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 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.