For Like minded people who like to see-
New (Well its not so new, it is actually two years old but our sleeping “skills based” MLA board certainly haven’t gone out of their way to publicise it) has shown that livestock is only responsible for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
Personally, I am sure that if some of the more fanciful assumptions were taken from the calculations that it would be lower than that.
The “Washington Examiner” reports,
Pierre Gerber, a policy officer with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, has admitted that the 2006 report he co-authored, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” exaggerated the impact of meat production on climate change.
It appears that in calculating emissions from trains, planes, buses and automobiles only what came out of the exhaust pipe was counted.
In “Livestock’s Long Shadow” that was counted (Methane) as well as calculations for fertiliser, growing crops to feed cattle, deforestation (Where we all got lumbered with huge areas of Amazonian deforestation. Much claimed for cattle production would ultimately have been for soy to be used for biofuel.) and meat processing. No allowances were made for avoided deforestation in places like Queensland and NSW Australia.
“So the Livestock report joins a growing list of UN “scientific” studies that are now laughingstocks, including the one that predicted the Himalayan glaciers would be completely melted by mid-century and the one predicting that global warming would reduce crop production by 50 percent and cause mass starvation in Africa” according to the Washington Examiner.
In a paper to the American Chemical Society, Professor Frank Mitloehner found that scientists had used faulty methodology to compare emissions from the transport industry and the livestock industry.
Developed countries should reduce use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. Transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent, he said.
“Livestock’s Long Shadow” became the definitive work used by vegetarians, vegans and dark green environmentalists the world over as the excuse to try to destroy a whole industry.
The US has many useful rebuttals on behalf of their livestock industries and much of what is claimed in the paper is foreign to the wonderful clean and green industry as I know it.
But in breaking news we are told that WWF, one of the perpetrators of this he deception is to tell Australian cattle producers how to be more “sustainable” at the behest of McDonalds.
Enough is enough re the MLA and its traitorous role working against the producers that are funding it! The other half of the junket is taxpayer funded.
In this last week I have been very busy on the phone and have formally put on notice to Ludwigs office , MLA manager or Corporate Governence, Cattle Concil deputy ceo, ALFA ceo -ALL PERSCRIBED operatives under the 1997 AMLI act that I believe that the voting register has been corrupted either by ignorance of the act or otherwise for the last 14 years and that the key vote holders were infact not paying transaction levies due to the exemptions.
Every person that I have talked to including the staff at the levies Collection Unit do not have an understanding of the ACT . I am prepared to be shown how I am wrong but the silence after a week is deafening.
Nothing short of a Judicial ENQUIRY will suffice as we are talking about $ 1Billion that has been appropriated secretly for dubious vale to the levy payers. All this latest WWF and Ausgraze is just more pathetic Govt indulged games because they know they can.
It is a criminal offense to ignore my questions in the event that I am correct so FOR ONCE these people are going to be accountable!
MLA paid Flannery $50K per debate for at least three debates to promote the green agenda to get a toehold in our affairs . Apart from the $180K per year for the next four years from gillard @day week- he also gets this-
Flannery has far more sources of income than that pitiful $1,200 a day … heck that would barely keep him in champagne and caviar.
After all we know he makes a fair salary at his day job:
Then I see he got an expensive Chair:
But wait, there’s more… he is also a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (sounds like some really serious fellows):
Who is behind that organisation you might well ask…
The Purves Environmental Fund eh? And who are they?
Hmmm warm, fuzzy, feel good… oh wait they have an Annual Report page:
They don’t talk about money much, but the one $ sign in the report says they have raised $6 million in their short existence, and every year some of that has gone to the concerned scientists. Perhaps they were concerned they were going to run out of champagne and caviar?
I know this isn’t an exhaustive list of ole Flanners’ income, but it gives an indication that he won’t have to worry about losing a few thousand to the Feds in the recent Medicare rebate cut. He can probably even afford the CO2 tax they are implementing without cramping the lifestyle he has no doubt become accustomed to…
It is almost two years since a co-author of "Livestock's Long Shadow" admitted that the comparitive figures between the livestock and transport figures were incorrect.
The livestock industry does not create more greenhouse gas emissions than the transport sector.
Nevertheless today 17/2/2012 "The Huffington Post" has an article based wholy on the incorrect comparison.
The damage to our industryfrom this one IPCC paper is untold. Not only is it untold but no rebuttal has been published on our behalf.
Totally missed by our media and specialist agencies, the errors in the livestock calculations of the IPCC report as a basis for comparison with transport, were not missed by the Iowa based Des Moines Register who published an article in March 2010.
The original report has and is used by vegan groups to push their cause and by environmental groups to call for ever increasing regulation of every aspect of the livestock industries.
In countries like Australia we fall for it every time regardless of the harm to industry. Two years on we should be pausing and examining all of the evidence: not rushing headlong into intrusive programmes.
If, five years ago CCA had directed our “research and marketing” company to do a critique of “Livestock’s Long Shadow” vis a vis the comparison with transport and relative to the Australian situation we would not have reputable health organisations quoting their findings as a basis for their ill-informed “environmental” policies.
Perhaps if, two years ago CCA and MLA had “marketed” the fact that one of the authors of “Livestock’s Long Shadow” had admitted that the comparisons with the transport industry were flawed, government, media and celebrity campaigns may not be harming or industry.
Meanwhile WWF have had two years to take down the damaging, incorrect information but it is still on their websites.
Mike Nahan of the Institute of Public Affairs this as an example of the harm that green groups can do by design or accident.
It is a 2003 address and Livestock's Long Shadow had not been produced. That was 2006. Now their erroneous findings have been disseminated widely and influenced government policy and funding decisions.
I doubt that the harm that has been done can be undone.
History is replete with examples of societies allowing narrowly based interest groups to latch onto a valid issue, to present a distorted prognosis that eventually become mainstream, and in the process do great harm not only to society at large, but to the initial issue.