Game Over for the Climate

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Petergee

po18guy asked you for the quotes in context. You have done the exact opposite by taking them totally out of context by absurdly selective elisions and ellipses to distort their meaning. For example your first quote where you claimed Pope John Paul said ]
“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone...The...'greenhouse effect' has now reached crisis proportions...”
what he actually said, including the parts you cut out, was


The quote about "Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone." actually appears much later in the statement, not immediately before the reference to "greenhhouse efffect" as you falsely put into his mouth. He was referring to ALL negative effects that man's actions may have on the environment, insclusing pollution of all kinds (the greenhouse effect has nothing tot do with pollution).

And of course the greenhouse effect is not "related" to the ozone "hole" (thinning) in fact they tend to counteract each other if anything. The pope got his science wrong on that point. Popes are not infallible on questions of science.

Nowehere in this otr the other two statements you (extremely distortedly) quoted from, is it stated that man-made global warming is about to have catastrophic effects, much less advocates any particular way to try to combat it such as imposing taxes on so-called "carbon polluters" [sic}.

I provided the links so people would read the whole writings, just giving brief quotes (which I copied off a pamphlet I made....which needed to be brief).

I stand by those quotes -- the popes meant that we should mitigate AGW (AKA the green house effect, climate change, etc), along with other environmental problems. Why would they be addressing us about climate change and attempting to become "carbon-neutral" if they thought climate change was just a natural process?

I too am concerned about all negative effects of environmental harms. I fact, I'm involved in a local contamination project (among other issues), including an Agent Orange & pesticide factory located in a low-income, hispanic community, close to an elementary school. Many are sick and dying around there. Being involved with one serious environmental issue does not preclude being concerned about or involved with others, tho time constraints may limit what we can do.

I'm glad the Holy Fathers are not so narrow minded either. JPII was concerned with both the ozone hole and AGW, and all other serious environmental harms. And these are related in several ways (like CFCs contributing to both), but are not the same issue. Many people did confuse the 2 back then, but it is not clear from the writing that JPII is confusing them, only that he is stating concern for several serious enviornmental problems.

What makes anyone think the Holy Fathers would be in favor of reducing local pollution and the ozone hole, while being in favor harming and killing people through AGW. It doesn't compute.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by ekk1

Reflecting on this topic, and also on the potential role of the Catholic Church, I recall Prime Minister Brown's opinion that our greatest problems are of a trans-national nature. A solution to the global warming problem, a solution to the other pollution problems, a solution to poverty... will not be realized on a national level. These solutions require international collaboration.

Why has the Catholic Church not stepped up? It is one of the few international organizations with the stature and resources to take a leadership role. Why has it not done so? But rather than dwell on failure, who will lead into the future? Will the Church continue to slide into inevitable oblivion, or will it change course and assume a leadership role?

In my archdiocese, there are currently three seminarians who will become priests this year. There are 15 priests who have reached the age of 75, and who are retiring. Last year, two graduates replaced 13 retirees.

I believe that if the Catholic Church stepped into the present, and anticipated the future in a morally responsible way, then there would be more new priests and nuns than retirees.

Getting bogged down in idiotic arguments of whether global warming is real. Protecting child molesters, imagining that scandal can be prevented by sticking one's head in the sand. Holding stalwart against basic human rights. This sort of behavior is eroding the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church has incredible potential as a positive force in the world. It has a rich and long tradition. It seems now to be squandering its moral, social, and political wealth on petty issues, when it could be a great force for good in the world.

The top of the Catholic hierarchy, as I've mentioned, are very good in calling on us to mitigate climate change and a host of other actions that would make for a much better world.

While calling for "subsidiarity" -- which is "decisions should be made at the lowest possible levels which are capable of making them -- they call for "subsidiarity in solidarity," which means we should make decisions for the common good, and not just selfish decisions that are only good for us, our towns, or our nations, but for the whole world.

And BXVI in his "Caritas et Veritates" (see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...ritate_en.html ) says that we do need a world gov body capable of dealing with these transnational and global issues, one with "teeth":

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need...for a reform of the United Nations Organization... so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth... To manage the global economy;... to guarantee the protection of the environment...: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority... regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good...

(Note, I've just taken this from a paper I'm working on, so excuse the ellipses and do go to the main docu.)

The main problem is the holy fathers don't have much impact or weight at the local levels. It is not a "power hierarchy," but a "voluntary guidance hierarchy." Actual Catholics either take or leave whatever the priests or holy fathers say according to their own "master ideology" (such as tea party ideology or liberal ideology), and just go their own way, twisting Catholic teachings to fit their more important ideas.

Having said that, there is some impact. In a study I did, using a U.S. national survey, it found that there were only 32% Catholic climate change skeptics compared to 38% for non-Catholics. So that's something at least. Either the holy fathers are having some impact, or it is the Catholic faith in general, which has always been more "other conscious" and social justice conscious than most non-Catholic faiths.

And there are lots of religious orders and lay Catholics striving to feed the hungry, and they are aware of AGW and calling on people to mitigate it.

We all need to become more "front-pew" practicing Catholic, and the world problems will be more adequately addressed.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

The top of the Catholic hierarchy, as I've mentioned, are very good in calling on us to mitigate climate change and a host of other actions that would make for a much better world...

I think BXVI's insight about the link betw ecology and human ecology is very deep and important. From his "If You Want Peace Protect Creation" ( ):

12. The Church has aresponsibility towards creation, and she considers it her duty to exercise that responsibility in public life, in order to protect earth, water and air as gifts of God the Creator meant for everyone, and above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction. The degradation of nature is closely linked to the cultural models shaping human coexistence: consequently, “when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits”. Young people cannot be asked to respect the environment if they are not helped, within families and society as a whole, to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible; it includes not only the environment but also individual, family and social ethics. Our duties towards the environment flow from our duties towards the person, considered both individually and in relation to others.

Hence I readily encourage efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility which, as I indicated in my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, would safeguard an authentic “human ecology” and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.[29] There is a need to safeguard the human patrimony of society. This patrimony of values originates in and is part of the natural moral law, which is the foundation of respect for the human person and creation.

This sort of reminds me of how in the airplane they instruct us to put the oxygen mask over ourselves first, before assisting others -- indicating by analogy here that we should love and give concern and protection to the people in our lives, from conception to natural death, and only then we will be able to be good stewards of creation. I think a lot of people are people-harmed in many ways and have lots of heavy psychological baggage; when people see others committing abortion, for instance, they get the subconscious message that humans are to be trashed, and by extension they themselves are worthless (a message esp harmful for children and young people). When they can be shown love and that they are valuable in God's eyes (even if they've spent a life of being dissed by others), and gain the necessary self-respect to be strong and capable persons, able to go out of themselves and help others and God's creation, then we can make better strides in "saving the earth."

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I provided the links so people would read the whole writings, just giving brief quotes (which I copied off a pamphlet I made....which needed to be brief).

I stand by those quotes -- the popes meant that we should mitigate AGW (AKA the green house effect, climate change, etc),

AGW is not AKA the greenhouse effect. They are two totally different things. If you can'y even get this basic scientific fact right, please don'[t presume to lecture others about science.

along with other environmental problems. Why would they be addressing us about climate change and attempting to become "carbon-neutral" if they thought climate change was just a natural process?

I too am concerned about all negative effects of environmental harms. I fact, I'm involved in a local contamination project (among other issues), including an Agent Orange & pesticide factory located in a low-income, hispanic community, close to an elementary school. Many are sick and dying around there. Being involved with one serious environmental issue does not preclude being concerned about or involved with others, tho time constraints may limit what we can do.

I'm glad the Holy Fathers are not so narrow minded either. JPII was concerned with both the ozone hole and AGW, and all other serious environmental harms. And these are related in several ways (like CFCs contributing to both), but are not the same issue. Many people did confuse the 2 back then, but it is not clear from the writing that JPII is confusing them, only that he is stating concern for several serious enviornmental problems.

What makes anyone think the Holy Fathers would be in favor of reducing local pollution and the ozone hole, while being in favor harming and killing people through AGW. It doesn't compute.

What doesn't compute is your absurd claim that I or anyone here said that the Popes are " in favour of harming and killing people through AGW". No Pope has ever claimed AGW is, or is about to, harm or kill people, much less prescribed that Catholics are bound to support any particular government policy to combat it. That is my point here.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Petergee

AGW is not AKA the greenhouse effect. They are two totally different things. If you can'y even get this basic scientific fact right, please don'[t presume to lecture others about science.

In common parlance among people, the first term that was used in the 1980s & early 90s to describe the situtation was "the greenhouse effect," with "global warming" and then "climate change" becoming the more common terms to label it in succeeding years.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that has been known about for some 200 years. Without it the earth wouldn't be warm enough to support life. Even back 100 years there was speculation that our human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as society industrialized would have a warming effect. Climate is impacted by many things and weather is "noisy," so it took them until 1995 for the first studies to detect global warming "signal from the noise" at 95% scientific confidence.

It should be mentioned that scientists are extremely conservative and reticent about making claims. They are striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims -- they cannot be the boy who called wolf or no one will believe them again. We people concerned about life on earth, and policy-makers (you'd think) would be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address true and highly dangerous problems -- we cannot afford to be the villagers who got eaten up by the wolf.....the other moral to that story.

So JPII and I were perfectly within the right to call on people since 1990, before high level scientific certainty, to mitigate.

What doesn't compute is your absurd claim that I or anyone here said that the Popes are " in favour of harming and killing people through AGW". No Pope has ever claimed AGW is, or is about to, harm or kill people, much less prescribed that Catholics are bound to support any particular government policy to combat it. That is my point here.

You can interpret what they say anyway you want. My understanding is they are calling on everyone to mitigate the very serious problems of AGW, ACC, the (human-enhanced) greenhouse effect.

Everyone I presume means everyone. Not just governments. Everyone. That's the policy they are suggesting.

Since gov doesn't want to do much about it, and since ultimately it is us (everyone) who need to mitigate it, my main focus has been on voluntary personal, household, and business measures that actually save us money or have no cost. That's the very least we can do, and should get us down to a 70% reduction in GHG emissions in the U.S.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by ekk1

There is much that can be done economically.On a personal level, you can save money and reduce green house emissions by going vegetarian, which will also make you healthier. Raising livestock produces 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.

It's possible that eliminating hogs MIGHT reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since it is not certain that domestic hogs will be fully replaced by feral hogs in the environment. But unless we are willing to give it a try, we are not going to know.

With cattle, eliminating them probably would have no net environmental effect at all, except to greatly increase emissions due to (probably ineffective) attempts to increase production of grains and vegetables to somehow replace meat in human diets. 1/3 of the U.S. is grassland, (the same is true of habitable parts of the world, generally) not suitable for anything other than grazing. It can't be farmed for grain or vegetables. Get rid of cattle, and 1/3 of the producing land goes out of food production. Humans cannot digest grass. It takes a special kind of digestive system for that, and we don't have it.

But the grasslands won't go out of methane or CO2 production. Nature abhors a vacuum and if cattle (and sheep, for that matter) were eliminated, the grasslands would quckly refill with other grass-eaters. It's just a fact that, before white settlers, there were approximately as many buffalo in the U.S. as there are now cattle. Add to that the additional deer, elk, antelope, of which there were not a few. Get cattle and sheep off the grasslands, and all we will have done is return to the 1491 production of greenhouse gases on the grasslands, which was undoubtedly the same as now.

Empty the grasslands of cattle and they'll fill up with something else, guaranteed, unless there is a never-ending national program to kill them off. That might work with the big grazers and an army of government hunters, but it would never work with the smaller ones, including feral hogs.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

It's possible that eliminating hogs MIGHT reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since it is not certain that domestic hogs will be fully replaced by feral hogs in the environment. But unless we are willing to give it a try, we are not going to know.

With cattle, eliminating them probably would have no net environmental effect at all, except to greatly increase emissions due to (probably ineffective) attempts to increase production of grains and vegetables to somehow replace meat in human diets. 1/3 of the U.S. is grassland, (the same is true of habitable parts of the world, generally) not suitable for anything other than grazing. It can't be farmed for grain or vegetables. Get rid of cattle, and 1/3 of the producing land goes out of food production. Humans cannot digest grass. It takes a special kind of digestive system for that, and we don't have it.

But the grasslands won't go out of methane or CO2 production. Nature abhors a vacuum and if cattle (and sheep, for that matter) were eliminated, the grasslands would quckly refill with other grass-eaters. It's just a fact that, before white settlers, there were approximately as many buffalo in the U.S. as there are now cattle. Add to that the additional deer, elk, antelope, of which there were not a few. Get cattle and sheep off the grasslands, and all we will have done is return to the 1491 production of greenhouse gases on the grasslands, which was undoubtedly the same as now.

Empty the grasslands of cattle and they'll fill up with something else, guaranteed, unless there is a never-ending national program to kill them off. That might work with the big grazers and an army of government hunters, but it would never work with the smaller ones, including feral hogs.

That's a good point, but that still leaves a tremendous amount of 100% grain-fed cattle and the feed lots used to fatten up the grass-fed cattle. Also the possibility that much of that land could be used for crop-growing. One of the reasons natives did not grow crops in the Great Plains, but hunted buffalo was because they did not have the steel plow to dig up that tough earth. They did, however, grow crops with digging sticks in the Prairie area (e.g., Minnesota and Iowa, a transitional area between the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains). See map:


There is also another issue re the Amazon rainforest; they are clearing it for beef raising. The problem there is that the nutrients are mainly in the plants, not in the soil (which is nutrient-poor). The proper agricultural practice to maintain undegraded soil there is swidden or shifting horticulture, which as been practiced there for centuries by the tribals. They clear some brush, plant some crops, then chop down the big trees to let the light in; after one crop, they move on to another area, and let that old crop area go back to jungle -- a practice used by tribals in rainforests around the world. The European style of planting crops year after year in the same place depletes such poor soil, turning it into moonscape, and the forest does not come back, but the farmers move on to other areas and keep destroying them too.

I'm not sure, but I think McDonalds got a lot of its beef from such rainforest farms, but I think with public pressure they stopped.

I think a sensible approach would be to reduce beef consumption, and have the cattle eat the cornstocks, agri waste, and wild grasses between farms. It seems to me beef production could be reduced to about half, and that would benefit our health and mitigate many other problems. For example, one could order the regular burger at McDonalds (made famous by the "where's the beef" ad) instead of the quarter pounder -- then also order the salad and other healthy things to fill up the stomach's remaining space.

Also note that meat eating has only slightly increased in the West over the past 20 years, but extremely increased in China (which nevertheless only consumes less than half of what Westerners consume per capita).

There is also the issue of rice involving a lot of methane emissions, but many peoples of the world are so used to rice, that it would be very difficult for them to change. That's one thing we have not given up (my husband is from S. India), but we have reduced by about 1/3 to 1/2 by switching from white to brown rice some 20 years ago....which involves less consumption since it is more nutritious -- we just feel more full with less rice.

The saints have things to say about the tongue, and I'm no saint.....yet

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

In common parlance among people, the first term that was used in the 1980s & early 90s to describe the situtation was "the greenhouse effect," with "global warming" and then "climate change" becoming the more common terms to label it in succeeding years.

Yes indeed. But it has never, ever, been called "the ozone hole" which as I said is a totally different thing.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that has been known about for some 200 years. Without it the earth wouldn't be warm enough to support life. Even back 100 years there was speculation that our human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as society industrialized would have a warming effect. Climate is impacted by many things and weather is "noisy," so it took them until 1995 for the first studies to detect global warming "signal from the noise" at 95% scientific confidence.

It should be mentioned that scientists are extremely conservative and reticent about making claims. They are striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims -- they cannot be the boy who called wolf or no one will believe them again. We people concerned about life on earth, and policy-makers (you'd think) would be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address true and highly dangerous problems -- we cannot afford to be the villagers who got eaten up by the wolf.....the other moral to that story.

So JPII and I were perfectly within the right to call on people since 1990, before high level scientific certainty, to mitigate.

And you seem to think that there is something in all this which I disagree with? Why do you think I need this lecture about the bleeding obvious?

You can interpret what they say anyway you want.

No thanks I'll just take their words at face value withiout adding any artificial interpretation to suit my own agenda as so many do.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Petergee

Yes indeed. But it has never, ever, been called "the ozone hole" which as I said is a totally different thing.....

Okay. I had read "Peace with God, Peace with All Creation" 22 years ago, and I just looked it up again now. Here is the part that you are concerned about (see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...eace_en.html):

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related "greenhouse effect" has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

I don't have any trouble with this. Both problems -- the ozone hole and the GH effect -- came upon the public at about the same time. (And, yes, many people did confuse the two, and some still do.)

I suppose one could take this as JPII confusing the two, or that he was extremely sophicated (perhaps had his Vatican scientists look into his message before presenting it) and understood how the GH effect and stratospheric ozone depletion were related.

As I mentioned, CFCs & some other chemicals contribute to both. In fact, CFCs & co. are much more powerful GHGs than CO2. At the time they signed the Montreal Protocol, there was acknowledgement that it would not only help mitigate ozone depletion, but also global warming. Also the GH effect causes cooling in the stratosphere (above the GHG belt) by not allowing as much radiated warming out, and the cooler temps helping provide the necessary conditions for ozone breakdown. So in those two ways they are most certainly related. Here's something that might help some people here understand the relationship: see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/ozoneDepletion.html

The fact that JPII mentions "energy needs" and "burning of fossil fuels" and "unrestricted deforestation" indicates that he understands causes of anthropogenic global warming. The fact that he mentions "herbicides" and "coolants and propellants" indicates that he understands causes of stratopheric ozone breakdown (and the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect). Also the fact that he mentions "meteorological changes" and "submersion of low-lying lands" indicates he undersands some of the impacts of AGW; the fact that he mentions "harm to human health" indicates he understands impacts of both AGW and stratospheric ozone depletion.

I have always interpreted that he had the more advanced knowledge and knew the two were related (but not the same thing), rather than he was confusing the two. Now in rereading it again, I'm sure he was not confusing the two.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

That's a good point, but that still leaves a tremendous amount of 100% grain-fed cattle and the feed lots used to fatten up the grass-fed cattle. Also the possibility that much of that land could be used for crop-growing. One of the reasons natives did not grow crops in the Great Plains, but hunted buffalo was because they did not have the steel plow to dig up that tough earth. They did, however, grow crops with digging sticks in the Prairie area (e.g., Minnesota and Iowa, a transitional area between the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains). See map:


There is also another issue re the Amazon rainforest; they are clearing it for beef raising. The problem there is that the nutrients are mainly in the plants, not in the soil (which is nutrient-poor). The proper agricultural practice to maintain undegraded soil there is swidden or shifting horticulture, which as been practiced there for centuries by the tribals. They clear some brush, plant some crops, then chop down the big trees to let the light in; after one crop, they move on to another area, and let that old crop area go back to jungle -- a practice used by tribals in rainforests around the world. The European style of planting crops year after year in the same place depletes such poor soil, turning it into moonscape, and the forest does not come back, but the farmers move on to other areas and keep destroying them too.

I'm not sure, but I think McDonalds got a lot of its beef from such rainforest farms, but I think with public pressure they stopped.

I think a sensible approach would be to reduce beef consumption, and have the cattle eat the cornstocks, agri waste, and wild grasses between farms. It seems to me beef production could be reduced to about half, and that would benefit our health and mitigate many other problems. For example, one could order the regular burger at McDonalds (made famous by the "where's the beef" ad) instead of the quarter pounder -- then also order the salad and other healthy things to fill up the stomach's remaining space.

Also note that meat eating has only slightly increased in the West over the past 20 years, but extremely increased in China (which nevertheless only consumes less than half of what Westerners consume per capita).

There is also the issue of rice involving a lot of methane emissions, but many peoples of the world are so used to rice, that it would be very difficult for them to change. That's one thing we have not given up (my husband is from S. India), but we have reduced by about 1/3 to 1/2 by switching from white to brown rice some 20 years ago....which involves less consumption since it is more nutritious -- we just feel more full with less rice.

The saints have things to say about the tongue, and I'm no saint.....yet

As I recall reading, the Great Plains were nearly devoid of people before...not the iron plow, but the horse. Buffalo are migratory, and they move too fast for Indians in any numbers to follow them effectively. Nor was it easy for an Indian on foot to kill a buffalo. It's true, sometimes they managed it, but it was extremely difficult on foot. So there were billions upon billions of pounds of quality protein on the hoof that nobody could access until the horse.

The most numerous and legendary "horse Indians" did not originate on the plains, but moved into them from elsewhere once they obtained horses.

And the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s (and on a smaller scale after) was precisely due to plowing up prairie land that should have never been plowed. Russia had a similar disaster with it's "Virgin Lands" project.

The Amazon basin is a curious thing. They have discovered enormous tracts that humans had long ago altered by digging charcoal and pottery shards into the soil. Most of those tracts are presently jungle, but were once farmed over a very long span of time. The great likelihood is that the Amazon basin was once a breadbasket with huge populations; populations that died of European diseases before Europeans even knew about it. The area returned quickly to jungle when no longer tended.

Charcoal and pottery shards help in fixing nutrients in place and aiding drainage. "Slash and burn" agriculture doesn't do any of that, but depletes the land.

I do favor "grass only" cattle. "Agricultural wastes" are already largely being fed to cattle. I do not favor feeding a lot of grain to cattle. They don't need it, and we don't need the fat it causes. But most of what they're fed nowadays is distillers' grain, rice hulls and soybean hulls anyway.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

As I recall reading, the Great Plains were nearly devoid of people before...not the iron plow, but the horse. Buffalo are migratory, and they move too fast for Indians in any numbers to follow them effectively. Nor was it easy for an Indian on foot to kill a buffalo. It's true, sometimes they managed it, but it was extremely difficult on foot. So there were billions upon billions of pounds of quality protein on the hoof that nobody could access until the horse.

The most numerous and legendary "horse Indians" did not originate on the plains, but moved into them from elsewhere once they obtained horses.

And the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s (and on a smaller scale after) was precisely due to plowing up prairie land that should have never been plowed. Russia had a similar disaster with it's "Virgin Lands" project.

The Amazon basin is a curious thing. They have discovered enormous tracts that humans had long ago altered by digging charcoal and pottery shards into the soil. Most of those tracts are presently jungle, but were once farmed over a very long span of time. The great likelihood is that the Amazon basin was once a breadbasket with huge populations; populations that died of European diseases before Europeans even knew about it. The area returned quickly to jungle when no longer tended.

Charcoal and pottery shards help in fixing nutrients in place and aiding drainage. "Slash and burn" agriculture doesn't do any of that, but depletes the land.

I do favor "grass only" cattle. "Agricultural wastes" are already largely being fed to cattle. I do not favor feeding a lot of grain to cattle. They don't need it, and we don't need the fat it causes. But most of what they're fed nowadays is distillers' grain, rice hulls and soybean hulls anyway.

I think it sounds fine to consume "grass only" (and ag waste) cattle. You're idea is perfectly sound.

You're also right about the Amazon -- however it seems there was jungle there in ancient times, and the earlier civilizations were mainly limited to areas along the rivers where there was rich alluvial soil, and archaeologists have also found very rich terra preta there (from bio-char practices).

As odd as it sounds, swidden (shifting) horticulture is sustainable, without degrading the soil.

So we can stick to grass-fed cattle to help save the earth; it doesn't taste as good as corn-fed, but we can spice it up.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I think it sounds fine to consume "grass only" (and ag waste) cattle. You're idea is perfectly sound.

You're also right about the Amazon -- however it seems there was jungle there in ancient times, and the earlier civilizations were mainly limited to areas along the rivers where there was rich alluvial soil, and archaeologists have also found very rich terra preta there (from bio-char practices).

As odd as it sounds, swidden (shifting) horticulture is sustainable, without degrading the soil.

So we can stick to grass-fed cattle to help save the earth; it doesn't taste as good as corn-fed, but we can spice it up.

Apparently, huge areas in the Amazon basin were also "orchards". The great number of edible fruit-producing trees there, some of which did not originate there, combined with the charcoal and shard areas, suggest that a massively greater part of it was dedicated to agriculture than we see now.

I do not argue with the practice of swidden. Wish I had enough open land to do it. Getting there, though. I am also a believer in "silvopasture", which is a mixing of trees and pasture. Silvopasture is much more productive in some areas (like here) than is open pasture. Ideally, and someday, it is my intention to combine the two practices.

At present, though, I (and my trusty Bobcat) are engaged mainly in turning second-growth timberland into silvopasture. It's a lot of fun, and one of the most enjoyable aspects of it is getting a good feel for the trees that are the best for both future timber and present wildlife as well as the kind of partial shade that aids against the droughtiness to which this area is subject. Total forest is actually a desert on the forest floor, providing virtually nothing for livestock or wildlife, either one. And it does, indeed, lock nutrients into the trunks of the trees. It doesn't have to be a rain forest for that to happen.

It's difficult to "restore" land, but it has its rewards. I enjoy improving the edible nut crops of native species (chiefly white oaks, chinquapins, hickories and walnuts). Now and then I find a bit of ground where old native grasses still exist, or at least their seeds in the soil do. Encouraging them is enjoyable and, ultimately, profitable, since they're very nutritious to cattle and most of those are soil-building "bunch" grasses. But most of the legumes (totally necessary for swidden) are not native. Still, they are needed for nitrogen fixation.

It's not true everywhere, but where I live, cool season grasses stay green all winter and warm season grasses can also flourish in the summer. It is my belief that grain is never needed for cattle and that even hay is far less needed than is commonly believed.

I don't think fat-laden beef is out of style. But I will say that it is getting more economical all the time to raise them "heavy" on grass before selling them into feed lots. That's because of the price of grain. American beef is fed less grain than was once the case.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I don't have any trouble with this. Both problems -- the ozone hole and the GH effect -- came upon the public at about the same time. (And, yes, many people did confuse the two, and some still do.)

So where is that hole now anyway?

If I were to believe the horrer stories given us in high school concerning this hole, pretty much half the earth should be under that hole by now.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by vz71

So where is that hole now anyway?

If I were to believe the horrer stories given us in high school concerning this hole, pretty much half the earth should be under that hole by now.

It seems to be mending. The problem was a lot easier to solve than AGW -- just ban a few chemicals and use alternatives instead -- tho there are still a lot of ozone destroying chemicals going up there, but not as much as before. Also, it was mainly something companies had to do, whereas AGW requires all of us to do our part.

However, I also read some years back that the stratospheric ozone is thinning over the mid-latitudes northern hemisphere, esp (I think, if I remember) during summer, due to the use of ?? methyl bromide and other ag-chemicals still in use in summer.

The issues and harms are also more narrow. The extra UV radiation that gets thru the ozone hole and thinning areas causes skin cancer and cataracts, etc.

From what I understand (my meager sci knowledge), it was the eary plantlife that created lots of O2 that got into the stratosphere, some becoming O3 to create the ozone layer, which then made it possible for animal life to emerge and go on land.

Thank you for the food we eat,
Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for the birds that sing,
Thank you, Lord, for everything.
And thanks for the plants!

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Apparently, huge areas in the Amazon basin were also "orchards". The great number of edible fruit-producing trees there, some of which did not originate there, combined with the charcoal and shard areas, suggest that a massively greater part of it was dedicated to agriculture than we see now.

I do not argue with the practice of swidden. Wish I had enough open land to do it. Getting there, though. I am also a believer in "silvopasture", which is a mixing of trees and pasture. Silvopasture is much more productive in some areas (like here) than is open pasture. Ideally, and someday, it is my intention to combine the two practices.

At present, though, I (and my trusty Bobcat) are engaged mainly in turning second-growth timberland into silvopasture. It's a lot of fun, and one of the most enjoyable aspects of it is getting a good feel for the trees that are the best for both future timber and present wildlife as well as the kind of partial shade that aids against the droughtiness to which this area is subject. Total forest is actually a desert on the forest floor, providing virtually nothing for livestock or wildlife, either one. And it does, indeed, lock nutrients into the trunks of the trees. It doesn't have to be a rain forest for that to happen.

It's difficult to "restore" land, but it has its rewards. I enjoy improving the edible nut crops of native species (chiefly white oaks, chinquapins, hickories and walnuts). Now and then I find a bit of ground where old native grasses still exist, or at least their seeds in the soil do. Encouraging them is enjoyable and, ultimately, profitable, since they're very nutritious to cattle and most of those are soil-building "bunch" grasses. But most of the legumes (totally necessary for swidden) are not native. Still, they are needed for nitrogen fixation.

It's not true everywhere, but where I live, cool season grasses stay green all winter and warm season grasses can also flourish in the summer. It is my belief that grain is never needed for cattle and that even hay is far less needed than is commonly believed.

I don't think fat-laden beef is out of style. But I will say that it is getting more economical all the time to raise them "heavy" on grass before selling them into feed lots. That's because of the price of grain. American beef is fed less grain than was once the case.

Sounds like you have an ideal life close to nature.

I had a reading in my Environmental Anthropology class by Michael Dove, who is a specialist on grasslands. He doesn't consider them to be degraded areas of inutility (compared to forests), but sees forests and grasslands in a dynamic process, and both have traditionally been managed by peoples there. Here's a site I found to go along with that reading: http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/grasslnd.html

Also I saw a film years ago about "mule logging," which some ranchers/farmers who have good hardwood forests use so as not to harm the baby trees, and actually find it more profitable. They have the loggers go in there and cut down some mature trees, then they chain the log to a mule, who pulls it out to where the hauling truck is. I think they had some contrapion to hoist up the log onto the truck bed, also using mule power.