It's not all kossacks, of course.
Just the "organic" ones.
And hopefully not all of them.
Even Exxon has turned against global warming (they say). Not so the organic milk fanciers.
I am picking on organic milk because the forensic evidence of the crime is most obvious despite the usual denials.
An organic milk war turns sour
October 3 2007: 11:00 AM EDT
Retzloff wants the business to get big, fast, in order to capitalize on economies of scale, bring down prices and spread the environmental benefits of organic farming far and wide
Heh heh.
"Organic milk shouldn't cost so much that only elites can afford it," he says.
Would be best for the planet if only the super-rich could afford it - something like, say, eating tiger meat or the flesh of any endangered animal. At least some good is done by the collapse of the world's economies. Folks not so willing to spend for organic milk.
Organic Dairy, Once Considered the "Answer," Feels the Squeeze
Kastel, meanwhile, is arguing for new standards that would better protect small-scale, family farmers - many of whom started the organic movement in the 1960s. "It's cheaper to produce milk on big farms," he concedes, and "nothing in the organic law says you can't produce milk in Colorado and ship it to Portland, Maine, stupid as that is. But environmentally, it's a sellout."
See here.
Organic milk purveyors and consumers talking about environmental sellouts is akin to Republicans complaining about deficit spending.
The evidence for organic milk contributing to climaticide?
Oh it's all been done before - as if anyone cared. Some boring arguments, without the usual sensational tripe, to follow.
First the mythologists:
Organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming: that much is already well known. But no one has actually put a number on just how many pounds of destructive chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been avoided thanks to a percentage of consumers choosing to buy organic food: until now.
The Organic Center, a non-profit based in Colorado, created a calculator that helped them determine that 40 million pounds of fertilizer was avoided in 2008 thanks to organic milk production in the U.S. The organization hopes that its Microsoft Excel-based calculator will be used by consumers, farmers and food companies to get an idea of how big an impact switching to organic can have.
See here.
You can use the link above to get to a whole page without a single mention of the Great Satan, Monsanto, if you like.
Then there is this (probably deliberately provocative) from Wired:
Dairy cows raised on organic feed aren't pumped full of hormones. That means they produce less milk per Holstein — about 8 percent less than conventionally raised cattle. So it takes 25 organic cows to make as much milk as 23 industrial ones. More cows, more cow emissions. But that's just the beginning. A single organically raised cow puts out 16 percent more greenhouse gases than its counterpart. That double whammy — more cows and more emissions per cow — makes organic dairies a cog in the global warming machine.
And a riposte from the same Wired:
Recollect that conventional agriculture is petroleum-based agriculture. Which means what didn’t factor into the Wired author’s accounting were:
– The carbon footprints for the oil exploration and refining, coupled with the carbon footprints involved in the manufacture of the fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides demanded by conventional agriculture.
– Nor were the carbon footprints calculated for the transportation of these components of factory farming from manufacture to feedlot; nor was the general carbon footprint of Big Ag factored in, where GMO (again, petroleum-based) rules.
– And then there’s the carbon footprint for the manufacture and transportation of hormones and antibiotics (Big Pharma and AgriChem not being known for their sustainability), many no doubt coming from across the sea; the carbon footprint involved in the cleanups from the toxic runoffs from feedlots; the carbon footprints of cropdusters. You get the picture.
– Or how about the indirect carbon footprint that comes from eating food that is higher with carcinogenic residues and lower in nutrients
Those indirect carbon footprints are mostly hiding in caves with Sarah Palin's dinosaurs.
There is an odd statistic from England that is akin to the seemingly irrational fact that stomach cancer rates have fallen as the use of artificial preservatives has increased.
It is this:
There is a slight but statistically significant greater incidence of stomach cancer in predominantly beef eating regions of England.
Epidemiological studies are fraught with all manner of problems. The usual statistical controls are pushed to the limit and beyond.
But there is a cause and effect much like the evidence that the greater consumption of pickled foods in Japan leads to the higher incidence of stomach cancer than in America. Quite simply it is that beef is hung after slaughter. Better than saying it is rotted. Rot and decay whether it is from aflotoxin in peanut better or rot in fresh meats is simply not good for the stomach.
Global warming is even worse in the long run.
Certain GMO's, including grasses, could avoid pesticides, herbicides, fertilizing, even irrigation. But organic folk are frightened of these monsters despite being biongineered with their own native genes. We can kick the petroleum addiction just like the organic habit if we just will. But some think it better we all roast to death drinking organic milk, if we can afford it.
Religion needs no logic or reason, only faith.
One obvious benefit of climaticide is that Mother Nature can try again to evolve an intelligent species. The old gal has obviously failed miserably this round.
Best, Terry
P.S. I do not work for Monsanto, Dow Chemical, the Republican Party, Exxon, Al Queda, the DLC nor the Organic Food Council. Not much taken with the fairy tales any of them purvey. I am infatuated with Mother Nature despite the raw deal she has handed me. We all have character flaws.
UPDATE: Monensin reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases milk production, reduces milkfat content of milk from dairy cows and fights global warming. It is not rBGH and is not sold by the Great Satan, Monsanto, as far as I know.
But who the hell cares about climaticide here when organic religion is involved, right?