(12z) Don't blame animals for the climate crisis
In today's society, many people comment how animals are a main contributor to climate change. However, we should stop blaming animals for the production of too much methane as they are victims because of the industrialised meat industry and habitat loss due to human activities, and thus the resulting climate change.
But, animals and mainly bacteria in their stomach produce less methane than animals eat food as much of the food is used by the body. It seems even plants produce methane although not everyone agrees. As everything seems to produce methane, it seems to be an important degradation product of plants that are digested by animals but also in the ground, but without our planet changing into a methane planet as much of the methane is reused (btw we don't want an ice planet as happened once before, and thus a certain amount of greenhouse gases needs to be in the atmosphere).
And thus we could have expected and as now proven, that a main cause of higher levels of methane in the atmosphere is, as often, the fossil fuel industry as huge amounts of methane escape from wells. Of course, as we now know for sure that this happens, we should try to capture this gas so we can use it, and thus we need less other gases for our energy production, thus a double measure to reduce climate gases in the atmosphere. Also the permafrost that is melting as a result of climate change releases huge amounts of methane, and this is only the beginning as more permafrost will melt.
Similarly, human-made fertilizers are responsible that nitrogen is poisoning our waters, while animals return to nature via urine and faeces what they eat. And as they move, it is rare all their excrement are at the same place. So, their excrement fertilises the earth.
Finally, humans not only destroy the environment and its animals, but also kill other humans as the fossil fuel but more general commodity industries earn money by dividing people so the strongest gain while the rest suffers.
Further, we may also capture the methane animals release, and use this for energy production so the net effect on the climate will be zero or even negative as part of the food is built into the animal's body instead of being released. A question: when animals live outside and eat fresh food such as grass, do they produce the same amount of methane as those living in stables that may eat mainly dry food such as straw? If not, allowing animals to walk around freely so they can eat fresh food may have a positive (or negative?) effect on climate gases, while in winter when cows are in stables where they eat straw, the methane they produce can be captured to heat the farm.
Finally, we need another way of farming to reduce the suffering of animals, and for those who don't bother, at least we will have better quality milk and meat, while animals will have a better life until they're slaughtered. Thus, animals should be able to walk around instead of being cramped in cages. And yes, locally produced food instead of importing animal products so locally we think we need to slaughter animals to reduce greenhouse gases. Importing animal products from abroad exports the problem to abroad, because then methane (and other waste products such as nitrates and nitrites) eventually will return as a general problem such as excess growth of dangerous algae in oceans. Production locally also reduces transport, and thus pollution. And it allows animal welfare control while this is more difficult when farming is done abroad. We should not forget, export too much of our food, and it may become expensive when we depend on others for our survival.
The release of captured carbon will increase earth's temperature but, in the end, may result in changes within the planet that may restore a new balance; remember, part of the gases that are released were in the atmosphere long ago where it was taken up by living organisms and later stored in the form of coal, oil and gas; but as the planet looked differently, this may have had other effects on the planet. Still, maybe local serious rainfall may refill lakes that died out to counter rising ocean levels, although this may destroy today's food production, and thus higher food prices. Allow nature to flourish and a new balance can be reached, the reason why the EU's Nature Restoration Law is important. Although religious people think we will need God's help.
Animals release methane, but are not responsible for climate change
As usual, nowadays many people in comments under articles about climate change accuse animals that they produce too much methane and, although animals release methane (a potent greenhouse gas), humans are mainly to blame as we pack animals together so locally animals produce high levels of methane. Therefore, we should condemn the practice of today's meat industry, an industry whereby animals are considered to be things that are locked up with too many animals in cages that are too small so animals can't move. Therefore, they are given antibiotics to prevent they become ill and thus to prevent that all animals in (many) factories need to be killed; this preventative antibiotic use can result in antibiotics resistant bacteria. Pig and bird fewer, although viruses so antibiotics don't act against them, are examples how one ill animal in one farm results in fear for an epidemic so preventive measures are taken by the destruction of large numbers of animals over a large area, and thus not only in that one farm.But, animals and mainly bacteria in their stomach produce less methane than animals eat food as much of the food is used by the body. It seems even plants produce methane although not everyone agrees. As everything seems to produce methane, it seems to be an important degradation product of plants that are digested by animals but also in the ground, but without our planet changing into a methane planet as much of the methane is reused (btw we don't want an ice planet as happened once before, and thus a certain amount of greenhouse gases needs to be in the atmosphere).
 |
| Stop Blaming animals for what humans do. Take responsibility so humans can act. |
Other sources of methane
Fossil fuel is a collective name that includes oil and gas that are the remains of microscopic plants and animals, and includes coal that are remains of plants. As the building blocs of animals and plants are mainly C (carbon) and H (hydrogen), these C and H are also the main building blocks of coal, oil and gas, including methane gas (its chemical formula is CH4). I've written more about methane before.And thus we could have expected and as now proven, that a main cause of higher levels of methane in the atmosphere is, as often, the fossil fuel industry as huge amounts of methane escape from wells. Of course, as we now know for sure that this happens, we should try to capture this gas so we can use it, and thus we need less other gases for our energy production, thus a double measure to reduce climate gases in the atmosphere. Also the permafrost that is melting as a result of climate change releases huge amounts of methane, and this is only the beginning as more permafrost will melt.
Stop blaming animals
And thus I really hope that those concerned with our planet stop telling that animals are responsible for climate change. THEY ARE NOT!!! They exist since hundreds of millions of years, and in much greater numbers but free compared with today when we speak about the sixth extinction event, the Holocene, also known as Anthropocene extinction. Look at Africa where large numbers of animals still exist, but increasingly in conflict with humans. In contrast, because humans want to continue using cheap fossil fuels and eat cheap meat, we are responsible for climate change. Animals are victims as we destroy their habitat while the most profitable animals live in miserable circumstances to use as food as I described higher.Similarly, human-made fertilizers are responsible that nitrogen is poisoning our waters, while animals return to nature via urine and faeces what they eat. And as they move, it is rare all their excrement are at the same place. So, their excrement fertilises the earth.
Finally, humans not only destroy the environment and its animals, but also kill other humans as the fossil fuel but more general commodity industries earn money by dividing people so the strongest gain while the rest suffers.
Scientists investigate what to do with animal's methane production
Already scientists are investigating how cows can produce lower levels of methane (in fact, microorganism produce the methane in the stomach of cows, and changing the cows their diet only a little can result in a large reduction of methane production).Further, we may also capture the methane animals release, and use this for energy production so the net effect on the climate will be zero or even negative as part of the food is built into the animal's body instead of being released. A question: when animals live outside and eat fresh food such as grass, do they produce the same amount of methane as those living in stables that may eat mainly dry food such as straw? If not, allowing animals to walk around freely so they can eat fresh food may have a positive (or negative?) effect on climate gases, while in winter when cows are in stables where they eat straw, the methane they produce can be captured to heat the farm.
Finally, we need another way of farming to reduce the suffering of animals, and for those who don't bother, at least we will have better quality milk and meat, while animals will have a better life until they're slaughtered. Thus, animals should be able to walk around instead of being cramped in cages. And yes, locally produced food instead of importing animal products so locally we think we need to slaughter animals to reduce greenhouse gases. Importing animal products from abroad exports the problem to abroad, because then methane (and other waste products such as nitrates and nitrites) eventually will return as a general problem such as excess growth of dangerous algae in oceans. Production locally also reduces transport, and thus pollution. And it allows animal welfare control while this is more difficult when farming is done abroad. We should not forget, export too much of our food, and it may become expensive when we depend on others for our survival.
Conclusion
Animals do not produce dangerous levels of methane as they produce what nature will re-use. However, humans produce too much greenhouse gases (that include methane but also CO2) via their industries, i.e. industrial farming, fossil fuel and as a result all other human actions when humans use fossil fuels for energy production such as to drive cars. Therefore, we should stop blaming victims, i.e. animals (and people in developing countries who produced little of those gases but start to "develop" and now produce more greenhouse gases). We should also eat less animals so fewer animals will be locked up while we should allow them to live outside instead of locked in cages. Only by accepting that humans cause climate change can humans act to avert even worse. And thus we need to moderate our demands; this may even result in more balanced lives when we don't need, as an example buy or build always bigger and more expensive and have better holidays than people we know.The release of captured carbon will increase earth's temperature but, in the end, may result in changes within the planet that may restore a new balance; remember, part of the gases that are released were in the atmosphere long ago where it was taken up by living organisms and later stored in the form of coal, oil and gas; but as the planet looked differently, this may have had other effects on the planet. Still, maybe local serious rainfall may refill lakes that died out to counter rising ocean levels, although this may destroy today's food production, and thus higher food prices. Allow nature to flourish and a new balance can be reached, the reason why the EU's Nature Restoration Law is important. Although religious people think we will need God's help.
21/06/2023: Update of text: editorial changes for improved readability and extention of we need another way of farming and in conclusion the reference to the EU's Nature Restoration Law.
Comments