A Texas cattle rancher’s review of the much quoted and applauded FAO report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, exposes the fallacy and fraud and socialistic intent of the FAO’s indictment of the Cow as the planet’s greatest contributor to Global Warming.
Colmesneil, Texas (PRWEB) March 12, 2010 -- Livestock do not contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than transport, says Jimmie West, a cattle rancher in Southeast Texas. According to Ms. West, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has compartmentalized the results of greenhouse gas emission studies in the interests of their primary underlying goal of socialization of the global agricultural industry.
The assertion that livestock contribute more to global warming than 'transport' is found in the Preface of the FAO's "Livestock's Long Shadow" where they state, inaccurately, that the "livestock sector is . . . responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a higher share than transport." The FAO's own press magnified this one statement with the intent to indict the production of livestock around the world.
The FAO calculation of 18% improperly includes carbon emissions from global land deforestation and land use changes of an estimated 2.4 Billion Tons (Bt) of Carbon Dioxide. As well, the FAO factors in grossly minimal offsets for the carbon sequestered by new grasslands, and none for the carbon sequestration of existing grasslands. The FAO would have been fully aware of the ongoing scientific studies that were making great strides in quantifying the comparable carbon sequestration power of our planet's vast grasslands.
A review of "Livestock's Long Shadow" reveals the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the livestock sector are actually 11.5%, or 4.6 Bt, of all 40 Bt of annual greenhouse gas emissions. (FAO, Table 3.12) And of that 4.6 Bt, the greatest contributors by far are the developing countries of Central and South America, Sub Saharan Africa, China, Asia, India, and even Western Europe outpaces the US in methane emissions from belching and manure.
Methane emissions from the manure and belching of cattle across the globe is 2.2 Bt, accounting for 5.5 percent of the global total of 40 Bt. The FAO has sounded the methane alarm and is vigorously promoting the “intensification” of livestock production and “dietary modification” of the cow in the interest of reducing this 5.5% contribution of methane emissions; and the USA is expected to set the example for the rest of the world – despite the fact that belching of North American livestock only accounts for 3.3 percent of the 2.2 Bt of methane emissions from livestock across the world.
Nitrous Oxide (N20), the most toxic livestock-related emission to our atmosphere, also accounts for 2.2 Bt, or 5.5 percent, of the global total of all greenhouse gas emissions, with manure as the greatest villain. However, N20 emissions from the manure of grazing animals only accounts for 24.4% of all N20 from livestock manure. (FAO, Table 3.11) The much larger share, 68.3%, goes to the credit of “mixed” systems of grazing and feedlot style “intensification”. So, putting all the cows or pigs or sheep in as small a parcel of land as possible, or "intensification", will result in materially increased N20 emissions from manure, along with increased methane emissions from manure, as methane from the manure of a grazing cow is insignificant.
The FAO ignores the ozone damaging trade-off of methane from a cow's belch for the more insidious nitrous oxide, which will substantially increase as well from additional feed cropping alone. The FAO passes it off as something to address in the future "if production of such feed stuffs is to increase substantially". Perhaps they foresee success in their ". . . attempts to curb the booming demand for these (meat) products".
The land intensification and dietary modification of livestock, particularly cattle, is recommended as a “mitigating” policy by the FAO to solve every ill they can find to attribute to meat production, including water pollution. Genetically modified grains, vaccines and weird things like "defaunation" are tops on the FAO’s list to 'fix' the cow's "unproductive use of dietary energy", -- effectively, in favor of nitrous oxide? Or, effectively in favor of just rounding up the cows and putting them on a smaller piece of land?
Perhaps most alarming to the small landowners and cow-calf producers of America, is the FAO's assertion that “. . . small, family-based livestock producers will find it increasingly difficult to stay in the market.” They will have to seek "alternative livelihoods" once regulatory "command and control" establishes the correct environmental price of raising livestock. And further, the very land itself will often become unaffordable for the small private land owner, due to the FAO's clear policy recommendation of “land taxes” to “. . . induce more efficient utilization of land and encourage its redistribution,” – in other words, socialized agriculture.
The USA’s pending ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation is a vehicle for establishing the basic tools and authority for socialized agriculture in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the USA's “command and control” governmental entity that will "initiate" and facilitate socialization of American agriculture, and thus the demise of the family farm.
The Cap and Trade bill estf-Lablishes methane as a greenhouse gas and identifies several domestic agricultural practices that will be eligible as carbon credit offsets – and “. . . changes in animal management practices, including dietary modifications” – is on that list. These offset credits can be traded or sold in one ton measures of carbon dioxide equivalents. For every ton of carbon sequestered, or reduced, from adding grain to a cow's diet, the farmer will get an offset credit. Most likely some big shot will pay them peanuts for it, and pool it and package it, sort of like current oil and gas leases.
The other side of that trade is the one ton emission allowance. ‘Allowance’ sounds like something the small livestock farmer might get, but actually it’s what they will give – to stay in business, says Ms. West, once the EPA gets the regulatory control provided by the current Cap and Trade bill.
The FAO makes it clear that the negative “externalities” of livestock production must be paid by the "provider", and the carbon emission allowance in the USA is on track to become the primary vehicle of monetizing and assessing those FAO defined negative “externalities” to the providers of American livestock for meat consumption.
The EPA will monetize every aspect of land use and livestock production, and thus effectively gain regulatory "command and control" -- and the FAO’s predicted demise of the small livestock producer will surely follow, as will the "redistribution" of American pasture lands.
In Ms. West’s view, the EPA and the Obama Administration fully embrace the philosophy and science of the FAO; and the EPA is in-line to become the largest regulatory, or socializing, arm of the United States federal government. Click here for the complete series of articles analyzing the FAO’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow”.
Contact:
Jimmie West
www.TexasBritishWhiteCattle.com
See Also:
- Leveraging The Power of Twitter to Save Gilad Shalit
- It’s March Madness and the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling Reminds Fans they don’t have to Wager to Enjoy the Game
- Sacramento Tax Law Firm Donates Winter Clothing To Local Family Resource Center
- United Law Group Welcomes Federal Investigators; Contends That Banks Failed the People
- COBRA Premium Subsidy Extension Compliance Guide
[Via Legal / Law]
generic medications | buy kamagra cheap | cialis super active+ 20mg
No comments:
Post a Comment