I haven't taken the goofball warmening nonsense to task in a while, so it's time.
First up is an blog post from Townhall.com by Matt Vespa entitled The Funny Thing About ABC News' Absurd Australia Wildfire Map That Was Dragged For Its Stunning Inaccuracy. The map shows the continent of Australia superimposed over the United States, and thus stretch out the wild fires to look like they were taking place across and are similar to the U.S. landmass. However, in the actual story from ABC news we hear that the actual wildfires occupy an area of about Maryland.
Now, a set of wildfires the size of Maryland is tragic, and a major undertaking to get under control. Many people have lost their homes, and many animals have lost their habitats. But the agenda was actually to make the point that these wildfires are contributing to global warming, or something. That claim is inaccurate.
Now, wildfires do release carbon into the atmosphere, so that much is accurate. However, wildfires are an annual event in semiarid regions like California and Australia. The size of Australia's wildfires is especially large this year, but they happen every year there, just as the do in California. If wildfires are natural events, that happen annually, then we can not think of them in terms of "global warming" because these wildfires are typically random events that contribute to the background carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Remember that carbon dioxide is an essential gas. Plants breath in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We, of course, breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
At the recent Golden Globe Awards celebration, the elite entertainers decided to go vegan to signal their virtue by not eating meat. This was supposed to reduce global warming, although they leave out some steps in the logic, so what one has to do with the other is unclear. In fact, the raising of monoculture grains and soy beans actually destroys the soil, takes carbon out of sequestration, and reduces biodiversity, not just of plants but also soil bacteria and worms. In addition, grains and soybean culture use huge amounts of petrochemical fertilizers.
Aside from the goofball warmening nonsense, there are some real things we as a society can do to improve the environment. The desertification of the world in the semiarid regions of the world has been going on for many thousands of years. Scientists have thought that the problem was vast numbers of ruminants polluting the land and overgrazing. They have cut the numbers of ruminants, but desertification accelerated. As it turns out, large herds of ruminant animals are critical to the health of grassland. More importantly for the global warming vegans, they are doing it all wrong, and destroying their health in the process.
The website Grass Fed Beef and Global Warming shows that by managing the way that large numbers of ruminant animals are grazed on small plots, then move to another small plot, and another, farmers can create sustainable environments that store carbon and create healthy biodiversity. The great plains was once a vast grass land, and buffalo (now called bison) roamed from place to place seeking fresh grass. In the process they built up the carbon content of the soil, held the rainfall such that it built up the aquifer, and was a sustainable environment for thousands of years.
The problem with beef and their farting, is that in feed lots, the cattle are held in close quarters, fed grain and soybeans, to produce about 1 pound of beef for every 18 pounds of feed. But this feed is not natural to beef, and it gives them indigestion. Additionally, being in close quarters, they must be fed medication and the equivalent of cow antacids. It is a miserable experience for the cows.
The link to grass fed beef and global warming is rather long, but interesting. Especially, watch the TED talk, as I suspect that here is the solution to desertification. In any case, though, being vegan because of so called global warming is counterproductive. Eating grains and soybeans is not good for people, or for ruminant animals. It certainly is not good for the environment. For best health, our diet should consist of healthy fats and oils such as olive oil, coconut oil, the fats of grass fed beef and pork, free range egg yolks; and vegetables like broccoli, salad greens, as well as roots and tubers like turnips and sweet potatoes. The meat that most people need for good nutrition is only 4 ounces or so a day. There is no reason to regularly eat 1 pound porterhouse steaks. Everyone needs some protein, but too much is not healthy. The fats should, ideally, be around 70% of calorie intake. I can tell you from personal experience that this sort of diet improves your blood work completely reversing the things doctors worry about. It also decreases inflammation thus getting rid of things like osteoarthritis.
The linked article makes the point that raising cattle on permanent pasture where the cattle are regularly moved from place to place to allow the pasture to regrow actually stores carbon in the soil and holds the rain that falls and puts it into the aquifer. Makes sense to me. Moreover, much of the land that we farm is not well suited to raising crops, and the farmers themselves would be better served by grazing these lands in small plots, frequently moving the herd to new plots throughout the year.
Please go read especially the second link, and look at the embedded videos. To understand the dietary imperatives of the fat based, and vegetable heavy diet with small amounts of meat, to read the book by Dr. Steven Gundry The Plant Paradox.
1 hour ago