[citation][nom]andune[/nom]Methane production is moot. Since the animals were rented rather than being raised specifically for this purpose, they'd be producing the same gas elsewhere.I'd be more inclined to question the choice of goats over, say, sheep. Goats are browsers rather than grazing animals, and prefer to eat shrubbery and other woody material rather than grass.[/citation]
Wow, you don't understand economics, huh? If people don't use the goats, they stop breeding them. You use them, you increase demand, you have more goats creating methane. It would appear from this article, that's what these goats are for, it's not a secondary purpose. So, using goats in this way does increase methane, which is far worse than Carbon Dioxide.
Not that I'm against carbon emissions at all. Maybe that's why people were put on this planet. I can't think of any other reason. The whole "green" movement is really confused. Plants LIKE carbon, they grow faster, and produce more food when there's more carbon dioxide in the air. And, they pull it out faster as well. Why this is considered "un-green" is bizarre to me. You not only speed up the rate they grow, you extend growing seasons as well.
Besides, who can define what's normal on a planet that's in constant change? How do you define the baseline? What would happen to life if carbon just kept getting buried? There will be problems, but, there are a lot upsides too. Plants are life, and they like Carbon Dioxide.