Guest Opinion: George Wuerthner's On the Range
Global Warming, Western Ranching, and the Bovine Curtain
By George Wuerthner, 10-06-07
Just like the old Iron Curtain that squelched any critical discussion of Communism’s failures, we in the West live behind a “Bovine Curtain.” The Bovine Curtain is—like the Iron Curtain—operated by the state, using taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda about the virtues of ranching in the West and suppressing any negative or critical information. The mantra “cows are good” is repeated so often that it has attained cult status, even among many conservation groups—who should know better.
Eating meat (domestic livestock), particularly beef, has one of the biggest environmental impacts on the planet. In many ways making a change from a livestock based diet to plants (or wild game) is one of the easiest things that most of us can modify in our personal behavior to lessen our collective burden upon the planet. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.
In the summer 2007 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN researchers concluded that livestock production is one of the … most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” According to the UN, livestock contributes to “problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” But few environmental groups mention this report or its findings, particularly if they are located in the cowboy West behind the Bovine Curtain. They would have to admit that the findings conclusions apply equally as well to the western U.S.
In particular the report singled out livestock production as a major contributor to global warming emissions, yet even Al Gore ignored livestock’s role in global warming during his Live Earth Concert. I don’t want to denigrate Gore’s efforts for he has brought much needed attention to global climate change. Nevertheless, while it’s well and good to ask people to screw in florescent light bulbs to reduce energy demands, the single biggest change that anyone could do to immediately reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases is to eat less meat.
Eating less meat has a surprisingly big bang for effort. Ranch and farm raised livestock produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane annually. These two gases account for 90 percent of US greenhouse emissions. For instance, all the trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation combined accounts for 13 percent of global warming emissions, while livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases.
Not only are there the carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production, but livestock, particularly cattle, are responsible for the majority of emissions of several other greenhouse causing gases. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is responsible for an whopping 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is about 300 times more effective as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide.
Methane is another gas produced by livestock. Methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide. The EPA reports that livestock production is the single greatest source of methane emissions in the US.
But when you live behind the Bovine Curtain most people are afraid to speak the truth or have internalized group think so completely that it does not even occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role in a host of environmental and health problems. Given their role as obsequious hand maidens to the livestock industry, it’s not surprising that federal and state governments hide the connection between meat production and global warming. But it’s totally unacceptable for environmental organizations to ignore this inconvenient truth.
For instance I recently checked the Sierra Club’s global climate change web site. They list ten things one can do to reduce global warming, from driving a more energy efficient auto to supporting renewable energy sources—but eating less meat is not one of them. It’s hard to believe that the Sierra Club is not aware of the UN report or other recent research linking livestock production with global warming, but one must assume that saying anything about livestock production is off limits when you live behind the Bovine Curtain. Worse yet, some Sierra Club chapters even promote ranching, despite the obvious impacts on global climate. A recent article the Sierra Club’s California/Nevada desert newsletter extolled the virtues of livestock grazing in the Great Basin—a region that is likely to suffer greatly from global climate change.
Similarly I reviewed National Parks and Conservation Association’s new report, “Unnatural Disaster,” which describes the multiple ways that global warming will impact our national parks. The report suggests a host of solutions that range from more efficient energy use to adoption of renewable energy, but I could not locate any mention of eating less meat in the 48 page report. And the Wilderness Society, while advising members to support carbon sequestration, mileage efficiency for vehicles, and other common remedies, did not mention of the role of livestock production and a meat diet in contributing to global warming.
Given that these national groups do not appear to see or more likely wish to avoid talking about a connection between diet and environmental issues, it’s not surprising that many regional or local environmental groups seldom mention livestock production as a global warming issue. They may express great concern about the decline of whitebark pine or large wildfires due to higher global temperatures, but they don’t go the next step to tie these issues to ranching and livestock production. Try to raise any linkage to ranching and livestock and the Bovine Curtain slams down. In the West, we don’t talk about cows except to laud the ranchers for being “good stewards of the land” or some other fawning palaver.
Global warming is only one reason to end livestock production, particularly western ranching. Production of livestock is the single greatest source of non-point pollution in the West. Livestock are among the prime reasons for the spread of invasive plants like cheatgrass. Producing hay and other irrigated forage for livestock is the reason our rivers are dewatered each summer. Livestock are the reason bison and wolves are killed outside of national parks. Livestock spread disease to wildlife. Livestock are the reason native wildlife like prairie dogs are being slaughtered. The list goes on, but few groups are willing to even list these impacts, much less tackle the source of the problem—cows.
The obvious omission of diet preferences among the proposed solutions to global warming is particularly noteworthy, especially when it involves no new technologies, no major policy changes in government, and no significant investment in new infrastructure. Eating less meat won’t cure global warming, but it’s the easiest and more cost effective mechanism available to ordinary citizens to start us on a new pathway towards global sustainability.
If you can’t afford a Prius, you can afford to eat less meat. Even if you can’t switch to solar energy, you can switch to a reduced meat diet. While most of us can’t design a wind mill, we can design a better diet. Eating less meat is not only good for the planet’s health, it‘s good for your health. It’s time for all of us to begin to view eating and our choice of diet as more than a culinary decision, but as an environmental act.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ and Flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros.
What really needs to be addressed is the selloff of the West in general and Montana in particular. One of the advertizing sponsors here at New West, Cabela's Trophy Properties, is one the main culprits. See: http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/inthefield/trophy_properties/indexes/use_sale/montana/mt_int_index.jsp;jsessionid=OR0AWBO1HHJS5LAQBBJSCONMCAEFIIWE?ctpPage=saleMontana&_requestid=42669
I disagree. George's arguments, among others, against public lands welfare ranching have been both eye opening and deeply persuasive. I've proudly been beef free for over 5 years and counting after I realized that I really do not want to reward the drainers of my rivers and the degraders of my range and wildlife. Now its time to take a long hard look at the corporate pork and chicken conglomerates that degrade rivers, landscapes and ultimately the earth. The bovine curtain is real and very well connected.
Keep up the great work George.
Let me get this straight, a few million head of cattle in half a dozen states in the United States of american are causing global warming, which in turn caused the hurricane in New orleans, is that what you guys believe? Not millions of people driving cars in NY and California, just cows, not millions of huge RVs and SUVs coming to the west from the east, just cows.
Can you really believe that getting rid of the ranchers and turning that land into mega homes for the rich is going to have a positive effect on the world? and believe me when I say thsoe ranchers are not going to jsut give their ranches to enviros becaue they are such nice guys, they are going to recoup every dime they can out of a lifetime investment.
I just read that a blue whale eats 4-6 tons of krill per day, what do you think they are doing to the environment?
Why is it that anything that is a benefit to mankind is supposed to be bad to environmentalists?
By the way we reached 47 degrees today for a high.
According to George "livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases."
The above fact is something that cannot be ignored.
No one said cows are causing global warming just contributing greatly to it.
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
That said, the point made here is essential and the transportation issues don't detract from it. We should eat less meat. We dn't even have to be purist about it - the idea is LESS not NONE. If we were to reduce the amount it would drive producers to more sustainable practices like organic and bio-dynamic methods. It's a really big issue and it is easier in many ways to eat less meat than it is to continue using it as an unlimited staple. Meat costs a lot. As do gas and cars. Riding a bike, taking the bus and walking will all save you money. Don't buy a hybrid, the benefits of these greenwashed products are myths - more energy goes into production of them, electricity is NOT a clean fuel (overall). Hybrids are only a good idea where new cars are going to be purchased anyway. But if you are not cutting down on driving - or are using the hybrid as an excuse to use the car - then the hybrid is worse for the environment than re-using (or continuing to use) what is already on the road. Ride a bike and eat less meat! The obstacles are not cost or convienience or health - but education and imagination. People are told these alternatives are unfeasibe. In truth, vegetarian diets are more healthy and make you strong. Gorillas and elephants are vegetarian - both super strong active animals. Crocodiles eat meat and they are sedate. If you want to be strong and active - eat less meat!
As I said before, arguing against cows is as effective as attempting to catch moonbeams with a butterfly net. McDonald's will not be going out of business anytime soon.
total of 104.8 million head of cattle. During 2006 Americans consumed 28.0 billion pounds of beef. For that same year the retail equivalent value of our beef industry was $71 billion.
The market for moonbeam butterfly nets is vastly smaller and have no appeal at the Golden Arches.
Marion: I just love how you use day by day weather variations to discount the considerable consensus that has been reached regarding global warming by the world's top scientists and researchers. Didn't last week you talk about having frost in your garden at the end of September as proof against global warming?
The whole idea of changing the weather over the entire world is so ridiculous that I cannot imagine how anyone was sold on it even by the very best snake oil salesman. There were tens of millions of buffalo when the white man came, and I believe they were having winters even then.
Check out
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070204_idso.pdf
for another view. Of course, those who have already made up their minds need not change their feelings, after all, they are right to believe, Al wouldn't lie... Nor would people who get money to work on global warming projects, they would not lie to get more money, nah, never happens
The last I checked we all have a few things that we can not live without--clean air, clean water and food that we can trust is good for us to consume.
The many recalls on items like ground beef, salad stuff and peanut butter tells any thinking person that we are in trouble on multiple fronts.
As much as you may think that saying it isn't so will make it go away, their are NO scientists denying the truth of Global Warming.
Climatologist said last week--that when a piece of Greenland the size of Texas and New Mexico combined--falls into the sea--the fact that we will have a nightmare on our coasts will not be the worst affect-it will be the fact that the ocean currents will change and that will change the worlds climate.
We are already feeling Global Warming in the torrential rains and flooding--look at Texas!!!
I got bit by a tick which gave me Lyme Disease this year in an area of Florida that has had a sudden influx of ticks that give you bad stuff!!! I blame Global Warming for my bad spring.
We eat beef--but only organic beef --and once you eat organic you can't tolerate the GRAIN-FED hormone and pesticide polluted meat that is sold to us as beef.
So part of learning to live with the world we have made will be the great opportunities for farmers and ranchers to serve up a product that is actually good for us.
What I am saying is that the real inconvenient truth is that Al Gore lied to you and me and everyone else about why the climate is changing. He fudged the chart. He lied. You wish to believe Al Gore because you want to believe he has good intentions. Nonsense, and you won't open your mind to see. There are a whole bunch of people who are trying to figure out how to make money off of "global warming". Al is one of them. He made millions off a movie. They want to tax us more. And, to make this one easier to get across, they will just say it is good for the planet. Mindless lemmings will follow along and the real thinking people, the people who do actual research on both sides of a topic, will try to get you to think and you just won't do it.
You "blame Global Warming for your bad spring"? You know, they have ticks in lots of places to the north of you and all over the country. Get over your self importance, the climate does not change for or against you.
Also, I have to one-up you, I raise and eat only grass-fed bison. Bison are much easier on the land, grain is bad for them and you. And I do it because I care about the environment. I don't spray weeds, I chop and clip - better exercise and cheaper. And if I miss a few and the buffies don't want to eat them - too bad, maybe next year.
Here is a fact - the climate is changing.
Here is another - The climate has been changing for millions and millions of years, long before man.
Be a good steward of the planet, but get over the notion that a bunch of people who want to tell you how to live your life know the answers (because after all, they are smarter than you are and they know what is best for you) and keep the freedom you have by setting an example of good stewardship and encourage others to think and not just follow blindly along the fool's way.
Mr. Gore donated all his profits to an educational campaign to address the effects of this juggernaut.
Right now that good feeling is enhanced by the idea that they can prevent "big oil" from drilling here, there, or anywhere. they can rise up and keep coal fired electric plants from being built. They can feel a part of the demand that auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and show their power.
But the chickens will come home to roost, we will have oil and gas shortages, only the wealthy will be able to drive or fly their private jets around, we'll have gas lines, and their little plastic cars that had to have as much weight as possible removed from them will be crumpling in the most minor accident. Power will go off when lines are overloaded. Unfortunately no one will realize they have caused the problems themselves. They will want insist that someone should have been producing power that was clean, cheap, didn't hamper the view, didn't make noise, didn't injure a bird, etc, etc.
It is really sad that so many are creating so many problems trying to create a utopia that only exists in their dreams, and they have been suckered in by the feeling that they are controlling everything.
Sorry that you all can't see the truth yet--but I think you all will soon--Tonight on BBC they showed the NEW NorthWest passage through the Arctic--for those of you who watch BBC it was pretty awesome!!!Global Warming!!!
I read several London Newspapers every AM as well as the really really scary New York Times, Boston Globe,Miami Herald, Albuquerque Journal and Denver Post online--OK--I skim them and read what catches my limited comprehension--then I try to catch BBC and The News Hour on The Dish every night--I do try to really know what is going on in this good old world of ours---
I also love Bison and we eat it often, and we just butchered 13 chickens from our flock.
I just go beyond my own backyard to educate myself.
Global Warming is real and those of us who know how to survive will.
Read your news and watch the real stuff on BBC--the London Independent is free Mon. thru Fri. and I learn what HAS happened in the US from the Independent several days before our papers carry it--We are in scary times when we hear what's going on here in foreign news outlets'
>>>>>>>>
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
-The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
-The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
-The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
-The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
-The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
-The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
-The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
-The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
-The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
-The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
-The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
<<<<<<<<<<<
BTW, have you folks checked out the scam on the carbon credit trading in the EU? It seems that a whole bunch of countries are trading more credits than they really have. Imagine that! Gee, shouldn't you be honest when printing fake money? Shouldn't you make sure you sacrifice just to be honest? Gee - I wonder how soon it will be before I can take my land and get some money for my carbon credits? Seems like a gravy train to me. Fake a crisis, fake the cause, fake the solution, repeat the message over and over and over again, raise the taxes, raise the cost of doing business, raise the cost of living, raise the prices on the average man, make a fraud movie, tell more lies, repeat and repeat.
Although today I have not yet had time to do anything other than "skim" many of these comments, I was unable to find a single reference to what is right now going on in China ... who is having to literally SHUT DOWN an entire city in order to get their air clean enough to host the Olympics. Are we to think if we kill all the cows this type *international* pollution around the globe will disappear?
And where are the comments regarding all that is impacting us that originates within the entire universe, the cosmos?
As long as many of you wish to believe everything that escapes from the armpits of gorgeous George ~ our EarthFirst! hero who hates mankind on an equal level with his long-lived hatred of cattle ~ you will be missing MUCH that is true, MUCH that is important to each and every one of us, and MUCH that is scientifically ACCURATE.
But that IS your choice to make!!!
Just be sure to ENJOY every minute of it ... since YOU are one of his most despised animals AKA "mankind" and YOU, too, are on his hit list.
Air fresheners will never kill
The stench of ink in pen he'll fill
Whenever it's exposed to air
Without intent for "right" OR "fair".
But that is CHOICE that YOU must make;
A CHOICE selected for YOUR sake.
A mind that's closed and wanders not
Is ripe for filling with his snot.
I know not why New West promotes
Or publishes, upon him dotes.
That is a CHOICE New West has made.
He should be buried with a spade.
On other hand, should they forego
Allowing him to come and show
His ignorance for us to see
Would that cure-all for you or me?
A mind that's closed and wanders not
Would just be filled by OTHER snot!!!
But YOU can CHOOSE to read and learn
From other books before they burn.
... or so it seems to me ...
>>>>>>>>>
Greenpeace urges kangaroo consumption to fight global warming
Karen Collier
October 10, 2007 02:35pm
MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.
The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas.
"It is one of the lifestyle changes we can make," Mr Wakeham said.
"Changing our meat consumption habits is a small way to make an impact."
The eat roo recommendation is contained in a report, Paths to a Low-Carbon Future, commissioned by Greenpeace and released today.
It also coincides with recent calls from climate change experts for people in rich countries to reduce red meat and switch to chicken and fish because land-clearing and burping and farting cattle and sheep were damaging the environment.
They said nearly a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gases came from agriculture, which releases the potent heat-trapping gas methane.
Roughly three million kangaroos are killed and harvested for meat each year. They are shot with high-powered guns between the eyes at night.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sorta gives a new meaning to "Hopalong Cassidy."
Whose payroll are Marion and Rose Mary(probably the same person)on?????
What kind of brew
Appeals to you?
Perhaps that home-grown "corn"?
Or does your fill
Come from the still
Of someplace far and foreign?
You didn't answer the question. The current administration has a well documented track record of paying people to write positive things about them in the media from no child left behind to global warming. It is a fair question.
Big Al screams the "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, send me your money and I'll fly over in my private jet and bless you and stop it".
Not only am I not paid by "The current administration.....", I am also not paid, as gorgeous George always likes to feed into feeble brains, "... taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda ... ". He is quite the promoter, though, and I do take note that you nor others have EVER asked him who is paying him HOW MUCH to rant and rave with little, if any, science to back him up and a mission forevermore of eliminating BOTH cattle *&* people from the face of this earth.
If you are a "people" that should concern you a great deal. If you think his "inches" will not stretch for MILES you have totally lost your perspective and have failed to evaluate the history of gorgeous George.
Unlike gorgeous George, my roots are and have always been deeply planted in The West. Also unlike gorgeous George, I've worked a whole bunch of those 48 hour days in order to provide a FREE view of The West I love "for the public good" with NOT ONE CENT of contribution from any taxpayer EVER.
Additionally, I provide FREE of charge TO the taxpayers both room and board for THEIR livestock, with NO reciprocal benefit from those same taxpayers for my own livestock.
Yet, instead of any taxpayer such as yourself extending a grateful hand or a kind word to me for doing so, you have the total lack of foresight to even understand "what happens next" when I do give up the ship and turn every acre I own into a concrete jungle ... at which time "the rest of you" who are charging the gates into The West will certainly have more townhouses and condominiums and single family homes on small lots where you can sit and pass judgment on each other and then will only have to worry about which coyote ate your dog ~ as recently happened in Colorado and is "a BIG issue" in one more urban neighborhood. That vantage point changes drastically when it is YOUR backyard at stake, does it not?
So spit and whittle, if you must,
Condemning all who own
A ranch or livestock in The West;
Just tear their flesh from bone.
But when your kids or grandkids ask,
"What happened to The West?"
You need to have your speech prepared
To tell the lie that's best.
That day will come and much too soon
If urban dwellers buy
The rhetoric that gorgeous George
Dispenses, every lie.
This Nation is not "blue" or "red",
It is not "left" or "right".
It's future is dependent on
Our *SEEING* what's in sight.
And if you fail to understand
Those values that are here,
The West that we all know and love
Will crumble, disappear.
Every CHOICE is yours to make.
Be careful what you do.
Be careful what you say and think.
The West belongs to YOU.
If YOU are prone to kill the goose
That laid the golden egg,
Just be prepared for gorgeous George
To laugh and p*ss YOUR leg.
... or so it seems to me ...
So, for those of us too old and hoary to go back to school and satisfy that Critical Thinking requirement, here is a good resource:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A800425
excerpt:
"The hypocrisy fallacy
This, essentially, is what the hypocrisy fallacy is. It's confusing inconsistency between the proponent of a view (the arguer) and the argument with an inconsistency in the argument itself. Put more comprehensibly, it's assuming that an argument is wrong just because one or more people who put forward that argument do not themselves abide by it. For example, there is clearly something wrong with Chad's reasoning in the example below.
Harry the Hypocrite: Don't cross the road without looking, kids!
Harry crosses the road without looking.
Chad the Child: Harry's a hypocrite! Let's not look either!
Chad crosses the road without looking1.
Now, as my old philosophy tutor said, hypocrisy is clearly a personality flaw, but it's not automatically the case that the advice is bad. Clearly, it would be absurd to suggest that Harry's advice is in any way wrong or bad advice, just because he doesn't follow it himself.
The hypocrisy fallacy is often used against vegetarians and environmentalists, though it appears in all kinds of debates. Consider the following:
Graeme the Green: Killing animals is morally wrong for reasons x, y, and z.
Chris the Carnivore: But you wear leather shoes. That makes you a hypocrite, because they are made from dead animals.
Baying Mob: Hypocrite! Hypocrite!
Chris is carried from the debating chamber in triumph. Graeme is left alone with his thoughts and his lentils.
Now, this is an attack on Graeme, and there are a number of ways in which he can respond to the charge of hypocrisy – there are degrees of blame and culpability - but that's not important here. What is important is to note that the argument that 'it is morally wrong to kill animals' remains undefeated (so far). No reasons have been put forward to think that Graeme's initial argument is wrong, though some reasons have been given to question Graeme's personal consistency, and therefore his right to preach to others. It might make us feel better to point out the splinter in the eye of the person pointing out a log in our own eyes, but it won't make the log (or the splinter) go away.
Argument and Proponent.
What kind of claim is Graeme making when he says that killing animals is morally wrong? Surely he's doing more than expressing an opinion. He's making a claim about the nature of the moral landscape – about the way things ought to be2.
It's a claim that is independent of how Graeme behaves and what he thinks. If he later changes his mind, it might still be the case that it's wrong to kill animals. The argument is independent from the proponent. The argument may be true or false, valid or invalid. The proponent can be genuine, unknowingly hypocritical, or knowingly hypocritical (regretfully or not) and this will make absolutely no difference to the argument's truth or falsity. The argument is Graeme's in the sense that he is the person putting it forward on this occasion, but their fates are not intertwined. Even if Graeme invented the argument!."
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypocrisy
"An accusation of hypocrisy may be considered a logical fallacy (specifically that of argumentum ad hominem) because the person carrying out the condemnation is not relevant to the argument used as the basis for that condemnation. A parent who instructs a child not to smoke cigarettes, but himself smokes, could be making an argument that is valid in and of itself, regardless of the parent's behavior."
http://www.what-the-hec.com/?p=89
excerpt:
"Anyway, these stories all seem to have a subtext consisting of the following reasoning:
1. Al Gore made a presentation about global warming and what you can do to help
2. He doesn’t do those things
3. C: Therefore, his points are invalid
I could not ask for a better illustration of an Argumentum ad Hominem attack. This is one of the more familiar fallacies, but I had hoped to eventually find examples of all fallacies in the news when I started this blog, so I may as well start at the more popular fallacies."
Addressing "the rest of the story" was apparently not your intent.
One can not make the assumption that anything Al Gore has published or promoted is either (1) dependent upon his own contribution to The Cause; or, (2) the entirety of the subject of Global Warming, either pro or con.
Of greater importance ~ on this particular page ~ is the fact that in spite of gorgeous George's choice of the words "Global Warming" as the first two words in the title of his ramblings this article is FIRST & FOREMOST about ridding The West of cattle and ranching. He's been working on that goal for a great many years before he even thought to mention Global Warming in any regard.
In spite of himself, he acknowledges that "...even Al Gore ignored livestock’s role in global warming ...".
That could, of course, create quite a quandary for anyone who wants to worship BOTH gorgeous George AND Al Gore.
So this particular article and discussion is not reeeaaallllly about Al Gore whether or not one might believe his personal behavior is hypocritical.
However, if it is Al Gore's intent and desire to teach and/or to influence the thoughts and beliefs or actions of other people, one might presume offering up a GOOD EXAMPLE sure wouldn't hurt his cause.
"Do as I say ~ not as I do" carries a lot less impact me-thinks ... although it certainly does not seem to have clouded either his fame or fortune.
However, I guess I will take the bait. Al Gore's hypocrisy is important and the argument is not a hypocrisy fallacy. Why? Simply because the argument presented by Al is that (1) it is the moral obligation of humanity to "do something" and (2) here are the changes _WE_ urgently need to make to "do something" and (3) if _WE_ don't "do something" right now, _WE_ will have big consequences. Al is part of the _WE_. He is telling the rest of the _WE_ what the problem is, how to solve it, and what the penalty is. It is framed as a moral imperative. Those of us that disagree with Al's moral leadership are not saying that Al is wrong because he does not practice what he preaches, but rather we point out that his is a bad moral leader because he does not practice what he preaches and the conclusion is that Al can not be trusted to be a moral leader. Now, if he can not be trusted as a moral leader, that means we should not accept as fact things that are not backed up by research.
The UK judge who denigrated "An Inconvenient Truth" did not site where he got the info used in making his decision--because it was HIS view on this issue--so by all means--use the ONLY source that you "Ditto Heads" have hand fed to you as a piece of TRUTH????
Grow up boys---read and study before you start foaming at the mouth.
FYI---Al Gore won the Nobel---Now you need to figure what illiterate source to use to prove your misguided TRUTH!!!
A truck driver in the UK filed suit against the government regarding the presentation of the film to students. This is what the judge found:
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
The judge told the government to back up specific claims in the film and they could not present evidence that supported the claim. You will note that the court has the duty to judge whether a claim is true or false and in the above listed cases, the judge found the claim to be false because the government could not present any evidence that it was true.
As for Al being green energy, he has since he was called on it.
And since you brought it up, a Nobel Peace prize... what a crock. At least he is giving his money to the company he controls. Oh, you did not know that he is the founder and chairman of the board of Alliance for Climate Protection. Oh, and he is also the chairman of the investment management. I'll bet real money he does not do the job for free. What you don't believe me? Why not look it up yourself - it was a quick google search... http://www.climateprotect.org/board
And Cindy, if you think a peace prize makes Al a more Noble figure, listen to the quote he gave regarding the prize:
"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said. "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
I stand behind all of the statements that Al is a liar because science has proven him to be one, because the court in the UK has proven him to be one. He is a LIAR. He is not a moral leader, he can not be trusted. He states in his own words that this is a moral challenge. I refuse to believe in the religion of Al, no matter how much he is anointed by the liberal wackjobs. Cindy - you are an idiot to believe what you wrote...
Nobel &/or other "awards" can often do nothing more than lead folks astray. That "nose ring" seems to be firmly implanted in your nose, Cindy. Enjoy the journey if you must. Independent thinking and evaluation is another fork in the road. Try it sometime.
The British judge, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, the judge concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors. If you would like a complete list of references and all the testimony that was presented in court for the judge to have arrived at his verdict I am sure that information is available if you would like to reinvent an inquiring mind so you could seek-to-find all that information.
Judge Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."
Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.
According to the WA Post, the lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools.
Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin" although he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools.
Obviously, it is my own personal opinion that it is a GREAT injustice to society everywhere when SCIENCE is presented with a "spin" ~ political or otherwise. All scientists do not agree on any *INTERPRETED* issue and there are MANY of them being studied world-wide on a daily basis. To date, issues regarding Global Warming have NOT reached a *scientific* consensus ... as even gorgeous George has admitted in this article.
And yes, this article and comment thread are about cows, but surely you've seen threads veer further off topic than this before? And I'm not the one who brought up Al Gore.
I'm unclear on how Al Gore is really setting a BAD example. Many folks may not like him (his association with Clinton? disputing [yet conceding] the 2000 election? -- I'm at a loss to name what he ever did that was so awful) and thus don't want to listen to him.
But, like U2's Bono, the Pope, Bridget Bardot, and other international celebrities, Nobel Laureate Al Gore is using his fame, name recognition, and communication skills to promote a cause he believes in.
For many folks, he is engaging and inspiring, and motivates them to act. So, flying around the country, using computers, breathing air . . . all the things he does that may contribute to climate change . . . there's a trade-off there I would argue because he is especially talented at motivating people to act.
Nobel Laureate Al Gore would be unlikely to accomplish what he is accomplishing had he moved into a bark shack in Tennessee and only traveled afoot, don't you think?
Of course, if you simply reject the notion of climate change, then none of this matters because you then believe that Al Gore is out promoting falsehoods. I'm not here to debate that premise.
Now, John, I don't think my pointing out the "hypocrisy fallacy" is a red herring (irrelevant argument). Logical fallacies are fair game. The hypocrisy fallacy is regarded as a case of "ad hominen," or attacking the person instead of their argument.
Search through the argument you laid out in your comment -- Al Gore "is a bad moral leader because he does not practice what he preaches and the conclusion is that Al can not be trusted to be a moral leader." That sure looks like an ad hominen argument to me, especially since you don't really establish why Al Gore is a bad moral leader.
It's still a hypocrisy fallacy-ad hominen attack: we reject what Al Gore says about climate change because we think he sets a bad example (& I reject that argument because as I said above, it's a trade-off for Gore to get himself around the world to promote a cause he believes in).
If you've got some FACTUAL argument that refutes climate change, great. But don't put all your eggs in the Gore-is-a-hypocrite basket, because you're thereby committing a logical fallacy.
Not that you will ever pay any penalty outside a philosophy seminar for committing fallacies, so don't sweat it . . . just a good friendly donnybrook amongst concerned, literate citizens here, courtesy of Thomas Jefferson et al. =)
Really, when you think about it, isn't everyone on the planet spewing out CO2 in some amount? If you make a reductio ad absurdum argument, shouldn't everyone go bury themselves alive in a peat bog if they really want to be non-hypocritical about climate change?
Maybe we should come up with a ranking scheme to weigh the good a person is doing versus their CO2 emissions? Those whose emissions outweigh their good have to bury themselves in a peat bog?
Of course, maybe we could just get on with the business of taking some very practical and very effective steps to turn this thing around. Ask the ski resort operators, ask the ranchers whether the climate is changing. It's not just Nobel Laureate Al Gore who believes this stuff.
By the way, I walk to work, I have no children, I keep the house at around 61F in the winter and don't use air conditioning at all.
Check out this analysis over at the respected science journal, Nature:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/10/nine_slaps_on_the_wrist_for_al_1.html
As for my argument that regarding Al being a bad moral leader, it is based on using changed information to make a claim, in other words, using a lie to promote his cause. The specific item which I use to establish that Al is a bad moral leader is the relationship between CO2 and temperature. It is now established that the graph used by Al had the labels reversed and the truth is that CO2 lags temperature by 400+ years and therefore CO2 increases do not cause temperature increases. A good moral leader would not use a falsehood to prove his point. Of course, now, it seems Al wants to make it a moral and spiritual . His own words: "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
This CO2/temperature relationship , by the way, is one of the points in the UK suit. It was also shown in a BBC documentary. This CO2/temperature relationship is the foundation of the argument that man is causing climate change. I don't disagree that there is climate change and as a matter of fact, I agree there is climate change. I dispute that man is the cause. My conclusion is based on the competing theories and the scientific data to back them up. The underpinnings of the man caused global warming theory are tested and rejected scientifically (or facts are corrected). First the hockey stick graph is discredited because of fundamental statistical analysis errors. The "warmest years" are revised due to errors computing the data. The CO2/temperature graph is discovered to have been modified from the actual graph data set.
So again, Al is a bad moral leader because he uses a falsehood as the main point to back his argument.
As for cows, It is my opinion that mankind could probably do a much better job managing beef production. To me, if you can smell it, it is wasting inputs and the microbes are completing the job the cow didn't do. Microbes make CO2 and Methane. So, we could probably do a better job of beef and dairy production and reduce emissions.
You are right, John, when you say that mankind could probably do a much better job managing beef production. This is true with *everything* mankind does, is it not?
But when you mention "... smell it ..." I must assume that you are talking about the FEEDLOT portion of the beef production business which is an entirely different subject than ranching! On a ranch you purdy well have to "step in a pile of it" before that "smell" comes home to roost! ;-)
Wet creek was the same. walking along a system of beaver dams that had been abandoned (or beaver was trapped), the cattle manure was so prevelant as to emit an omni-present wreak along a watershed in a range many consider to be among the most scenic in the West. it is sad considering the potential for wildlife that was obviously being denuded.
Fox Creek, Steve's Creek, etc. in Copper Basin was the same. The smell is everywhere right along the water (that's where the cattle congregate).
All of these watersheds were absent their potential wildlife numbers following livestock utilization. - wildlife was no-where to be found.
water-tables were lowering following incised streams etc. and the willows, aspen, etc. were dying. the hummocked seeps and wet meadows = desertification which certainly contributes to the heat absorption potential spiraling into more loss of habitat and lessening moist conditions which cool watersheds for wildlife.
also, consider the fuel it takes to move livestock into these critical wildlife watersheds is woefully innefficient and contributes much to global warming emissions.
good article George ~ thanks for it
Now let me see if I got this right ...
You took your nose into the night
And with a stick you found some poop,
You swooned and fainted like a dupe?
There weren't NO sand in that thar creek?
Suppose a COW just took a leak
And zapped it up-up-up away?
MY! ~ what a time you had that day!!!
And ~ mercy BE! ~ do my eyes see
Those dadgumed COWS mowed down a tree?
In fact they stripped the forest BARE?
What SIZE are all those COWS up there??!
That's sure some comment that you wrote!!!
By-golly even got MY goat!!!
uh ... er ... if I've got "goat" to get ...
... sure hope that COW ain't fate it met!!!
Now tell me while you're on a roll ...
... how many WOLVES are on COW's toll?
Did you just stop to look around
And see COW wrestle WOLF to ground?
If so, that's IT!!! ~ that's all-she-wrote!!!
I thought that WOLF would get my goat!!!
For after all is said and done ...
... George promised me the WOLF had won!!!
George promised me erZtwhile, you know,
That everywhere a COW would go
He'd send a wolf for COW to eat.
You tellin' me COW had THAT treat?
But, Brian ErZt-while: THANKS SOOOOO MUCH!
It's obvious I'm out of touch
With all YOU know and all YOU see!!!
All I can say is: PARDON ME!!!
Strange things in Idaho I'm told ...
... which I guess means a COW must hold
Elimination of ALL kinds
While you drill lessons in their minds?
But PLEASE PLEASE pardon COW today!
COW called me earlier to say
COW's takin' classes as we speak ...
... from Craig re HOW to take a leak.
“I cannot tell how the truth may be; I say the tale as it was said to me”
--- Sir Walter Scott ---
Drover and Cindy, my concern with gore not doing what he says needs to be done shows he isn't nearly as concerned as he says he is. He is a talk-a-lot, not a do-a-lot. If he truly believes the world is at a crisis, then he surely would not believe because he is rich it doesn't apply to him. What good does it do if he expects a thousand folks to sacrifice so he doesn't have to? He can make the greatest impact by showing how easy it is to live in a small house without a pool, and scrape by with one home, no plane, etc.
Rush said it best (and yes I do listen to him from time to time), if one carried the idea of carbon credits forward to other things he could pay for someone else to eat less so he didn't have to cut down but lose weight. It just does not work that way. Neither does carbon credits.
I hope you are right and we don't have Global Warming to deal with in the coming years.
But I am convinced that it is a reality and I plan on speaking up about this REAL problem that faces us all.
Al Gore has had the guts to go around the world and speak out about an issue that he has been studying since his college days---he is convinced that this IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of our times.
The misguided policies of our current administration mean zero when placed next to the reality of Global Warming'
I am glad that you care enough to write about your views and I really hope that you learn more about this issue.
Al Gore is not using this as a political matter--as some of you are doing--he is just trying to help us all come to the table and talk about it--and then follow your own belief based on educating yourself.
I have followed the UK story and hope that those of you quoting it will follow up by researching each of these issues'
Everyday new very scary things are reported about weather and related activities.
The Northwest Passage is a real happening. This year is the first year EVER that it is a flowing river---no ice--this is real!!!So get over your silly fear of a man who is trying to save a BIT of our world for our children--Why are yo so scared of him???
Cindy, the climate is changing, the world is getting warmer, are you not listening? That is not in dispute. Sure there are those who don't believe, but there are loonies who believe that aliens are living among us (you can read about it in the Enquirer). The UK story is not about whether there is climate change, it is about WHY there is climate change.
You should also drop the notion that Al Gore has no motive for speaking out other than the goodness of his heart. His motive is not likely political, he stands to make much more money off of fear mongering than he can make as President. He does not have a political motive, he has a financial incentive. Remember, he did not give the money away, he gave it to an organization that he is the head of. That is a potential shell game. I can't find out how Al is paid by this organization, nor do I have access to the financial arrangements Al has with other like entities. Kind of smells like that cow poop, you get a wiff and you just know.
[warning: more complaints from me about poor critical thinking!]
What does Rush Limbaugh weigh these days? I hear he's lost a lot of weight. Probably makes his back feel so much better, he doesn't need to score prescription painkillers anymore.
Surely he feels better than in his bad ol' days of morbid obesity?
Surely, then, he can get his head around the idea that no, you can't have someone lose weight for you, anymore than you can have someone else eat for you or take a bath for you. But you CAN have someone else reduce greenhouse gas emissions for you.
A person's body is their own, and for the most part (let's not get graphic about exceptions) the pleasures and pains of that well-defined collection of tissue and bone and fluids belong to that person.
Because my body is a well-defined physical entity that primarily affects my person, then it doesn't really directly affect others if I drink lard, don't do yoga, and sit slumped in front of the computer all day long.
Maybe a few folks right around me would be affected if I stopped bathing. Folks who try to have relationships with me or rely on me would be affected if I got all unhealthy and grouchy and unable to work. And if I irresponsibly then expect society to take care of me in spite of my bad choices, I affect people.
But, for the most part, what I do to my body primarily affects me.
It doesn't hurt poor people in low-lying areas like Bangladesh, or former fishermen on the Aral Sea, or ski town workers in Crested Butte.
Contrast those characteristics with what we do to the climate. The climate is something we all share, and what we individuals choose to do to that shared resource affects people far away who we've never met before.
Get familiar with the concept of fungibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
Greenhouse gases -- and reductions thereof -- are fungible. Pounds of excess mass on my own body -- for purposes of my own health and happiness -- are not.
[If we were trying to fly into the wilds of the Yukon on a small plane and had to keep total weight under a certain limit, then those pounds MIGHT be fungible, in that I could pay another member of our party to lose ten pounds instead of both of us losing five]
I don't know what more to tell you about emissions trading, except that you should check out the Chicago Climate Exchange:
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
There's big money changing hands. Although we live in the mad mad world where scandals like Enron have shaken our faith, I tend to believe that these trades are legitimate and independently verified.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=102
You still trust that you're getting a gallon of gas -- and not .98 of a gallon, or something watered down -- when you fill up at the Conoco, don't you? If so, then you still believe in independent verification.
I haven't done a google search to see if there's an exchange market for getting people to lose weight for you . . . probably because -- aside from my bush plane example -- no one would ever pay for that.
Like it or lump it, when that gallon of gas is used, it is gone irregardless of who burns it, when the carbon from it is kicked into the air, it is there. Asking poor people to cut back so the important rich people can use more is not cutting it. By the way that may be why Mr. Gore is getting so portly he ahs also been buying and selling calorie credits, and it doesn't work.
This article will give you an idea of what the third world countries living in very poor conditions think of the rich who want them to continue.
http://rangemagazine.com/features/summer-06/su-sr-06-enemies-of-conservation.pdf
Therefore ~ as my GOOD deed for the day ~ I thought I'd try to help him rectify that matter so that from this day forward it WILL "... occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role ..." in our daily lives.
This list of Medical, Food, and General/Industrial categories might facilitate a grasp of the enormity of the use of animal products in our lives. It is not necessarily complete; there are some consumables which are not listed in FOOD, for example.
But the general point of the list is simple: just because one doesn't eat meat or dairy, doesn't mean one should ignore the benefits of animal production on ranches throughout the West. We have injected ~ and benefited from ~ animal products from cattle, sheep, and hogs into nearly every corner of our lives.
BEHOLD ... then go thank a rancher near you:
*** GENERAL MEDICAL & HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS ***
antibodies (immunoglobins)
beef insulin
bovine collagen - used as injections to fill in scars
bovine fibrinolysin (brand name- Elase) ointment for necrotic tissue
bovine super oxide - dismutase cream (Orgotein) - cosmetic skin cream to prevent tissue aging.
bovine thrombin (brand name- Thrombinar) clotting agent for blood culture medium - diagnosis fetal bovine serum - tissue cultures
Hyaluronidase - efficient drug use
PTH - control tetany
pegademase - bovine derivative (brand name- Adagen) - for patients who are immuno-compromised...helps prevent white blood cells from breaking down.
pill capsules - GELATIN
whole serum - vaccine manufacturing
*** PRODUCTS FROM OVARIES ***
estrogen
progesterone - a reproductive hormone
*** PRODUCT FROM STOMACHS ***
pepsin - aid in protein digestion
rennet - aid in milk digestion
*** PRODUCTS FROM THYROIDS ***
bovine thyroid (Thyrar) a thyroid replacement
TSH - thyroid diagnosis
thyroid extract - hypothrodism
thyroid hormones
myxedema
cretinism
*** PRODUCTS FROM ADRENALS ***
cortisone - for arthritis, skin allergies, anti-inflammatory medicine
epinephrine - aid in raising blood pressure, heart disorders, and allergies
*** PRODUCTS FROM LIVERS ***
heparin - anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
liver extract - treatment of anemia
intrinsic factor - pernicious anemia
Vitamin B12 - prevention of B-complex deficiencies
*** PRODUCTS FROM LUNGS ***
heparin - anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
*** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
plasma protein
blood albumin - RH factor typing
Fraction I - hemophilia
Fraction V - kills viruses
iron for anemia
thrombin - blood coagulant
protein extracts
diagnostic microbiology
*** PRODUCTS FROM HOG HEARTS ***
heart valves for human transplant
*** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
medical sutures - surgery
*** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
bone marrow - blood disorders
bone meal - calcium and phosphorous source
mineral source in supplements
collagen and bone for plastic surgery
soft cartilage - plastic surgery
xiphisternal cartilage (breastbone) plastic surgery
*** PRODUCTS FROM PANCREAS ***
chymotrypsin - contact surgery
diastase - aid in starch digestion
glucagon - treat hypoglycemia
insulin - diabetes mellitus
pancreatin - aid digestion
trypsin - for burns, wounds, and infection - promotes healing - aid in protein digestion and in cleaning wounds
*** PRODUCTS FROM PITUITARY GLANDS ***
ACTH - arthritis, allergies, rheumatic fever, skin and eye inflammations
pressor hormone - regulates blood pressure
prolactin - promotes lactation
vasopressin - controls intestinal and renal functions
*** PRODUCTS FROM SPINAL CORDS ***
cholesterol - hormone products
*** OTHER MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS ***
nitroglycerine
antibodies (immunoglobins)
beef insulin
bovine collagen - used as injections to fill in scars
bovine fibrinolysin (Elase - brand name) ointment for use on necrotic
tissue
bovine super oxide - dismutase cream (Orgotein) - cosmetic skin cream to
prevent tissue aging
bovine thrombin (Thrombinar - brand name) clotting agent for blood
culture medium - diagnosis
fetal bovine serum - tissue cultures
Hyaluronidase - efficient drug use
PTH - control tetany
pegademase - bovine derivative (Adagen - brand name) -
- for patients who are immuno-compromised
- helps prevent white blood cells from breaking down.
pill capsules - GELATIN
whole serum - vaccine manufacturing
*** GENERAL FOOD PRODUCTS ***
*** PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE, SHEEP, HOG FLESH ***
a huge variety of fresh, frozen, and pre-cooked meats
and prepared and processed meat products
*** PRODUCTS FROM MILK/DAIRY ***
butter
casein (proteins)
cheese and cheese products
cream
food ethanol
ice cream and ice cream mixes
lactose (carbohydrates)
milk powder
sherbet
whey (proteins)
fats (lipids)
yogurt
*** PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible) ***
chewing gum
lard
oleo margarine
oleo shortening
oleostearin
pharmaceuticals
rennet for cheese (sheep)
rennet for cheese (sheep)
shortening
*** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
blood sausage
bone meal
cake mixes
deep-fry batters
egg substitute
gravy mixes
imitation seafood
pasta
whipped toppings and coffee whiteners
*** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
whitener in refined sugar
*** PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES ***
gelatin capsules
gelatin deserts
ice cream, malts and shakes
marshmallow
potted meats
*** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
sausage casings
*** PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS ***
sausage casings
gelatin
candies and confectionery
flavorings
foods
gelatin desserts
ice cream
marshmallows
mayonnaise
yogurt
*** INDUSTRIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS ***
*** PRODUCTS FROM MILK ***
adhesives
animal feed
buttons
carriers for human medicine
cosmetics
glue
pharmaceuticals
sizing
specialty plastics
veterinary medicines
*** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
adhesives
bone marrow
bone meal
fabric printing and dyeing
leather-treating agents
livestock feed
minerals
plaster retardant
plywood adhesive
diagnostic microbiology
from colloidal proteins - glue for automobile bodies
protein source in feeds
sticking agent
textile sizing
*** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
bone charcoal
pencils
high grade steel
bone handles
bone jewelry
mineral source in feed
fertilizer
dried bones
buttons
bone china
glass
porcelain enamel
water filters
whitener in refined sugar
*** PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES ***
adhesives
bandage strips
collagen cold cream
cellophane wrap and tape
crochet needles
dice
dog biscuits
emery boards and cloth
fertilizer
glycerine
laminated wood products
neatsfoot oil
photographic film
plywood and paneling
shampoo and conditioner
wallpaper and wallpaper paste
syringes
PRODUCTS FROM BRAINS
anti-aging cream
cholesterol
*** PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible and inedible) ***
animal foods
biodegradable detergents
biodiesel
cellophane
cement
ceramics
chalk
chemicals
cosmetics
crayons
creams and lotions (sheep)
deodorants
detergents
explosives
fertilizer
fiber softeners
floor wax
glycerin
glycerol
antifreeze
herbicides
horse and livestock feeds
industrial oils and lubricants
insecticides
insulation
linoleum
livestock feed
lubricants
makeup
matches
medicines
mink oil
nitroglycerine
oil polishes
ointment bases
oleostearin
paints
paraffin
perfumes
pet foods
pharmaceuticals
plasticizers
plastics
printing rollers
protein hair conditioner
protein hair shampoo
putty
rubber products
shaving cream
shoe cream
soaps
solvents
stearic acid (sheep)
tallow for tanning
textiles
tires
water proofing agents
weed killers
*** PRODUCTS FROM GALLSTONES ***
ornaments
*** PRODUCTS FROM HAIR ***
air filters
artist's paint brush
felt and rug padding
insulation material
non-wovens
plastering material
textiles
upholstering material
*** PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS ***
belts
collagen-based adhesives (from trimmings)
bandages
emery boards
glues -for papermaking, bookbinding, cabinetmaking
sheetrock
wallpaper
drum head (sheep)
pharmaceuticals
photographic materials
leather sporting goods
leather wearing apparel
luggage
pigskin garments, gloves, and shoes
porcine burn dressings for burn victims
shoes and boots
upholstery
wallets
*** PRODUCTS FROM HOOVES AND HORNS ***
chessmen
combs
buttons
fertilizer
horn handles
imitation ivory
inedible bone meal
livestock feeds
ornaments
piano keys
plant food
*** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
instrument strings
sausage casings
tennis racquet strings
*** PRODUCTS FROM MANURE ***
fertilizer - used in gardens, lawns and farm cropland
nitrogen
potash
phosphorus
minor minerals
*** OTHER PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE SOURCES ***
airplane lubricants and runway foam
car polishes and waxes
hydraulic brake fluid
Stearic acid - helps rubber in tires hold shape under steady surface
friction
steel ball bearings containing bone charcoal
textiles for car upholstery
various machine oils and viscous fluids
*** PRODUCTS FROM WOOL ***
asphalt binder
carpet
clothing
cosmetics
fabrics
felt
insulation
lanolin
medical ointments
paint and plaster binder
pelt products
rouge base
rug pads
upholstery
woolen goods
worsted fabric
yarns
Life as we knew it will be changed in the next few years and those of us who acknowledge that single fact and thus prepare to meet the coming challenges will survive.
I hope to be able to meet these events with my eyes wide open and guide my family through the beginning of this global crisis.
And i know enough to know that I need the guidance of mentors who have spent their lives studying this issue--and for now i am following Al Gore.
I do not think anyone objects to you living as frugally as you wish, we do object to the idea that we have to kill off all of the cattle to suit George, quit mining, drilling, manufacturing, etc.
Following Mr. Gore is fine, but I suggest you do as he says, not as he does if you want to conserve anything.
The coastal areas of our globe will change. After Katrina the New Orleans poor were moved all over this country and caused a great burden on the states that received them--that was one city--Are you not able to consider what is coming???
No one credible denies Global Warming--If it is man made or natural is the only question.
Land based ice in Greenland the size of Texas and New Mexico is being undermined by a process called Pooling--that happens when water melts on top of Glaciers--and runs down crevices in the ice--flowing beneath the Glacier and running out to sea between the ice and land--this is happening now and the fellows over there studying this now say that the EVENT will happen in the next seven years.
When this occurs we will have refugees from all our coasts.
What manufacturing was being killed off in George's article??
Last time I looked we no longer build cars in the USA--we are proud consumers of outsourced food, clothes and all most everything we buy is made in China. Manufacturing was killed off when Clinton signed those first free trade agreements and left the door open for all that has happened in the last 6 years.
Regarding Gore and any claim that he buys carbon offset from his company GIM see: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070307a.html
>>>>>>
Gore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide (CO2) "offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell.
GIM is strictly an investment firm that considers how eco-friendly corporations are in assessing long-term sustainability, Campbell told Cybercast News Service by phone from London.
After Gore came under fire last week for high energy consumption in his Tennessee mansion, one explanation offered by his defenders was that he pays for carbon offsets...
"We do not invest in any activity of carbon offset. That's nonsense. We are a fund management business that does sustainability research," he added.
The confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore.
So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
For more on Gore's GIM company see: http://www.generationim.com/
Cindy, Gore can't buy from GIM what GIM doesn't sell. What GIM invests in is a somewhat nebulous, gelatenous array of 'sustainability' companies that are involved in all sorts of things, which, giving a very liberal interpretation, may include only a small portion that actuall qualiifies as a real carbon offset.
The whole carbon offset arena is highly questionable. See: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1
>>>>>>>>>
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
YOU may be a "... proud consumer(s) of outsourced food, clothes and all most everything we buy (that) is made in China" but there are a good many of us that are NOT. Are you also proud of the fact that China is BUYING our Nation with FAR-ranging investments from coast to coast?
Would you mind telling us if you are the same "Cindy Kessler" who is soliciting donations for the Draft Al Gore campaign, AKA "Socorro for Gore '08" located in Socorro, New Mexico?
If so, then declaring your POLITICAL motives with your postings would have been "interesting" and "fair", don't you think?
If that IS you, I also have noted the strategy base of that so-called-"movement" has stated:
"So why doesn't Gore show more interest in 2008? Partly ... because he's one of the few potential candidates who can wait to decide. David Moorehouse, Gore's 2000 Senior Counselor asserts, 'Gore can wait longer than other candidates, because he can raise money on the Internet.... Should he decide to run, he can raise $15 million in two days.'
"Finally, it wouldn't be smart for Gore to signal an interest in 2008 too soon. Donna Brazile, his campaign manager in 2000, believes that the best way for Gore to win in 2008 is to continue his work off the campaign trail for as long as possible. In an article for Roll Call entitled 'The Best Thing Al Gore Can Do Is Not Run — for Now," she observes: 'Throughout our history, Americans have been known to fall deeply in love with non-candidates for president.' "
That "... $15 million in two days" ain't a bad START me-thinks.
A politician is a politician IS a politician ~ and there is no politician who does not base their "stand" on stacks of MONEY. I have yet to notice a one of 'em that bases their "stand" on SCIENCE ~ beyond the point where the MONEY subsides.
I could care less if you do or do not want to walk-the-walk POLITICALLY for Al Gore.
To each his own ... which is the foundation of this Great Nation in which we live.
But if he is your "mentor" in the field of SCIENCE your quest for actual for-real ALL INCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC knowledge has come to a screeching halt.
And THAT is a sad thing ~ for you or for any other person.
You need to spend some time researching other celebrity's carbon expenditures and then write about Al Gore's clay feet-- anyone within his economic strata and with an agenda like he has--in the world we live in today--will be leaving a much greater footprint.
I hope your view of solving a problem like this is wrong--I do realize that until the events unfold in the coming decade--we each have to review what facts we feel are best speaking to the truth.
I voted for Clinton/Gore twice because of Gore's stance on the environment. And I voted for him in 2000 because of his life work.
I became aware of the environmental issue in the early '60s when I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". And I remember her words when we travel from coast to coast and our windshield needs to be cleaned once or twice rather than having to stop because we couldn't see through the bug smeared window as we did even 20 years ago. I also know from personal observation that in most of the USA it is too often only one or two lonely birds sitting on the fences and utility lines rather than the flocks that not that long ago inhabited our land.
I would gladly support Al Gore if he decided to run for President--not because I feel he is a Messiah but because I care about our natural world and know that he has proven since his college days that he cares even more than I do--and has made it his life work.
As for China--I am not a free trader--I believe in buying American made products and go to great lengths to do so.
I am aghast at where we are today in terms of quality and safety in our food supply. I refuse to accept shoddy workmanship in what I purchase and so have become an activist against the corporate generated consumer driven society that exists today!!!
http://www.sts.pomona.edu/ThesisSTS.pdf
I'll not comment on it now because I am more interested in your comments. I will say it challenged and changed my understanding of her work and put it in a context that made sense to me. I would like your thoughts. Of course, all others on this blog are urged to read it as well. It is a bit long, but I got through it.
I, too, "am aghast at where we are today in terms of quality and safety in our food supply".
I just don't happen to think that attacking and/or eliminating our American producers of that food supply will result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of us.
George's constant and historic desire to eliminate cattle is only one threat among many ~ shortsighted at best ~ but it is one that he has spent years trying to accomplish and I suspect will spend many more years doing in the future. In my previous posting I inserted that *enormous* list of benefits beyond meat-eating that our society derives from livestock because I think there are MANY within our society who just have no idea whatsoever how far-reaching those benefits are.
I think it is also important to remember, as far as our American home-grown food supply is concerned, that there are an enormous number of entities between the producer and the consumer; and, that the producer does NOT reap the profits of any one of those in-between entities. Quite the contrary. They are often the victims of them. Like all sectors of society ~ you and me included ~ producers can certainly be guilty of contributing to what ails 'em. But we should NOT look to George for guidance in solving those problems.
Thanks for the link, John. I did get it "loaded" and a quick "skim" but will look forward to returning to read it all ~ looks interesting, for sure ~ and I, too, will look forward to reading any forthcoming comments about it.
During the 8 years that Al Gore was VP he did virtually nothing about climate change or the environment.
Cindy, you overlook Gore's failings and his elastic use of the 'truth.'
In my opinion, when a person, such as yourself does that, and steadfastly praises and follows their leader without acknowledging those human frailties, they have elevated that leader to messiah status. A prime example is what happened in Antelope Oregon a few years back. Interjecting a "what about Bush" remark doesn't change that or elevate Gore to walk on water. Investing in GIM is not equivalent to buying carbon offset credits.
I have a copy of "Silent Spring" and I was pleased to read the opening passages of this thesis pointing out so clearly what impact this little book had on young women in the 60's.
I guess my thoughts are how similar the Noisy Response to Global Warming seems to me!!!
But this time it is our whole beautiful planet that is at risk from what I see as corporate greed!!!
Of course I have many concerns that have to do with the poisoning of our county over the last 50 some years.
And I did stand up once to Union Carbide to no avail--so I guess I just have to continue speaking out against what I feel has been the true selling the people of this country a bill of goods.
It all begins and ends with our government failing to protect us from practices that are harmful to humans and the natural world.
It is clear to me that the false statements that are made again and again about issues like Global Warming are believed by many because they have fallen for the drum beat of unsubstantiated claims that began in 1962 propagated by the greed of big business