Regulating Cattle Emissions and Conspiracy Theories

OK. I’ve finally had enough of the ludicrous idea that the way to control greenhouse gases is to regulate emissions by livestock. I suspect it is really a plan to destroy the livestock industry by those who think we should all become Vegans. Or, maybe it is something even more sinister.

The carbon cycle is relatively simple to describe although its actions are complex. Living things are carbon-based. This includes plants and animals. Plants take carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere, trap the carbon into their tissue in the form of various molecules such as sugars and then release Oxygen. Animals eat plants (or other animals) and through the process of digestion, break down the complex molecules (such as sugars) from the plant material and utilize the released energy to fuel their existence. In the process of digestion, some of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as various gases and carbon dioxide is released through respiration. This process cycles the carbon in a somewhat continuous loop. Plants also release carbon when they die. The process of decomposition releases carbon into the atmosphere.

This carbon cycle has continued since the beginning of life on this planet. At one time in pre-history, there was significantly more carbon floating around in the atmosphere which fueled riotous growth of plants. Many of those plants were then trapped in sediment and over time changed to oil, gas and coal or were bound into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.

Until we began releasing the carbon that was “sequestered” in the form of oil, gas and coal, carbon wasn’t a problem. It was cycled through plants and animals just as it is today. It was this release from the utilization of fossil fuels of huge amounts of carbon back into the carbon cycle that created what some scientists today are claiming to be a cataclysmic problem for life on earth. In other words – it isn’t the cattle that are causing “climate change,” it is the burning of fossil fuels that released huge amounts of trapped carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

So, why do our government and the governments of other nations throughout the world think the solution lies in regulating gas produced by cattle? Here is one possibility – it is part of the plan to control the world food supply. In the U.S. most crops are subsidized through various support payments. Livestock production is not. Placing regulations on the livestock producers under the guise of controlling greenhouse gas emissions makes sense only in the context of attempting to gain control of one of the few lightly regulated industries left.

It fits into what could be construed as a plan to force a one-world government. The way I see it, if one wanted to control the world you would begin with a series of induced crises. The crises would be designed to gain control of some key things – banking, energy and food. Hmmmm…..we recently saw manipulation of the first two of these items. That leaves food. I wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes in Copenhagen……

More Climate Change Hype

The big news out of the G8 Summit is that the U.S. is doing the least of any industrialized nation to combat climate change. Huh?! We're talking seriously biased headlines designed to disseminate disinformation in order to further someone's agenda.

First, consider who commissioned the study -- the World Wildlife Fund. Do we sense a possible bias developing here?

Second, consider the current state of pollution/emissions technology and its level of implementation within each of the countries in the "study." Oh, wait, that wasn't considered so, we don't have a good starting point for comparison.

Third, was the export of aid and technology to other countries considered? U.S. companies are leading the way in developing and providing technology to other countries to reduce their emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere -- and I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about particulates and poisonous gases such as SO2, CO, etc.

Fourth, what about private initiative? Our form of government (although sometimes heavy-handed) is such that it encourages private initiative rather than government mandates. Were those measured in the "study?"

The alarmist, agenda-driven headlines are designed to create a public outrage. I'm thankful that the American public is learning to see beyond the rhetoric (I think -- er, hope).

A Convenient Endorsement

I wonder how much impact Al Gore's endorsement of Obama will have on the campaign? Yes, Gore is popular among Democrats. Yes, he is popular with the young enviro-active liberal set. Yes, he is popular with the media. But where does he bring anything new to the Obama campaign? Perhaps in his fundraising ability.

Now, what about from a different perspective? What will Al Gore's endorsement of Obama do for Al Gore? It endears him even more with the liberal elite. It garners media exposure for Al Gore. It buys political good will in the event that Obama wins the election. It perhaps earns a coveted seat as Ambassador to the U.N. It puts Gore in a position to influence cabinet selections. It -- well, you get the picture. It's all about what is good for Al Gore.