Blaming Cows For Global Warming Not Accurate

A new beef with role of cows in global warming

November 20, 2010
Alex Horkay
TheStar.com
Statistics have been giving us a bum steer when they state how much cattle methane emissions contribute to global warming, a new study shows.


That's because mathematical equations used to predict cows' methane emissions are inaccurate and don't take into account factors such as dietary changes, said Jennifer Ellis, lead author of the study and a PhD student at the University of Guelph.


When cattle burp up their cud, they discharge methane with it, due to microbial fermentation occurring in their complex stomachs.


“Diet can change CH4 (methane) emissions quite a lot. For example, between two and 12 per cent of the energy a cow consumes will be lost as CH4,” she said.

When an equation calculates the quantity of methane emissions on one farm, it can't be used to accurately determine how much greenhouse gas is created worldwide because there is so much difference in cattle diet around the world and from farm to farm.    Read More

While most of the anti-ag groups are quick to try blaming cows for global warming, common sense scientists have shown that it’s not that simple.  There are so many factors that determine the amount of methane produced by a cow so it’s nearly impossible to determine any impact based on current models.  It’s unfortunate that these anti-ag groups have to try tricking people with false information to gain support and turn them against farming and ranching families.

Modern Beef Is "Green"

Beef Production More Sustainable Now, WSU Expert Says

EPOnline.com
Jul 26, 2010

Advances in productivity over the past 30 years have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of U.S. beef production, according to a new study presented by a Washington State University researcher.

In “Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007,” assistant professor of animal science Jude L. Capper revealed that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights, have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production and improved its sustainability.

“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper in a presentation on July 14 at the American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver.   Read More


There are plenty of people trying to eliminate animal agriculture by spreading misinformation about it’s impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is that animal agriculture has greatly reduced the environmental impact over the last few decades. But it doesn’t stop there. The improvement that we have seen is continuing into the future. We depend on a healthy environment to raise healthy livestock which is why farmers and ranchers are some the greenest people around. ~Troy

Reporting the Hype, Not the Facts

Chefs now offering low-carbon diets to help save the planet
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock

SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?

Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!

Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.

Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.

If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.

It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More


Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.

Modern Ag Feeding The World, Benefitting The Environment

High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service

Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.

The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More

This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.

EPA Disapproval Vote Tomorrow

Rockefeller Backs Murkowski's EPA Resolution in Senate
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.

"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.

The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.

Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."

Read More

This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.

Senate Cap & Tax Bill Introduced

Farm Groups Wary of New Climate Change Bill
05/12/2010
by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today

Senators John Kerry (D, Massachusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I, Connecticut) unveiled climate-change legislation on Wednesday, although the bill‘s chances of success are uncertain. The bill would focus on addressing the largest carbon-emitting sectors of the economy: heavy industry, power plants, and transportation infrastructure. It would target a 17% reduction in U.S. carbon pollution by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. It would contain a cap-and-trade system that would levy a tax against the largest emitters. Initially, the rate would be set at $12 a ton, increasing at 3% above inflation annually thereafter. An initial ceiling of $25 per ton would also be included.

The new legislation got a stamp of approval from the National Farmers Union, who supported the House version of cap-and- trade, “NFU has long supported legislation that provides an opportunity for agriculture to play a positive role in addressing our climate and energy needs. The discussion draft announced today continues along that path,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. The National Corn Growers Association took a more cautious approach. “The National Corn Growers Association is reviewing the discussion draft of the American Power Act released today by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. We have provided input to the Senate over the past several months on provisions pertaining to the agriculture industry, and we will continue to offer feedback after we have a chance to review the text of this important piece of legislation,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen.

Tamara Thies, Chief Environmental Council for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, says agriculture needs to beware of all efforts to regulate climate change, “All this regulation and expense is based on an alarmist environmental agenda and not on sound science.” She says, regardless of the specifics of the legislation, the science behind climate change is flawed, “The American people deserve better than decisions from this administration that are not based on science or truth, but rather are based on a radical, anti-business, anti-agriculture, alarmist agenda that lacks a credible scientific foundation.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation also expressed concerns about efforts to regulate climate change. AFBF President Bob Stallman released a statement that said, “As with other climate change bills, we have concerns about the economic impact on farmers and ranchers because of potentially higher fertilizer and energy costs. We do not want to see farmers driven out of business due to additional regulation and the potential for higher input costs. Agriculture also could be forced to shrink due to land moving out of production into trees to sequester carbon. We also believe it is imperative that any energy legislation must assure a greater supply of nuclear energy, renewable fuels, and natural gas for American consumers. Further, we note the absence of renewable electricity standards in the bill and will work toward their inclusion in the future.”

The Obama administration wants action on climate change, but other issues like immigration plus election year politics make many lawmakers uneasy about tacking such a controversial issue. In a prepared statement the President said, “This legislation will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create American jobs building the solar panels, wind blades, and the car batteries of the future. It will strengthen our national security by beginning to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.”

With most Republicans and many Democrats opposing climate change legislation, the White House may turn to the EPA to implement a cap-and-trade system. Thies says that would not be good for agriculture, “That would give the EPA authority to tell farmers they would have to get expensive permits in order to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.” She added many producers would be forced to shut down food production. Link

Everyone is still sifting through the legislation trying to determine what it will do, but one thing is for certain, it will increase the cost of energy every year. Over half of the electricity used in this country comes from coal. The cost of that will increase every year until they are forced out of business and the millions of miners and other workers in that industry will be out of job. Along with that, it will make electricity less affordable for working families in this country. Unless you use a sail to propel your vehicle, the cost of driving will go up as well, even if you have an electric car. I don’t disagree that we need to be finding newer sources of energy but it is reckless to get rid of our most reliable and affordable sources when we have nothing to replace them with.

Senate Prepares to Debate Cap & Tax

Cap and trade bill hurts Midwestern farmers
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.

In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.

Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.

By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.

This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More

The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.

Grazing Cattle Reduce GHG Emissions From Land

Cows Found To Actually Reduce Nitrous Oxide
Posted on: Thursday, 8 April 2010, 15:20 CDT
RedOrbit.com

A new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually helps reduce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Environmentalists have been urging people for years to stop eating meat because of the methane produced by cattle.

According to the Telegrpah, the researchers said this does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland in certain circumstances.

Klaus Butterbach-Bahl of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China.

Butterbach-Bahl discovered that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because microbes in the soil release nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. Once the grass is long, snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water. However, when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.

He said the study turns assumptions about grazing goats and cattle around. Read More

Grass and the environment where it grows have a symbiotic relationship with the animals that consume it. That’s why the healthiest grasslands are those that are being grazed properly. Common sense, which is in short supply, would dictate that grazing has to be beneficial to everything involved or else it wouldn’t have survived this long. We continue to hear calls for grazing on public lands to be stopped. But people forget that the grass doesn’t care if a deer or a cow eats it, it just needs to be eaten for the everything to be healthy.

Pollan Tells Students to Go Vegan to Reduce Climate Change

Author Michael Pollan to speak on the 'drama on your plate'
Kelly Folkers
Issue date: 4/6/10

Humans need over 100 food compounds to be healthy, yet three crops dominate the American diet. Corn, wheat and soy comprise approximately 80 percent of Americans' diet, and author Michael Pollan has some problems with that.

"Humans are omnivores and need to eat a variety of different things," said Pollan, a food expert and the author of the bestselling books In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan, who considers himself a nature writer, will speak in Swasey Chapel on April 14 at 8 p.m. as the closing speaker for this year's campus theme of consumption.

Pollan's interest in studying food and where it comes from originated during childhood. He cultivated a vegetable garden at a young age, and his professional interest in food seemed to naturally follow his personal love for growing food.

"I focus on the messy places where the human and the natural intersect," Pollan said. "It was almost a matter of time when I would write about food. Our eating is how we change the world the most, everything from the landscape to how we grow food."

"Meat is the biggest food issue in terms of climate change," Pollan said. "If you are a meat eater, removing meat from your diet you would cut your carbon footprint by 25 percent."

Pollan also described the various ways that college students can make a difference in being greener with food consumption. Read More

Here is Pollan on his vegan push again. Remember that this is the same guy that made up the statistic that going vegan would do more to reduce climate change than dumping your SUV. He got called out on that make-believe statistic yet he continues to spew more misinformation. The livestock industry is only responsible for less than 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. So how could going vegan cut your carbon footprint by 25%.

Here’s the issue. Pollan has built his empire on scaring people about their food. He did this by ignoring science and ignoring most people’s desire to grow enough food to feed everyone. Unfortunately for him, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. With his plan, more than half the planet would go hungry. Do you think hungry people really care about their carbon footprint at that point? The good news is that we can accomplish both goals. We can feed everyone AND continue to be more efficient. It just means that we need to listen to the experts in food production rather than journalism teachers.

UN Report Debunked Again

Eat Less Meat, Reduce Global Warming -- or Not
FOXNews.com

Reducing consumption of meat and dairy products might not have a major impact in combating global warming despite claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases.

Save the planet, eat less meat ... right? That's what the U.N. said, anyway, but one scientist has a grade A beef with that claim.

The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- propagated by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.

In a presentation before the 239th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said the misleading claims emanate from a 2006 U.N. report, which said that livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."

According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.

In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals' digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving, and not all other transport-lifecycle related factors.

"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said. Read More

Since the UN report came out, we have been telling anyone who would listen that the claims of livestock destroying the planet weren’t accurate. Finally, as more of the claims about global warming continue to be debunked, so do the claims about the role of livestock. Livestock aren’t destroying the planet, they are feeding the planet. They are turning raw, human-indigestible products and turning them into an incredibly nutrient-dense consumable protein source. That’s the real story that needs to be told and celebrated. Every time I think about this incredible process it makes me proud to be part of it.

Virginia AG Takes On The EPA

Feb 16, 2010 8:41 pm US/Eastern
Top Va. Attorney Challenges EPA On Greenhouse Gas

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) ― Virginia's attorney general is challenging the federal government's conclusion that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people.

Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Tuesday he has asked the Environmental Protection to delay final consideration of that finding so "newly available information" can be reviewed.

Cuccinelli did not elaborate on that new information and did not immediately respond to an interview request from The Associated Press. He scheduled a news conference for Wednesday.

Cuccinelli also said he would seek a legal challenge of the EPA's finding, which would regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Virginia's actions are aimed at a December EPA "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Bob McDonnell said Cuccinelli "is acting in the best interests of the citizens of Virginia."

"The current federal position could have a negative impact on job creation and economic development in the commonwealth and should be reconsidered," the spokeswoman, Stacey Johnson, wrote in an e-mail to the AP.

The Sierra Club criticized the challenge, calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.

"Cuccinelli is embarrassing the citizens of Virginia at the taxpayers' expense," said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the environmental group.

Virginia joined Texas in challenging the EPA, saying the agency's finding was based on flawed science.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that the EPA could regulate if found to endanger public health. The Bush administration never acted on the court order. Link

Some of the recent hearings in Washington DC concerning climate change and cap and trade legislation have had to be rescheduled due to the blizzards that they have been experiencing. It’s been comical watching the people who believe in the global warming religion try to convince others that the record snowfall this year is actually a sign of global warming. The truth of the matter is that snowfall this time of year is a sign of winter.

Conflicting Arguments Against Ag

Tofu can harm environment more than meat, finds WWF study
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Feb 12, 2010
Times Online, UK

Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu.

The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food.

The study by Cranfield University, commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found that many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain.

It found that switching from beef and lamb reared in Britain to meat substitutes would result in more foreign land being cultivated and raise the risk of forests being destroyed to create farmland. Meat substitutes also tended to be highly processed and involved energy-intensive production methods. Read More

If you look at the attacks being launched against farmers and ranchers on any given day, you will notice that they always contradict each other. The Pollan led outcry against processed foods and modern agriculture contradicts with animal rights groups that urge the eating of tofu and other highly processed foods are designed to try replacing meat. I hear people say that my cows are destroying the environment simply because the prairie was meant to have a 1200 pound animal walking on it. Of course their solution to this problem is to re-introduce the American bison on my land. The fact of the matter is that farmers and ranchers have more interest than most in protecting the environment. If you want to see what’s really happening on the farms and ranches around you, just ask them, not a hypocritical fringe group.

Africa Needs Modern Farming

African Farmers Urged to Innovate to Offset Climate Change
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.

Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.

“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.

One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More

In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.

Red Meat Production Proven Efficient and Safe

Red meat production proven efficient and safe
ROD SMITH
31 Jan, 2010 04:00 AM

ANIMALS need to be produced in a smarter manner - not in fewer numbers - to address environmental issues related to climate change, according to Frank Mitloehner, an associate professor and air quality specialist at the University of California-Davis.

Decreasing meat and milk production will only result in more hunger in poor countries - not a cleaner or cooler environment, he said in response to critics of meat and milk production who blame livestock for significant global warming.

Mitloehner said these critics fail to understand the relationship among animal and food production, animal digestion, human activities and atmospheric chemistry.

He traced much of this lack of understanding to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which stated that the "livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. This is higher than transport."

He said findings in the US show that livestock production accounts for only 2.8pc of emissions in the US, while transportation accounts for 26pc.

In addition to being efficiently produced, environmentally sustainable and safe, meat might well be behind the reason people live longer lives than any other primate, according to biologist Caleb Finch at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Cal.

Apes and chimpanzees are genetically similar to humans but rarely live more than 50 years, and it is possible that genetic changes that allow people to live longer are attributable to eating a more carnivorous diet than apes and chimps, he told the LiveScience program on TechMediaNetwork. Read More

When we look at the facts concerning meat production, the undeniable benefits become quite clear. Whether it’s human nutrition or the environment, livestock play an important role that can’t be replaced. Our task as producers of this essential product is to share this information with consumers. Not only does this give you a chance to introduce yourself and give the consumer a chance to meet a farmer, but it also gives them exactly what they want and that is to hear a real farmer or rancher explain what they do and show them how much they care about their livestock. I love sharing information like this because every time you do, you see the lightbulb flip on in the minds of consumers. It suddenly makes sense and they can really gain an appreciation for where their food comes from. ~Troy

Eat Globally For Efficiency

The 100-mile myth
Kevin Libin, National Post

At the annual convention of the North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association in Calgary a couple of years ago, organizers offered a seminar entitled "The New Classic: Creating an upscale urban farmers' market with down-home country Chutzpah." For years, local farmers' markets weren't anything you'd hazard to call "upscale," but the rise of the local food movement and the best-selling environmental-soul books, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle and The 100-Mile Diet, has made buying locally grown, rather than well-travelled food, as trendy these days among the eco-yuppie crowd as hybrid Lexuses and Baby Planet strollers. "Farmers have been involved with selling local product for decades. What's happening now is that the consumer side is catching on," says Charlie Touchette, executive director of the marketing association.

In part, farmer vendors charge more because they've been suddenly blessed with customers willing to pay more. But locally grown food, in many cases, is also more costly to produce, because Canadian labour and, often, land is worth more than in Brazil or China. Above all, though, local growing conditions for most foods are less productive than elsewhere. Every climate, obviously, has its strengths and weaknesses, and frequently, locally grown food is less efficiently produced than the imported stuff. Accounting for "food miles" -- the key measure used by locavores (local produce eaters) -- tells you how far food travels. It doesn't tell you how much energy -- and greenhouse gas emissions -- went into growing it. When you add that in, and if your aim is to conserve fossil fuels and emissions, the best way is actually to skip the farmers' market and eat global.

"If you are concerned about the carbon footprint of your diet, focusing on transportation is kind of like worrying about the air pressure in your tires of your car rather than whether you have a fuel-efficient car or not," says James McWilliams, an environmental and agricultural historian at Texas State University, author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, and a former part-time locavore. "What matters so much more than how far it travels from farm to fork is what kind of methods were used to produce it."

"What I really do see ... is that buying local is a political act. It's a gesture that, in essence, thumbs its nose at globalization," he says. If left-wing posturing and green-posing is your priority, then stick with your 100-mile diet. Leave it to average consumers, buying the globally sourced groceries at their local, corporate, big-box retailer, to do genuine good for the planet.

Read More

This article focuses on the fact that efficiency in production is the key in determining a food’s impact on the environment. And no where in the world is modern agriculture more efficient than here in the United States. We are producing more food with fewer inputs than at any other time in the history of this planet. I think buying local is a great way to support local farmers and ranchers, and I hope that people continue to do so. However, if people think buying everything local is going to save the planet from some impending doom, they are sorely mistaken.

Don't Blame Cows

Don’t Blame Cows for Climate Change
December 7, 2009
UC Davis

Despite oft-repeated claims by sources ranging from the United Nations to music star Paul McCartney, it is simply not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change, says a University of California authority on farming and greenhouse gases.

UC Davis Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner says that McCartney and the chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignored science last week when they launched a European campaign called "Less Meat = Less Heat." The launch came on the eve of a major international climate summit, which runs today through Dec. 18 in Copenhagen.

McCartney and others, such as the promoters of "meatless Mondays," seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry, says Mitloehner.

"Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," Mitloehner said. "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." Read More

Continued research on the impact of livestock production on our climate shows us once again that removing meat from your diet won’t have any affect. It’s just been another attempt to scare people away from eating a balanced diet. Since they don’t have any facts to back up their claim, anti-meat advocates have plotted a purely emotional campaign to make people feel guilty about what they eat. More than ever, we need to be basing our decisions about things like this on facts, not fear.

EPA Ruling Could Devastate Ag

NCBA: EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling Could Be Devastating To Agriculture
12/08/2009 01:59PM
CattleNetwork.com

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is extremely concerned about the potential impacts that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent greenhouse gas (GHG) ruling could have on agriculture operations. EPA’s decision, announced yesterday, claims that GHG emissions are an endangerment to public health and the environment. This sets the stage for greenhouse regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would give the EPA unprecedented control over every sector of the U.S. economy.

“It’s premature to issue this kind of finding, especially given the recent controversy surrounding the scientific validity of alleged human contributions to climate change,” said Tamara Thies, NCBA chief environmental counsel. “Regulation of greenhouse gases should be based on science, and it should be thoughtfully considered and voted on by Congress through a democratic process, not dictated by the EPA.”

The endangerment finding does not itself regulate GHGs; but unless Congress acts, it sets in motion EPA regulation of GHGs from stationary sources and the setting of new source performance standards for GHGs. On October 27, 2009, EPA proposed a rule designed to regulate GHG emissions from sources that emit 25,000 tons per year or more, instead of the statutory 250 tons per year threshold for pollutants which is included in the Clean Air Act. The extent to which EPA can change statutory permitting requirements, however, is unclear. Only time will tell how our federal courts will address citizen suits to force regulation of all sources that emit GHGs in excess of the statutory thresholds. EPA indicated that it also would be developing an approach to regulate GHGs from hundreds of thousands of small operations, including farms and buildings. Read More

The regulation of greenhouse gasses and specifically carbon dioxide, could deal a devastating blow to American agriculture. And for what benefit?? Not only would it affect our ability to grow our food, it would unfairly target rural Americans who depend on affordable energy for transportation. If you have never been involved in the political process before, now is the time to start. Everyone needs to let their elected officials know that we aren’t willing to give away our sovereignty for a plan that won’t solve a problem that might not even exist.

Forcing Reforms Could Mean Failure

A world without roast beef: who wants that except McCartney and Stern?
Targeting meat eaters in the fight against climate change alienates ordinary people and won't save the planet on its own
Nick Herbert
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 November 2009 17.30 GMT



Sir Paul McCartney arrived in Brussels yesterday to recruit support for his "meat-free Mondays" campaign. The argument seems so easy: cut down meat consumption and the planet will be saved.

But even if a world without roast beef was one in which we all wanted to live (please count me out), we need to think a little harder about what will really work to arrest global warming. Why are Mondays to be free of meat alone? After all, dairy cattle produce greenhouse gases as well as milk. Are we meant to become part-time vegetarians or vegans? And why single out meat? Asia's rice fields emit the same amount of methane as their livestock industry. It seems doubtful that a campaign for rice-free Tuesdays will be next.

The call last month by the government's former climate change adviser, Lord Stern, to give up meat-eating altogether could almost have been calculated to reduce public support for climate change action. In fact, the people's response, according to a subsequent opinion poll, was to deliver Stern a loud raspberry. But the reputational damage to a vitally important cause may have been more serious. Read More

Forcing these reforms, which haven’t been shown will even make a difference, down the throats of people won’t work. The best way to get everyone to buy into these carbon reducing ideas is to offer common sense options that won’t sacrifice our food and energy needs. If the quality of life drops for everyone at the expense of climate change theories, then it will be resented by most and will fail.

Pollan Caught In A Lie

Michael Pollan's Prius-Hummer Blunder
By Maura Judkis
Posted: October 29, 2009

What a soundbite it was, for all of two days: Michael Pollan, sustainable food guru and author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," told the crowd at the 2009 Poptech conference, "Our meat eating is one of the most important contributors we make to climate change. A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius.”

That line was blogged and tweeted countless times over the next few days. The only problem? It isn't true.

Reuters' Adam Pacisk refuted the claim shortly after, and here's his math:

Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago published a 2005 paper in the journal Earth Interactions that looked at the relative carbon footprints of plant-based and red-meat diets. They found that the difference between an heavy meat-eating diet and a vegan diet was about 2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. The difference between a Prius and an SUV (they used a Suburban, which gets about the same mileage as a Hummer) was 4.76 tons per year. Pollan’s claim, said Eshel, “is emphatically wrong. If you’re looking at the mean American driving habits and eating habits, it’s not even close.” Read More

It seems that Michael Pollan was once again sensationalizing his story about agriculture and food production. But this time he got caught by the several in the media with his fabricated story. Pollan has regularly and admittedly sensationalized his version of agriculture in order scare people about their food and promote his own books. It’s another reason why we shouldn’t be relying on a reporter for our information about agriculture.

Cow Tax Ban

Cow Burps OK: House, Senate Block EPA From Regulating Livestock Emissions
By Kirsten Korosec Oct 28, 2009

Farmers can breath a little easier now — cows can burp and fart without fear of the Environmental Protection Agency regulating their methane emissions.

You may remember the “cow tax” rumors that floated around late last year and caused an uproar among farmers and ranchers worried the EPA planned to regulate methane gas emitted from livestock.

The EPA has said — repeatedly — it has no plans to impose a cow tax. But the idea was still worrisome for ranchers and farmers.

House and Senate conferees made it official Tuesday and approved an amendment to block agency efforts to require Clean Air Act permits for greenhouse gases emitted by livestock, according to reports from Greenwire and Scientific American.

Under the amendment, the EPA can not use funds to implement rules requiring livestock producers to obtain Clean Air Act operating permits for the biological emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, according to the Scientific American report.

Read More

Even though the EPA claimed it was never going to implement a cow tax, it was an idea that was so dangerous that Congress needed to step and prevent this over-zealous agency from changing it’s mind. The cow tax would have easily eliminated livestock production in this country with the enormous per-head assessments being proposed. It’s an unfortunate situation when Congress has to step in to protects American citizens from an agency they created, but that’s exactly what happened her. Even though this was a small victory for us, it was a very important one.