This is a rant about a segment I heard on the radio this afternoon about Global Warming
| While riding in My Grandmothers truck this afternoon, the station she listens to ( an AM political station) began an interview with a woman advocating the removal of meat and cheese from the diets of Americans. She claimed that it would help stop global warming if we stopped eating both of these staples of most Americans Diets.
Her first argument was dealing with the Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide expelled by the livestock. While the statement itself may contain some merit, support her argument it does not. If we stop consuming these animals, they would begin living longer, and overpopulating the pastures and countryside. One way to stop this is to kill the livestock, but this poses another problem: What do you do with the carcasses? This would just be a waste of nourishment and bring predatory animals and scavengers to the area. If anything, we should consume more of these delicious animals.
Her next statement was about the transportation of the animals after the pastures are left behind. She said "...The exhaust from the trucks transporting the animals produces the same amount of harm as the exhaust from cars." This statement makes no sense whatsoever. An eighteen-wheeler producing the same amount of harm as a car? Wouldn't that be an improvement? Also, doesn't that mean the next thing this hippie-wannabe will aim at is our precious transportation?Shouldn't she be aiming at more harmful things to the environment, such as the movie stars that use private jets to show their support of Going Green rather than aiming at the common man once again?
While I personally believe Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect are just Corporate ways to exploit the mindless consumers, I am willing to listen to contrary statements AS LONG AS THEY ARE LOGICAL! This woman just made no attempt whatsoever to make any remark that even could be vaguely mistaken for a sane logical support of her actions.