The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[LP]

Hmmm. Whether intended humorously or not, the above post is rather odd. As I’m sure you know Pat, the environmental damage is well and truly done by the time you eat the animal.

Yes it was light-hearted, I think the assertion was you eat them but don't replace them.

But on a more serious note, there are issues with the green accounting. For example, the removal of livestock doesn't mean that spot in the ecosphere won't be populated by some other mammal, and particularly here in Australia where kangaroo and wombat populations swing wildly to match the available boom or bust resource cycle. The assertion seems to be that native animals do not count in the CO2 budget as they are not human induced carbon emissions, but they are still a CO2 source basically scaling dependant on biomass. The key figure then is the differential between livestock and wildlife, on the carbon budget it's not as much as the figures suggest, however there is a clear benefit to removal of hoofed breeds on the Australian environment as we already know.

So while I ponder a buffalo fillet from my local pub, US Buffalo where numbers are skyrocketing under 1st nations commercialisation, I have to wonder why we don't eat kangaroo ahead of sheep, chicken or beef and set it up as a native license industry?

My own perspective on this is everything in moderate ratios relative to cost, cost which includes environmental and financial considerations, and a cost can be loss of jobs not just cost to produce or cost to the environment. It is not and never will be an all or nothing debate like the End Oil people, who in their extreme are possible just as damaging as inverse concerns. Extremism is a circle, go far enough left or right and you meet in the middle.