Misleading the world about methane and global warming? That’s the McKibben agenda. Making up smears about methane emissions. […]
McKibben’s bottom line:
One of the nastiest side effects of the fracking boom, in fact, is that the expansion of natural gas has undercut the market for renewables, keeping us from putting up windmills and solar panels at the necessary pace.
Nordhaus’s bottom line:
So long as the climate movement is limited to NIMBY fracking opponents, anti-nuclear greens, and renewables fabulists, it is unlikely to achieve either the broad social consensus that will be necessary to advance aggressive action, nor action that is particularly likely to achieve the levels of carbon reduction that will be necessary to significantly mitigate climate change.
Nordhaus is right.
Another methane ‘wacko’? Dr Ray at Greenie Watch:
A vegan who loves nukes
There is a HUGE rant by Geoff Russell on “New Matilda” about global warming being caused by farm animals. It bemuses me to see how many words the Green/Left usually take to make their points and this is an example of that. The article seems to go on forever. The Green/Left must be boiling with rage to pour out so many bile-filled words.
And despite all those words absolutely nothing is said about how humans have evolved to be omnivores and that any attempt to take meat off our dinner tables would be so widely and strongly resisted as to make the attempt futile. He seems to think it is only a “conspiracy” that keeps us eating meat. What a wacko! […]
He also dosn’t question global warming orthodoxy but that is unsurprising. It gives him a hook to hang his vegan crusade on.
That he is actually capable of critical thought is revealed by the second oddity about him. He likes nuclear power. That’s perfectly rational if you believe in the evils of CO2 and CH4 but is rare on the Green/left.
And speaking of CH4, the usual swipe that Warmists take at farm animals is at their farts, which do have a lot of CH4 in them. But CH4 intercepts warming in certain wavelengths only and water vapour also absorbs those wavelengths so the theoretical effect of CH4 on global warming translates in practice to a nil effect. So that part of Mr Russell’s argument is a washout.
It’s amusing, though, that Mr Russell aims primarily at fellow Greenies. He thinks they are conveniently overlooking a major source of global warming. Just a few excerpts:
The makers of the US eco-ethical-documentary “Cowspiracy” are attempting to explain why the world’s largest environmental organisations have ignored the role of meat in both climate change and more generally in trashing the planet.
They use the well-worn tactic of simply asking them… or trying to. When it comes to slandering people for buggering the planet, Greenpeace apparently thinks it’s more noble to give than to receive, so they aren’t keen on being asked inconvenient questions.
This doco has lots of Michael Moore moments. People knocking on doors, asking pointed questions and getting sheepish looks. All the big US players get a mention: The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch, and more.
These groups all love asserting the high moral ground and aren’t used to being questioned about their submersion in a deep trench of cattle excrement.
The inconvenient truth is that none of these environmental icons care enough about their beloved planet to order the vegan option, let alone make the whole menu vegan.
In the case of Greenpeace, their PR people did the old “turn that camera off” shuffle and refused to be interviewed; … priceless!
But after all the fun and games… does Cowspiracy actually explain the inaction of at least the US environmental movement on the meat and dairy industries? Is it really a conspiracy? Is it organised and funded?
US Professor of Nutrition, Marion Nestle blew the whistle years ago with “Food Politics” on how the meat industry stacked and bullied US Government nutritional advice committees.
Cowspiracy lacks Nestle’s academic rigor, but still delivers a few hits.
When asked if the meat and dairy industries donate to environmental organisations, the Animal Agriculture Alliance spokesperson looked like a kid caught with both hands and feet in the cookie jar, and said she couldn’t comment. She refused to answer a direct question about funding Greenpeace.
In Australia, the funding link is clear and a matter of public record. As is the lack of any major campaign against meat by the big green groups (ACF, FOE, AYCC, Greens to name but a few) getting this funding. Tim Flannery is also a recipient of pastoral largess from the bovine broverhood.
Let’s be clear here: different meats have different impacts. It gets tiresome to differentiate constantly, so I’ll do it once now.
Ruminants are the primary climate culprits by way of methane and deforestation, while pigs and chickens primarily pollute air, water and other foods while diverting deforested land from food to feed, while also killing people directly via new diseases (e.g. Swine Flu) while adding to our risk of losing antibiotics.
The cattle barons supporting our big green groups obviously don’t care that their funding is common knowledge. Why? Probably because our mainstream media don’t give a damn. Aussie BBQ culture is at least as strong here as in the US; and don’t forget meat industry advertising…..
Environmental tribalism has our environmental groups automatically anti-GM and anti-nuclear as a matter of ideology. This illustrates a profoundly anti-science bias. They simply don’t get it.
You can’t credibly accept climate science but reject any other science which contradicts your policies. All the science of the last 30 years on the causes of cancer and the mechanism of DNA repair contradict the radiophobia behind green anti-nuclear policy.
When science conflicts with your policy, you may wait a little to make sure the science is solid and well supported, but if it is, then you change your policies. Any high school student can understand this, except perhaps those in AYCC.
When your science is shallow and you don’t really understand the process, you tend to pick and choose what you like. But science isn’t like that.
The human population, even the 9 billion of us expected by 2050, could actually live without doing too much environmental damage if we ate at the bottom of the food chain (vegan) and used nuclear power for all our energy needs.
Energy doesn’t have to have a large adverse footprint on the planet, unless we go with sources having a low power density, like wind, solar and biofuels. It is ironic that our environmental movement has opted for the sources of energy that will have the most impact on wildlife habitat, and therefore biodiversity.
Update, McKibben fact sheeted:
Warmists normally stop the discussion there. But the atmosphere is a complex thing and we have to look at methane in the context of what normally goes on in the whole atmosphere. And it so happens that water vapour absorbs the same wavelengths that methane does. And there is a heck of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than methane. So the water vapour will already have intercepted most or all of the wavelengths that methane might — leaving no heating effect due to methane. The effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. So methane is a POTENTIAL warming gas but not an ACTUAL one. No foreseeable increase in methane would generate any increase in warming.
Isn’t it strange that in his long article Bill McKibben found no space to discuss that matter? Just another climate crook.