• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Kyoto pact Bans Cows?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Should we have jioned Kyoto Protocal

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, as we would be the only country to be forced to comply

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


Well-known member
Feb 13, 2005
Reaction score
Wildwood New Jersey
Methane from livestock is the biggest source of greenhouse

The 141-nation Kyoto pact, weakened by a U.S. pullout in 2001, will also seek to limit a cocktail of five less common gases found everywhere from cows' stomachs

But thank GOD, we are NOT signed on to the Pact that will ban "Cows and sheep grazing in fields"

on the bright side we are now in great position to capture the world beef market....Get ready ship them pre-packaged cuts...

Seems as if the veggies had a big say in what gas is targetted in the Kyoto Pact

In Alberta, methane emission from ruminants is expected to hit the equivalent of 8.6 megatonnes of CO2 by 2008-2012. That's an increase of 38 per cent from 1990 levels – mostly due to growth in the number of feeder cattle, dairy cattle, hogs, poultry, bison, elk and deer in the province.

It also means that if no action is taken before that, Alberta would have to cut emissions by 40 per cent in 2010 to meet Kyoto commitments.

In Australia, animal gas is a huge problem. With 120 million sheep and 28 million head of cattle, ruminants were responsible for 12.3 per cent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions in 2002.


At the Kyoto summit the UK Government agreed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Farming is responsible for 28% of UK methane emissions, (a) so it is a target area for reduction.

Methane gas is only one of the six "greenhouse gases" that delegates from 150 countries are trying to define the "rules" by which the U.S. is to meet her target to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The delegates are also to determine what the "consequences" will be if the U.S. fails to comply with that target. It is conceivable that in the near future the UN will "rule" that global citizens become vegetarians in order to reduce methane gas levels!

10 million head of cattle. Together with commercial goats and deer, the animals are responsible for more than 40 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced.


While I shouldn't make a big stink about this, it seems to me that had we signed, the tree hugging lefty vegheads would have targeted the beef industry first. By reading how the New Zealland folk are fighting a gas tax, it becomes all to evident that President bush made the right choice on this flawed treaty.
Anonymous said:
Talkin' to yourself Steve?

I see that 60 people have viewed this post in the short time it's been on the board, so I geuss you're wrong again. I can't believe, Anonymous, that you would want to live in a country that hasn't ratified the Kyoto Treaty, so how 'bout that one way ticket?
Talkin' to yourself Steve?

No, it is just that I added the original post at luch time and had little time to completly follow up, I was just adding more information on how the effect of the Kyoto pact will effect the global market.

Interesting how easily the enviromentalists quickly started cracking down on the other sources such as Cattle and sheep. I am glad that our President had the wisdom to opt out of this flawed treaty.

I just hope he opt's out of a few more, as we seem to be the only country that enforces our end of these one sided deals.

I also find it interesting the the media can only say we opted out, not on the effect it will have on those that are faced with it's draconian statutes.

Did you read the part where rich "devoloped" countries would be fined with the proceeds going to the poor countries to help them comply? sounds like a TAX.
Steve that is what it is exactly, a tax. Something needs to be done though and I think the US should be leading the way with another plan instead of just walking away.
Canada's answer to Kyoto is to keep polluting and buy pollution credits from other countries in order to make our Kyoto commitments. Lets see, it was costing us nothing before and now we are doing exactly the same thing as we were and its costing us billions. Only the government would call that progress.
Lets see, it was costing us nothing before and now we are doing exactly the same thing as we were and its costing us billions. Only the government would call that progress.

I would call it another TAX, or one way for them to siphon off hard earned money so the greenies can feel less guilty. If the money was actually going towards fixing the problem it would at least be a little more acceptable.

Most of these international treaties seldom fix anything.

Latest posts