[EricH]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Nope. I win. Stupid act on my part. I have no idea why I missed the EPA's website the first time. In fact if I actually interpret the EPA's data correctly (A BIG IF ON MY PART) it isn't even the biggest source of green house gasses.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#where

So why aren't we actually focusing on the bigger sources instead of putting fees on ranchers/dairy farmers for their critters' emissions by the head (or tail) to the point that they can't make a living? (Yes, that was talked about, as recently as this spring. I'm not sure of the current status of this.)

Oh, wait--landfills are necessary because we can't come up with better ways to dispose of trash that won't be complained about. And who is dumb enough to reduce the amount of oil and natural gas we use, because then commuting gets a LOT harder (unless we go back to the horse-and-buggy days). So we have to go after the cows, who can't help it, if we want to reduce methane emissions. And yet methane is only one greenhouse gas--and relatively short-lived.

Why not just harness the energy in methane by collecting, storing, and burning it? Reduces methane emissions, allows a slowdown in petroleum/natural gas consumption, and maybe even allows time for the atmospheric methane to dissipate a bit.

Now, as to whether humans are responsible for the increase of the cow population: Remember, bison are also bovines, presumably with the same problem--and yet, man is responsible for driving them almost to extinction. Think about it.

As for Mr. Pockets' question, I can tell you: whoever brought it up would be ridiculed and the evidence would be hidden away so that nobody would believe it. See Copernicus and Galileo with the heliocentric theory vs the Roman Catholic Church with the geocentric theory. Also note that at some point, the evidence would come out and people would accept it, and then the people who now say that it is caused by humans would be remembered as opposing scientific progress.