SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Evan Halper writes in the LA Times that with efforts to reduce carbon emissions lagging, researchers, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, are looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact of climate change by racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming. "We are dealing with the challenge of difficult weather conditions at the same time we have to massively increase food production" to accommodate larger populations and a growing demand for meat, says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. For example a team of researchers is trying to map the genetic code of bizarre-looking African naked-neck chickens to see if their ability to withstand heat can be bred into flocks of US broilers. "The game is changing since the climate is changing," says Carl Schmidt. "We have to start now to anticipate what changes we have to make in order to feed 9 billion people," citing global-population estimates for 2050.
Warmer temperatures can create huge problems for animals farmed for food. Turkeys are vulnerable to a condition that makes their breast meat mushy and unappetizing. Disease rips through chicken coops. Brutal weather can claim entire cattle herds. Some climate experts, however, question the federal government's emphasis on keeping pace with a projected growing global appetite for meat. Because raising animals demands so many resources, the only viable way to hit global targets for greenhouse gas reduction may be to encourage people to eat less meat and point to an approach backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that takes animals out the process altogether. "There's no way to produce enough meat for 9 billion people," says Bill Gates. "Yet we can't ask everyone to become vegetarians. We need more options for producing meat without depleting our resources."
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:50PM
Because a frozen planet is so much better, amirite?
More seriously, you are suffering from the over-optimization problem. As Hairyfeet noted, the easiest solution to global warming is killing off most people. If you keep those billions of people around, then you need to consider their priorities as well, many which make global warming somewhat worse. China isn't going to stop being the major current contributor to growth in CO2 atmospheric concentration just because.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:07PM
So it's one or the other? It seems to me that the planet was a good temperature before we started fucking it up. And if we start freezing we can just burn the bodies of the other people that some seem to advocate killing en mass.
Hairyfeet didn't mention that killing off most people is what global warming will do on its own. We are just fleas on the back Mother Nature's dog named Earth.
We will need to consider other people ... kind of like we expect others to consider us. And China already has such a serious pollution problem that they will have to do something within the next decade or so, unless they want their workforce to start consuming healthcare at record levels and dying off in their 40's and 50's. Their economy will collapse under the weight of caring for the seriously ill.
Affecting the environment (for good or bad) is like stopping a tanker. It takes a long time for things to happen and you just need to keep hoping it eventually does what you need it to do. Doing nothing doesn't seem to be much of an option. Either curtail the activities that are destroying the environment or go full steam ahead and prove the alarmists right or wrong. Sitting back as spectators is kind of like being on the Titanic and waiting to get wet before you believe that there is a problem.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:43AM
So it's one or the other?
The phrase you seek is "reductio ad absurdum" - reduction to absurdity. If warming is bad, then what isn't? A frozen planet.
And China already has such a serious pollution problem that they will have to do something within the next decade or so, unless they want their workforce to start consuming healthcare at record levels and dying off in their 40's and 50's. Their economy will collapse under the weight of caring for the seriously ill.
Like every civilization on Earth prior to 1950 collapsed due to the health care burden? The kind of health care problems that historical societies had were when lots of their people ended up suddenly dead, say from the Black Death or a Mongol horde. I think China can avoid that.
Doing nothing doesn't seem to be much of an option.
To the contrary, it's quite a viable and attractive option. It's not like global warming is the only thing we do or think about. So when we're doing nothing about global warming, we can be doing lots of other, high value stuff in its place.