Besides the CO2 emissions, the beef industry is the biggest environmental problem faced by the Western United States - using more than 50% of the water. It has been estimated that each pound of beef requires between 300-500 gallons of water to grow.

Use of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides are linked with a wide range of health issues including the current epidemic of diabetes. If you really want to do something to help the environment, the best thing you can do is cut back your consumption of beef.

# Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock

# Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Beef.asp

Brett .... this truly should have been titled GLO-BULL warming. However it seems a bit over the top. By the way check out climate audit for a good laugh at Tucson's "weather station" in a parking lot.
Unbelievable ... total incompetence and yet we are to take these stations seriously.

Be good,
Rick.

Reply, Thanks Rick, I will have to check Tucson's station out. Also, I have to agree with your idea for a title. Very fitting. Brett.

How about a Hybrid Hamburger?

How about we stop this stupidity and expose this fraud for what it is. More political BS to try and run your life certain way via Government mandates. "Um we need to regulate beef consumption because it consumes way too much energy!" The loonacy continues.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

P.S. Gee, looks like that masssive heat wave that was predicted last Wednesday for the northeast is NOT going to happen! Fancy that all of you Al Gore Boot Lickers! And please, spare me the pointy headed lecture about how just because there are unsusally cool pockets around the world doesn't mean global WARMING isn't taking place. Last time I looked, the northest was PART OF THE GLOBE TOO!!!!.....Nothing like being jipped a summertime, yet again!

Oh, just to follow up, here's a little something our old pal Marko posted on another thread from last week:

Today will be our 18th 90-degree day this year. (WHERE???) Towards the end of next week, we'll be approaching 100 degrees. (Didn't Happen!) A massive heat wave will be engulfing the nation all the way up through central Canada. (nope, hasn't happend, still looking!).

Did anyone (Oznop) say that we weren't having a hot summer?

REPLY: Yep! OZNOP DID!

http://www.accuweather.com/forecast-15day.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=1&zipcode=15201&metric=0

Keep it up Marko Rolo. All the more comments from you make you look all the more foolish by the day!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

This article should only concern those who subscribe to the anthropogenic (or in this case, bovinogenic) carbon dioxide has contributed to the Modern Climatic Optimum theory. Otherwise, pass the mustard and throw another burger on the grill.

On another topic (sort of), apparently, June was a record setting cold month in Australia. This flies in the face of the earlier thread that said June was one of the warmest months ever. I wonder how warm it was in the rest of the Southern Hemisphere during June?

Good comment about methane.

There is so much press about carbon dioxide, but methane accouts for about a third of the warming.

See the science in the IPCC report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

They have a graph of the concentration of methane over time. What's interesting is that it was actually increasing very slowing long before the industrial revolution.

This makes sense because the major source are cattle and their production has been encouraged for a lot longer time than just the past 200 years. It's hard to say exactly when the number of cattle exceeded a natural baseline value, but it may have well been over a 1000 years ago.

I'm not trying to imply that methane didn't also take off like a rocket during the industrial revolution, but just pointing out that cattle production was slowing ramping up long before then. Of course, rice also produces methane and some of it could be from the cultivation of rice as well in China & Japan.

Maybe if we fit the cows with solar panels or windmills, it would be more environmentally friendly.

I can see it now, a pasture filled with cows with pinwheels on their backs. Not sure how it really helps this situation but all of the AGWers seem to think they are a good idea.

Andrew:

I think you need to get away form the IPCC report as your basis for all things climatological. It is a painfully flawed document that has the sole purpose of convincing political entities to perform in a particular manner. It is written in a manner solely intended to prove a point in lieu of actually studying it.

A non-biased approach to reading it yields all sorts of issues. Granted, I am biased but when I had a non-interested person read it here at the office, within 5 min they mentioned that they felt they were trying to be conned into an agreement instead of being presented with information.

"June was a record setting cold month in Australia"

Seems that the political arm of the NOAA isn't interested in the southern hemisphere, or anywhere else which might impact the AGW gravy train.

oh handy andy, there you go again!

you know whats amazing, is i think you really believe this stuff...or your being paid to promote the scam...cow methane has been increasing over time and exceeded a natural baseline is why we are on the verge of global meltdown? and the International Panel of Climate Conspiracy proved it? you've got to be kidding me...andy, i know you might find this hard to believe but i read in the national enquirer the other day that t-rex died because the brontosaurus's exceeded a natural baseline value of methane expulsion and caused the t-rex's to spontaneously ignite from inhalation of their effluent...this in turn, caused an ice age because all the big bad methane expellers were purged from this earth and there was no fuel to warm the earth's oven...this scientifically based correlation is proof why we need to immediatley ban eating, breathing, driving, burning, planting, walking, and flying by the year 2010 or we are all done for...no kidding ;)

One step at a time. Control the food, corral everyone into a sustainable development. The building blocks of the Soylent Green society.

>> 2.2 pounds of beef generates more carbon dioxide than the average car does every 160 miles

Which only proves the obvious point that cars don't produce much C02. Since grazing animals were far more prevalent in the past, it also shows that man and his little bit of extra C02 output are not extraordinary.

>> using more than 50% of the water. It has been estimated that each pound of beef requires between 300-500 gallons of water to grow

Patrick Henry, You are making unsupported assertions. You make no logical case why any of this is bad. First of all, we are not destroying any amount of water. We still have the same amount that we've had for millenia. And what ever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"?

Eat beef, drink milk. Use energy! Live large, maximize your C02 footprint.

Andrew,

Keep up the good work buddy. Be sure to read the IPCC's "Scientific Basis" Chapter 6 and 12 where they explain that Radiative Forcing is a "concept" and has great discrepancies (usually means that it works sometimes and mostly does not) and how prior to 1950 solar and natural variations controlled climate, not humans.

Question, what is a "natural baseline"? How is the baseline derived? There are about 1.3 billion cattle on Earth today, there are over 6 billion people. What would you say the "natural baseline" for humans is? How do we get back down to the "natural baseline"? Perhaps you'd like to tell the Chinese to stop growing rice :)

BTW - Pound for pound CH4 equals H2O vapor as far as a GHG but is measured in PPB, parts per billion, CO2 is less than half as strong and is measured in PPM. You say CH4 amounts for 1/3 of the warming? So this must be Magic CH4 along with Magic CO2 that heats our atmosphere that appeared after 1950? Did you make up the 1/3 or did you read that somewhere? If you did read it, did you bother to figure out how 1/3 was derived? Did "they" bother to tell you?

Regards,

Steve

"First of all, we are not destroying any amount of water. We still have the same amount that we've had for millenia."

I think he's talking about the Western US, where there are always serious water issues. It's been dry, more or less, for the past fifty years in the Rockies. The West Coast also has wet and dry seasons and water use is always an issue during dry season.

Water is a renewable resource (unlike oil), but it's not distributed evenly, Gunnar.

So now it is kill of the animals and nature to save the world. Am I the only one thinking this is totally stupid. So nature is now killing man. KILL ALL ANIMALS AND LIVE ON VEGGIES!!! Sorry, I'm not a small furry animal, I like meat.

This is serious stuff. I can no longer afford a carbon footprint larger then a toddler?

Maybe we can capture and burn the methane, a renewable energy source. If that doesn't work, we will just have to ship them to India before the Greens start killing them.

Sorry, Mark,

It was greener in the Rockies in June than it was in Ohio and Georgia. Nice try. Out west, green means water; brown means no water.

Much of the western United States will soon be facing critical water shortages - because aquifers have been depleted by pumping over the last 100 years. The states are becoming increasingly reliant on over-allocated river water coming down the Colorado River and a few other drainages.

Snowpack along the western slope of the Rockies has been generally in decline the last couple of decades, aggravating to the problem.

It is fairly obvious that either the cattle are going to have to go, or the people are. The current water use model is unsustainable unless there is a large increase in winter snowfall - which doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. Historical droughts in the southwest tend to last 50-300 years.

I'd suggest a trip to Con-Agra in Greeley, Colorado, to cure anyone of wanting to consume industrial meat or milk. Animals that live their entire life penned up in small areas - up to their ankles in feces.

I must assume that the insignificant Buffalo herd
of the middle 1800's (est @ 60 to 100,000,000) on
Americas Great Plains had no impact???

Patrick H,

Obviously you aren't in Texas. First off, I still have a foot of water in my back yard, so don't tell me about water shortages. We have plenty!

We have a lot of cattle ranches here and I hate to break your bubble, but they don't stand in pens full of feces. They are happily grazing in wide open fields and yes, they are beef cattle. There was even one loose in my yard the other night and it looked pretty darned clean to me. The only time they are penned is at the slaughterhouse. You are putting the "kill animals so humans can survive" a little too far, don't ya think? We are all part of nature sweetie, we gotta learn to live together. I'm not depleting a species because politicians want to make money on a fake AGW scam. I like cows and I like beef. Why don't we work on population control and that would make more sense than killing off animals.

Rose,

Last time I checked, Texas wasn't on the western slope of the Rockies. Completely different world over there. If you can figure out a way to move the excess water from Texas to Arizona and California, they will be very grateful.

There certainly are plenty of ranchers in Texas and Montana who keep their cattle fed on grass out on the range. This is not the case everywhere. Try driving north from Denver to Cheyenne on I-25 or just about any other back road along the front range. The stench from the penned cattle is overwhelming. It is nearly impossible to find a cow along the front range who is not penned.

In Boulder County, Colorado the most accurate way to forecast snow is when the stink from Greeley arrives - indicating a NE wind and snowfall within the next 24 hours. Works nearly 100% of the time, which makes them about 90% more accurate than climate models.

Denny,

I don't think the buffalo herds were fed from irrigated crops, or had any other impact on the water budget. Unless the dust they raised seeded clouds and caused more rain to fail.

Obviously, Rose hasn't stepped out of Texas that much.

Now this is just plain silly!

But, in the interest of science, I did visit the beef indutry's web site to learn how they respond to these anti-beef attacks from the greenies and AGW crowd. It's worth a look and you can get some really good recipes too!

http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/

>> I think he's talking about the Western US, where there are always serious water issues. It's been dry, more or less, for the past fifty years in the Rockies. The West Coast also has wet and dry seasons and water use is always an issue during dry season.

And what do you think controls this?

The persistent drought in the western States from 1985-91 may be related to a period of decreasing solar irradiance that occurred between 1981-87. Relatively large increases in solar irradiance difference that occurred from 1988 to 1990 may have helped break that drought four years later during the winter of 1992-93 when greater than average precipitation fell.

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterdata/climate/homepage.ijc.html

>> Much of the western United States will soon be facing critical water shortages

Droughts come and go, controlled by the solar cycle. At some point, you'll be flooded. There is no indication that the water cycle has ceased to operate. Besides, we can always build desalination plants. You can do better than Pessimism and Alarmism.

>> cure anyone of wanting to consume industrial meat or milk

I've been to Wisconsin where 99% of the dairy farms are family owned. I've been impressed with their clean operations. We get 35,536 glasses of milk from just one cow! I'm picturing 35,536 smiling children. To get the same amount of calcium provided by a quart of milk you would have to eat one of the following: 126 apples, 154 potatoes, 23 oranges, 38 tomatoes or 60 slices of whole wheat bread. (http://www.wisdairy.com/SpecialOffers/jdm/jdm2006/dairyfacts.aspx)

I've been to most western states, seen cattle grazing, and know that what you say about cattle just isn't so.

FYI: the meat is on the inside, and we COOK it first! :)

eat beef, dring milk, live large, use energy, maximize your C02 footprint!

Rather than continuing this pointless discussion, I'd just ask that people attempt to differentiate between "industrial" beef production and free range beef.

Also consider why there is a significant premium on the cost of free range beef and an even higher premium on organic. And why the availability of free range beef is much lower than the cheap industrial beef sold in most supermarkets.

A bit ridiculous to suggest that people who dislike industrial beef production are the ones who want to see the animals dead. Take a visit to ConAgra first, and then feel free to dispute what I am saying.

Patrick:

Free-range or organic anything get higher prices because people will pay it. They think they are getting a better product, and frankly they are probably right. But the fact is that producing free range products is not much more costly than what they do now. The only difference is is that the process is different than the way that large producers are used to. I suppose some cost is justifiable until they ch