India and Global Warming

by Star69
17 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Americans have homeless shelters, Indians have, uh, cow shelters?


Cows With Gas: India's Contribution to Global Warming


By MADHUR SINGH / NEW DELHI Madhur Singh / New Delhi - Sat Apr 11, 2:00 am ET


Indolent cows languidly chewing their cud while befuddled motorists honk and maneuver their vehicles around them are images as stereotypically Indian as saffron-clad holy men and the Taj Mahal. Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows - of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world - have assumed a more menacing role as they become part of the climate change debate.

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane - a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide - India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contribute more to global warming than the vehicles they obstruct. With new research suggesting that emission of methane by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete lesser amounts of the offensive gas.

Last month, scientists at the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad in western India published a pan-India livestock methane emission inventory, the first ever, which put the figure at 11.75 million metric tons per year, higher than 9 million metric tons estimated in 1994. This amount is likely to increase as higher incomes and consumption rates put more pressure on the country's dairy industry to become even more productive.

Already the world's largest producer of milk, India will have to yank up production from the current 100 million metric tons to 180 million metric tons by 2021-22 to keep pace with growing population and expanding disposable incomes. Livestock such as cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, horses and mules are indispensable to India's rural economy - whether yoked to plow land, raised for milk and manure, or harnessed to pull carts to move goods and people. The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that the animals contribute 5.3% to total GDP, up from 4.8% during 1980-81. But, says Dr. K.K. Singhal, head of Dairy Cattle Nutrition at the National Dairy Research Institute in Karnal in northern India, "while livestock plays a crucial role in the economy, global warming is becoming a huge worry. We're trying to find indigenous solutions, because our realities are very different from the West."

For starters, most Indian livestock is underfed and undernourished, unlike robust counterparts in richer countries. The typical Indian farmer is unable to buy expensive dietary supplements even for livestock of productive age, and dry milch cattle and older farm animals are invariably turned out to fend for themselves. Poor quality feed equals poor animal health as well as higher methane production. Also, even when western firms are willing to share technology or when western products are available, these are often unaffordable for the majority in India. For instance, Monensin, an antibiotic whose slow-release formula reduces methane emission by cows, proved too expensive for widespread use in India. So the emphasis for Indian scientists is on indigenous solutions. "We know we cannot count on high quality feed and fodder," says Singhal, "No one will be able to afford it. What we have done instead is develop cheaper technologies and products." One example is urea-molasses-mineral blocks that are cheap, reduce methane emission by 20%, and also provide more nutrition so they're easier to sell to illiterate farmers who don't know a thing about global warming but want higher milk yields.


Most dietary interventions work by checking methogens - microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments such as cows' guts, where they convert the available hydrogen and carbon (byproducts of digestion) into methane, a colorless, odorless gas. "We encourage well-to-do farmers to use oilseed cakes which provide unsaturated fatty acids that get rid of the hydrogen," Dr. Singhal says. Another solution is herbal additives. Some commonly used Indian herbs such as shikakai and reetha, which go into making soap, and many kinds of oilseeds contain saponins and tannins, substances that make for lathery, bitter meals but block hydrogen availability for methogens. Dr Singhal says they are used in small quantities and the cows don't seem to mind the taste. "Imagine how much potential they'd have in the international market," he says.

Several other institutions, such as the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (NIANP) in Bangalore, are also researching herbs. "We're studying the effect of tannin compounds from various easily-available sources like tealeaves. We're also studying prebiotic and probiotic feed supplements," says Dr K.T. Sampath, director, NIANP. Other institutes, such as the New Delhi-based The Energy Research Institute (TERI), are working on methane capture strategies. One long-running project has been biogas production - cow dung is utilized to make biogas for use in kitchens and even compressed biogas for use in vehicles. "Biogas plants have been very successful," says R.K. Rajeshwari, a fellow at TERI, "Farmers are able to use biogas in their kitchens, to light lamps and to even drive vehicles." Such projects, she says, have been particularly successful at gaushalas, cow shelters supported by donations from the devout and by government grants, of which there are 4,000 across India now. Most gaushalas are for abandoned, dry and aged cattle, of which there are many since killing cows is illegal in all but two states (the communist-ruled West Bengal and Kerala). "This way they are put to some use at least," says Rajeshwari, "And by replacing conventional sources of energy, they help prevent global warming."

Cows With Gas: India's Contribution to Global Warming - TIME
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Uh....India doesn't have global warming....they have massive amounts of desertification. Indiana is right about warming. Don't worry though - the way that country is being shaken (many large quakes) the population is sure to fall sooner or later.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[688054].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Aronya
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Uh....India doesn't have global warming....
      I'm sorry... What?

      Tongue in cheek?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689370].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Aronya View Post

        I'm sorry... What?

        Tongue in cheek?
        No, NOT tongue in cheek. India is suffering from massive desertification. It is caused by bringing a population over carrying capacity of the area - they clear out too much land for urban sprawl and for farming and the land desertificates. Right now it is the worlds most serious problem and we are losing millions of hectacres a year worldwide. The problem is almost completely suppressed other than in some scientific circles -- because that way they can tell us it's all global warming - and they make bucks from that.

        Desertification spreads to other areas because as land becomes unarable the people move to areas that can still be farmed and take the new area over carrying capacity.

        Japan is working on a system by which they can bring desertificated land back to arability - but it is expensive and time consuming even if it proves to work.

        You must still believe the "warming" hype. We are not getting nearly the strength of sun cycle that had been predicted. Had this cycle been nearly as strong as had been expected, they might have been able to keep many more fooled about warming. What you need to start worrying about is cooling. One night of a cold snap can kill crops - and with one sixth of the world's population now starving, and food reserves non-existent in many countries, crop losses are now deadly occurrences. Right now the starvation is still a half man-made problem. Crop losses will pull it over the line into a full fledged natural disaster.

        I suggest you stop watching MSM and remembering where your College professors, colleges, etc are getting their grants from, and who it is that gets to suppress study results that conclude differently than they are supposed to. People in the 2000's lose jobs when they do not concur with the sought results. Nevertheless - thousands of scientists are speaking out about REAL environmental issues - they recently were at the UN telling those despots that it is imperative that they stop the C202 crap - they are jeopardizing ALL life on earth using science for Politics. Unfortunately, the money for the propaganda is on their side. Not much different from the FDA being financially supported by sunscreen manufacturers and Monsanto.

        Take a long logical think about it. IF C202 was a life threatening problem - would they really just be taxing oil consumption or might they be finding all sorts of ways to cut down on consumption - such as making fewer plastic bags for shopping and having people supply their own natural cloth, reusable bags instead - yep that's millions and millions of gallons of oil right there. But no - the ONLY thing that is targeted is your transportation. Get it yet?
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689434].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aronya
    I'm not arguing for global warming. But, if it were true, the idea that it wouldn't effect India (or anybody else) struck me as comical. It's just the way it was stated...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Aronya View Post

      I'm not arguing for global warming. But, if it were true, the idea that it wouldn't effect India (or anybody else) struck me as comical. It's just the way it was stated...
      Before accepting the "theory" that there isn't global warming, you need to understand US politics. In the US, conservatives have been on the wrong side of the issue for so long, that now they use a smear campaign against those that actually study the issues.

      They claim that professors and scientiests need money for grants and studies, claiming they have a finacial bias. Yet, they deny that big business and big oil have any finacial interest, which is beyond laughable.

      They also forget to mention that these same scientist have kids and families and are much more likely interested in the truth that will affect their kids' future than getting another grant.

      95% of the world's scientists believe in climate change due to global warming. The other 5% believe in Noah's ark, or want to make a name for themselves, or are trying to cover-up for being on the wrong side of the issue for so long that they are in denial, or a combination of the three.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689903].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        95% of the world's scientists believe in climate change due to global warming. The other 5% believe in Noah's ark, or want to make a name for themselves, or are trying to cover-up for being on the wrong side of the issue for so long that they are in denial, or a combination of the three.
        I think it's a bit unfair to lump everyone who doesn't believe in global warming into the same groups. I know very conservative and liberal people in the usa and in europe who believe and don't believe in global warming as well as religious people and atheists on both sides of this argument.

        Turning this into a Noah's Ark believing conservative thing is kind of... well... immature.

        It's also my opinion that there are people making a name for themselves by supporting the "green" movement. Consider the LED lightbulb compared to the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs that are being pushed as "green". LEDs are just as energy efficient but don't have such high levels of mercury in them which will just end up in a landfill. Maybe this is green but doesn't sound environmentally sound to me when LEDs offer the same efficiency without as much environmental cost. It's interesting that something like this is pushed through over a better alternative.

        I'm not 100% convinced on the global warming thing myself cause it's been about 10 years now and I haven't seen anyone actually prove causation between temperature and CO2 levels. It's a fact that there is a correlation but as far as I can tell it's seem that temperature moves first.

        Now when it comes to practicality of CO2 levels in my own life, I do my best to be environmentally sounds with my choices, but that's cause I believe in a good clean environment more than trying to stop any effect on the climate around me. There are other things that in the short and long term that can be more dangerous than one's CO2 levels.

        I know 100% for a fact that polluted air, water, and soil leads to bad health effects on humans beings and everything else. Consider peoples' lung health for example that live in smoggy cities or next to harbors especially children. So it's always good to try to be environmentally sound when you can regardless of your beliefs about man-made global warming or not.

        So I guess I'm on the same "team" as those who believe in man-made global warming, but just different reasons behind it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[692201].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          I know 100% for a fact that polluted air, water, and soil leads to bad health effects on humans beings and everything else.
          That would seem to be a statement of common sense to me - but I'm sure someone will argue about it. No one can say for certain that global warming is the serious problem some believe it is - and no one can say for certain it doesn't exist at all.

          If we clean up the environment and global warming isn't a serious threat - we just have a cleaner environment. If we "decide" there is no climate change problem that we contribute to, and do nothing, we're fine only if we're right.

          Honestly - we all know cities where the smog is so bad people are told to stay indoors some days - and we know that smog is from autos and other pollutants that HUMANS are producing. How anyone can then conclude that mankind doesn't have a detrimental effect on the earth's atmosphere boggles my mind.

          The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that both sides insist on being right. When new information is released that is counter to their view, they accept the studies that agree with their personal view and reject ones that don't. They argue as if their words could affect the final truth of what is (or is not) happening...they don't.

          It doesn't matter which side you're on - it is what it is. What is or is not occurring in our global climate will or will not occur whether we believe it or not.

          kay
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          Live life like someone left the gate open
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[692357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aronya
    Well, since you're somehow arguing against my simple statement, I'll just say this.

    Whether global warming is happening or not is not the issue. It's the cause that's in question, and whether or not humans can do anything about it. We've had global warming in times when there were damn few humans on the planet, and none of those 95% of the world's scientists seem to have an explanation for that.

    Those scientists who are so concerned about their kids work for SOMEBODY. They DON'T work for themselves. Do you think they're financed by the guy who owns the dry cleaner down the street? They need BIG money to do their research. Take their money away, and their kids will have bigger issues to worry about than GW. I guess big business and big oil are run by robots without families.

    Have fun with your argument. You guys seem to have NO sense of humor whatsoever.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689926].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Star69
    Cows fart and belch. I find that humorous in itself.

    Whether they actually contribute to this thing (true or false) called Global Warming, I'll leave that up to everyone else to figure out. I just think that holding an animal up as sacred yet allowing it to suffer a life of starvation and disease is a heck of a way to express your beliefs. (No insult meant to our friends in India.) I would consider that to be a slow method of animal abuse myself.

    And as it states in the article, it's because of the constantly increasing population in India that the dairy farmers must "yank up" production, meaning they need to create even more cows to keep up with Indian consumerism.

    Where do you think it will all end?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Aronya - it seems I may have mistaken your first comment. Lack of sense of humor is not a problem - but lack of vocal cues in writing is.

    Kurt - I have been studying the issue for years -- and the MAJORITY of SCIENTISTS are on my side of the issue. They have recently set up a huge outcry because of the fact their research is being edited if it does not meet the "manditory" findings. The fact is that the KOYOTO initiative was fudged and most signing that petition had no clue of anything about climatology.
    The fact is that C202 levels ALWAYS rise after a warming cycle sets in and has been doing so since the beginning of the planet. The C202 levels rise to PROTECT PLANTS during the warming. If you lower the levels during a warming period, you kill the plants. The peak year for warming was actually 1998. Some people still think that the Northern Ice cap is still melting, too - despite the warming of northern waters due to the underwater volcanoes going off (yep, molten lava does that) the Ice Cap right now has more ice than in the last 15 years - it had the least in 2007. If you don't believe that one, a real quick look at a CURRENT satellite photo will put that issue to bed for you once and for all.

    Right now the scientists are coming out of hiding and making a big noise after being sickened by Bush admin edits of scientific documents. They recently spoke at the UN - can't remember how many, but it was thousands in attendance -- telling the UN that they HAD TO STOP THE C202 CRAP OR THEY WOULD KILL US ALL.

    Perhaps the fact that there are so many more scientists denouncing warming than supporting it should be a real hardcore hint about what they truly think - even if MSM won't report it loudly enough for the masses to get the clue.

    It sounds to me that you are not real well versed on the issue - but I also know you have the smarts to absorb it if you see the real data. This site is a good jump off point - the people that run, contribute, etc are CLIMATOLOGISTS -and you will find a lot of good resources and information there. I think you will like this site and it will help clarify the issues without politics intervening with the info.
    ICECAP
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[689996].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author prabhakar
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[691106].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Star69
      Originally Posted by prabhakar View Post

      And about cows. We have more cows on road than in huts. May be a problem, I don't know.
      Cows on the road a problem? Nah, only if you drive really fast at night...

      (Your English was just fine. It's a heck of a lot better than my Hindi!!! )
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[691751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    I think 'global warming' is happening, whether we want it to or not. It is a cycle of the earth.

    But anyone that looks around and sees the number of heat producing buildings, roads, cars, people that not only are already here, but are created every single day, and still doesnt think man has something to do with speeding the cycle up is kidding themselves.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[691780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Star69
    It's amazing how a forest fire on a clear, calm day can create it's own wind, create its own weather, once it grows large enough. It can overtake fire crews and kill them because it moves faster than they can.

    I would think that once a population grows large enough and dense enough it, too, could have a hand in changing the weather.

    Cities with massive areas of paved surface remain warmer by at least five-ten degrees at night than do areas that are not covered with pavement. Buildings and pavement absorb heat during the day and release it during the night.

    A person can actually die of exposure in the desert at night, due to the dirt not absorbing as much heat during the day. The desert becomes very cold at night, even during the hottest months.

    As the first line of the song 'Big Yellow Taxi' says, "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot..."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[691803].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    I watched a program on discovery and they were talking about the whole 'world ends in 2012' thing

    There is a reason for this. Apparently around 2012 the poles of the earth will shift, and the earth is tilting on its axis. The northern pole will apparently be facing the sun more, which will most likely cause melting of the northern pole.

    They were saying thats why the mayan calendar ends in 2012, and thats where 'global warming' is coming from. They were also saying how this will make canada and russia much stronger because of all the lands that they have always had unavailable will become farmable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[692437].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Star69
    Hmmm, where's Atlas when we need him?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[692865].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Prabhakar - You are sitting on a Mantle plume over there, I am guessing it IS pretty warm. Molten lava does that. It's actually getting much colder in the N. USA.

    Kay - you have that right. However, it's not C202 that they should be attacking as it isn't a pollutant - but there are a lot of other things in auto gas that are - such as carbon monoxide, which has no redeeming value at all. I can't figure out why they would attack a natural and actually necessary gas when they could just attack carbon monoxide and make heaps of freaking sense.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[693261].message }}

Trending Topics