Virtually all of the Kyoto Protocol's member countries have increased their CO2 emissions since signing the treaty. The political and economic costs of reducing CO2 from cars and factories have proven very high. So they just haven't happened.
Why don't eco-activists support a major cut in methane emissions from cows instead? Each molecule of methane has 21 times as much global warming potential as a molecule of CO2, and we already have cost-effective ways that farmers can cut livestock-emitted methane.
The cows and pigs won't care.
A new study in Canada found about 20 different ways to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock—each of them capable of cutting these emissions by one-third. North America has more than 100 million cattle, hundreds of millions of hogs and feeder pigs, and more than 2 billion chickens, together emitting billions of tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses every year.
The Canadian authors, Karin Wittinberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba, say that such methane reduction strategies should be a top priority in any greenhouse gas reduction effort.
Simply grinding and pelleting the feeds for confinement animals reduced methane by 20 to 40 percent, because it makes the feed more fully digestible.
Steers grazing on high-quality alfalfa-grass pastures emit 50 percent less methane than steers grazing on mature grass-only pastures. Rotational grazing—changing where the cows graze every few days—also cuts methane emissions. It would cost only a few dollars per acre to encourage farmers to rotatationally graze, replant their pastures more often, and use higher-quality forages because the better pastures also produce more meat and milk for the farmer's profit.
Methane emissions in feedlot cattle were reduced by one-third when 4 percent canola oil was added to cattle feedlot rations. The canola oil costs only slightly more than comparable grain calories.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone reduces methane emissions by 10 percent in dairy cattle. The growth hormone hasn't even been legalized in Canada, thanks largely to opposition from activist groups such as Greenpeace!
Keeping young pigs and poultry separated by age groups, and phasing their feeds by growth stages can cut greenhouse emissions by 50 percent and sharply reduce bad smells too. Again, farmers would need only modest encouragement to use the system because it also increases feed efficiency.
The activists who warn of an overheated planet say we should focus on "no-regrets" energy strategies, and make the easiest, most cost-effective changes first. They ignore, however, such major sources of cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions as nuclear power—and encouraging livestock farmers to cut their birds' and animals' greenhouse emissions.
Instead, the Greens demanded ridiculous battery-powered electric cars. They demand we spend billions to clutter the landscape with tens of thousands of huge, unsightly wind turbines that kill birds and bats. They say we can't approve nuclear plants until we demonstrate safe storage of spent fuel—for 10,000 years! They're even suing to stop geothermal power plants that have no emissions, no radioactive waste and virtually no footprint on the land.
Let's make a deal with the global warming crowd. We'll reconsider CO2 emissions from cars and factories—after they shepherd through Congress a reasonable and effective cost-sharing plan to reduce a billion CO2 tons worth of methane and nitrous oxide from livestock. That will show they're serious about global warming.
Until now, they've seemed more interested in reducing American lifestyles to poverty levels than in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment