...because it seems to listen to climate scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#Global_warming
"The Economist supports government action on global warming, declaring its view in a December editorial before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference that the risk of catastrophic climate change and its effect on the economy outweighs the economic consequences of insuring against global warming now."
He's neither naive nor an idiot, you're just missing his point. The point isn't that all livestock grazes happily; the point is that there exists land where it's far more efficient to raise animals than grow crops.
Consider this rough, wet, rocky, hilly terrain:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15584779@N00/4974177967/
This isn't suited to growing much, but you'll see plenty of sheep. And they are free to roam about the hills, eating whatever then can find. (I wouldn't say roam happily tho' - the weather is pretty miserable for most of the year;)
Slashdot Mirror
...because it seems to listen to climate scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#Global_warming "The Economist supports government action on global warming, declaring its view in a December editorial before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference that the risk of catastrophic climate change and its effect on the economy outweighs the economic consequences of insuring against global warming now."
He's neither naive nor an idiot, you're just missing his point. The point isn't that all livestock grazes happily; the point is that there exists land where it's far more efficient to raise animals than grow crops. Consider this rough, wet, rocky, hilly terrain: http://www.flickr.com/photos/15584779@N00/4974177967/ This isn't suited to growing much, but you'll see plenty of sheep. And they are free to roam about the hills, eating whatever then can find. (I wouldn't say roam happily tho' - the weather is pretty miserable for most of the year ;)