"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.
 
People need to stop eating beef anyways. Its the nastiest most unhealthy freaking meat out there. Most things you can make with beef you can make as well with something else like turkey burger anyways. Better for the environment and better for your health......and wallet almost forgot that.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']People need to stop eating beef anyways. Its the nastiest most unhealthy freaking meat out there. Most things you can make with beef you can make as well with something else like turkey burger anyways. Better for the environment and better for your health......and wallet almost forgot that.[/quote]

You can't make friends with salad or a turkey burger.
 
Turkey burgers are not as good as a good ole fashioned beef burger. Looks like no more High Life for you.

Oh, and to the OP. I've seen many people's positions on this matter and it's not that the world doesn't naturally go through cycles or that animals don't emit greehouse gases. We're just trying to slow down the process that seems to have been accelerated in the last century. People are trying to think of every possible way to stop it and sometimes people think of radical ideas. They're no more radical than some of the ideas that have been floated to get rid of foreign oil.

Besides, everyone should want emissions standards. There's nothing worse than sitting behind a truck (or car) that's belching out thick black smoke.
 
If you make actual burgers out of them ya I often can taste the difference. However we use it for meat loaf, chilli and many other things and really I cant tell the difference nor can my fiancee or any of the guests we have had at our house between venison, turkey and beef. Hell we served about 10 people turkey burger chilli the one night and most people were ranting about how great it was minus a few who couldnt handle the spice(I dont cook for wimps!).

"Besides, everyone should want emissions standards. There's nothing worse than sitting behind a truck (or car) that's belching out thick black smoke."

I would rather have that then sitting next to someone spewing thick white smoke out of their mouth.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I would rather have that then sitting next to someone spewing thick white smoke out of their mouth.[/quote]

I agree that cigarette smoke is bad but it really can't compare to some of the nasty crap that comes out of poorly maintenanced vehicles.
 
You make it sound like this is a far fetched absurd story. Thought it has been pretty well known that cow farting was bad for the environment. You than consider how much cattle is in the U.S .. the shit adds up.
Just doing a quick google search here's a bbc childrens article for 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6046900/6046962.stm

Using cows for meat is horrible for the environment. All the shit they produce, all the water that's put into them whether it be so they can drink or to grow the grains they must use.
 
[quote name='homeland']You make it sound like this is a far fetched absurd story. Thought it has been pretty well known that cow farting was bad for the environment. You than consider how much cattle is in the U.S .. the shit adds up.
Just doing a quick google search here's a bbc childrens article for 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6046900/6046962.stm

Using cows for meat is horrible for the environment. All the shit they produce, all the water that's put into them whether it be so they can drink or to grow the grains they must use.[/QUOTE]

Ya its not just their farts its also the fact that to make a cow takes something insane like 1,000 gallons of water. Then there is the fact of how much grain they eat, then the run off from farms that pollute everything within a 10 million mile radius, then the fact then the fact. Seriously cows are just dirty nasty resource consuming creatures.

On the plus side for all you beef eaters is the fact that scientists are working on beef that would be grown from Stem Cells. It not only would be eco friendly but actually would be grown to fight heart disease instead of causing it.
 
Bison has a better flavor than ground up turkey. I have a feeling that no one could taste the difference in your chili because of the spice level.

Don't get me wrong. I love spice but it tends to mask the flavor of whatever you're cooking. You can make dog taste like heaven if you put enough black pepper, cayenne, and other spices.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Bison has a better flavor than ground up turkey. I have a feeling that no one could taste the difference in your chili because of the spice level.

Don't get me wrong. I love spice but it tends to mask the flavor of whatever you're cooking. You can make dog taste like heaven if you put enough black pepper, cayenne, and other spices.[/QUOTE]

But as I said burgers your meant to taste the meat and the condiments are lighter in flavor. Most other thins like meat loaf or chilli if your making properly(IMO)its all about the spices and other things you add.
 
Can't find much Bison meat in my area. Same with Kangaroo meat.

A Kangaroo burger sounds pretty sweet actually. A burger with a pouch that you could put condiments in!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ruby Tuesday's has bison burgers. Are you near one of those?[/QUOTE]

Heh ya have fun paying $12 for a fucking burger!
 
Actually I know cow farts are heating up the planet, my point is global warming itself is a joke. Human aren't helping, but we are no where near as big of a problem as the press makes it to be. The planet warms, before humans the planet was at least 10-15 degrees warming than today. The planet warms, then it cools, that's how it works. Eating less cows won't do anything, however the cows might be happier.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Actually I know cow farts are heating up the planet, my point is global warming itself is a joke. Human aren't helping, but we are no where near as big of a problem as the press makes it to be. The planet warms, before humans the planet was at least 10-15 degrees warming than today. The planet warms, then it cools, that's how it works. Eating less cows won't do anything, however the cows might be happier.[/QUOTE]

Wow you really are a moron huh? I know your ultra conservative but I didnt think you were to the point of being a fuck science and logic give me guns and meat kinda guy. Regardless of global warming(which your attitude is stupid towards)there is the fact that we know that these cows are huge pollutants and the hormons and other shit we have to pump them with is causing crazy effects in human beings.

I am not some peta nut saying dont eat meat.....but Christ its just logic that beef is bad.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Wow you really are a moron huh? I know your ultra conservative but I didnt think you were to the point of being a fuck science and logic give me guns and meat kinda guy. Regardless of global warming(which your attitude is stupid towards)there is the fact that we know that these cows are huge pollutants and the hormons and other shit we have to pump them with is causing crazy effects in human beings.

I am not some peta nut saying dont eat meat.....but Christ its just logic that beef is bad.[/quote]

So much anger.

Beef needs to be regulated better. No hormones. No antibiotics. Just vaccines and vitamins. There'll be less beef polluting the world. Isn't that easier?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']So much anger.

Beef needs to be regulated better. No hormones. No antibiotics. Just vaccines and vitamins. There'll be less beef polluting the world. Isn't that easier?[/QUOTE]

How is it that less hormones and antibotics equal less beef pollution the world? Its the same amount just without the additives that are gunking up peoples systems(you can go back to just having the beef itself kill you!).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']How is it that less hormones and antibotics equal less beef pollution the world? Its the same amount just without the additives that are gunking up peoples systems(you can go back to just having the beef itself kill you!).[/quote]

Hormones and low levels of antibiotics increase weight gain.

Instead of a bull or steer being 800 pounds, it'll be 900 pounds.

To maintain that weight, it requires more food.
 
I've never drank alcohol or smoked, so I think I'm entitled to red meat (I'll be a Democrat soon, saying stuff like this ;) ).

Cow farts are already considered something to take seriously for the evil co2 ruining the planet by many in the cult, how long before human farts are next? 10 years from now, maybe we'll be offing our most gassy people to save gaia.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've never drank alcohol or smoked, so I think I'm entitled to red meat (I'll be a Democrat soon, saying stuff like this ;) ).[/quote]

Are you a mormon?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Wow....[/quote]

You are a fucking tool. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. I have studied plants and how the planet works instead of the bullshit lies Al Gore tells to make money.

I watched a program last month saying that 10,000 years ago (I think it was then, maybe 100,000, doesn't matter) that the water where the guy was standing was 30 feet higher than it was today, and that human made global warming will rise the water that high again. 10,000 years ago there was no human made global warming, so what made the water go that high? It just happens, that's how it is. Right now, and for the last hundred plus years, we have been on the increase in solar energy and radiation from the sun, that's what is causing the growth, and there are charts to prove that just like there are charts to prove that Al Gore was right, and charts to prove there is a God. Science isn't an exact science. In 50 years what we think we know today will be laughable. Until 10 years ago we didn't even know of any planets outside our solar system, 50 years ago we thought that our Milky Way was the universe, could we be anymore wrong?

So open up your mind and stop listening to the bullshit that these fuckers are telling you. We should stop using cars with 10 miles a gallon because it will help us, not save the planet. The planet will always live on no mater what we do.
 
No doubt that the planet goes through cycles of cold and hot. It's just some of us believe that humans are accelerating the process this time. Maybe it won't be a big effect but oil consumption and population are only going up and more and more gases will be released into the atmosphere. Let's all sit down and figure out how we can lessen them and let the planet take a natural course instead of accelerated one because no one wants to admit that we have an effect.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']You are a fucking tool. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. I have studied plants and how the planet works instead of the bullshit lies Al Gore tells to make money.

I watched a program last month saying that 10,000 years ago (I think it was then, maybe 100,000, doesn't matter) that the water where the guy was standing was 30 feet higher than it was today, and that human made global warming will rise the water that high again. 10,000 years ago there was no human made global warming, so what made the water go that high? It just happens, that's how it is. Right now, and for the last hundred plus years, we have been on the increase in solar energy and radiation from the sun, that's what is causing the growth, and there are charts to prove that just like there are charts to prove that Al Gore was right, and charts to prove there is a God. Science isn't an exact science. In 50 years what we think we know today will be laughable. Until 10 years ago we didn't even know of any planets outside our solar system, 50 years ago we thought that our Milky Way was the universe, could we be anymore wrong?

So open up your mind and stop listening to the bullshit that these fuckers are telling you. We should stop using cars with 10 miles a gallon because it will help us, not save the planet. The planet will always live on no mater what we do.[/QUOTE]

Dude, you're wasting your finger muscles on someone that I can guarantee didn't read past the second line, but will respond with several paragraphs of how wrong you are.

BTW, everything you said is correct.

[quote name='camoor']
Are you a mormon?[/quote]
Not a very good or typical one.

[quote name='depascal22']No doubt that the planet goes through cycles of cold and hot. It's just some of us believe that humans are accelerating the process this time. Maybe it won't be a big effect but oil consumption and population are only going up and more and more gases will be released into the atmosphere. Let's all sit down and figure out how we can lessen them and let the planet take a natural course instead of accelerated one because no one wants to admit that we have an effect.[/QUOTE]

That's very sensible. And I'm on board with it. We differ, however, on just how much "effort", should be given to do so. Where effort = raised taxes or screwing over our economy further.

But I'm on board with cleaning up the environment for more logical reasons. I just exchanged one of my garbage cans for a recycle can last week. My going "green" might not be radical enough to satisfy many, but I'm trying to put my words into actions.
 
Recycling is a great first step.

I don't think much effort has to go into it curbing global warming. Emissions standards help the envirornment and the people that live around heavily congested areas. Newsweek had an article about people that live in Oakland. There's a part of Oakland where interstates 80/880/980 and CA 24 all intersect. The houses in that area had an ashtma rate that was ridiculously high in the 80s and early 90s. California and the city of Oakland enacted strict emissions standards and now the asthma levels (while still high) are more in line with a large city instead of the inside of coal power plant.

The other thing we can do is alternative energy and that doesn't even have to apply to cars. If we all installed solar panels, how much gas, oil, and coal would we save? That and a couple wind farms where it's feasible would save this country alot of heartache down the road.

It's just that we hear global warming is a farce so who cares. Drill, baby, drill!!! More oil. More coal.
 
[quote name='depascal22'] Drill, baby, drill!!! More oil. [/QUOTE]

its not about more oil, its about our oil. and both candidates at this point have said they would support more domestic drilling and investing in alternative energies.
 
[quote name='depascal22']R
It's just that we hear global warming is a farce so who cares. Drill, baby, drill!!! More oil. More coal.[/QUOTE]
You know I had this weird thought this morning, I just want to lay it out and see what you think.

IF it were suddenly concluded by most scientists that global warming were real, but it was actually being caused mostly by the sun - to devastating effect, would it not make more sense then to funnel all money and tax breaks we were going to use on clean energy, to fund some type of science project on how to send a probe to the sun to try and alter it? (kind of like the movie sunshine).
In other words, is all the "change" to curb global warming REALLY about curbing global warming? Are we really ready to tackle, as a planet, WHATEVER were found to be the true cause of global warming? The alarmists want us to believe that our very survival is at stake, and if that's true, I'd hope they'd be ready to turn their focus on a dime with the research.

Anyway, I thought "global warming" was the old term to use now anyway. I thought we were suppose to say "Climate Change", since the past couple of years, several places have had record low temperatures.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']its not about more oil, its about our oil. and both candidates at this point have said they would support more domestic drilling and investing in alternative energies.[/QUOTE]

Right. Most people need to understand that the "drill baby drill" weirdos, aren't just trying to lower gas prices. Their goal is to be energy independent asap. And they simply believe that can happen faster through the "all or above" approach, versus only going clean energy approach.
 
I have no problem with drilling but it seems like a waste of money to do it and not demand that automakers make vehicles more efficient and car owners to do proper maintenance (which emissions standards help to enforce). Why can't we drill and ask automakers to give us 40mpg cars so that the oil we do have lasts a little longer?

I know Congress passed a law that said the Big 3 have to increase mileage by 15% in the next decade but that same law says that automakers can petition to have that requirement waived. Guess what? The Big 3 have already lobbied to have the requirements waived because they said it was impossible to be compliant.

Also, why do people keep saying that our oil will make us independent? There's never been a single estimate that says there is enough oil to make us independent. Most estimates put the supply at only lasting a century. It's the biggest farce the right has ever foisted on the public. And don't forget the decade we have to wait for the first barrel to come through the line.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I have no problem with drilling but it seems like a waste of money to do it and not demand that automakers make vehicles more efficient and car owners to do proper maintenance (which emissions standards help to enforce). Why can't we drill and ask automakers to give us 40mpg cars so that the oil we do have lasts a little longer? [/quote]
Who cares if drilling oil is a waste of money, as long as it's the Oil company's money?

I'm perfectly fine with enforcing car mpg like that. Especially since they already have those cars in Europe. Ford makes a 45mpg diesel car in England. The primary reason they won't make it here, according to them, is that Diesel is too hard to market to Americans, who all seem to think Hybrids are awesome.

I know Congress passed a law that said the Big 3 have to increase mileage by 15% in the next decade but that same law says that automakers can petition to have that requirement waived. Guess what? The Big 3 have already lobbied to have the requirements waived because they said it was impossible to be compliant.
If that's true, that sucks. There is no reason why we can't at least have the same cars Europe has.

Also, why do people keep saying that our oil will make us independent? There's never been a single estimate that says there is enough oil to make us independent. Most estimates put the supply at only lasting a century. It's the biggest farce the right has ever foisted on the public. And don't forget the decade we have to wait for the first barrel to come through the line.

Eh, I heavily disagree here. First of all, the estimates of how much oil is in this continent, is very heavily contested depending on who you talk to. Some even claim that North Alaska (mostly off shore) has a 200 year supply.

Then you have stuff like Shale oil, which is a pain to extract, but many company's are making headway. And why not let them? If they can find cheap, fast, efficient was to process shale oil, then that's another several hundred years supply .

Also, even assuming you are right in your estimates, and it's impossible for us to be oil independent, the less we are dependent on countries that hate us for oil, the better. So I say, why not let people/company's try?

Don't throw any taxpayer money at it, but let the free market, under heavy environmental regulation, allow exploration of new sources of energy, both carbon and non carbon.

I understand the concerns of how it might not work out, but I don't understand why those concerns should prevent us from trying. It isn't really costing taxpayers anything to lift bans and allow R&D by private company's.
 
The problem is that private companies don't give two shits about the environment. It will be about the bottom line and making sure that you don't make a mess isn't high on the list of cost effective strategies.

Don't forget that shale oil cost more to process than crude oil. As of 2005, Estonia, Romania, and Russia have shut down their oil shale plants to switch to natural gas. The only places that are still using oil shale are developing countries. Egypt and Jordan plan on building oil shale plants.

The most efficient way to get oil shale is strip mining and open pit mining. Since most of the oil shale in America is in the Green River basin, we would have huge open mines in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The acid runoff from these mines would spoil the drinking water for all three states and several outlying states.

So yeah, I'm very against oil shale.

EDIT -- I'm saying that the money that could research oil shale could do more researching wind, solar, and even nuclear even though I'm not so hot on that either.
 
I still have to disagree. I have family members that are currently working with scientists that have a hand full of new and innovative ways for extracting oil shale that don't require strip mining or open pit mining.

See, your position seems to be "The technology to extract it currently is bad/expensive". Fine. If that's true, then why not say "Ok, you can try to extract and process it, but you can't do it this way, and you have to abide by these rules"? Why doesn't that make more sense instead of "Well current ways of extraction are bad, so we are going to ban it all together." Doesn't seem very progressive. ;)

And another thing about expensive - as prices of oil go up, why not let private corporations decide if their methods of extraction can be refined to make it profitable. It makes no sense to make a blanket ban on anything, as long as all the proper environmental safeguards are in place.

Again, the only cost to any of this to the tax payer is environmental regulations, which imo are already a runaway train of expenditure, so let it do it's job.

My main beef with the lefts entire position on this, is that their frame of reference for current methods of extraction for all sources of energy are somehow frozen in time. They can't be improved. Time frames can't be accelerated. Technology can't be made better and cleaner to extract. So we should just ban it all together. Makes no sense to me. It's a good thing we didn't have that attitude about the Manhatten project.
 
bread's done
Back
Top