How can we mitigate global warming?

[vz71]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I think the issue is, if people seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all things will be added unto them. If people seek first economic benefit, I'm thinking it would be like grasping at a mirage and ending them up worse off economically. Maybe that's how divine economy works. Because we never thought of the money saving aspect -- that was just a side benefit.

My church teaches that we should be good stewards.
It does not teach that I should make economically unsound decisions to mitigate environmental consequences that may not be there.

The good steward thinks through first, then acts in the best interest.

[RACJ]

Ground Al Gore's and the Obamas' jets. Rob

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by vz71

My church teaches that we should be good stewards.
It does not teach that I should make economically unsound decisions to mitigate environmental consequences that may not be there.

The good steward thinks through first, then acts in the best interest.

Good stewards also involves giving charity to those in need AND reducing one's harm to other people to whatever extent feasible. Living prudently and frugally, so one has some extra $$ to donate to charity and to implement measures that would reduce one's harm to others.

And if you haven't got a halfenny, then God bless you. And I'd suggest becoming an environmentalist so as to save pennies and $$ and get onto the road to prosperity

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by RACJ

Ground Al Gore's and the Obamas' jets. Rob

It would be good for us all to find ways to reduce our need for air travel. Now we do travel by air several times a year -- both business travel and personal -- so I'm far from perfect, and just hope my other measures help compensate for that.

It would be great if we could have some "silver bullet" trains like that have in France. We went from Paris to Lourdes in a fews hours; it was great. It would also be even greater, if those trains could run on alt-energy electricity or fuel. One of the benefits of train travel is that people don't have to go through airport rigamaroll, which adds an extra hour to two to one's travel.

The problem we have in America re plan and train travel is that we are scattered so far around, unlike Europe, where people are closer to each other.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by 4elise

Good article - so even if someone is 'not able' to go vegan - they CAN make a difference by reducing their consumption of meat, poultry, dairy - to ONE serving a day. A good - hopefully - first step.... as anyone (baring rare health issues) 'can' go vegan if they value the difference it can make, I believe --- BUT this would be a great first step!

There might be health benefits in reducing the consumption of meat from what most people eat. But consider this.

1/3 of the planet's habitable surface is suitable for nothing but grassland. You can't grow crops on it. The only way to derive food from it is to run that grass through a cow, goat or sheep. Ranching uses very little energy compared to crop growing. Massively less. But the energy utilization climbs when cattle are grain fed ("finished") at the very end, for 80-120 days, though it still doesn't compare with the crop-growing for human consumption. That's to get more fat into the meat, and it's called "marbling". Aussies don't do that. They eat totally grass-fed beef, mutton, etc, and prefer it. Vegans would actually REDUCE energy consumption if they backed up on the vegan diet and ate more meat...so long as it is grass-fed.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

There might be health benefits in reducing the consumption of meat from what most people eat. But consider this.

1/3 of the planet's habitable surface is suitable for nothing but grassland. You can't grow crops on it. The only way to derive food from it is to run that grass through a cow, goat or sheep. Ranching uses very little energy compared to crop growing. Massively less. But the energy utilization climbs when cattle are grain fed ("finished") at the very end, for 80-120 days, though it still doesn't compare with the crop-growing for human consumption. That's to get more fat into the meat, and it's called "marbling". Aussies don't do that. They eat totally grass-fed beef, mutton, etc, and prefer it. Vegans would actually REDUCE energy consumption if they backed up on the vegan diet and ate more meat...so long as it is grass-fed.

That's a good point. I think some cattle in the U.S. (like in Wisconsin) are almost totally corn-fed, while in Texas and Florida they are partly grass-fed ((corn-fed tastes better)).

But it's not just the crops they eat that contributes GHGs, but also their digestive system and CH4, so that might make them more GHG/unit of protein or calorie intensive than vegetarian diets (but I'm not sure). That is the problem with rice -- the CH4 releases from paddy fields.

Chickens, by contrast, are totally grain fed, and some of that is from soy fields in Brazil that multinationals strong-armed away from the peasants who used to own them and are now destitute without a subsistence base. There are hidden social justice issues involved.

I think pigs are also grain-fed in horrid conditions that cause a lot of pollution.

Also the farmers, ranchers, and fed-lot businesses could (and a few do) turn the manure into biogas energy and fertilizer (which is actually a better soil amendment once the CH4 is extracted), instead of polluting their vicinities.

I think another issue is the cruelty involved in livestock raising, and esp slaughtering. I remember seeing a video of a Chicago slaughterhouse where they chain the legs of the cows, hoist them up and cut them up alive. They showed a "downed" (sick, frothing at the mouth) cow that couldn't walk from the train to the slaughterhouse, so they chained the leg and dragged it all the way, hoisted and cut it up.....feces and all falling all over the meat, etc. If you thought the "pink slime" series on ABC News was disgusting, it was nothing compared to that video I saw.

Not that I've totally given up all meat & dairy, maybe about a 80-90% reduction....like once a week or once in two weeks I'll have some pizza with pepperoni, or an egg roll or hot & sour soup with a bit of meat, or occasionally some fish plate at Red Lobster (my husband's favorite restaurant, which doesn't have much by way of vegetarian selections).

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

That's a good point. I think some cattle in the U.S. (like in Wisconsin) are almost totally corn-fed, while in Texas and Florida they are partly grass-fed ((corn-fed tastes better)).

But it's not just the crops they eat that contributes GHGs, but also their digestive system and CH4, so that might make them more GHG/unit of protein or calorie intensive than vegetarian diets (but I'm not sure). That is the problem with rice -- the CH4 releases from paddy fields.

Undoubtedly some cattle are almost entirely grain fed in places that are not really suited to cattle raising but in which farmers feed their "waste" corn. In more temperate places like where I live (Southern Mo) cattle are entirely grass-fed all the way to "feed lot" weight, which is pretty close to slaughter weight. They are fed "grain" for 80 to 120 days for the "marbling". Since the recent trend is to feed less, feed lots now pay higher per pound for animals that are closer to slaughter weight than they used to. Breed makes a big difference in that, but far and away most of the weight is put on with grass.

Other than perhaps northern farmers who feed their own otherwise unmarketable grain to cattle, (and even that is usually a corn silage that contains the stalks and leaves as well)competent cattlemen do not feed significant amounts of grain to cattle. You will lose your backside doing that. Cattle do not need grain in order to thrive and grow, and it's a terrible waste of money to give it to them all the way to feedlot weight.

I put "grain" in parentheses because they really aren't fed much real grain in the feed lots. Most of it is a formula in which the main protein ingredient is actually distillers' grain; grain from which the alcohol has been distilled and extracted, and which is good for almost nothing else. It's mixed with things like rice hulls, soybean hulls and the like. The corn that's used is usually of a variety or quality that is not marketable for human consumption.

I am aware that cattle contribute some methane to the atmosphere through belching and such. But we might remember that before white settlers arrived in this country, the country contained approximately as many buffalo as it now contains cattle. Their digestive systems are the same. That does not count the enormous number of elk, antelopes and deer that were there before, and whose digestive systems are virtually the same. So, cattle add no net methane to what was produced here in 1491, and probably less.

What would happen if we destroyed all the cattle? Well, nature abhors a vacuum and, unless it was prevented, the grasslands would fairly quickly refill with other animals having the very same digestive systems, and there would be no net methane reduction unless the government forever sent out teams to eliminate grass-eaters from the grasslands.

And, of course, 1/3 of the world's useable land would become totally useless to human beings. Humans would leave them, of necessity, and the killing teams would have to be fairly substantial in number. We can't digest grass, period.

Grass, of course, is a net "eater" of carbon, particularly if something eats it and converts the carbon to something like meat instead of just leaving it to decay. But few natural things capture carbon better than "adolescent trees". Some grasslands (but certainly not the biggest part) can be converted to "silvopasture", in which pasture is interspersed with trees (usually, but not necessarily in rows). The advantages are better grass growth, less drought damage, heat respite for cattle and (if one likes the thought) carbon sequestration.

There is some crop land where I live, though it is mostly grassland and forest. The energy inputs into crops are incredibly high. Energy inputs into grass are very low, almost nonexistent, depending on how you do it.

Yes, energy is consumed and CO2 generated when hay is harvested and stored. But that's still not remotely comparable to what it takes to simply prepare the ground for a crop, let alone sow, spray, spray again, havest, haul, etc. And, in some places, (like here) the climate is such that, if you do it right, you might feed hay for only a couple of weeks/year.

Not saying all ranching practices are good. But perhaps the emphasis from an environmental standpoint ought to be on encouraging the best practices. Meat from grass contributes a very large segment of the world's high-quality food supply, and when it comes to cattle, it's pretty environmentally friendly.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Chickens, by contrast, are totally grain fed, and some of that is from soy fields in Brazil that multinationals strong-armed away from the peasants who used to own them and are now destitute without a subsistence base. There are hidden social justice issues involved.

I think pigs are also grain-fed in horrid conditions that cause a lot of pollution.

Also the farmers, ranchers, and fed-lot businesses could (and a few do) turn the manure into biogas energy and fertilizer (which is actually a better soil amendment once the CH4 is extracted), instead of polluting their vicinities.

I think another issue is the cruelty involved in livestock raising, and esp slaughtering. I remember seeing a video of a Chicago slaughterhouse where they chain the legs of the cows, hoist them up and cut them up alive. They showed a "downed" (sick, frothing at the mouth) cow that couldn't walk from the train to the slaughterhouse, so they chained the leg and dragged it all the way, hoisted and cut it up.....feces and all falling all over the meat, etc. If you thought the "pink slime" series on ABC News was disgusting, it was nothing compared to that video I saw.

Not that I've totally given up all meat & dairy, maybe about a 80-90% reduction....like once a week or once in two weeks I'll have some pizza with pepperoni, or an egg roll or hot & sour soup with a bit of meat, or occasionally some fish plate at Red Lobster (my husband's favorite restaurant, which doesn't have much by way of vegetarian selections).

Chickens are, indeed, totally grain fed. They're efficient, but that's a fact. Hogs are too, though the quality of it is less than that which is fed to chickens.

I realize there are awful pictures of meat processing plants. I am at a loss to explain them, because I have been in poultry processing plants and pork processing plants myself, and neither bears any resemblance to the films one sometimes sees on TV.

I have not been in a beef processing plant, but mean to do it. (They're at some distance from here) My general understanding from at least one beef processing company is that the process is very similar to that for hogs. If so, it's not like you have been informed. I'll see when I go there.

Keep in mind that the USDA is in all of those plants, lots of USDA people. Again, I can't tell you about cattle, but I do know that if either a chicken or a hog is contaminated with feces, it is condemned and goes into pet food. I have seen that with my own eyes.

USDA also has "animal cruelty" rules, and they enforce them. I have read the rules for poultry processing, but have not read those for pork or beef. Probably, eventually, I will. But among the poultry rules is that the animal must be unconscious when killed and the killing process must result in immediate bleed-out. No live animal or animal with blood still in it can proceed beyond that point, and there are USDA people who enforce it. If you have ever been in a poultry plant you know they do it. Kind of interesting, because virtually all chicken is "kosher" in reality, except for the prayers, the rabbinical inspection and the certification, and as near as I can tell, all of it is "halal" as well, except for the clerical inspection and certification. In fact, I was more than once in a poultry plant with a "kosher" line and the only difference between it and "non-kosher" lines was the presence of the rabbi at the former.

I don't mean to be difficult, but I have also been in pork growout (and poultry growout) facilities. Hogs stink, no question about it. But the facilities are as scrupulously clean as you can get hogs to be. Hogs will catch almost any human disease and they have to be kept clean or the hogs will die in droves, and quickly. Also, despite the fact that there are "factory farms" for hogs, most of them in this part of the country have shut down and most hogs are now raised by individual farmers, but according to stringent specs required by the integrators.

Finally, let me at least mildly caution you about the meat in things like pepperoni, soup, highly processed foods of all kinds. The meat in them is from "cull" animals almost without exception. Get a good steak or roast from a good store instead. That's the best of the best.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Undoubtedly some cattle are almost entirely grain fed in places that are not really suited to cattle raising but in which farmers feed their "waste" corn. In more temperate places like where I live (Southern Mo) cattle are entirely grass-fed all the way to "feed lot" weight, which is pretty close to slaughter weight.

In Wisconsin the issue is this -- during winter there is not a lot of grass to forage, since it's covered in snow, so they grow crops of low grade corn for the cattle. I tried eating that corn; it tastes bad. However, that beef is the most delicious you can ever imagine.....and my husand has the scar down his chest to prove it.

Anyway, he decided to take his cholesterol quota in shrimp (which he really loves) decades ago when we didn't know that shrimp had some benefit in its Omega3. But now with gout, he's down to simply fish, with shrimp occasionally, and is talking about going vegetarian 2 days a week. (He grew up vegetarian in India, and has a pathological aversion to chicken, but eventually came to love beef and pork.) So we're muddling along trying to eat more healthy -- for us and the environment.

We also need to lose weight.....for both reasons.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

In Wisconsin the issue is this -- during winter there is not a lot of grass to forage, since it's covered in snow, so they grow crops of low grade corn for the cattle. I tried eating that corn; it tastes bad. However, that beef is the most delicious you can ever imagine.....and my husand has the scar down his chest to prove it.

Anyway, he decided to take his cholesterol quota in shrimp (which he really loves) decades ago when we didn't know that shrimp had some benefit in its Omega3. But now with gout, he's down to simply fish, with shrimp occasionally, and is talking about going vegetarian 2 days a week. (He grew up vegetarian in India, and has a pathological aversion to chicken, but eventually came to love beef and pork.) So we're muddling along trying to eat more healthy -- for us and the environment.

We also need to lose weight.....for both reasons.

There are hazards to eating just about anything. Personally, while I occasionally eat marbled beef if I'm in a restaurant, which is rare, my wife and I almost never eat it. Too much fat. I do like all-grass-fed. Only thing is, there's not enough fat in it to fry the meat. Have to put a little olive oil or something in the pan to keep it from sticking. But it's flavorful in its own way. Strange to tell, the most flavorful, to my thinking, is beef from a year-old bull. Not tough, but very flavorful.

Seafood has its merits and its negatives. Some people are horribly allergic to some kinds of it. Improperly cooked, one can get parasites from it. Some of it is mercury-tainted.

There's just no perfect thing. Even organic vegetables can be hazardous because they're usually fertilized with manure. Might be just fine, but you can get a hefty case of e coli or salmonella with it.

Some places in the U.S. are just not suitable for cattle to be raised the "right" way. Even if the cattle in Wisconsin could get to the grass, it won't be green. Here, we're fortunate to be in both the "green fescue belt" where it stays green all winter, and the "bermuda belt" where warm-season grasses flourish in the summer. That's not to say people can't work out all-grass forage in other places. There is a formula for many places, and they're not all the same. You just have to find it and do it. Also, breed matters a lot, as to the quality, climate and forage conditions.

All interesting stuff to me. It has been fairly recently that ranchers have gotten really serious about alternatives to old "one size fits all" formulas.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Good stewards also involves giving charity to those in need AND reducing one's harm to other people to whatever extent feasible. Living prudently and frugally, so one has some extra $$ to donate to charity and to implement measures that would reduce one's harm to others.

I can agree with this.

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

And if you haven't got a halfenny, then God bless you. And I'd suggest becoming an environmentalist so as to save pennies and $$ and get onto the road to prosperity

I propose agreement that the prior mentioned lights are an example of placing a theorized benefit over economic soundness.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by vz71

I can agree with this.

I propose agreement that the prior mentioned lights are an example of placing a theorized benefit over economic soundness.

Well, I suppose I can't talk about the whole economy, only that we've saved many meny $1000s by doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing, except that I see a lot of people doing wasteful things, perhaps not realizing it is costing them.

A really good book that suggests our economy can indeed reduce its energy consumption and GHG emissions by more than 75% without lowering productivity is Hawken and Lovins (an engineer) NATURAL CAPITALISM. See http://www.natcap.org and it's very cheap on Amazon.com. It's a great book and suggests various principles for reducing, such as "tunneling through," which can reduce energy consumption even by 90% without lowering productivity, giving actual examples of how companies have done that.

Even if they are over-optimistic, I'm sure our economy could reduce its GHG emissions at least by 40% through energy/resource efficiency/conservation, and then another 10-20% through alt energy. That's a done deal, if people and companies would only go for that easily reachable gold ring.....

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Well, I suppose I can't talk about the whole economy, only that we've saved many meny $1000s by doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing, except that I see a lot of people doing wasteful things, perhaps not realizing it is costing them.

A really good book that suggests our economy can indeed reduce its energy consumption and GHG emissions by more than 75% without lowering productivity is Hawken and Lovins (an engineer) NATURAL CAPITALISM. See http://www.natcap.org and it's very cheap on Amazon.com. It's a great book and suggests various principles for reducing, such as "tunneling through," which can reduce energy consumption even by 90% without lowering productivity, giving actual examples of how companies have done that.

Even if they are over-optimistic, I'm sure our economy could reduce its GHG emissions at least by 40% through energy/resource efficiency/conservation, and then another 10-20% through alt energy. That's a done deal, if people and companies would only go for that easily reachable gold ring.....

Looks like a potentially interesting book. But one might sound at least two cautionary notes about things like 75% reductions in emissions. First, it is recognized that reductions in this country will not significantly affect worldwide CO2 levels. This country is already the least offending in that regard, considering the energy used. Second, energy use has a direct correllation with production of goods and services. U.S. energy consumption, as a percentage of worldwide consumption, almost exactly equals its percentage of worldwide production. It takes energy to make and grow things, and there might not be any "magic bullet" way to reduce energy use or emissions.

What's "tunneling through"?

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

While there is debate raging on in the non-scientific community about whether anthropogenic global warming is a reality, popes and bishops have called us to take the prudent course of mitigating it, even if we personally are not convinced it is happening.

I'd like this thread to address sensible ways we can mitigate global warming -- reduce our greenhouse gases -- and not as a place to discuss whether or not AGW is happening (there are plenty of threads on CAF addressing that).

For starters I'd propose ways in which we can become more energy/ resource conservative/efficient and go on alt energy when feasible. Things like "reduce, reuse, recycle, etc." My own experience tells me we can reduce substantially without lowering living standards or productivity. My husband and I have done so over the last 22 years, reducing perhaps over 60% of our GHGs from our 1990 levels cost-effectively, while actually increasing our living standards a bit.

Already someone on another thread has informed us that the "check engine" light in our cars may indicate gasoline is not burning efficiently, causing local pollution problems and contributing to AGW. Another person on another blog mentioned how shaking out clothes before putting them in the dryer shortens drying time and reduced energy use. There are a myriad of sensible solutions that if practiced wide-scale could make some difference. It is not necessary to do everything, only the things that suit the personal situation of the person, including their recreations (which we all need to avoid going berzerk).

Also, I think many solutions not only reduce GHG emissions, but reduce other environmental pollutants and problems (such as non-renewable resource depletion), and many save money -- so it becomes a win-win-win-win situation.

There are also "downsides" to many solutions, so it is good to try and figure out if on balance they do more good than harm, or if there could be solutions to the problems the solutions raise.

BTW, I am against food-to-fuel biofuels, Cap & Trade (mainly bec it would be ineffective), and many ill-conceived geo-engineering schemes. I'm not opposed to larger GHG reduction schemes in general, but tend to prefer volunatry personal/family measures, which in the final analysis will be the main way we solve this problem, if we decide to solve it.

On a final note, I think it is within Catholicism to live a more simple, detached life, focused more fully on God, than on not-God things. As a lay Carmelite (OCDS), this is a position dear to my heart -- even though my life is cluttered with not-God things, and I have a long way to go on my spiritual journey.

Bless you for any suggestions or debate over various solutions.

I run the A/C on my SUV at the max and keep the door opens so it can cool the outside.

Yesterday I was waiting for my son to get out of school and I knew that he was running late so I parked in the shade and turned the engine off. Next to me there was a mom in a BMW SUV with all the windows closed and the engine running, she kept the engine running for a whole hour. In the shade with the breeze going through the open windows my car was at no more than 78F. I was tempted to tell her something but you never know what to expect from parents parked in front of a Catholic school.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Well, I suppose I can't talk about the whole economy, only that we've saved many meny $1000s by doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing, except that I see a lot of people doing wasteful things, perhaps not realizing it is costing them.

Agreed. Microeconomics.

The country is too large to try to consider all of the economics there, and we do not have the right to impose decisions upon our neighbors.

This should be about saving the most for the individual household.

For me, this is a careful study of more efficient methodology and the possible ROI for it. for instance, I utilize CF lights where possible. Not because I am looking to save the environment, but because I see a significant cost savings.

Others may wish to factor into the ROI environmental factors, I do not understand the reasoning, but I also do not really concern myself with something that is their business.