digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Activists Raise Global Stink Over Cows

chicagotribune.com — Burgeoning efforts to curb global-warming pollution are taking aim at an unlikely new target: the placid, cud-chewing -- and apparently rather gassy -- cow.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Lynx55, on 07/31/2008, -16/+30Oh Please.....get a life! Find something else to adopt as a cause!
    • MrBatguy, on 07/31/2008, -5/+1No, Lynx55. No, I seek nothing else.

      This will be my life's cause -- finding relief for poor bloated cows.
      • FGJfighter, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Quick! Get these cows some Pepto-Bismol! Good God men, hurry!
    • scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4agreed, stop bothering the cows and stop with the global warming crap
    • finkx, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Yeah you idiots - its only the planet - whats the worst thing that could happen!

      Prick
  • DrJG, on 07/31/2008, -20/+19No one has thought of the fact - that just because some people kill them for eating, does not mean that cattle are less than horses or dogs or cats, in dignity and in deserving a better treatment.

    Why not give them the same respect, by at least letting them roam free and not imprison them, so that they are healthier?

    It might be better if the cattle were free to walk, even for the health of those that insist on eating them, not to mention the whole planet in respect of the global warming contribution from gases - all that gas might reduce considerably if the cattle were free to walk and roam and eat from pasture, rather than be forced to stand and feed on and on, nonstop.

    They are not that different from humans in this respect. Any living being that eats without walking about and exercise will have the same problem of gas.
    • userperson, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5You a vegan?
    • bossywalker, on 08/01/2008, -0/+9WTF?? At most cattle farms that I know of the cattle are in large paddocks and are allowed to walk around and eat from pasture. I've never heard of cattle being "forced to stand and feed on and on, nonstop."
      • Digger1123, on 08/01/2008, -2/+6The only time they are in an enclosed space is right before their conversion in to something better than themselves.
      • poiuytrewq44, on 08/01/2008, -3/+2Those are what we try to promote. Sadly most of our meat comes from factory farms.
    • sarge96, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6You have no flipping idea how cows are raised. I consider myself a liberal, but when tards like you start getting down on a rural life you know nothing about, it pisses me off. Learn something before spouting your retarded nonsense. Cows at my ranch are kept in large fields, where they can roam around and eat and etc. If you think cows need more space then that, then you can go try and round up cows scattered across the damn county.
      • norman619, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4That's pretty much the norm from what I gathered from my 3 years of living in a farming and dairy community.
      • Voltalocke, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1Ok, but then after they are 6-8 months old what happens? Sent to the stockyards? How long do they live there?
    • EpicSelekta, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3Creatures that can survive in the wild: elk, coyotes, chickens (kinda).

      Creatures that stand no chance and releasing them into the wild would cause extinction: domestic cows.
    • norman619, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1It's a food animal. Dignity? If worrying about an animal that is destined to be in our supermarkets as food makes you feel better about being higher on the food chain then knock yourself out. You go ahead and spend quality time with your food. You do know in the end it means nothing and that there are REAL issues that demand our attention right?
    • crc77, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Sorry, methane is produced as a byproduct of the cow's digestive system, something to do with all the cellulose they have to break down. Walking around might make them feel less bloated, but that's just because they fart their way around the paddocks rather than in the feedlots.
      • Graham5331, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0At last, someone is talking a bit of sense! Whether they are free range or not they will still produce the same amount of methane, give or take.

        In New Zealand they tried to introduce a 'fart tax' for cows a few years back. Didn't go down to well as agriculture is still the backbone of the economy and culture here.
      • init100, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Actually, if the cows are kept indoors, their farts should be easier to collect and dispose of. Put a methane separation system on the ventilation system, and the farmer can use cow farts as fuel for his stove, or even selling it to the public.
    • scoottie, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1"No one has thought of the fact - that just because some people kill them for eating, does not mean that cattle are less than horses or dogs or cats, in dignity and in deserving a better treatment."

      there are many places that still eat dogs, cats and horses
    • settlesdown, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Do you know how much a cow *****? If they weren't allowed to walk around they'd be *****-deep in *****. Take a ride out to the country and check it out for yourself. ***** hipppie idiot!
  • toasterhead2k, on 07/31/2008, -13/+21This is an important part of the fight to preserve our planet. Bovine flatulence is a major contributor to greenhouse gases, especially since mankind has bred cows to become living fermentation vats.
    • sarge96, on 08/01/2008, -3/+3No, it's not. I am a firm believer in global warming, and I'm also a rancher. The "cow farts are killing us" argument is retarded on so many levels. Maybe once everybody drives hydrogen cars and most of our energy isn't generated by coal; THEN worry about the freaking cows. Don't crush an industry, it just gives Republicans more ammo.
      • Cattywampus, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2If you're a rancher, you're not exactly a disinterested party in this issue. But all the same, maybe you can explain some of the levels on which it is "retarded."

        When you consider all the livestock (not just cows) in the world, and the claim by scientists that methane is 20 times more efficient at destroying ozone than is carbon dioxide, why isn't this a valid issue to address?

        I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't do anything about methane emissions from cows (and steers, and other bovines, etc.) until we solve all the other greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking the U.S. administration is promoting -- "We aren't going to do anything to reduce our emissions until China and India reduce THEIRS."

        Why not address as many greenhouse gas/climate change issues as we can?
      • Voltalocke, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1To add to this, the only valid argument I see is the destruction of an industry. Have you seen what slaughter house work is like? Not that I want people to lose jobs, but I think the fact that there is a lack of jobs is a whole different issues...We don't have a problem putting corrupt subprime mortgage companies out of business, we figure that makes good sense...Why not an industry that still treats its employees like crap?

        I wouldn't complain if Wal-Mart went bankrupt...Hopefully some mom-and-pop shops could get back in business.
    • coreman, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4And deer, elk, moose, camels, pigs, horses, etc. are any different? Or the methane released as organic material decays in swamps, lakes, jungles, etc.? Or our own farts?
  • tufftugg, on 07/31/2008, -14/+9 I am living on a Planet of simpletons!! Cockroaches produce more gas than Cows on the planet! Forget how many Buffalo were slaughtered, that use to run wild in North America?
  • coyoteblue, on 08/01/2008, -9/+4More Bison meat, please.
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/01/2008, -18/+8Public alert!!!

    Al Gore has officially changed the name of his church.

    It is now - The Goracle and his Church of Global Warming & Cow Flatulence.

    Immediately send him all your money so that he, and he alone, may save Mother Earth.
    P.S. You might get saved in the process. Then again, you might not.
    • Bkaufman, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4Also ManBearPig is real.

      I'M SUPER CEREAL GUYS.
  • fullphaser, on 08/01/2008, -8/+18Just do what I do, and continue to eat said cows.
  • Mosheiken, on 08/01/2008, -7/+1May I suggest, Beano?
  • badnewshotel, on 08/01/2008, -8/+3Screw that - cows are the only safe food!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_bQA3tXLc
  • aflaks, on 08/01/2008, -8/+10just had 2 burgers; just doin my part to save the environment
  • SemiSarcastic, on 08/01/2008, -2/+15"The year is 2037...farting is punishable by death. With the increase in the cow population special task forces - Cow Runners have been hired to eliminate these animals on sight. It was not called murder it was called 'processing'"
  • caponumen, on 08/01/2008, -7/+2Lame......
  • bowe, on 08/01/2008, -6/+1***** comments stink. They are all collapsing to the left, what/s up with that?
    • Digger1123, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1This must be your first time on Digg. Get used to it crazy lefties outnumber sane people about 20 to 1. And if you change sane people to Republicans, it shoots up to about 50 to 1.
      • bowe, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2i'm talking an actual interface problem, not an ideological position.
  • dasamps, on 08/01/2008, -5/+3And I thought that the idea of carbon dioxide dooming us was retarded.
  • KMye, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4Cattle are FAR from new targets. Anyone else remember "Cattle-free by '93?"
    • norman619, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4I'd like to shoot for "Environmentalist bandwagon free by 2009." That's a goal I can support.
      • ssn697, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3You have to RHYME!

        "Done with environmentalist swine in 09!"
    • ssn697, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I remember "No moo by '92"...
  • LordScarab, on 08/01/2008, -7/+5*Note*
    The Fastest way to stop a cow Farting, is to make it into a Steak
  • norman619, on 08/01/2008, -6/+1Activists tend to stink in general. Don't blame the cows.
  • Cattywampus, on 08/01/2008, -1/+7Years before I ever heard the phrase "carbon footprint," I saw science articles claiming that one of the largest contributors to global warming was what as euphemistically called "bovine flatulence." Yes, it sounds like a joke. But not really when you consider how many cattle there are in the world for milk, beef, etc., and the claim that methane is 20 times more efficient in destroying ozone than is carbon dioxide.

    • ssn697, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Cattle flatulence is just one reason we have to get rid of them.

      They are also responsible for the food shortage, eating WAY more grain per pound of meat they produce.

      Plus they...

      Hold on, gotta turn my succulent two day marinated steak...
    • ngresonance, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Methane is more efficient at trapping heat, not destroying ozone.
    • poiuytrewq44, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Global warming has ***** to do with ozone. LURKMOAR SCIENCE
  • odacity509, on 08/01/2008, -6/+0Pull my finger...
  • TheMachine1, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5Burps not farts:

    Just for the record its not gas from the tail end of the cows that is making most the methane its from the mouth of the cow.

    Interesting the article does mention garbage in land fills rotting is a bigger source of methane emission in the US.
  • coreman, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2Methane doesn't have anything to do with destroying ozone. It is more effective than CO2 at heat retention, but it's also going to break down much faster than CO2...
  • Bannedx5, on 08/01/2008, -6/+2Environmentalism is the new communism. What *****. Buried.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2That your phrase for the night? Use it again if you get the chance.
  • AikoMiko, on 08/01/2008, -6/+2KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!KILL THE COWS!!!


    And save me some ribs...Mmmmmmm... Ribs!
  • genome895, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2You do realize the carbon doesn't originate from their asses. It starts as CO2 in the air that grasses capture, convert into sugars, and polymerized into cellulose. The symbiotic bacteria in their gut degrade a fraction of that cellulose into digestible sugars and produce the methane, other gasses, as well as solid excrement that are ultimately secreted.

    Beyond the beef this provides for people all around the world, the entire dairy industry including milk, butter, yogurt, and cheese making other items like ice cream and pudding possible depend on this domesticated animal. This makes the cow a keystone in the diet of the global population. The relationship between humans and domesticated crops and mammals is the epitome of the circle of life: from gas to soil and back again.

    So before anyone starts exterminating this critical link in our food chain please consider the consequences this will have. Relief exports have already dropped in the face of corn massively being diverted into ethanol production along with natural disasters. How many people will need to starve in order to reduce carbon "emissions".

    New technologies for carbon sequestion are being developed to curb the increase in CO2 and reduce the global warming trend. If fear and paranoia take hold, the solution to the problem will be a reduction in human population due to overreaction and not the management of air pollution with new technologies.
    • FGJfighter, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1so we should... burn the grass?
      • ufee, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1That would release the carbon.
      • genome895, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Ethanol produced from woody materials is a rapidly developing technology as one of the fuels that could immediately replace gasoline in an energetically favorable way. Corn: 1 energy unit input = 1 energy unit output. Switchgrass: 1 energy unit input = 5.4 energy unit output.

        Hawaiian sugar growers use bagasse to fuel a boiler and produce electricity to provide not only the energy to run their manufacturing plant but feeds eccess energy out to the grid.
      • genome895, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Carbon will be "released" reguardless. Either by the cows eating the grasses and humans eating the cows or by a variety of insects and fungi eating the live and deceased grasses. At least this way we get something out of it.
    • Voltalocke, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2I respect your concern for food shortages. The thing is, eliminating cattle farming FREES land for crop farming. 70% of food grown is food for food animals. The amount of acreage that would no longer be devoted to an inefficient process like producing food from animals would have GREAT results for food shortages.
      • genome895, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1A very good argument especially since every level added to the food chain decreases the energy value by a factor of 10, but realistically how are you going to convince the population at large to never eat meat again?

        Having a diverse food supply makes it more robust to natural and artificial disasters. It has been of great concern that a foreign force could release a plant contagion into the wild destroying crops. A country can't fight if it is starving making this sort of attack an intelligent first strike.

        The reason this could be successful is because farmers usually plant the best crop breeds available (ie largest output/acre). This means that vast crop lands neighboring one another and growing identical plants would allow for a disease to spread rapidly among a line susceptible to a new disease. Plants cannot be moved or quarantined, and they don't have an immune system that can react or be immunized against to a new contagion as mammals do. New resistant crop strains would have to be developed to replace them and that would take time [year(s)]. It is also difficult to observe a plant disease initially spread.

        These points and counter points aside, if more people become vegetarians then more power to them, but what kind of government will tell free people what they can and cannot eat? Isn't it my body? The present situation in our society reminds me of that old Sylvester Stallone movie, Demolition Man.

        There are other ways to go about dealing with CO2 levels. Intelligent strategies must be formulated before taking large scale actions with such immediate high risks.
  • AikoMiko, on 08/01/2008, -4/+1Why don't we put hosed masks and butt hoses on them all and harness the energy?
    On the one hand that may be considered cruel to the cows. On the other hand THEY ARE F*****G COWS!!!
  • 0Xonox0, on 08/01/2008, -3/+3Wait, humans exhale CO2... you know what that means!
  • waxoff, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1***** you Wheaton College, you're going to have to pull that cheeseburger from my cold dead hands before I give it up.
    • Voltalocke, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3That will probably happen. It just might not be Wheaton College that pulls the cheeseburger from your hands...Rather, it'll be your loved ones after you have a heart attack at 36 :)
  • timbuktu22, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1A good lesson. Methane's destructiveness and its usefulness are often ignored in climate change debates. But there's another source of a considerable amount of methane that is talked about less: humans. There is the potential to both harness a fair amount of energy and reduce GHG emissions considerable by using biogas digesters to burn and process municipal solid waste (MSW). See:
    http://www.brightfuture.us/new/index.php?option=co ...
  • ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1I'm all for being more green, but this is retarded. Next thing you know there going to say Dinosaurs farted and belched themselves into extinction.

    For all global warming believers please for the sake of humanity please look at these two sites:

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/



    • init100, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1"For all global warming believers please for the sake of humanity please look at these two sites:"

      That's about as likely as an atheist being suddenly converted by a creationist web site, or a communist suddenly being enlightened by a capitalist web site.
      • ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0I'll second that you cant change anyone unless they want to change. I just find us in a sad sad state that we know very little how this planet works but yet all these "experts" seem to be enlightened that they know everything about it. It just seems that most of these global warming people just buy what ever somebody tells them and they fail to research it on there own and if they do research it on there own they fail to look at the other side. I'm not ruling out that it could be a possibility that there is global warming, but after all the information I have read there evidence is very vague and doesn't address all aspects of common knowledge of what we do know how this planet works. Check out Agenda 21 if you havent already its the UN's plan to combat global warming. Elitism is a disease for which there is no cure. To bad we cant take the riches people in the world and reduce them to poverty. They wouldn't last 2 weeks.
  • Sezneg, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Given that only 150 years ago there were massive herds of buffalo numbering in the millions migrating all across the great plains, not to mention larger ranges for large grazing animals in Africa and parts of Canada and Russia it seems beyond silly to start worrying about cow farts. I mean, have we really reached the point where we need to be debating the environmental merits of cow farts vs buffalo farts?

    The environment constantly changes. Over 90% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are EXTINCT. It's kind of the whole tenet of evolutionary biology. The world changes, and the inhabitants of the world change themselves over time to fit new niches and take advantage of the current trends like a 15 year old girl dropping her back street boys trapper keeper for an n'sync 3 ring binder circa 1999.

    So what's natural, and what's not? We're part of nature, aren't we? Aren't those who believe that we are mere products of planetary evolution the same who decry the religious notion that we are somehow greater than and masters of the earth's biosphere? Cow farts, are we serious? This is the same kind of crap like a hospital in Florida being located 20 miles further away than originally planned because it could disrupt TOAD HABITAT. It's the same kind of crap that has people genuinely believing that dogs released by settlers in Australia a few hundred years ago that are now called dingos are somehow a native species, while cats released later by settlers only starting about a hundred years ago are somehow a threatening alien species that must be culled because their existence is disruptive to the "balance" caused when the dingo's disrupted the ecosystem a few hundred years ago. (and yet they're spending a lot of money and effort down there cull the feral cat population)

    It's absurd to see so much energy spent across all forms of media on drivel like this. The earth is constantly changing. We as humans have caused large changes ourselves in both creating new habitats and destroying old ones. We've also helped migrating plants, animals and diseases reach across oceans and spread out. To me it seems that we have a need to understand the world as static. The notion of global change scares us. Yet change is historically the norm.

    The whole notion of global warming is rubbish. Once you get through the layers and layers of crap, the laughably high feedback requirements of the "doomsday scenario" producing models... the political and economical posturing to gain regulatory power and make money... the politicizing of science and creation of a psuedoreligion from environmentalism... and what have you really got? It's gotten .6° C warmer over the last 30 years, though this warming stopped about 10 years go. It may or may not get another .6°C warmer over the next 40. Big flipping deal. Sea levels may change, local climate and rainfall patterns may change. Big deal. It's all changed before. Fortunately, animals and plants have this thing called evolution. The world will continue to change around us.
    • wunksta, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1i think you are missing the point about the impact on US but yeah, i agree. however i would say that it is quite possible to change the environment through emissions

      and yes, invasive species are detimentral as well as a lot of other actions that we have done have caused damage to the environment even to the point of affecting us.

      the ozone depletion? acid rain? yes, we do affect the environment. and while i dont agree with everything that is proposed i must say yes, its VERY possible for us to change the world wide environment as a whole species.

      the world changes, but we shouldnt ignore changes that we are causing that can be detrimental to us.

      just my thoughts, i could be wrong.
  • TheImaginator, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2They should collect all the cow farts in big plastic bottles strapped to the cows arses;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou ...
    Then they should use the methane as fuel.
  • diskit, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Reminds me of Ron White.

    "...I'm eating the cow!"
  • dortcahar, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0I hava a Knowband course about the topic;

    http://www.knowband.com/course/global_warming/21
  • ufee, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Strap a filter on the cows ass.
  • init100, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1Well, they can pry my cow meat and milk products from my cold dead hands.
  • atact88, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1It's actually not cow farts. The methane comes out through the mouth, from the stomach. And I agree, these people must be real bored or something.
  • blix797, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3The simple solution is to eat the cow. Being vegetarian is unethical and damaging to the enviornment!
  • DarwinBC, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1I wonder if activist taste better then cows because we could use a few less green sheep running around spewing their BS everywhere
  • dutchlover, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1You guys are also forgetting the destruction that's done to the actual land that the cows are raised on, and where their feed is grown. For example, Brazil cuts down outrageous amounts of their rainforests (huge carbon sinks by the way) every day just to make room to grow soy for cattle feed. And anyone who has seen pictures of where cattle is raised should know that the land has been completely destroyed.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.