Latest WA Democratic Initiative? Cow Farts

[River Dog]

No joke! From NPR, not exactly a conservative rag:

The latest issue dividing Washington's lawmakers: Cow farts

Before the milk gets to the creamery, the cows have to cut the cheese. A group of House Democrats in Washington have smelt this contribution to climate change, and have dealt a proposal to measure it.

"I'm doing this because I want to make sure we make good policy based on data," said Rep. Lisa Parshley, one of the sponsors of the proposal. "That's really what I'm doing here."

Parshley and her colleagues are pushing out House Bill 1630, which calls for Washington's dairy farmers and feed lots to start measuring the amount of methane that their cows emit on an annual basis. State Republicans, however, are arguing that the bill will result in such operations being taxed and included in the state's carbon auction.

"We're comparing emissions from cars and CO2 emissions to putting food on the table, and protein, that people need to survive — not even in the same category," said Republican state Rep. Joe Schmick. "So, I think it's the wrong direction.”

https://www.kuow.org/stories/the-latest ... -cow-farts

And people wonder how Trump ever got elected.

[Aseahawkfan]

The PETA and other anti-meat lobbyist groups have built an entire scientific thesis around industrial farming and eating meat being bad for the environment from methane being released from cow farts on top of the usual CO2 from combustion driving global warming. These studies are often paid for by companies producing plant-based meat alternatives. The left is bought and paid for by clean energy, vegans/vegetarians, the environmental movement given the number of jobs now created to promote the science around it in dollars and cents, alphabet sexuality, and the like. I think of the Democrats as the party of academic elitists who think they know better how we should all live driven by academics producing studies most Democratic voters don't understand, but buy into because they were told its true. They couldn't prove it and don't understand the science, but they believe in it like religion. It's not really different from Republicans buying into all the BS they believe like a religion.

I wonder at times what your old chemist buddy thinks of the science of climate change/global warming as the name seems to change with the times.

It seems to have given leftist governments a blank check to implement policy if they can claim climate change/global warming is associated with the issue allowing them to collect more tax revenues on a variety of products while not actually fixing the problem, while also making money off new companies in the environmental industry whether EV companies, solar, plant-based meat, and the like.

I'm wondering at point you will take the blank check away, Riverdog and open your eyes that something fishy is going on with the environmental movement and all the financially driven agendas glomming onto it.

In an increasingly sophisticated, scientifically driven world where the American K1 to 12 education system has not kept up, the Democratic Party has increasingly relied on academic studies to erode rights and increases taxes and expenses. It seem to be driving people in one of two directions: total faith in what they're being told or a total lack of faith in what they're being told.

I've reviewed climate science. It's a very new, very theoretical science. I've tried to discuss the science with some folks and their eyes glaze over and they start either telling me, "It's just true. You can't question it" or "It's all lies. I don't believe it." Yet the science is more complex than either position with some of it being true and other aspects being pure drivel or very theoretical. Some of the recommended fixes like carbon credits are pure bullshit. On top of that they're finding out things like meeting energy demand using solar or wind creates its own set of environmental problems as well as battery tech for EVs produced to supply the entire population and industry.

This cow farts crap is heavily driven by the animal loving crowd. And politicians like Washington State liberals want to use it as an excuse to expand tax revenues given Washington State citizens are very resistant to a state income tax and the government needs more money to fund all their operations due to terrible mismanagement of government funds by state government.

Yeah. I saw this attempt. I'm aware of it as I know the environmental movement has mixed with the anti-animal cruelty movement to create laws like the cage free chickens which increased the price of eggs prior to the avian flu outbreak. And now they want to increase the price of beef and milk for the working man to satisfy the vegans and vegetarians who have pushed the science that animal farming is bad for the environment. Thus we all must pay more because of the blank check the environmental movement allows on the left.

The question I hope you start asking yourself RD is why with all the energy spent to fix the environment is there no end metric or measure by which we will know it is fixed? How does the government and industry beneift from creating a problem that can't be fixed and then monetizing it for tax revenues and profits? If you're making a ton of revenue off this problem, why ever fix it?

[Aseahawkfan]

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

A discussion of the biogenic carbon cycle, specifically The Methane Cycle. The earth has natural carbon gas clearing capabilities which according to theory have been exceeded by the use of fossil fuels on the scales humans use them. Biogenic carbon has been part of this cycle for nearly as long as the earth has existed.

It's important that people understand the underlying science of carbon gases to be able to assess specific threats of climate change/global warming and the measures being taken to manage it. If they will be effective if and a particular threat like cow farts is actually a threat or not.

The environmental movement has created a bunch of false hypotheses that you see pushed by people like AOC claiming global warming will be irreversible in 12 years or other icons of the environmental like Greta Thunberg with no scientific background to speak of.

The earth theoretically has supported life at temperatures above what we're seeing now, so when scientists claim that we have the hottest year on record you have to determine how long we have been able to record global temperatures. This is an important reference point.

You also must ask why is the natural CO2 clearance method of photosynthesis done by plants unable to keep up with the production of CO2 added due to combustion. Is this CO2 molecularly different than CO2 produced by animal respiration and other natural processes? Have we reached a point where we have destroyed sufficient plant life in comparison to the animal population to balance CO2 production versus clearance and conversion to O2?

This is where I find the discussion with people who are dismissive of environmental issues problematic. This balance point does exist and we're not sure what it is. In a plant abundant environment, CO2 clearance and conversion to O2 was never an issue. We humans need plentiful O2 to function mentally and physically.

There has been a discussion by many who are concerned with the rise of carbon gases, specifically, CO2, that if the atmosphere reaches a certain PPM (Parts per million) of CO2, we will have severe mental impairment as brain function is severely impaired in low O2 environments. Even common people have seen O2 depletion lead to brain damage or death such as when a car exhaust can build up CO in a closed environment leading to asphyxiation.

We have also seen areas of the ocean suffering from O2 depletion lead to dead sea life as the natural processes from the plant life in the ocean that oxygenate the ocean are depleted causing asphyxiation for living organisms requiring oxygen in the ocean. This is rare, but does happen.

So it is important that we study the balance between plant and animal life that maintains the cCO2 clearance cycle and oxygen conversion even more than we watch the warming environment. The warming environment can rise only so far as it is unlikely that greenhouse gases lead to widespread desertification of the earth. Rather it will kill off a large supply of animal life including us naturally balancing the carbon gas environment, increase plant life to clear the carbon gases leading to a high oxygen environment restoring the balance point and creating an environment where animal life can flourish again. This idea of extinction is unlikely and a rebalance is more likely.

Humans throughout their history are always trying to figure out how this planet works. They have so far been able to beat every attempt to make them extinct. We are not dinosaurs. We are far, far, far more intelligent and capable of manipulating our environment to be hospitable to human life than any animal that has ever existed on this planet. This time is likely no different as we need to understand better how to enhance carbon clearance without being excessively stupid about it using some kind of climate Armageddon to push change and also ensure that competing agendas like the anti-animal cruelty movement or the green energy lobby doesn't push false threats in the interest of making money or pushing a social agenda that aligns with their personal ethics.

I think there is sufficient evidence to show cow farts and other natural forms of methane release are naturally recycled from the environment and thus only important to global warming if the normal process of methane removal is overwhelmed. Nowhere does this require the complete end of animal farming. That is a far left, anti-animal cruelty agenda no in line with the science that shows the process of methane removal from the environment.

I tried to make this as succinct as possible to provide some reading material for those interested in climate change as more than a media driven boogieman. I think it is important for people to engage with the science that is being used to govern the world. It is an increasingly bad idea in an age where information is easy to dispense and consume to avoid self-education on a variety of topics important to the decision masking process of governments and industry. Environmental issues are a complex topic involving complex biological processes that you have to study to understand. Everyone should take more time to do so.

[River Dog]

Good article. I especially liked the last paragraph.

With regard to this climate Armageddon that many on the left continue to push, I'm reminded of an analogy. If you drop a frog into boiling water, it will immediately sense the heat and jump out. However, if you put him in cold water then gradually turn up the temperature, he'll cook to death.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it doesn't really matter as it's a demonstration of how the left is using some of these extreme possible outcomes and it's causing the right to fight it. They'll grab hold of this idiotic stuff, like cow farts, and use it to discredit the entire argument about climate change, turn it into some sort of joke or punch line and set their cause back further than had they not said or did anything.