Skippy vs Daisy - the war of the bad gas
August 31st 2008 02:17
This is a pretty old story now, but i guess some won't have heard it...A week or so ago, a paper was published in Conservation Letters which proposed that by removing a large proportion of Australia's cattle and sheep, and replacing them with 175 million kangaroos, we could cut methane emissions by 3%.
Firstly, the fact of the matter is that we ALL have to either stop, or cut down the amount of red meat that we eat in order to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide...but if you really can't go past a steak - a skippy steak once a week is your most eco-friendly choice.
The paper in Conservation Letters has been VERY controversial - indeed, the primary author seems to have gone awol after death threats from animal rights groups...and, in some ways i can see why it's controversial.
Firstly - removing some sheep and cattle, and replacing them with 175 MILLION kangaroo's (that's a lot of skippy) all to reduce methane emissions by ONLY 3%, seems somewhat un-do-able...Roo's produce much less meat than do cows, so to produce enough to fill the gap in the market, there would have to be many more roo's.
But, the big issue is that people don't want to eat kangaroos. WHY?? I'm not suggesting that vegetarians and vegans should eat meat - essentially you are free of the guilt of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock - although dairy cattle actually produce more methane than beef cattle (if your only a vego), and if your a vegan, well you can get on your moral high horse if you like - but you still have to live with the guilt of the loss of rainforest to plant soy...but, you can't have everything.
Kangaroo's are NOT endangered - well, not the four species that are commercially harvested on the mainland anyway. These four species have NOT declined - numbers are the same in 2007 as they were in the 1980's. The harvest is the most rigourously controlled in the world.
Anyway, what about gas...although the paper doesn't go into more detail, removing sheep and cattle would also significantly reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, associated with growing food for livestock and livestock waste handling. Nitrous oxide has nearly 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Anyway, my point is this. If you do still eat meat, then in order to consider yourself and 'eco-carnivore' (should you wish to) then you should indeed switch to roo (if your Australian). Roo's are killed in a more ethical way, (no crappy ride to the slaughter house) raised in a wild environment (ie: free range, as such - no restrictive environment like pigs and veal calves) and no - they do not produce methane because they have different bacteria to help their digestion compared to cows and sheep.
The number of kangaroo's killed each year is fixed, such that even if more people start eating it, it won't mean that more kangaroo's are killed.
Firstly, the fact of the matter is that we ALL have to either stop, or cut down the amount of red meat that we eat in order to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide...but if you really can't go past a steak - a skippy steak once a week is your most eco-friendly choice.
The paper in Conservation Letters has been VERY controversial - indeed, the primary author seems to have gone awol after death threats from animal rights groups...and, in some ways i can see why it's controversial.
Firstly - removing some sheep and cattle, and replacing them with 175 MILLION kangaroo's (that's a lot of skippy) all to reduce methane emissions by ONLY 3%, seems somewhat un-do-able...Roo's produce much less meat than do cows, so to produce enough to fill the gap in the market, there would have to be many more roo's.
But, the big issue is that people don't want to eat kangaroos. WHY?? I'm not suggesting that vegetarians and vegans should eat meat - essentially you are free of the guilt of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock - although dairy cattle actually produce more methane than beef cattle (if your only a vego), and if your a vegan, well you can get on your moral high horse if you like - but you still have to live with the guilt of the loss of rainforest to plant soy...but, you can't have everything.
Kangaroo's are NOT endangered - well, not the four species that are commercially harvested on the mainland anyway. These four species have NOT declined - numbers are the same in 2007 as they were in the 1980's. The harvest is the most rigourously controlled in the world.
Anyway, what about gas...although the paper doesn't go into more detail, removing sheep and cattle would also significantly reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, associated with growing food for livestock and livestock waste handling. Nitrous oxide has nearly 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Anyway, my point is this. If you do still eat meat, then in order to consider yourself and 'eco-carnivore' (should you wish to) then you should indeed switch to roo (if your Australian). Roo's are killed in a more ethical way, (no crappy ride to the slaughter house) raised in a wild environment (ie: free range, as such - no restrictive environment like pigs and veal calves) and no - they do not produce methane because they have different bacteria to help their digestion compared to cows and sheep.
The number of kangaroo's killed each year is fixed, such that even if more people start eating it, it won't mean that more kangaroo's are killed.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
