Daily Broadside | Breeding “Low Emission Cattle” Is Apparently A Thing And I Can’t Even

When low wattage House Representative AOC (D-Marxist) first suggested getting rid of flatulent cows to combat “climate change” back in 2019, she was dragged by conservatives and back-pedaled from the non-binding resolution that was the precursor of the Green New Deal.

Now a group from the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute in Australia has published a study that suggests breeding less gaseous bovines can “permanently reduce methane production.”

New research suggests that breeding dairy cows to fart less — and, therefore, release less methane — could cut down on greenhouse gases.

The team from Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute in Australia combed through 27 reports, drawing conclusions about various ways to curb methane emissions in the dairy and beef sectors in the country.

If I’m reading that right, this isn’t even original research. The Aussies studied other people’s studies to reach their conclusions.

Food production is one of the leading causes of climate change — livestock farming accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions — with one 2020 study finding that burps and farts from cattle, as well as manure management, are a significant contributor to global warming.

The latest study, published in the journal Climate this month and the first of its kind, suggests that transforming farmland into forest or wetland would be most effective at reducing methane, but breeding less gassy cows may also be an avenue worth exploring.

OK, first of all, cows have been been burping and farting for thousands of years and the climate has been just fine. Any change has come from the rise of technology and the internal combustible engine. It’s not the cows—but these eco-warriors just can’t help themselves from meddling with the ecosystem that God arranged.

Second, it’s not the farts that are the problem, it’s the burping.

He says he was dismayed to see Ocasio-Cortez blaming “cow farts” for greenhouse gas emissions. Technically, she’s right: As cattle digest food, they release nitrous oxide and ammonia in their manure, gases that have planet-warming potential. But the more abundant greenhouse gas, methane, comes out mostly through their burps, which makes them a more significant driver of climate change. None of this is funny to Mitloehner, by the way, whose research involves putting cows in air-tight tents to measure the content of their “eruptions.”

I mean, if you’re going to mess with the biological makeup of a cow, at least target the right end of the digestive tract.

Third, do you realize that the amount of CO2 (the other main “greenhouse gas” alongside methane and nitrous oxide) in our atmosphere is incredibly small? Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) asked a panel of “witnesses” during a House Transportation Committee meeting in March 2023, “What percent of our atmosphere is CO2, carbon dioxide?”

None of them knew. They just guessed, anywhere from 5 percent to 8 percent. LaMalfa then dropped the mic: “The answer is point-zero-four percent [0.04%]. Not 1 percent, not a half of a percent, point-zero-four percent. And it’s gone up from point-zero-three over the last couple of decades … It’s this tiny change in CO2. If we get below point-zero-two, plant life starts dying off.”

In other words, our CO2 levels are just barely above what our trees, shrubs and flowers need to survive. If anything, doesn’t it seem like we should increase our CO2 levels?

If we were to take LaMalfa’s point-zero-four percent and turn it into a number, this is what we’re talking about: 0.0004 or “four ten-thousandths.” Expressed as a fraction, 1/2500. Hardly something to be alarmed about.

Now, how much methane do you think is in the atmosphere? More than the amount of CO2? Here’s what NASA says:

Methane is an important trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere. Even though it only makes up 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million by volume) of the the atmosphere, methane traps a significant amount of heat, helping the planet remain warm and habitable. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is the result of a balance between production on the surface and destruction in the atmosphere. Methane forms when organic matter decomposes in oxygen-poor environments, such as marshes, rice paddies, or the digestive systems of cattle. It also comes from combustion (burning) of carbon-based fuels.

Oh. So “methane is an important trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere” that keeps us warm. And it makes up even less of the atmosphere than CO2 (which, I note, is not produced by flatulent bovines). Maybe we don’t want to “permanently reduce methane production.”

Logically, shouldn’t the climate change heroes be focusing on CO2, especially since we only have (according to AOC) ten five years to save the planet?

Nope. Self-appointed busy-bodies who think they’re following “the science” are going to engineer a less farty cow to save the planet.

Frankly, I’d like them to figure out how to breed less farty people.

Daily Broadside | Climate Lies and The Liars Who Sell Them

Daily Verse | 2 Chronicles 33:9
But Manasseh led Judah and the people of Jerusalem astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites.

Happy Tuesday, my friends. When this virus is gone, there are still some people I want to stay away from me.

Quick, tell me who’s the world’s worst polluter in the world? China? The EU? India? Russia? The United States? If you live in the United States, you could be forgiven for thinking that we’re the worst and we only have a few short years to turn it around before we cause the seas to rise and the continents to sink and all of mankind goes into a long winter of the cold sun.

But—turns out that China is actually the biggest polluter on planet earth. Not only that, but they are polluting more than all other developed countries combined.

Despite climate change alarmists who claim the U.S. has a problem with greenhouse gas emissions, a new report from the Rhodium Group exposes China as the world’s overwhelming leader of greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers said China was responsible for 27% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, nearly three times the amount emitted by the United States and more than the entire developed world combined.

The U.S. contributed 11%, while India and the European Union were each over 6%.

The percentages reported by a different group in 2018 were China at 28% and the U.S. at 15%. Taking the numbers at face value, that means that the U.S. has dropped its output of CO2 by four percent while China dropped theirs by one percent. And we did it all without eliminating airplanes and cows. Liz Peek reports that,

U.S. carbon emissions will decline from 2023 to 2035 as we continue to shift away from coal and towards greater use of natural gas and renewable energy. After 2035, a growing population and consequent rise in energy demand will tilt emissions slightly higher; by 2050 our energy-related emissions will be roughly 5% more than the amount in 2020, which was severely depressed by Covid.

But that didn’t stop Resident Biden from pledging to rejoin the Paris Accords, which is, in fact, an international wealth transfer scheme that even Bernie Madoff could be proud of. That’s important because the point of Peek’s article is that the current occupant of the White House made an inadvertent admission while reciting the list of things he wants to buy with taxpayer money during his “State of the Union” speech.

It was a whopper that went unnoticed on Wednesday night; with just a few ill-chosen words Biden utterly toppled any justification for the Green New Deal, which plays a central role in his $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan and which, without a doubt, puts our economy at risk.

This is what he said, according to a New York Times transcript of the president’s remarks: “The United States accounts, as all of you know, for less than 15 percent of carbon emissions. The rest of the world accounts for 85 percent. That’s why I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Accord, because if we do everything perfectly, it’s not going to matter.

That was not in the version of the speech the White House handed out ahead of time.

[…]

And, for once in his life, Joe Biden was completely correct. Even if the Biden White House clobbers our economy, puts every last coal miner and oil driller out of work and drives down U.S. fossil fuel production and consumption, it will barely bend the curve on rising global emissions.

This isn’t new. Back in January, climate czar John Kerry said the same thing.

“He knows Paris alone is not enough,” Kerry told reporters at a White House press briefing, referring to Biden re-entering the US in the Paris Climate Agreement in one of his first acts as president.

“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.

We don’t need to be in the Paris Climate Accords. We don’t need to ban fracking, air travel or bovines. But Biden, doing the bidding of his puppet masters, “took executive actions to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and direct agencies to review and reverse more than 100 Trump actions on the environment.”

So why is the junta dragging us into this?

It’s not that we shouldn’t be aware of our impact on the environment. We should. But rather than pursue available technologies like nuclear energy and fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline, this administration is lying about the emergency, is surrendering our independence to an international organization of busybodies and grifters, and is ignoring the impact on us as gas rises above $3/gal. in the U.S.

Recent studies indicate that “68% of Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay even $10 more a month in higher electric bills even if the money were used to combat climate change.” And rightly so. Spending $10 trillion on the Green New Deal, as Biden said, won’t matter.

But solar panels! Electric cars! They’ll continue to sell it to you, just as CNN confessed last month in the latest videos from Project Veritas. More concerning is that banks are lining up behind this idea for a very familiar reason.

Why are banks so willing to go along with the left’s goals? This is just speculative – and there are many other potential reasons, including fear of regulatory retribution – but the catalyst most likely driving their decisions is that many banks, financial institutions and big Wall Street investors are convinced that the infrastructure and energy policies that Democrats are now attempting to put into place, as well as actions taken by central banks, offer a massive financial opportunity.

Yeah, it’s always about the money.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear climate alarmism. While we can do our part, it’s the rest of the world and their carbon output that truly matters.