Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: thedoc on 19/07/2016 13:50:02
-
David asked the Naked Scientists:
In light of Global Warming, the mass destruction of natural habitats and replaced with agriculture (crops and feed for farm animals) is Agriculture the real cause to Global Warming rather we have been lead to think it is transportation (is the pollution from Large Cruiser Liner as well as even larger Ships transporting goods and Planes etc taken into account on the overall affect on global warming???)
Agriculture seems to be silent in the Scientific World as well as other area's of industry because of its commercial value to society, but it seems, looking at the larger picture, Agriculture, in its own right, seem to cause more pollution and more destruction of the natural environment and replaced with much less oxygen, hence advancing global warming.
Why has Agriculture remain so silent to the media and the masses in regards to being the largest source of Green House Gases, the depletion of oxygen level in the atmosphere as a result of the destruction of natural habitat???????
It seems to be the case Agriculture is doing more damage to the planet in terms of green house gases, the destruction of natural habitats, thus reducing oxygen levels being produced.
Should we look at Agriculture as the real cause to global warming and the destruction of natural habitat and finally, the mass extinction of animal species (since the 1970's 42% of all life is extinct due to human activity) ??????????
However, the worst source of destruction of species, the pollution of the atmosphere is all perpetrated by the human-made-concept of money, and nothing else.
If this is the real source, apart from the destructive consequences of economic greed (the USA being a prime example) resulting in much of the problems on the planet is a concept which has no baring to any natural laws of nature and the Universe, this being monitory and commercial, selfish greed?????
What do you think?
-
About 39% of the land surface, and almost none of the sea, is cultivated. Interestingly the statistic has hardly altered in the last 50 years. What has changed, however, is the balance between animal and vegetable crops adn the edible yield of vegetables.
Time was that considerable quantities of carbon dioxide were sequestered as straw and other waste vegetation, some of which was used as building material. Rising standards of living have promoted meat production (which converts human-inedible vegetation to carbon dioxide and protein) and improved grain products have increased the ratio of grain to stalk.
Animal husbandry directly contributes about 25% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide (my publications). The production of artificial fertilisers, and the processing and transport of food (particularly meat, which is highly perishable) probably accounts for another 10 - 20% of anthropogenic CO2, primarily from fossil fuels (World Bank and UNFAO figures).
So if you think anthropogenic CO2 contributes to global warming, the answer is yes.