[milo]

Originally Posted by hyfe

I'm always unsure wether people using this argument are really serious or not.. because it really is quite a stupid argument.

Obviously, the CO2 cows release come from grass, and would ultimately have been produced through the grass rottening anyways. It's part of the bloody cycle. The CO2 from oil on the other hand, haven't been part of the cycle for 'a few' years, and thus actually adds to the amount of CO2 long-term.

Really? I seem to remember my chemical ideas/storylines alevel texts saying the rainforests that are destroyed to rear cattle are 'carbon stores' and the burning to grow grass doesn't even begin to account for the loss. Besides the CO2 emmision from cows isn't really the point, its the methane they produce.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't really understand what you mean here. Yes, any energy production is going to have some drawbacks (probably). So what? So we shouldn't try to save energy?

Without resorting to wholly renewable sources of energy we're always going to effect the earth in some manner, we reduce the carbon footprint but increase the nuclear one etc. There probably would be some benefit in setting ever decreasing maximum amounts of powerusage in white goods, but my point isn't about 'power saving' but rather its production.

You essentially choose what evil bothers you less - unless you become self suffecient.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Of course you do, you lunatic. Environmentalists are always going on about how we should reduce meat consumption for a whole bunch of reasons.

Yeah but they're usually along the lines of 'cows have human feelings don't hurt them' etc. I haven't heard of any environmental nutters calling for the slaughter of cows to help the earth, and if there is no meat/dairy production i really can't see the point in cows since they don't exist in the wild anymore.