I just found out today that livestock produces more greenhouse gasses than anything.

Question

the question is why havent i've heard more about this from guys like al gore. If you can make more of a difference by eating a little less meat than driving a lot less, why hasn't al gore spoken up about this in his speechs.

Answer 1

I agree with Hannah's grandpa.  Although I know capturing those methane gasses is quite expensive.

Answer 2

eating less meat could reduce cow production.  You have to realize though that not everyone is going to agree and that many countries (especially the US) couldn't live with the idea of less beef.

Answer 3

If we eat fewer cows, your assumption is that there will be fewer raised and therefore less cow flatulence. This is a good argument. Were I a farmer, I may realize the demand is less and turn my attention to other crops. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a cattle farm is set up to raise cattle and it's probably more expensive to refit a cattle farm to raise carrots than it is to adjust ones marketing techniques in the hopes of raising ones market share.

I'll politely pretend not to know that vegetarianism is a philosophy bordering on a religion and take your question at face value. And I'll blithely suggest that algore has his head somewhere it doesn't belong when he suggests that methane naturally produced in animals' digestive tracts will somehow destroy the earth. The Mother (earth, not algore) has no more or less carbon on/in her now than she did 4,000,000 years ago (ok, well maybe she has a few thousand pounds less now because of the various space trash we've sent off planet, but not enough to count.) We humans have converted a lot of this carbon from one form to another, but the whole argument that we're killing the planet because of all the carbon we're "producing" is specious at best.

Answer 4

I don't understand how eating less meat is going to reduce the number of livestock  on the planet.

It seems to me that the less animals are butchered for meat, the more animals there will be to produce greenhouse gases.

A simpler solution would be to capture those methane gases and use them to supply power.

It is being done in many areas already.

Answer 5

I dont think this statement is completely true...While I do agree it has been overlooked by the likes of Gore I don't think the cattle are the largest contributors.

"In the U.S., our energy-related activities account for over three-quarters of our human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half the energy-related emissions come from large sources such as power plants and factories, while about a third comes from transportation."

Answer 6

Any thing that consumes grown in soil products is going to give off gasses. You , too.  

Answer 7

Have you seen Al Gore lately?  I doubt you could take a Big Mac away from him without losing a finger or two.....

I'm glad your eyes are opened.

It's called "flavor of the week".  In the 70s it was hairspray, in the 80's is was air conditioner gases, next week it will be the permafrost melting and releasing methane [100's of time more deadly to eco than CO2], then it will be blue M&M's, then it will be red dye no. 5, then it will be a volcanic eruption..[no wait, we can't prevent volcanoes or charge people fees or taxes for them, so that won't work].....

Anyone else see a pattern?