I live in the sunshine state - with enough to be reasonably satisfied... Dedicating what I have to fix the one disclaimer to my happiness: The way we treat animals. It's shameful!
Yesterday, we reported that University of California-Davis researcher Dr. Frank Mitloehner has documented a major flaw in a 2006 United Nations report about greenhouse gas emissions from livestock producers. Mitloehner found that the U.N.'s analysis of global transportation emissions was not as detailed as its review of meat production, creating an apples-to-oranges comparison. We felt yesterday’s news deserved a big audience, so we circulated a statement to the media. Today, the BBC reports that the U.N. has taken notice. One of the authors of the 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report now admits that its estimates unfavorably comparing emissions from livestock farms with those from transportation—a favorite talking point of anti-meat activists—are indeed unrealistic and unfair:
Pierre Gerber, a policy officer with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Dr Mitloehner's criticism.
"I must say honestly that he has a point – we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said.
This is enormous news, and we’ll look forward to reading the U.N.’s retracted-and-revised global estimates. In the meantime, we’ll keep spreading the word that the EPA’s domestic inventory shows the U.S. livestock industry accounts for less than 3 percent of total emissions. Perhaps one day the anti-meat activists at PETA and HSUS will get the memo: We should be applauding eco-friendly American livestock farmers, not attacking them.
After more than 50 years on this planet I've learned to evaluate "truth" based on what economic "gain" it has to the teller.
Of what financial benefit does the UN or a "vegan" have in promoting false environmental claims? Absolutely none.
What does the meat industry have to gain? Everything... Besides, I don't need "scientists" to tell me that more carbon beings create more heat. I also don't need a report to illustrate the toxic filth in the ground water and rivers from pig "barns", "chicken houses" and feedlots.
But most importantly I don't require a "study" to evaluate the worth of another's life... I don't "need" to eat animals in order to live a very rewarding and healthy life... So even IF there isn't as much damage to the environment (2.8% as opposed to 18%) why should I choose to contribute to the 2.8% or to the needless death???
2 comments :
U.N. Walks Back Meat and Climate Change Report
Yesterday, we reported that University of California-Davis researcher Dr. Frank Mitloehner has documented a major flaw in a 2006 United Nations report about greenhouse gas emissions from livestock producers. Mitloehner found that the U.N.'s analysis of global transportation emissions was not as detailed as its review of meat production, creating an apples-to-oranges comparison. We felt yesterday’s news deserved a big audience, so we circulated a statement to the media. Today, the BBC reports that the U.N. has taken notice. One of the authors of the 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report now admits that its estimates unfavorably comparing emissions from livestock farms with those from transportation—a favorite talking point of anti-meat activists—are indeed unrealistic and unfair:
Pierre Gerber, a policy officer with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Dr Mitloehner's criticism.
"I must say honestly that he has a point – we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said.
This is enormous news, and we’ll look forward to reading the U.N.’s retracted-and-revised global estimates. In the meantime, we’ll keep spreading the word that the EPA’s domestic inventory shows the U.S. livestock industry accounts for less than 3 percent of total emissions. Perhaps one day the anti-meat activists at PETA and HSUS will get the memo: We should be applauding eco-friendly American livestock farmers, not attacking them.
Please see a list of "grants" matched by the meat industry to counter the UN findings...
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Mitloehner/pdf/Grants.pdf
After more than 50 years on this planet I've learned to evaluate "truth" based on what economic "gain" it has to the teller.
Of what financial benefit does the UN or a "vegan" have in promoting false environmental claims? Absolutely none.
What does the meat industry have to gain? Everything... Besides, I don't need "scientists" to tell me that more carbon beings create more heat. I also don't need a report to illustrate the toxic filth in the ground water and rivers from pig "barns", "chicken houses" and feedlots.
But most importantly I don't require a "study" to evaluate the worth of another's life... I don't "need" to eat animals in order to live a very rewarding and healthy life... So even IF there isn't as much damage to the environment (2.8% as opposed to 18%) why should I choose to contribute to the 2.8% or to the needless death???
Good day.
Post a Comment