Trump just removed the US from the Paris climate accords

[toexist]

- GREENHOUSE GASES -
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.


"Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions. [.i]


Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

"Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006

Environmental Protection Agency. "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data".

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.


Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)

Vaidyanathan, Sayathri. "How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas is Methane? The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated". Scientific American. December 22, 2015.

"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potential". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (New)

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.


Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)

"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 2.10.2. Direct Global Warming Potentials". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (new)



Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.


"Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006

"Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011



Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.
Tilman, David & Clark, Michael. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health". Nature. Vol. 515. 27 November 2014

Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.


"Carbon Dioxide Emissions to 2040". Energy Global. 06 January 2015

"World Energy Outlook 2014 Factsheet". International Energy Agency.

"International Energy Outlook 2016". U.S. Energy Information. May 11, 2016



US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.


"Overview of Greenhouse Gases". United States Environmental Protection Agency.

"Key facts and findings. By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock". FAO. (New)

"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2015". United States Environmental Protection Agency (new)



Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. [xi]


Ross, Phillip. "Cow Farts Have 'Larger Greenhouse Gas Impact' Than Previously Thought; Methane Pushes Climate Change". International Business Times. 26 November, 2013

250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 - 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4 globally per day.

Miller, Scot M, et al. "Anthropegnic emissions of methane in the United States". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 110. No. 50. 18 October 2013 (new)

Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.


"Infographic: How Much it Would Cost for the Entire Planet to Switch to Renewable Energy". Inhabitat. 24 September, 2013

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose. "Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution". The Telegraph. 28 October, 2015 (New)



Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.
Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.

Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.
"Industry Leaders, including Energy Companies, Forge Partnerships to Advance Climate Solutions and Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants". Climate Summit 2014.

- WATER -
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.


"Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources". EPA. February 2011

Geetanjali, Chauhan, et al. "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and its Environmental Impacts". Research Journal of Recent Sciences. Vol. 4 (ISC-2014), 1-7 (2015) (New)



Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually. [ii] [xv]


"Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005". United States Geological Service

Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience. (2004) 54 (10): 909-918

Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption. [xv]


"How Important is Irrigation to U.S. Agriculture?" USDA: Economic Research Service. 12 October, 2016



Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US. [xv]


Jacobson, Michael F. “Six Arguments For a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment. Chapter 4: More and Cleaner Water”. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.



Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day. Close to Half is associated with meat and dairy products.


Fulton, Julian, et al. "California's Water Footprint". Pacific Institute. December 2012

2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.


(NOTE. The amount of water used to produce 1lb. of beef vary greatly from 442 - 8000 gallons. We choose to use in the film the widely cited conservative number of 2500 gallons per pound of US beef from Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, "Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water." )

Robbins, John. "2,500 gallons all wet?" Earth Save: Healthy People Healthy Planet.

Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience (2004) 54 (10): 909-918. (New)

"Water Content of Things: Data Table 19". The World's Water 2008-2009

Beckett, J. L, Oltjen, J. W "Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States". Journal of Animal Science. 1993. 71:818-826

"Water". Environmental Working Group.

"Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison". Water Footprint Network. (New)



Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs; almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese.


"Water". Environmental Working Group.

"Food Facts: How Much Water Does it Take to Produce...?" Water Education Foundation. (New)



1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.


Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "The water footprint of food". Water for Food.

Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products". Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415



5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture. [xv]


Jacobson, Michael F. “Six Arguments For a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment. Chapter 4: More and Cleaner Water”. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.



Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today.


Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products". Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415

Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. et al. "The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems". Water Resources and Industry. Vol. 1-2, March-June 2013, Pages 25-36

Herrero, Mario, et al. "Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. vol. 110 no. 52

Oppenlander DDS, Richard. "Freshwater Abuse and Loss. Where Is It All Going?" Forks over Knives. May 20,2013



- LAND -
Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land.


"Livestock a major threat to environment. Remedies urgently needed". FAO Newsroom. 29 November 2006

Walsh, Bryan. "The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production". Time. Dec. 16, 2013 (New)



Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land.


Thornton, Phillip, et al. "Livestock and climate change". Livestock xchange. International Livestock Research Institute. November 2011

Smith, Pete & Bustamante, Mercedes, et al. "Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 11



Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. [xix] [iv]


Animal agriculture contributes to species extinction in many ways. In addition to the monumental habitat destruction caused by clearing forests and converting land to grow feed crops and for animal grazing, predators and "competition" species are frequently targeted and hunted because of a perceived threat to livestock profits. The widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers used in the production of feed crops often interferes with the reproductive systems of animals and poison waterways. The overexploitation of wild species through commercial fishing, bushmeat trade as well as animal agriculture’s impact on climate change, all contribute to global depletion of species and resources. [XIX]



"Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification". comfortablyunaware: Global Depletion and Food Choice Responsibility. June 9, 2012

"Freshwater Depletion: Realities of Choice". comfortablyunaware: Global Depletion and Food Choice Responsibility. November 25, 2014

"What is a dead zone?" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

"What Causes Ocean 'Dead Zones'?" Scientific American

"Nutrient Pollution: The Problem". Environmental Protection Agency

"Livestock's Long Shadow". Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. 2006

Hogan, C Michael. "Causes of Extinction". The Encyclopedia of Earth. June 13, 2014

"The Habitable Planet. Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline// Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences". Annenberg Learner

"Impact of habitat loss on species". WWF Global

"How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet". Take Extinction Off Your Plate: a project of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Machovina, Brian, et al. "Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption". Science of the Total Environment 536 (2015) 419-431

"Risk Management Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004Hance, Jeremy. "How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction". The Guardian. 20 October 2015 (New)

Zielinski, Sarah. "Ocean Dead Zones Are Getting Worse Globally Due to Climate Change". Smithsonian.com. November 10, 2014 (New)

Tilman, David, et al. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices". Nature 418, 671-677. August 2002 (New)

Wilcove, David S, et al. "Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States". BioScience. Vol. 48, No. 8 (Aug., 1998) pp. 607-615 (New)



Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.


"NOAA-, EPA-supported scientists find average but large Gulf dead zone". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August 4, 2014

Zielinski, Sarah. "Ocean Dead Zones Are Getting Worse Globally Due to Climate Change". Smithsonian.com. November 10, 2014 (New)



Largest mass extinction in 65 million years.


Eldredge, Niles. "The Sixth Extinction". ActionBioscince. June 2001

"Mass extinction of species has begun". Phys.org. February 23, 2006

Ceballos, Gerardo, et al. "Accelerated modern human-induced species loss: Entering the sixth mass extinction". Science Advances. 19 June 2015. Vol. 1, no. 5



2-5 acres of land are used per cow.


McBride, William D., Mathews Jr., Kenneth. "The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms". USDA: Economic Research Service. Number 73. March 2011

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work.

Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture.


Glaser, Christine, et al. "Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America's Public Lands". For the Center for Biological Diversity. January 2015

The US lower 48 states represents 1.9 billion acres. Of that 1.9 billion acres: 778 million acres of private land are used for livestock grazing (forest grazing, pasture grazing, and crop grazing), 345 million acres for feed crops, 230 million acres of public land are used for grazing livestock.

Nickerson, Cynthia, et al. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007". USDA: Economic Research Service. Number 89. December 2011

"Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns". UN News Centre. 29 November 2006

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver. [xviii]


"UN launches International Year of Deserts and Desertification". UN News Centre. 1 January 2006

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Hogan, C Michael. "Overgrazing". The Encyclopedia of Earth. May 1, 2010

"Desertification, Drought Affect One Third of Planet, World's Poorest People, Second Committee Told as It Continues Debate on Sustainable Development". United Nations Sixty-seventh General Assembly: Second Committee. 8 November 2012

Oppenlander, Richard. "Saving the World With Livestock? The Allan Savory Approach Examined". Free from Harm. August 6, 2013



- WASTE -
Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.


This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US. [v]

"Animal Manure Management". USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. RCA Issue Bief #7. December 1995

"Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook". USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Part 651

"Agricultural Waste Characteristics". Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. USDA. Chapter 4



A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]


"Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations".Environmental Protection Agency. 2004



130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US. [xii]


"Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices". United States General Accounting Office. July 1999



In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second:


-Dairy Cows, 120 lbs. of waste per day x 9.32 million dairy cows

-Cows, 63 lbs. of waste per day x 83.68 million cows

-Calves, 30 lbs. of waste per day x 34.3 million calves

-Pigs, 14 lbs. of waste per day x 74 million pigs

-Sheep and Goats, 5 lbs. of waste per day x 7.84 million sheep and goats

-Turkeys, .87 lbs. of waster per day x 77 million turkeys

-Broiler Chickens, .50 lbs. of waste per day x 1.74 billion broiler chickens

-Laying Hens, .25 lbs. of waster per day x 350.7 million laying hens

*pigs are raised twice per year, (a total of 148.3 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are about 74 million pigs.

*turkeys are raised three times per year (a total of 233 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are 77 million turkeys.

*broiler chickens are raised 5 times per year, (a total of 8.69 billion per year) so any given day there are1.74 billion broiler chickens.

Dairy Cows produce (120 lbs. x 9.32 m.) = 1.1184 billion lbs.

Cows produce (63 lbs. x 83.68 m.) = 5.27184 billion lbs.

Calves produce (30 lbs. x 34.3 m.) = 1.029 billion lbs.

Pigs produce (14 lbs. x 74.0 m.) = 1.036 billion lbs.

Sheep and Goats produce (5 lbs. x 7.84 m.) = 39.2 million lbs.

Turkeys produce (.87 lbs. x 77.0 m.) = 66.99 million lbs.

Broiler Chickens produce (.5 x 1.74 b.) = 870 million lbs.

Laying Hens produce (.25 x 350.7 m.) = 87.675 million lbs.



*Total manure produced in one day is 9.519105 billion lbs.

*Total manure produced in one year is 3.475 trillion lbs.

 

[Maverick]

The number in my post above was 2011, these figures are from 2016 again from the EPA

Electricity production (29 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 67 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.

Transportation (27 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes gasoline and diesel.

Industry (21 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.

Commercial and Residential (12 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.


Agriculture (9 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.8 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

One can play tit for tat all day long from various links and orgs, it's all these competing figures that causes amongst the policy makers that generally comes to a tax conclusion such as carbon tax, fart tax etc... such as what the UN tried to implement both carbon and fart tax, somehow all them numbers end up being excuses for taxes. ironic really!

 

[Maverick]

Thanks Mav.... you just stepped on my big toe....

We get our power from TVA. Lots of dams around here on the Tennessee river. All owned by TVA. All have generator systems.

Also, they have several nuclear power plants. One about 12 miles from me.

So, tell me, what do they use to generate our power? Natural gas. Why, pray tell, can't they generate power with their damn dams?

Cause the *******s can charge more for the NG generated power than the damn dam generated power.

Sorry... it just pisses me off.....

It's about the money. It's a good question, why are they using natural gas? Our dam here got caught taking kickbacks a few years ago by lowering the power output, wonder if that is your case?

 

[toexist]

The number in my post above was 2011, these figures are from 2016 again from the EPA

Electricity production (29 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 67 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.

Transportation (27 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes gasoline and diesel.

Industry (21 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.

Commercial and Residential (12 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.


Agriculture (9 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.8 percent of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

One can play tit for tat all day long from various links and orgs, it's all these competing figures that causes amongst the policy makers that generally comes to a tax conclusion such as carbon tax, fart tax etc... such as what the UN tried to implement both carbon and fart tax, somehow all them numbers end up being excuses for taxes. ironic really!

Bottomline...let's agree to disagree on this. Unless you watch documentary for yourself (which I'm sure u wont)...there really isnt anything to discuss. It's not exactly what you'd expect.

 

[WGregMiller]

It's about the money. It's a good question, why are they using natural gas? Our dam here got caught taking kickbacks a few years ago by lowering the power output, wonder if that is your case?

Yep. Have been for at least 20 years. The nuclear power is used "elsewhere". The only reason I know is I know lots of people who work for them. Annoys the hell out of me....

I do know that, according to my friends, state law limits price per kilowatt off dams, but not so much off NG....

 

[drt4lfe]

let's just kill every animal on earth and see what happens.....let's knock down every dam.....close every power plant.....shut down every fossil fuel vehicle and the earth will be saved.....since that is not gonna happen, let's just quit playing with stats that get manipulated in every manner possible by every side that uses stats to make a point that 99.99% of the people could give a crap about...

 

[toexist]

let's just kill every animal on earth and see what happens.....let's knock down every dam.....close every power plant.....shut down every fossil fuel vehicle and the earth will be saved.....since that is not gonna happen, let's just quit playing with stats that get manipulated in every manner possible by every side that uses stats to make a point that 99.99% of the people could give a crap about...

Or you could just...not respond...dirt for life.

 

[Maverick]

I figured the forum is open to the community One may disagree on some things if not many things with other members and still remain cordial and many on here even through disagreement I have abundance of respect for with the many member here but we shouldn't tell other member not to respond to a post because one disagrees.

 

[toexist]

I figured the forum is open to the community One may disagree on some things if not many things with other members and still remain cordial and many on here even through disagreement I have abundance of respect for with the many member here but we shouldn't tell other member not to respond to a post because one disagrees.

If someone has nothing to contribute to an argument and is just responding to blow smoke...their response is irrelevant in my opinion. I wasnt telling anyone to do anything. I was making a suggestion. People often get involved in arguments here without reading prior content. If he would have read prior...I was avoiding the statistics game for that reason. You decided to post stats...so I countered with stats of my own.

Unless someone were to watch the documentary first...there really isn't anything to argue.

If I find an argument to be ridiculous...I don't get involved in it. If I'm commenting on something...well than I guess I really dont think its all that ridiculous.

 

[Maverick]

drt4lfe post is just as valid to the OP discussion.

 

[toexist]

drt4lfe post is just as valid to the OP discussion.

Maverick I think your the first person I've encountered whom likes to argue more than me. I wouldn't be surprised if u were to debate me in the earth being round at this point.

 

[Maverick]

Regarding the film, not even the global warming proponents agree with the films numbers.

"Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's claim that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang; not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. He asserts methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and claims that the scientific community has formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels. Boucher claims the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% claimed by the film.

The Union of Concerned Scientists review concludes by alleging that livestock does indeed contribute to global warming—albeit at a far lower rate than the film claims—and notes that the film's allegation of a scientific 'conspiracy' to suppress knowledge belies the vast amount of literature published on the topic of livestock's contribution to greenhouse emissions."

 

[Maverick]

No, the earth is round... thus we agree

 

[toexist]

Regarding the film, not even the global warming proponents agree with the films numbers.

"Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's claim that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang; not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. He asserts methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and claims that the scientific community has formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels. Boucher claims the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% claimed by the film.

The Union of Concerned Scientists review concludes by alleging that livestock does indeed contribute to global warming—albeit at a far lower rate than the film claims—and notes that the film's allegation of a scientific 'conspiracy' to suppress knowledge belies the vast amount of literature published on the topic of livestock's contribution to greenhouse emissions."

Maverick I can Google anything and find someone who agrees with me as it relates to ANY subject. So am now supposed to copy and paste one of the countless positive reviews on the Internet in order to prolong this debate about a documentary you havent seen and likely will never see?

 

[Maverick]

I don't have to watch it, you are taking the film as absolute truth but peer review from the scientific community and the EPA states there where never a peer review and discounts the numbers, the film is not new, I known about the film for a couple of years when the university pulled the Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang report from required reading because the numbers didn't go through peer review and later discounted, the numbers came from Worldwatch Institute report and the authors were Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang whom were part of the films making. The university is the same university my Wife works at and I knew about the discrepancy then regarding the numbers in the film. Even the EPA own number under the enviro President obummer discounted those findings. The liberal scientific community that's been pushing for the carbon tax even discounted the numbers.

 

[toexist]

I don't have to watch it, you are taking the film as absolute truth but peer review from the scientific community and the EPA states there where never a peer review and discounts the numbers, the film is not new, I known about the film for a couple of years when the university pulled the Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang report from required reading because the numbers didn't go through peer review and later discounted, the numbers came from Worldwatch Institute report and the authors were Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang whom were part of the films making. The university is the same university my Wife works at and I knew about the discrepancy then regarding the numbers in the film. Even the EPA own number under the enviro President obummer discounted those findings. The liberal scientific community that's been pushing for the carbon tax even discounted the numbers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/?ref_=nv_sr_1

You're speaking as if everything you're saying is fact. The documentary explores the corruption that exists within environmental agencies which you base your facts on.

Like I said before...will agree to disagree. I certainly don't agree with your take on this documentary...which you HAVEN'T seen.

 

[Brent S]

One thing I do agree with is that behind most documentaries someone was pushing their agenda. I don't agree with the numbers presented either. But like I said earlier, if even half, or more likely a quarter of those stats are accurate, then it is an eye opener. We've all known about pollutants from burning fossil fuels for ages, but there are other unexpected pollution sources out there. I am glad to be made aware of other contributing factors.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I know the planet has cycles and has changed many times over the millennia. Most of those changes happened slowly, giving plants and animals time to adapt. The problem with human overpopulation and its effects are it is happening fast. Most species will be extinct, which will have dire consequences for us. I'm not just being a doomsayer here. I think mankind has the potential to solve these issues. I don't think we will though.

Changes happened Slowly? Animals and plants found frozen while in a very living state and fast frozen geological area's discovered was determined to have happened at a rapid rate. Most change is slow, but some is very rapid after volcanic and meteorological events, most occurring without mankind's involvement in any way. Even with all our pollution and use of nukes, we have not even come close to the damage done to the planet in the past by natural events and the earth is still here doing just fine, with or without us, major changes will occur. We need to learn to adapt.

We need to help make the area's we live and use for our own survival sustainable for our existence. In this aspect we need to control the pollution and environmental conditions the best we can.

 

[Brent S]

Changes happened Slowly? Animals and plants found frozen while in a very living state and fast frozen geological area's discovered was determined to have happened at a rapid rate. Most change is slow, but some is very rapid after volcanic and meteorological events, most occurring without mankind's involvement in any way. Even with all our pollution and use of nukes, we have not even come close to the damage done to the planet in the past by natural events and the earth is still here doing just fine, with or without us, major changes will occur. We need to learn to adapt.

We need to help make the area's we live and use for our own survival sustainable for our existence. In this aspect we need to control the pollution and environmental conditions the best we can.

Without a doubt, the earth will be just fine. In a million years after we are gone there will be no signs of our existence at all. The planet has a way of cleaning itself up over time. The problem of quick changes to the environment is strictly for us. And yes, you're right there were quick changes through the ages, but it didn't bode well for the plants and animals alive at those times.

 

[DrHenley]

From 2015
"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979.

Bypass the MSM and go straight to a relatively unbiased source: (National Snow and Ice Data Center)
Here is the Arctic Ice extent as of yesterday (June 3rd, 2017)
You can see that compared to the median extent from 1981-2010, some areas have less ice, but some areas have more ice. The Arctic has hardly melted.

Note, some of the currently ice bound areas of the Arctic were explored by Viking sailors during the Medieval Warm Period around the year 1000 AD. There was a Viking outpost on Baffin Island well into the Arctic Circle. (see second map)

 

[drt4lfe]

Or you could just...not respond...dirt for life.

like I said 99.99% don't care and the last thing they think about day to day is global warming.....throwing good money after bad at some point needs to stop....the U.S. taxpayers have paid enough for the global warming scare propaganda program....

 

[toexist]

like I said 99.99% don't care and the last thing they think about day to day is global warming.....throwing good money after bad at some point needs to stop....the U.S. taxpayers have paid enough for the global warming scare propaganda program....

I know they don't care...that is why I choose not to debate it. Especially not here of all places.

 

[Maverick]

From Lisa friend who professor for the department of ecology & evolutionary biology at Yale and volunteers as a high school science teacher, the person is one of those left wing environmental type people, this was taken from a private conversation at the time, permission to re-post here from both of them.

"Every time the paris agreement topic comes up the only thing that is clear is how little anybody knows about it. The document, only 16 pages, references a ton of other documents, so Its tough to figure out for the average person. But, some research, you can find and can understand our "pull out".

I agree with the paris agreement in principle. You can't effect climate if only one country is making changes. But, this is also where the paris agreement fails, miserably.

1. The United States is "legally bound" to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. It sounds high, but the fund is expecting to raise $100 billion. There is a catch, however, as everyone else's commitment is listed as a "non-binding" provision. So we are obligated, while the rest is volunteer. Now, think of the UN funding, and imagine how much really will be volunteered. The funds go entirely to funding green energy in other countries.

2. Is there accountability for the funds? Not really. A dictator could be given millions, only to spend it on a new mansion with solar panels to qualify. Well, it's not that bad, but the accountability on usage is limited.

3. The paris agreement has emissions goal for the United States that, we all agree, we should definitely meet. The pact legally requires the United States to get 26-28% below our 2005 emissions numbers. The only catch is that we've already done this, all without any international pact. In 2005 we were doing ~7550 in emissions. In 2015 we did 5172 in emissions. We are effectively 68.5% of the 2005 number, or about 32% lower than 2005. What's that mean? There is no longer domestic obligation for the United States on the agreement. At least, if my math is right. Why are we doing so well? Not exactly Tesla, but natural gas. But that doesn't get discussed.

4. The paris agreement is very India specific. As it should be, as India is nearly solely responsible for Greenland melt. But forget $3 billion, the pact expects $2.5 trillion to be given to India over the next 15 years. India has NO requirement to the pact unless this obligation is on track. Where is most the money coming from? Care to take a guess?

5. China is also the big winner. With USA abandoning coal the resource has become cheap. You would think this paris agreement would stop coal as an energy resource worldwide, since it supposedly includes the rest of the world. China is the biggest offender, and the Pact doesn't require any correction from them until, wait for it, 2030. United States emissions could drop to 0 and we wouldn't dent China's emissions growth in the next 5 years, let alone 13. This is terrible What's worse, the paris agreement allows for China to make another 1,171 coal plants. What?!?

Yes, more coal plants, just not in the United States. It's too cheap of an energy for a wealthy country to enjoy. Fine. India is allowed a few less than 500 new coal plants. That's awesome. See ya Greenland.

Obviously this paris agreement is a joke as it's written. It's only successful objective is siphoning money out of the United States."

 

[WGregMiller]

From Lisa friend who professor for the department of ecology & evolutionary biology at Yale and volunteers as a high school science teacher, the person is one of those left wing environmental type people, this was taken from a private conversation at the time, permission to re-post here from both of them.

"Every time the paris agreement topic comes up the only thing that is clear is how little anybody knows about it. The document, only 16 pages, references a ton of other documents, so Its tough to figure out for the average person. But, some research, you can find and can understand our "pull out".

I agree with the paris agreement in principle. You can't effect climate if only one country is making changes. But, this is also where the paris agreement fails, miserably.

1. The United States is "legally bound" to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. It sounds high, but the fund is expecting to raise $100 billion. There is a catch, however, as everyone else's commitment is listed as a "non-binding" provision. So we are obligated, while the rest is volunteer. Now, think of the UN funding, and imagine how much really will be volunteered. The funds go entirely to funding green energy in other countries.

2. Is there accountability for the funds? Not really. A dictator could be given millions, only to spend it on a new mansion with solar panels to qualify. Well, it's not that bad, but the accountability on usage is limited.

3. The paris agreement has emissions goal for the United States that, we all agree, we should definitely meet. The pact legally requires the United States to get 26-28% below our 2005 emissions numbers. The only catch is that we've already done this, all without any international pact. In 2005 we were doing ~7550 in emissions. In 2015 we did 5172 in emissions. We are effectively 68.5% of the 2005 number, or about 32% lower than 2005. What's that mean? There is no longer domestic obligation for the United States on the agreement. At least, if my math is right. Why are we doing so well? Not exactly Tesla, but natural gas. But that doesn't get discussed.

4. The paris agreement is very India specific. As it should be, as India is nearly solely responsible for Greenland melt. But forget $3 billion, the pact expects $2.5 trillion to be given to India over the next 15 years. India has NO requirement to the pact unless this obligation is on track. Where is most the money coming from? Care to take a guess?

5. China is also the big winner. With USA abandoning coal the resource has become cheap. You would think this paris agreement would stop coal as an energy resource worldwide, since it supposedly includes the rest of the world. China is the biggest offender, and the Pact doesn't require any correction from them until, wait for it, 2030. United States emissions could drop to 0 and we wouldn't dent China's emissions growth in the next 5 years, let alone 13. This is terrible What's worse, the paris agreement allows for China to make another 1,171 coal plants. What?!?

Yes, more coal plants, just not in the United States. It's too cheap of an energy for a wealthy country to enjoy. Fine. India is allowed a few less than 500 new coal plants. That's awesome. See ya Greenland.

Obviously this paris agreement is a joke as it's written. It's only successful objective is siphoning money out of the United States."

Thank you. I tried reading and after about 20 minutes my head exploded.....

 

[Brent S]

I will try finding info on it myself too. If this is the case, why wouldn't trump bring out some of these points to help his case?

 

[Maverick]

I will try finding info on it myself too. If this is the case, why wouldn't trump bring out some of these points to help his case?

He has but very little reporting on it from the media, he already said the US are the only ones giving money and none of the money is being re-invested back in our Country, he also stated this on the campaign trail. The person that gone back and fourth with the Wife didn't vote for Trump. In the beginning the person supported the Paris agreement until one of the students ask for additional information.

 

[user 7704]

The people involved in cowspiracy are animal rights activist and veganism advocates. look up the names!! They have a bone in the fight and pushing the vegan view


Directed by
Kip Andersen
Keegan Kuhn

Produced by
Kip Andersen
Keegan Kuhn

Starring
Kip Andersen
Howard Lyman
Richard Oppenlander
Michael Pollan
Michael Klaper
Will Tuttle
Will Potter

Executive-Produced by
Leonardo DiCaprio

But old Leo hops on his jet even for short trips. Al Gore is also a huge hypocrite with his houses, boats, etc.

 

[user 7704]

My toll

I figured the forum is open to the community One may disagree on some things if not many things with other members and still remain cordial and many on here even through disagreement I have abundance of respect for with the many member here but we shouldn't tell other member not to respond to a post because one disagrees.

my tolerance seems to be wearing thin.