RE: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming

As I have stated repeatedly, I do not disagree with Global Warming. There
are some who might, but not I.

My disagreement is with how the issue is handled. Some people are socialist
in nature and think that legislation is needed. Like making murder illegal
stops murder. How many were killed in your local community this year?

Change will come only when we pass on the Christian understanding of
stewardship to individuals. People make changes not governments.

Be responsible and teach responsibility.

Don Perrett
Free Christian
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Kenneth Piers
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:34 PM
To: 'PvM'; donperrett@theology-perspectives.net
Cc: ASA Discussions
Subject: RE: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming

REPLY: The only activities we need to be concerned about are those
activities that we undertake that involve returning carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere that was more or less permanently removed from natural cycles
millions of years ago. Humans and animals doing their respiratory thing do
not belong in this category. The carbon dioxide that we exhale is the result
of eating plant-based foods that, in turn, is the result of
photo-synthetically removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even if we
eat meat, in principle we do not have to add to the carbon dioxide burden
because the animals eat plant materials that remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. So the activities we need to be concerned about do not include
breathing in and out; instead, they are pretty much limited to our use of
fossil fuels * coal, oil, and natural gas.
Unfortunately, that pretty much involves about 85-90% of what we do in the
modern world. So today, even when we eat plants * and worse if we eat
animals - because modern agriculture is so fossil fuel dependent, we are
engaging in an activity that is returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
that was permanently removed a long time ago. So do we need to be concerned
how we grow our food? * Yes! Do we need to be concerned about how we travel
from here to there? * Yes! Do we need to be concerned with how we generate
our electricity? * Yes! Do we have to be concerned with how we heat and cool
our homes?-Yes! Unless we find a way to capture and put away permanently all
(or most * perhaps creation has some natural ways to reduce the carbon
dioxide that we add to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels) of the carbon
dioxide that is produced in combustion of fossil fuels, we will be worsening
the greenhouse gas problems. So it seems that there is need, growing more
urgent with each!
  year that passes, for us to make a transition away from fossil fuels to
non-carbon based energy systems.
I believe that this transition is possible if we make a total commitment to
it * individually and as a nation and as a world * it is a global problem
after all. Will this be the ruin of us? Possibly. But it also has the
possibility of advancing us into a sustainable civilization. A civilization
that depends for its energy on non-renewable fossil fuels is, by definition,
non-sustainable, and it now is becoming increasingly clear that is not
sustainable ecologically either.
respectfully
ken piers

Ken Piers

"We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we live
by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of faith, we must
choose either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that
cannot be proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
Wendell Berry

>>> "Don Perrett" <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> 1/11/2007 12:17
>>> PM >>>
So I have just one question, what human activities should we stop, breathing
lest we put more CO2 in the air? I'm not saying that there isn't some room
for improvement, but just as all the other species on the planet which
contribute to CO2 and Methane, humans (one of the animal species) will also
contribute. I personally believe there are two sub categories of people
(non-Christian ones) in favor of the doomsday, those who want to lower human
population and those who want to lower the consumption of resources. Either
of these belong to the category of wealth. Those of power know that the
only way they will have power is if there are resources for them to control.
If any one resource ends then their ability to use it to broker power is
gone. The cries of the UN to lower human population is for the same reason.
Worst case scenario, the pollution and lack of resources lead to famine and
war. This would decrease human population as well but it would not be a
controlled reduction, which could result in the people in power losing their
power. For historical reference, see Black Plague. If those in power can
influence the same decrease in population then they can ensure their own
survivability. The Plague ended up with many of lower status moving rapidly
upward into positions of power, due to the high death rates. This also lead
to the industrial revolution, African slavery, and so called enlightenment.
Some of those families are still in power. Now they see a similar scenario
coming like the one that preceded the Plague. They do not want to end up
like the leaders of the pre-Plague did. This is also why the topic is
heavily discussed in academia today and even on channels like History and
Discovery. For them it is better to kill some now with limited wars and
ignoring small famines, encourage birth control and even abortion, and if
all else fails stop the resources from being used.

Problem is it will not change God's will. What is happening and will happen
is for His purpose.
The only way things will change is if each person will look at themselves
and their homes to find the changes that need to be made. If one cares
about human rights in China they will not buy Walmart. If they truly care
for the environment then they will not buy gasoline. Telling others what to
do and how to live will only lead to conflict. Telling yourself to be a
better steward and loving brother in Christ will lead those around you to do
the same (lead by example) then when enough do the same then things change
for the good and permanently and without the conflicts.

Don Perrett

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Kenneth Piers
Cc: SteamDoc@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; Lawrence Johnston
Subject: Re: (Fwd) [asa] Cows, diet, and warming

Very good point. You need to look at the fluxes involved, sources and sinks
alike. For instance, CO2 source and sink fluxes used to be in reasonable
balance, causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to remain 'constant', until
us humans disrupted the balance and our influx of
CO2 could not be matched by sinks.

Imagine the following example of a sink where the inflow of water from the
faucet and the outflow match, causing the level of the water in the sink to
remain constant. Now start adding small amounts of water and over time the
water level in the sink will rise, even though the addition of water is
negligable compared to the inflow/outflow fluxes.

Pim

On 1/10/07, Kenneth Piers <Pier@calvin.edu> wrote:
> Friends: I am not an animal ecologist - only a lowly chemist- but I
> think this discussion about methane contributions from cows and
> termites and other creatures may be a bit of a red herring. Animal and
> microbial emissions of methane have always been part of global
> ecosystems long before humans were around and such contributions are
> part of the normal supply pathway of methane in natural ecosystems
> (there are, of course, also natural methane removal pathways in
> nature) undisturbed by humans. The question pertaining to animal
> contributions would become germane if it is true that the population
> of ruminant animals (or of termites) has vastly increased due to human
> actions. I don't know the answer to this question but only remember
> that, before there were many humans in North America, there were vast
> populations of bison roaming the plains who were also probably methane
> emitters. So the emissions of increasing emissions of methane we
> should be concerned about are those that arise from human activities.
> And certainly, if global warming leads to permafrost melting and this
> results in the release of vast amounts of methane now trapped in ice
> as clathrates in what are called methane hydrates, then we truly have
something to be worried about. I will provide a link to a(perhaps slightly
alarmist) paper I read about this possibility this morning.
> http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
> Such an event will likely put all the excess methane contributions
> from animals to the atmosphere to shame.
> ken piers
>
> Ken Piers
>
> "We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we
> live by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of
> faith, we must choose either to be religious or superstitious, to
> believe in things that cannot be proved or to believe in things that
> can
be disproved."
> Wendell Berry
>
> >>> "Lawrence Johnston" <johnston@uidaho.edu> 1/9/2007 5:11 PM >>>
> Allan, I have also read that termites similarly produce methane,
> probably by synrgistic cellulose digesting bacteria. Does anyone have
> an estimate of how much of the greenhouse gases come from this source?
>
> Ho, every one who thirsts,
> come to the waters;
> and he who has no money,
> come, buy and eat!
> Come, buy wine and milk
> without money and without price.
> Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your
> labor for that which does not satisfy?
> Isaiah 55:1 Revised Standard Translation
>
> ==========================================================
> Lawrence H. Johnston home: 917 E. 8th st.
> professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
> University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
> Fellow of the American Physical Society
> http://www.uidaho.edu/~johnston/ =========================
>
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> Date sent: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:51:11 -0500 (EST)
> From: SteamDoc@aol.com
> Subject: [asa] Cows, diet, and warming
> To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Here's an attempt to inject something constructive and practical into
> our current discussion about global warming.
>
> It has been pointed out that methane from cattle plays a
> not-insignificant role in the human-caused increase in greenhouse
> gases. So, it makes sense that those of us Christians who care about
> stewardship of God's creation might at least consider this in making
> dietary choices. But one does not want to make knee-jerk changes
> without practical effect (especially since some of my wife's
> relatives make their living from cattle ranching ...). So, I have
> two questions where I hope somebody here can supply (or point to) some
> practical information that can inform our stewardship:
>
> 1) Is this methane emission issue unique to cattle? Or do other
> animals (pigs, chickens, etc.) also produce methane? If I eat pork
> or chicken instead of beef, will that reduce greenhouse gases, or not?
>
> 2) What is the relative importance of beef consumption to dairy
> consumption in this issue? Can I find a number for how much methane
> emission corresponds to one pound of beef, versus how much corresponds
> to a gallon of milk?
>
> Allan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com "Any
> opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be attributed to my
> employer, my wife, or my cat"
>
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 12:08:33 2007