Breakfast Dilemma Solved
It's gonna be both.
People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN's top climate scientist.
"The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions," he told BBC News.
The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.
Three words: Pass the A-1.
Following this rationale, any commercial/industrial activity that involves fossil fuel-burning vehicles to perform job-related tasks or to transport material goods should be curtailed to help combat climate hopenchange.
Of course, implementing such a vision to the extent desired by these impassioned "environmentalists" would put millions out of work, and irreparably cripple the economies of every industrial nation on earth.
But, then again, seeing how such "economic justice" is one of the two main goals of the Cult of Global Climate Warming Change (the other, enriching the leaders of said cult via the peddling of carbon-ponzi credits), is anyone surprised by this?
As far as the ridiculous cow fart alarmism is concerned, I'll just leave it at this (my favorite paragraph ever to be inscribed in the Congressional Record).
I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is evident.