Trees; to eat meat; coach salaries

Beckett Hanson: Trees: we need to plant more

I found out that we end up losing 10 billion trees a year. At this rate, we will no longer have trees in 2325. But also, many more people will be born, so more supply and demand. So it could happen sooner. In addition, we need trees to support everyone in the world, which is currently 7.9 billion people, so rather 2125. And that is soon.

We need to take action like the United Nations which has a ton of good goals to help not only cut trees but also fight pollution. Yououtuber “MrBeast” has raised $ 23 million to plant 23 million trees with the Arbor Day Foundation and the amount is growing rapidly. Elon Musk donated $ 1 million for the trees!

Moreover, the most important thing is that we kill other animals like tigers, koalas and pandas. They lose their homes and die, so do something to help them.

I understand that people depend on trees, but we are not doing anything to help them. I think we should plant a tree for every tree cut, because one tree is planted for every three trees cut and humans have reduced the number of trees by 50%. More and more trees are being felled per second. Literally every second, a football field worth a forest is cut down. There are 31,540,000 seconds a year, so a lot of trees are felled. Do you want your children to live in fear of having no more trees?

The world will be in crisis when we can’t get what we want because we don’t want to help. Watch online and donate to plant trees and help. The more the merrier, so thanks for reading and helping save the trees. You can tell the difference.

Beckett hanson

Grade 5, Bear Creek Elementary

Daniel Butterfield: Eating Meat: Stop Blaming Cows

In response to Eli Kanner’s December 15 letter on Eating Less Meat for a Healthy Planet, a myth prevails about the impact of livestock on the environment.

According to the EPA, all livestock accounts for only 3.9% of United States greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Grazing cattle make up only 2%, not the 18-50% who advocate plant-based diets.

All plant farming is responsible for 9% of GHGs. Transportation, power generation and industry account for 78% of GHG emissions.

The downside to plant farming is that it relies on industrial monoculture, the most destructive form of agriculture. Monoculture means that only one plant can grow in a field at a time. Monoculture depends on annual and frequent tillage. Tillage releases carbon from the soil into the atmosphere. Monoculture also depends on agricultural chemicals to kill weeds and insects. There is no biodiversity on land in monoculture.

Well-managed cattle can actually sequester carbon when their manure and urine return to the soil. Even conventional beef cattle spend most of their lives on pasture.

From the book ‘Sacred Cow’ by Diana Rodgers, RD, and Robb Wolf: “Cattle graze on land we cannot cultivate and produce high quality protein and micronutrients from food we cannot. cannot eat – which is a victory for our health and our environment. Well-managed livestock can improve the soil’s water-holding capacity. Cattle also improve the soil microbiome and increase biodiversity by providing rich habitat pollinators, birds and other wildlife.

A 4-ounce steak contains 30 grams of complete protein, 180 calories, and zero grams of carbohydrate. To get 30 grams of protein from plants, you need 12 ounces of kidney beans and one cup of rice, or 640 calories, and 122 grams of carbohydrate. For almonds, getting 30 grams of protein equates to 850 calories.

There is no evidence to show that consuming red meat or saturated fat causes heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. Let’s stop blaming livestock for our poor health and destruction of the environment and look at the real culprit: nutrient-poor, hyper-appetizing, ultra-processed foods, all of which come from industrial monoculture soils.

Daniel Butterfield


James Markusen: Coaching Salaries: No Evidence of Intangible Benefits

It was good to see Jim Martin’s Sunday Insight column on football coaching salaries. Unfortunately, without good data, it is too easy for sports fans and apologists to come up with questionable and unproven counter-arguments. Foremost among these is the claim that large teams provide all kinds of intangible and unmeasured benefits to universities. For example, this success generates a lot of alumni donations, more student applications, and increases government (state) support.

But there is comprehensive data and rigorous empirical analysis, compiled and analyzed by the American Economic Association (hardly a leftist group), which shows these arguments to be either false or only partially true in particular circumstances. For example, a bowl victory generates contributions and increases applications, but they are quite temporary. Donations are highest with successful programs, but almost all of them go to the athletic departments themselves, while students, parents, and taxpayers grapple with huge bills.

Data show that the median (all sports) grants to athletics at Football Bowl Subdivision universities accounted for 32% of total revenues or a median of $ 20 million per year in 2013 (Sanderson and Siegfried, Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (2015), 115-138). These grants include tuition fees allocated to athletics, financial transfers directly from the general fund, indirect institutional support such as payment for utilities, security salaries, etc. for athletics. The article notes that Colorado is correct about these median numbers.

It is always useful to think in terms of “opportunity cost”. For $ 20 million per year, a university gives up about 130 full-time professors. But please let all of us, including the camera sports journalists, dismiss any arguments that there are intangible benefits that make the grants attractive.

James markusen

CU Boulder, Economics (Professor Emeritus)

Comments are closed.