dianahsieh Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Dedicated scientists will stop at nothing in the fight against global warming: In an attempt to understand the extent of cow flatulence on global warming, scientists in Argentina are strapping plastic bags to the backs of cows to capture their emissions. Argentina has more than 55 million cows, making it a leading producer of beef. In the study, the scientists were surprised to discover that a standard 550-kg cow produces between 800 to 1,000 liters of emissions, including methane, each day... "When we got the first results, we were surprised," said Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina. "Thirty percent of Argentina's (total greenhouse) emissions could be generated by cattle." In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals' stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis. Unfortunately, the global warming authoritarians will just use this as an excuse to clamp down on cows as well as people. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003828.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I guess cows are now as much of a 'virus' to 'Mother Earth' as man is... Seriously though, I remember reading a realistic science fiction piece that said bovine flatulations would be the strongest atmospheric evidence of life on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) I hate environmentalists. I really, really do. My biology teacher was an environmentalist freak, and I was constantly arguing with him. He showed no factual evidence lol Edited July 21, 2008 by NickS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 He couldn't; his premise is that "the environment" is an intrinsic value. You cannot prove that; it's a premise. (A bad one IMHO) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 He couldn't; his premise is that "the environment" is an intrinsic value. You cannot prove that; it's a premise. (A bad one IMHO) I assume Nick meant his teacher didn't show any factual evidence for global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I guess cows are now as much of a 'virus' to 'Mother Earth' as man is... Are you surprised? I've heard enviromentalists call cows "hoofed locusts." Many viros are vegetarian or vegan. It follows. Seriously though, I remember reading a realistic science fiction piece that said bovine flatulations would be the strongest atmospheric evidence of life on Earth. Of animal life. Given an oxygen atmosphere you know there is some form of life generating it. Oxygen is a very reactive element and promptly combines with other elements, therefore it doesn't hang around the atmosphere unless it's produced in massive quantities by plants. So large amounts of free oxygen equals life, but it may only be plant life. Animals, now, produce methane as a waste product from digestion. So if you find free oxygen and some methane, chances are there's plant and animal life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matus1976 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Unless these cows are eating previously permanetly sequestered carbon and then releasing it (OIL) then thier total emissions are irrelevant to the notion of 'global warming' from CO2. Cows are eating grass, which is previously temporarily trapped CO2, and releasing it. When the grass grows back, it takes the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. There is no net increase in methane / CO2 / Greenhouse gases from cows eating plants and flatulating. (not that I think anthropogenic global warming is real, just that this is not a valid counter argument) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Unless these cows are eating previously permanetly sequestered carbon and then releasing it (OIL) then thier total emissions are irrelevant to the notion of 'global warming' from CO2. Cows are eating grass, which is previously temporarily trapped CO2, and releasing it. When the grass grows back, it takes the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. There is no net increase in methane / CO2 / Greenhouse gases from cows eating plants and flatulating. It's not carbon dioxide that's the problem with cows, it's the methane part, as the original article points out. In net via a complicated set of steps, carbon dioxide is being taken from the atmosphere and turned into methane. The total carbon in the biosphere cycle remains constant (ie no de-sequestration), but methane is a twenty-five times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is, thereby increasing the greenhouse effect without changing the total amount of gasses or the carbon content of the biosphere. What that article is talking about is changing the cows' feed so that the flatulence contains less methane and more carbon dioxide to be released back to where it came from, which would then return the biosphere cycle (ie leaving aside contributions from oil-fueled farm vehicles etc) to no net greenhouse contribution just as you describe. The argument, on its own terms, is scientifically sound. What's not scientifically sound is the importance attached to the contribution of methane (and other man-contributed substances) to the maintenance and alteration of global temperatures - last I heard the 'scientists' involved still can't get the details of clouds and water vapour right, and they are a far higher source of the causes of air temperatures than what man has provided. The research is most likely a waste of time and resources, and the political fall-out will be even worse, just as Dr's Hsieh and Lockitch note. JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) I feel sorry for that cow. Poor bastard. Just look at it! Can these stupid enviros not see how ridiculous they're being?! They've put a pink balloon on a damn cow to catch its farts for christ's sake! EDIT: Where the hell are those morons over at PETA when you need em?! Edited July 23, 2008 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.