Green New Deal

B.B. Hemingway said:
The problem is that it's their livelihood.
Click to expand...




Sorry, I was thinking overall. Yes of course the people who only raise cattle are going to be pissed but so are coal miners. It's definitely not a reason to have less beef. I would think people who raise cattle would have at least slightly more opportunity to adapt than coal miners, though, since they own land. Although I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of people involved in the industry that don't own land, e.g. meat packing plants.

 
Moiraine said:
Sorry, I was thinking overall. Yes of course the people who only raise cattle are going to be pissed but so are coal miners. It's definitely not a reason to have less beef. I would think people who raise cattle would have at least slightly more opportunity to adapt than coal miners, though, since they own land. Although I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of people involved in the industry that don't own land, e.g. meat packing plants.
Click to expand...


Livestock farming is a significantly cheaper business venture than crop farming. So a national transition might apply to some, but definitely not all.

 
I wish these discussions weee with people who are actually knowledgeable on the subject. 

Ps.....I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about the national discussion with politicians. 

AOC doesn’t have a friggen clue what she’s talking about with agriculture and beef production. 

Pss....my filet I just finished at Gordon ramsey’s Steak house in Atlantic City was unbelievable. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I wish these discussions weee with people who are actually knowledgeable on the subject. 

Ps.....I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about the national discussion with politicians. 

AOC doesn’t have a friggen clue what she’s talking about with agriculture and beef production. 

Pss....my filet I just finished at Gordon ramsey’s Steak house in Atlantic City was unbelievable. 
Click to expand...
Maybe she can be educated about the things she doesn't understand, and we can take notes on some of her ideas and how they would be beneficial.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
That was going to be my next point.

Such a transition, even if it's necessary, would royally F*** a lot of people.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned this in another thread, but where is the fertilizer for agriculture going to come from? It currently comes from natural gas.

If we really want a green economy, we're going to have to mimic the natural eco system and find ways to make our inputs and our outputs match up. The most obvious way is to use the animals we're raising for meat to also produce the fertilizer as they have been doing for millennia. There were an estimated 60-80 million buffalo in North America before we killed them off, so it seems like we should be able to have a similar number of cows and be sustainable.

 
ZRod said:
And cows just like cars are a major source of green house gases. Auto companies are adapting. Those who raise cattle need to as well, lest they go the way of coal miners.
Click to expand...


B.B. Hemingway said:
As long as the demand for beef is there, we won't have too.
Click to expand...


Demand for beef isn't enough to keep from having to adapt. There's a list longer than your arm of things beef producers (maybe not ranchers) have had to change and adapt to. And they've all increased the cost to consumers. Already, many places that handle cattle waste cover their wastewater lagoons with tarps, capture the methane gas and use it as an energy source. How long before somebody deems it time to do the same thing over where cattle are raised and capture their farts? Sure it will be cost prohibitive but if history is any guide, it will simply result in increased costs and decreased demand which will lead to less resistance and even more government intervention.

Sorry, just being realistic. I get a large portion of my income from the beef and dairy industries and I love eating beef. I just see it heading in that direction at some point. They'll talk about it enough and convince enough people that it's an emergency and voila.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin said:
We used to get precious fuel from whale blubber, and anvil salesmen could make a living. 

s#!t happens. 
Click to expand...


This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production". Why is it that this "s#!t happens" approach is only used with opposition to liberal agendas?

My favorite part of the Environmental book report is that she found a way to include "economic relief for those unwilling (!) to work".  :facepalm:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production"....
 

My favorite part of the Environmental book report is that she found a way to include "economic relief for those unwilling (!) to work. :facepalm:
Click to expand...




Why? If you're using an argument that it will hurt the people working in the industry, there's nothing wrong with to any obsolete thing where people lost their jobs, to show that people losing their jobs is not a good argument for not going away from it.

I can't find the part you're talking about with the 2nd sentence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Why? If you're using an argument that it will hurt the people working in the industry, there's nothing wrong with to any obsolete thing where people lost their jobs, to show that people losing their jobs is not a good argument for not going away from it.

I can't find the part you're talking about with the 2nd sentence.
Click to expand...


1st page in the  OP link.

 
Back
Top