(no subject)
thanks surlynymph i had to share!
Moby's thoughts on the Live Earth Concert:
i didn't go, but i heard that they were, uh, ok.
the one thing that still stuns me, though, is that almost no one in the 'stop global warming' camp talks about the environmental ramifications of animal production.
to quote a u.n article:
rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, un report warns.
but barely anyone mentions this fact.
people talk about using compact fluorescent lightbulbs or driving hybrid cars(both good things, of course)but almost no one mentions giving up meat, even though livestock production is responsible for more than 20% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmospher.
again, to be blunt and plain:
livestock production is responsible for the release of more greenhouse gases than every car or suv or pickup-truck on the planet.
i've asked this before, but why wasn't this fact included in 'inconvenient truth'?
when the major news media report on global warming why do they rarely(if at all)discuss the role of livestock production in climate change?
it's kind of like talking about the causes of the civil war and forgetting to mention slavery and abolitionism.
or talking about someone with lung cancer and neglecting to mention that they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day.
yesterday at the 'live earth' concerts people were eating hamburgers and hot dogs and chicken, which is akin to getting drunk at the funeral for someone who died of alcohol poisoning.
it's just depressing that some huge truths about climate change are too inconvenient even for the well-intentioned left.
-moby
i wish he was speaking more loudly. i liked Al Gore a lot more before i read this. it never occured to me that livestock production wasn't even mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth.
I'm not looking for feedback, this just opened my eyes and i thought i'd share.
Moby's thoughts on the Live Earth Concert:
i didn't go, but i heard that they were, uh, ok.
the one thing that still stuns me, though, is that almost no one in the 'stop global warming' camp talks about the environmental ramifications of animal production.
to quote a u.n article:
rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, un report warns.
but barely anyone mentions this fact.
people talk about using compact fluorescent lightbulbs or driving hybrid cars(both good things, of course)but almost no one mentions giving up meat, even though livestock production is responsible for more than 20% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmospher.
again, to be blunt and plain:
livestock production is responsible for the release of more greenhouse gases than every car or suv or pickup-truck on the planet.
i've asked this before, but why wasn't this fact included in 'inconvenient truth'?
when the major news media report on global warming why do they rarely(if at all)discuss the role of livestock production in climate change?
it's kind of like talking about the causes of the civil war and forgetting to mention slavery and abolitionism.
or talking about someone with lung cancer and neglecting to mention that they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day.
yesterday at the 'live earth' concerts people were eating hamburgers and hot dogs and chicken, which is akin to getting drunk at the funeral for someone who died of alcohol poisoning.
it's just depressing that some huge truths about climate change are too inconvenient even for the well-intentioned left.
-moby
i wish he was speaking more loudly. i liked Al Gore a lot more before i read this. it never occured to me that livestock production wasn't even mentioned in An Inconvenient Truth.
I'm not looking for feedback, this just opened my eyes and i thought i'd share.