A 2006 United Nations report found that cattle-rearing generated more greenhouse gases than transportation does, as noted by Reuters in a story that appeared on Tuesday, April 22 in The New Zealand Herald. This fact was mentioned in the story, “McCartney: Go Vege,” found here, which discusses former Beatles member Paul McCartney’s recent urging for people to become vegetarian in order to help save the environment. His reasoning, which he explained in a recent interview with PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), is that the land and water used to maintain the meat industry is a huge reason for climate change and that many pro-environment organizations fail to push for vegetarianism. McCartney noted that, "I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future." Thanks Paul, what would the media do without you? Perhaps have less of a campaign for the global warming fight.
Sir Paul McCartney: Former Beatles member and Animal Rights Activist
Call me a skeptic, but I really feel as though “climate change” is an event almost entirely created by the media, with McCartney being the latest celebrity to endorse the fight on the seemingly increasing problem. Sure, scientific evidence has shown that glaciers are melting due to increasing temperatures, but will we seriously see or feel the effects in our lifetime, or our grandchildren in theirs? I highly doubt that a handful of people opting to ditch meat will save the environment, and more so, those who opt to become vegetarian don’t do so with the intention of curbing climate change. The whole campaign just seems a bit silly, but I’m curious to know what you all think. Is climate change (global warming) an actual problem or is it exaggerated by the media?
3 comments:
Oh man. I really like steak. Not only am I killing cows, but now I'm melting the polar icecaps too? My conscience can't handle this.
Unfortunately, my tastebuds can't handle veganism. I hope you all look forward to, as Ben Gibbard put it, "swimming any day in November."
*Jessica Sager
"Global warming" is the broad scientific consensus. There is no ambiguity as to whether it exists. It is real. The so-called "media hype" only happened after Al Gore's movie was released. The public dialogue about global warming should have occurred long before 2006. Scientists knew about warming for years. It's unfortunate that it takes a moderately successful film to get the media, and hence the people, to start caring about global warming.
"Climate change" is the word preferred by some people to portray global warming without sounding alarmist. It is unfortunate that "climate change" has been lately been used more potently than "global warming". It just shows how easily the language of science can be meddled. "Climate change" has particularly been used by political actors right of center (and the weak-willed left who concede all language modifications by the right) to describe global warming when providing lip service of environmentalism.
Personally, I don't care what celebrities are doing about environmental issues, but don't let them distract people from the issue of the environment itself. Global warming is real, and the people in Washington still aren't doing what they can to stop it.
Also...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482
Post a Comment