Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6%.
According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we’d see a reduction of only 0.5%.
Shit its almost like the real problem is corporate greed causing mass pollution on an unimaginable scale.
My professor in Environmental Health and Policy shared a story about feeding cows seaweed in their diet is not only nutritious but it reduces their emissions, I’ll have to find the actual study on it when I’m not cramming for a midterm
Yup! Some experiments have shown certain types of seaweed can result in like 99% decreases of methane put out by cows. Seaweed is also a high energy feed and can increase milk production (if only because that methane put out is less energy to put into milk/meat)
A relict species of megafauna has barely held on to existence in the
inland temperate rainforest of Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The
“mountain caribou” or “southern mountain caribou” was the last native
reindeer to live in the Lower 48 of the United States right up until
this winter.
By the end of 2018, there were only 3 mountain
caribou left in a small population known by biologists and land managers
as the “South Selkirks herd.” This herd lived along the Canada-US
border between Sandpoint (Idaho) and Nelson (British Columbia). As of
January 2019, they have been taken into captivity preceding relocation
farther north in British Columbia.
Here are a couple of individuals that were once a part of the South Selkirks herd (source):
Here’s a big male from a separate herd of mountain caribou located farther north near Prince George, British Columbia
(source):
Another view of the South Selkirk herd being monitored by biologists (source) :
Here’s a distribution map for caribou in North America (base layer source from BC government; labels by me):
Here’s the historic distribution range of the southern mountain caribou before its extinction in the US, and a view of how closely the animal relies on temeprate rainforest (original map source 1; and source
2):
Here’s a closer look at where the South Selkirks herd lived:
–
The southern mountain caribou is dependent on the fertile cedar-hemlock forest of the inland
temperate rainforest, where they eat hanging mosses and lichens. As of January 2019, they have all been taken into
captivity and will be relocated farther north in more reliable habitat
in eastern British Columbia.
This is a “victory” for wealthy private property owners in the Spokane metro area, and for Idaho’s state legislature, who have been actively working against caribou for decades in order to strip regulations and gain access to outdoor recreation paths and potential resort sites in the Selkirk Mountains.
(I’ve written more extensively about southern mountain caribou – and the local social and political challenges to caribou – here.)
So, yea, one more megafauna species has gone extinct in the United States.
UPDATE
Here are some views of the very last United States-dwelling individual caribou being sedated and transplanted.
The cow – from the South Selkirks herd – was found hanging-out near Creston, British Columbia. She was sedated by British Columbia biologists on Tuesday, 15 January 2019.
–
Here’s the cow waking-up outside of her new home near Revelstroke, in a region of the inland rainforest that is farther north, wetter, and much more mountainous and rugged than the Selkirks near the US border. The other two caribou are also southern
mountain caribou that have been relocated, but they are instead
transplants from the South Purcell herd which lives along the US border near Yaak (Montana) and Cranbrook (BC), adjacent to the original location of the South Selkirks herd.
Activists and biologists from the Kalispel tribe have reported their disappointment with the disappearance of the last caribou from the Selkirk Mountains. Here’s an excerpt from a Spokesman-Review article, 18 January 2019:
“You know it’s sad. We’re still in mourning over the whole
situation,” said Bart George, a wildlife biologist for the Kalispel
Tribe of Indians. “The Selkirks lost some of their magic.”
One of the animals’ few allies in the United States was the Kalispel
Tribe. In 2017, the tribe helped organize a maternal pen project aimed
at capturing pregnant cows and letting them calve in the security of a
19-acre enclosure. The tribe raised roughly $225,000 toward that effort,
but the caribou population declined before they could implement
anything. Then in November, Canadian officials announced their plans to
move the surviving members of the South Selkirk herd farther north.
George said the Kalispel Tribe will remain involved in caribou recovery, although he’s not sure exactly in what capacity.
Canadian officials plan to implement a captive breeding project
somewhere in British Columbia, with plans to eventually release caribou
back into the Selkirk and Purcell ranges, Degroot said. George hopes the
project is based in the Selkirks so tribal involvement is easier.
While I understand why people feel pushed to this point, these sorts of solutions always frustrate me.
Toying with this kind of thing is asking for something unpredictable and terrible to happen. We KNOW what we need to do to stop climate change, we just have to actually DO it. And offering an “easy” way out (which could turn apocalyptic if they’re wrong about how to do it correctly) is just gonna make governments more hesitant to do the hard work required to fix things.
Also, can you imagine the damage that DIMMING THE SUN would have on ecosystems already struggling due to human interference?! Plants fix carbon and cutting down on sunlight will also almost certainly cut down on photosynthesis and thus on carbon fixation. Is that something they’ve considered?
I know they’re just trying to help but I really feel like their energy would be better spent trying to advance renewable energy or carbon sequestration technologies.
“Conservation investments will need to be made, not just in relatively undisturbed areas, but also in highly disturbed places — because cities, farmlands and degraded lands and wetlands can be rich refugia for species and important natural capital. We will need to know when eradication of a non-native species is worth the investment, and when an invasive species is simply part of the new future. We must start doing conservation along highways, in urban rivers and on mountains whose tops have been stripped for coal. We can even do conservation in our backyards by planting shrubs that provide food for birds and other wildlife. Everyone can do conservation and it does not require an expedition to distant exotic places…
…Instead of saving “The Last Great Places,” the future of conservation lies with making every place better for nature…”
-Peter Kareiva of the Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Gateway:
Their eradication on more than 100 islands could save some of the rarest animals on Earth, says an international team.
Yes. They should. And everyone already in the comments getting upset about it should rethink their priorities. Some animals aren’t more important than others just because we decided they’re cute. Cats are extremely destructive and even though it really sucks for the cats, it’s our fault & our responsibility to fix. Unfortunately culling is the most effective and realistic way. No one really WANTS for it to have to happen but that’s where we’ve ended up. All we can do otherwise is try to fix the reasons these issues developed in the first place, to avoid needing to repeat the situation.
A big problem people in the notes are having is that they love cats and empathize with them. They know that they have feelings, yet they can’t connect with the animals dying out because of them. Catch and release spaying/neutering will not stop cats from hunting critically endangered species which need reprieve now. Feeding feral cats won’t decrease their hunting behavior nearly as much as you think. Many cats hunt for fun, not food.This is sad, of course it is, but unless a billionaire swoops down and privately funds thousands of secure feral cat sanctuaries, it’s the only decision. This is not even mentioning the millions of feral cats living in areas without critically endangered species populating them.
Also notice how the headline also mentions goats and pigs? By most scientific consensus, pigs are more intelligent than cats and play a culturally significant role in some of the island nations where they would be culled, yet there is not a single person in the notes here (so far) upset about culling pigs. Goats are as smart and loving as dogs, yet no upset about them.
People need to admit that they anthropomorphize some animals and treat others close to objects. Neither is more important than the other as a creature. Neither is more important than a dying ecosystem. It’s an emotional issue; it’s a sad issue, but people must recognize the hypocrisy in the way they frame and interact with these animals.
Wow. The people in the comments against this are being thick.
Just because spay and neuter works for your area, does not mean it works internationally. If you think culling cats for the environment makes people sick then you might as well fuck off and stop caring about conservation.
Cats have caused the extinction of at least 33 species. At least 33, and you don’t want them culled just because you like them.
Hey look a perfect example of what I was talking about –
If you’re *against* the humane killing of cats then you are *for* the inhumane killing of everything else they hunt
Also, most of these cats have a shitty life.
When they get hit by a car, attacked by a predator, injured in a cat fight, bitten by a snake, or break a leg, there’s no one around to take them to a vet.
When they contract (and spread) diseases and fleas, are born with a genetic condition, get sick from malnutrition, get parasites, eat something toxic, become matted, or have problems in labor, there’s no one to help them.
It’s not helped by the fact that sick and injured cats like to hide.
They often have insecure access to food and clean water.
These cats do not have a good life, and there are not enough homes and shelters to take them. Especially in areas with endangered species, humane culling is probably the best option.
Unfortunately there are problems with that solution. It’s a commonly accepted method for feral cat management, but it’s not perfect, and it’s not a sustainable solution either.
– Feral colonies will continue to hunt and have an impact on local wildlife, even if they’re being fed.
– People will use feral colonies as a dumping ground for unwanted cats, contributing to numbers and the length of time the colony exists.
– It uses a massive amount of resources. Time, money, medical supplies, food, etc. How much of those resources could be better used for getting cats placed in homes and educating people about cat ownership, keeping cats inside, and getting their cats neutering? How much of those resources could be put towards wildlife research and management to help preserve endangered species, manage endangered habitats, and preserve the local ecosystems?
– There are a LOT of cats in the world. A lot. There’s a lot in the United States alone. For owned cats alone, the number listed in 2012 is 74 million. The numbers for feral cats are estimated at 100 million worldwide, and the US makes up more than half of that. That’s not sustainable. That’s not manageable. We cannot realistically neuter, feed, and provide medical care for 60 million unowned cats. Scroll up on that link to the “lifespan and survival” section. Feral cats without human care live an average of 2 years. And that’s not a good life. Feral cats with human care can live up to 16-17 years. That’s 16-17 years of hunting impact on local wildlife. That’s 16-17 years where people can continue to use feral colonies as an excuse to dump unwanted cats and kittens. That’s 16-17 years of food and medical costs, as well as exposure to the elements, risk of suffering from injuries & illness, risk of brutal deaths from predators, cars, poisoning, etc. Even if they’re being provided medical care, that’s still unnecessary suffering for them.
This isn’t sustainable. It’s not a long-term solution. It’s a feel-good solution, and not widely applicable or manageable.
I know it sucks. I know there are no solutions that everyone is going to like. But TNR isn’t a great solution either, unfortunately.
All we can do otherwise is try to fix the reasons these issues developed in the first place, to avoid needing to repeat the situation.
ifesbob 
