Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGo Veggie to Fight Global Warming, says Expert
One of the world's leading climate change gurus urged people to become vegetarian today, to help beat global warming.
![[(Creative Commons photo via Flckr: by mckaysavage)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/veggies.jpg "veggies.jpg")
Nicholas Stern, the author of an influential 2006 review of climate change,
said methane emissions from cows and pigs were putting "enormous pressure"
on the world and people needed to think about what they ate.
He told The Times: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It put enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."
The former World Bank chief economist was speaking ahead of the climate change conference in Copenhagen this December, which is expected to be attended by thousands of delegates from around the world.
Lord Stern said a successful conference would result in higher costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He also compared his stance on meat to the change in attitudes to drink-driving.
"I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating," the London School of Economics professor said.
"I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student.
"People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food."
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and it has been estimated that livestock accounts for a fifth of the global warming impact.
In his interview with The Times, Lord Stern said if business continued as usual then temperatures could increase by 5C by early next century.
"These kinds of changes will have huge consequences - southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict."
His 2006 review warned that if the world did not act on global warming, the cost would be at least 5 per cent of GDP "now and forever".
"Climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response," he said.
94 Comments so far
Show AllVegetarians, which includes Seventh Day Adventists, would like the progressives to think that giving up meat equals saving the environment. They often emphasize two reasons: (1) Low dietary energy equivalence for meat production vs vegetables, and (2) differences in the amount of environmental degradation needed to produce the two classes of foods.
On the face of it, we who care about the environment ought to turn vegetarians in droves. But the data they cite is flawed. Fruits and vegetables flown in from monoculture farms in Chile and elsewhere compare poorly with locally produced dairy farms in nutrient production to energy used ratios. Similarly, not buying from inhumane factory animal factories may do more good for the environment than eating chemical laden vegetables from corporate farms. The environment is not necessarily protected based on what you eat, but on how responsibly you buy what you eat.
Common Dreams should exercise due care in advocating dangerous diets. We need all the help from progressives we can get, and a pure veggie diet does not sustain them well. For example, certain fat soluble vitamins and nutrients are only available in their natural form in animal products. For more science based nutrition information, read www.westonaprice.org.
A vegan diet is dangerous? You've lost all credibility.
Actually yes. There are many facets of a vegan diet which are very unhealthy. Forcing children to eat a diet that deprives them of necessary fats and vitamins when their bodies are trying to grow sounds dangerous to me. It's hard enough on adults who choose to eat this way. But kids trust the adults in their lives to take care of them. To make good choices. And while I've no doubt that people have the best of intentions, the road to hell and all that....
If one is unwilling to investigate beyond what they think they know, they cannot be open to a new experience.
Most of this really comes down to identity. What if the new information kills your sense of identity? Is that a bad thing? It is surely frightening. But still. What is there to lose? A false sense of self? Good riddance!
What if the myth is really a myth? Are vegan/vegetarians really willing to cling to a belief that may be harmful?
It is said that a belief in a lie is a good definition of delusion. Delude people don't ever think they are delusional.
Believe me. Those of us who are saying, "Warning. Warning." are far and few between. It's not easy being the only person in the crowd to disagree. Why would we be doing that? To try and stir up shit? What if we're actually concerned? What if you have been operating on misinformation?
I've seen the studies that are oft quoted. And, I've seen reports on how many of these studies were willfully mis represented for an agenda. For folks like ADM and other juggernaut corporations who produce what? High fructose corn syrup. Soy. Wheat.
Does that sound beyond the realm of possibility?
What if the vegan/vegetarian/animal rights movements have been co-opted? Sound impossible? Really? By capitalism? No way?
Is it a coincidence that the solution that these movements suggest is to purchase something? Spending our way into a percieved solution, one that appeals to peoples sense of morality even? Who benefits? Who profits?
If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it.
Even the most political people, the most thoughtful and engaged, tend not to "go there." And for good reason. Going there can be extremely uncomfortable. Food is not just what we put in our mouths to fill up; it is culture and identity. Reason plays some role in our decisions about food, but it's rarely driving the car.
We need a better way to talk about eating animals, a way that doesn't ignore or even just shruggingly accept things like habits, cravings, family and history but rather incorporates them into the conversation. The more they are allowed in, the more able we will be to follow our best instincts. And although there are many respectable ways to think about meat, there is not a person on Earth whose best instincts would lead him or her to factory farming.
My book, "Eating Animals," addresses factory farming from numerous perspectives: animal welfare, the environment, the price paid by rural communities, the economic costs. In two essays, I will share some of what I've learned about how the way we raise animals for food affects human health.
"It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it."
I think you are framing the discussion by leaving out certain options.
What about habitat loss and mass extinction? Surely anywhere from 150 to 300 species a day going extinct counts in your book as animal suffering?
Why will vegetarians/vegans generally not acknowlege wild animals? Mostly all I hear about are domesticated animal suffering. Yet our culture is murdering the natural world. I think the reason is that the action needed to protect the natural world is much more risky than that posed by how one spends thier money at the grocery store. No one is putting their own body on the line in the shopping line. But the animal world certainly is.
How nice it must seem to think that all one has to do to save the world is shop differently. A lifestyle choice of privilege to be sure - vegetarianism/onivorism. Would that all people had that kind of dilemma to argue over....
The argument between meat eaters and non, usually seems like a framed discussion: What's a better way to destroy a land base? Raising meat? Or Raising plants? It's all fucking bad. Agriculture is bad. There's nothing good about it. Except that it feeds humans. Which if you beleive that humans are entitled to destroy everything so that they can eat, you may have a hard time seeing how agriculture isn't any good.
The main cause of extinction? Habitat loss. That would include agricultural lands.
"Even the most political people, the most thoughtful and engaged, tend not to "go there." And for good reason. Going there can be extremely uncomfortable. Food is not just what we put in our mouths to fill up; it is culture and identity."
I feel the same way when I bring up wild animals and habitat loss. Even your post seems strangely silent on that.
Of course factory farms are terrible! Anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. But vegetarian/vegans tend to frame the discussion in terms that only allow that meat eaters not only only get their meat thru industrial meat production, but many times it appears that plant eaters think that all meat eaters think factory imiseration of animal slaves is desirable. And this is where is seems they generally are coming from in this debate.
We're not listening to each other and have somehow allowed this debate to be framed into simplistic terms. The few omnivores who may say factory farms are good are indeed few here.Perhaps even nil. Factory, plant production good? Soy farms? No. They're not. Who cares which is better? They're both terrible! Yet somehow there is always this vibe of moral superiority from the vegetable camp on this.
"What about habitat loss and mass extinction? Surely anywhere from 150 to 300 species a day going extinct counts in your book as animal suffering?
Why will vegetarians/vegans generally not acknowlege wild animals?"
Really? Vegetarians and vegans generally do not acknowledge wild animals? You're going to make that claim?
"The argument between meat eaters and non, usually seems like a framed discussion: What's a better way to destroy a land base? Raising meat? Or Raising plants? It's all fucking bad. Agriculture is bad. There's nothing good about it. Except that it feeds humans. Which if you beleive that humans are entitled to destroy everything so that they can eat, you may have a hard time seeing how agriculture isn't any good."
Ah yes, the "it's all bad, everyone is evil" rhetorical device.
"Of course factory farms are terrible! Anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. But vegetarian/vegans tend to frame the discussion in terms that only allow that meat eaters not only only get their meat thru industrial meat production, but many times it appears that plant eaters think that all meat eaters think factory imiseration of animal slaves is desirable. "
Yet, the vast majority of meat that is bought and sold is from factory farms.
"Factory, plant production good? Soy farms? No. They're not. Who cares which is better? They're both terrible! Yet somehow there is always this vibe of moral superiority from the vegetable camp on this."
So, your argument is that it is morally acceptable then to eat animals raised in atrocious conditions on factory farms?
"Really? Vegetarians and vegans generally do not acknowledge wild animals? You're going to make that claim?"
I'm not going to make it. I did make it. What was unclear about what I said? "Generally"? This has been my experience. I would welcome dialogue with especially vegetarians/vegans about the cruelty towards wild animals. Yet I fear that the belief that stopping animal suffering is as simple as writing a check ( not financially supporting factory farms) is as radical as many animal rights people are willing to go. It's safe. Risk free. And, you can feel morally superior because you didn't cause any animal suffering today. Which is bullshit of course. Yes. No animal suffered to give you a home, clothing, technology, and obviously the soy on your plate is not fraught with animal imiseration as long as one doesn't consider the creatures who had to die or give up their homes so you could eat a death free meal.
"Ah yes, the "it's all bad, everyone is evil" rhetorical device."
Hey, way to avoid addressing the statement I made. Howzabout telling me what's good about agriculture which by the way, is a far cry from saying,""it's all bad, everyone is evil". Also, why the quotation marks in your statement? I certainly never said that. I think you are being fece-ous (kinda a combo of being disingenuous & crappy).
"Yet, the vast majority of meat that is bought and sold is from factory farms."
You get no argument from me on that. Is there any one here who is justifying factory farms? Seems like a straw man argument.What's your point? How you can turn around my statement after I start it with "Of course factory farms are terrible! Anyone who thinks otherwise is insane." and try and make it sound like I'm justifying it? There is not one post here saying that factory farming is good. Or I missed the lone troll. But, there is also not one post from a vegetarian/vegan, acknowleding that all agriculture is bad. Unless I missed the one or two more objective posters. Why is that?
"So, your argument is that it is morally acceptable then to eat animals raised in atrocious conditions on factory farms?"
Because the above staement seems eerily mis-leading or perhaps uses the word "then" rather than, than, I'm going to assume you mean that my argument is that it is morally acceptable to eat animals who are not raised in atrocious conditions. Of course it is! Eating requires killing. Period. Across the board. All life forms must eat. In order to eat, someone must die. But to raise a life form into bondage, misery, and torture - what amounts in my mind at least to concentration camp conditions, for the sole prupose of then killing and eating them, seems obviously less morally acceptable than to hunt in the wild, or even to raise an animal in condidtions where they are allowed to be themselves, have a healthy (eat foods that they like and are good for them) normal life. What are you saying? That raising a hog in a cage is morally the same as rasing one out doors for their whole life, starting out nursing form their mothers, where they live with others and can socialize, breed, go where they will? The same? Really? You sound a bit unreasonable if this is the case.
Interestingly to me, there is this hierarchy among humans in general, about what is acceptable to eat and what is not. Taboo. Seems like there are examples of this as far back as we know. The bible even forbids certain foods. And like devout religionists, vegetatians/vegans in general draw a particular line between plants and animals. But you are still killing. Who died and left you in charge of drawing that morally superior choice of who gets to live, and who gets to die?
Also, who feeds your food? Someone has to die inorder to fertilize your crops. Aside from the fact that a plot of acreage cleared for farming, kills and makes refugees of more lives that I think you are prepared to look at. At least free range animals actually help the land base. Crops destroy it.
Finally, what is it about me and my statements exactly that leave you compelled to argue? Am I being rude? Unreasonable? I have asked questions. The answers you have given seem to have evaded them ,while attempting to make me sound unreasonable, paranoid, and even as far to insinuate that I support factory farming? Why would you do that?
What is the threat of looking deeper? That you may be mistaken?
our current consumption of meat is not only cruel but unsustainable...we can continue our ways and face the destruction of the planet or mend our ways and try to live as a holistic society - otherwise known as primitive......and therein lies the crux of the problem.......can we turn away from technology and admit that the primitive societies were the sustainable societies.......and that the current "free market darwinian economic system" is a cancer on the earth.........
If a child did to a random animal what we as a society allow as common industrial farming we would call the child a sociopath and lock them up.....what makes it alright for us to do the same thing just for a piece of bacon w/ our pancakes on sunday morning?
I switched. I never buy meat anymore or worry about mad cows or toxic chickens.
It's funny but I feel better now and food has flavors instead of just textures.
I am always confused as to how MAN , citing Morality or some "Scientific Study that shows eating meat adds to global warming" feel they can second guess nature.
I suggest that if we added up the number of HERD Animals from 300 or 400 years ago and compare it today, that number would have been larger. Nature would not produce a system that would be so out of balance it would destroy itself.
The FACT is that Bison roamed The prairies of North America for tens of thousands of years by the 10's of Millions. Given this fact if we suddenly introduce man and say "Find a source of food while having the minimal Impact on the Enviroment" then I suggest those herds of Bison would be more suitable then would plowing up the grasslands to grow Vegetables.
Cattle in India fart whether or not people are eating them and if it was suddenly acceptable to eat 20 million of those cattle per year GIVEN there a population of close to 280 some million, it would not add anything to Global warming were beef suddenly used more in their diet.
At the same time plowing grassland under and digging an irrigation ditch to a river so as to grow RICE WILL add greenhouse gases.
It is the PROCESS of how we get the food to our plate that the culrpit here and NOT what that food is.
Shipping Vegetables from California to the Inuit in the High Artic as a substitute for meat and fish currently in their diet will add more to Greenhouse gases then would those peoples keep their diet.
Raising Cattle on feedlots wherein they are forcefed Corn and dosed with antibiotics adds far more to Greenhouse gases then those same cattle grazing on pasture.
The largest Culprit is Globalization and centralization and Industrial scale Acgriculture and it does not matter if such processes used to grow Vegetables or beef.
We have to localize our food supply as much as possible and if it makes sense to grow meat in a given enviroment then we should grow meat. Where we create our greatest problems is when we try to transfrom an enviroment most suited to grazing herds into something else. If nature has herds of several million Wildebeasts roaming the Serengeti, it suggests to me that nature has already determined what types of lifeforms are best suited to that enviroment. It is herd animals, and not Potatoes.
There a bounty of life on this Earth because Mother nature is efficient. We have to work WITH nature and not against her.
There are so many holes in your pro-meat talking points, though I will agree that globalization is a significant problem.
The Inuits (population around 50,000, the size of a large-city suburb) outstripped their hunting/fishing ecosystem in the 1950s, and have had to rely on exotic food shipments since. See the Wiki entry for Inuit.
Population is the big problem.
Meat eaters suck, anyway.
The transition of the Inuit to permanent settlements from that of a Hunter Gtaherer Culture is what led to their relying on outside sources of food . Along with this game a loss of traditional skills since it much easier to go to the store and BUY food, then it was to hunt it.
This transition was not due to diminished herds of caribou or seals. It was by design
As a consequence of this shift in diet from traditional source sof food to that flown in from outside the Inuit suffer increased rates of heart Disease, Obesity and Diabetes.
Further to that peoples lost a sense of purpose Wheere once men wer elooked to to Hunt and Provide food and the woman to do all manner of tasks inside the hunting camps such as Dressing the food making clothing and the like , of a sudden all of this was displaced by being able to "Go to the Store" and buy the same. This led to higher rates of Suicide and Alcholism.
The Inuit of today have a NUCH higher carbon footprint then that of their ancestors even with LESS meat in their diets. This contradicts the suggestion that more meat in diets leads to higher rates of Global warming.
This does not mean I believe theyr should return to the traditions of Hunter Gatherers. It nerely an example of how worng the assessment is when someone claims meat in diet equates to more Global warming.
The Inuit a very clear example that such not the case.
I stand by the Wiki reference which states:
"As World War II ended and the Cold War began....With better health care, the Inuit population grew larger, too large to sustain itself solely by hunting. Many Inuit from smaller camps moved into permanent settlements because there was access to jobs and food.". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit)
The Inuit population grew too large to sustain traditional hunting practice. How much clearer can this be?
Here's a hole in your argument:
The Inuit lived on their landbase for millenia. By 1950 - I think we can all agree that there was european influence by that time? - they had been ethnically cleansed enough to not hardly remember the old ways. Your hole is this - you cannot use a destroyed culture as representational of how that culture existed. Thousands of years versus barely hundreds? You do the math. Of course you have tilted it in your favor.
Try reading some basic Farley Mowatt.
And I also appreciate the very friendly and the equally convincing argument:
"Meat eaters suck, anyway."
So you as a vegetarian and this spirit are representaional of vegetarians not sucking?
I have read some Mowatt (and unfortunately did not avoid the dreadful Disney film), and spent a lot of time in Greenland and Barrow. I have seen and understand the clash of cultures.
Again, I repeat the Wiki entry:
"With better health care, the Inuit population grew larger, too large to sustain itself solely by hunting."
Like my byline? Its an opinion, founded in experience.
Like I evidentally failed to express:
How is telling people they suck, not sorta sucky itself?
Yes, I was also unable to avoid the disney movie. I agree. It.....sucked. ;)
I do think that the term "clash of cultures" is a bit dismissive of well....genocide say....
"Cattle in India fart whether or not people are eating them and if it was suddenly acceptable to eat 20 million of those cattle per year GIVEN there a population of close to 280 some million, it would not add anything to Global warming were beef suddenly used more in their diet."
Do you really think that a billion Indians switching from a largely vegetarian diet to an American style meat-centered diet would not add anything to GW? Not even knowing that it takes 10 times as much arable land to grow a pound of beef as it takes to grow a pound of beans? Cuz I just think that's incredibly naive.
>>Not even knowing that it takes 10 times as much arable land to grow a pound of beef as it takes to grow a pound of beans
A pound of beans has about 1/10th the protein value of Meat. Further it not a complete protein lacking all the required amino acids. Thus while I can get all the amino acids from meat (A complete protein), I need to eat a combination of vegetables to get the needed amino acids.
A Cow can provide this to humans simply by eating grass. Grass can grow most everywhere.
You clearly demonstate that it is the uninformed that contribute to the demise of our wondrous earth.
I don't know what rubbish you are reading, but soy and fava beans contain as much protein as beef. About 28g/cup.
We all need to eat a balanced diet (which means eating several different foods). Cripes, even Betty Crocker knows that.
Quinoa grown in Sth America is a complete food, providing more protein than meat, AND all the amino acids. This grain is was made illegal by the conquering Conquistadors because it would have competed with the Spanish introduction of meat herding into Sth America. Quinoa is the only food group on the planet that provides everything for human consumption.
I am not "reading Rubbish" I ma stating a fact. You can not weigh protein offered in a cup of beans and claim it equivalent to the same amount of beef.
Proteins contain different amino acids. Now I go by memory hear as I had this very Conversation with a Professional Nutritionist who explained various charts she had in the walls of her office.
There about 10 essential Amino acids needed by the Human body that we get from portein. Meat, Fish Poultry and eggs are considered "Complete proteins" in that tehy give us all 10 in the required amounts.
The pie charsts she showed me showed how various sources of plant protein "beans Soya etc) had wedges cut out of them where certain specific amino acids were not represented at all. She explained that meant you had to eat a whole lot MORE of a given plant source of Protein to get that same amount of amino acids OR you had to eat Combinations of plants to get those same amino acids.
No matter what Combination you eat..you still have to eat MORE. From mememory the beans she had listed as a source of Protein had about 1/10th the amound of 2 needed amino acids as meat would carry. In a vegetarian diet (and she was a vegeterian for moral reasons not Nutritional ones) this meant eating other plants to get those needed aminoes.
Quinoa is about 12 to 18 percent protein by weight and is one of the few "plants" considered to have all amino acids .
Beef is from 22 to 28 percent protein by weight.
Now take your Quinoa and note where it grown. South America.
They are pushing down forests to grow Quinoa and that Quinoa being shipped to health food stores in the USA. How is that efficient and saving the enviroment?
How is plowing NATURAL grasslands under where BISON and grazing animals once grazed so as to grow Quinoa less harmful to an enviroment?
I have already posted links demonstrating that Grasslands act as a carbon sink and that when these lands plowed up to grow CROPS that carbon seuqetered is released into the atmosphere.
I'll say it again. We need to consume multiple foods to obtain a balanced diet. If that means combining plant materials (such as beans and grains), so what?
Eating a meat-only diet is well-documented to lead to organ failure (unless we eat the meat raw, but e coli then becomes a problem). Similarly, a vegetable-only diet also has its shortcomings (that generally do not lead to premature death) unless augmented with some nuts, grains, fruits etc.
Pound-for-pound, meat contains a lot more calories than plant material, which explains why vegetarians will have to eat more. In general, however, vegetarians do not eat more, which may explain why they are a lot leaner than their mostly-meat-eating brethren.
Quinoa is not locally grown because it was only "recently rediscovered", but more importantly, there are no incentives (unlike corn, wheat and soy) for large scale growing of quinoa in the US. See my comment on Big Agra.
I just tried quinoa a week ago. It's pretty good, but of course the problem is it sort of has to be shipped from the bottom end of the planet.
Quinoa can be grown anywhere. It is a robust and easy crop. It has not attracted much attention until recently when NASA declared that it is favoring the use of quinoa for in-space grown crops during long-haul manned voyages.
There is the rub. Until Big-Agra (e.g. Monsanto) determines that a crop is useful for it's profits, the crop is ignored totally except on very small, local scales.
I think his point is that India already has a gigantic population of cattle. Unless all those cows are starving to death, then there is obviously enough land for them to graze on right now. However, giving them grain would surely increase their contribution to global warming.
Indian cattle are living to death by natural causes. They aren't being slaughtered at 1.4 years to feed Indians, they live to an average age of 20. So, to investigate the number of 'beef cattle' in India, take his 280 million cattle and divide by (20/1.4), and get about 20 million 'beef cattle'. This would increase substantially if Indians switched to BEEF for food.
I don't even know what to make of his Bison example: "I suggest those herds of Bison would be more suitable then would plowing up the grasslands to grow Vegetables." Yeah, maybe that's why they almost went extinct. Return the plains to Bison, and America's breadbasket, which does much to feed a burgeoning world, goes belly-up. And this proves what?
But his transportation example is well-taken. Grow locally is an important plea. However, I would add that thanks to modern mega-tanker capabilities, transport as a fraction of cost is very low and getting lower.
In the end, you can't fool mother nature. It will always take 10 times as many grains to grow a pound of chicken as a pound of grain. That's just predator/prey biomass relationships. Grains are living things and 'gotta live too'. Switching to vege-diet, like many Indians, will help ameliorate global warming. And probably help our longevity too. The indians have been at this a long time: you can't get better tasting vegetarian food than Indian...
There are 280 million Cattle in India. Do you understand that number? It immaterial if 20 million are killed and eaten and another 20 million born to replace the ones lost when it comes to emissions of methane etc.
Why the heck are you dividing the number .?
The Total Population is still 280 million whether 20 million eaten each year and replaced by 20 million newly born or NONE are eaten and they all live to 20 years.
The Bison went extinct because man HUNTED them to extinction. This was done so that lands they roamed could be closed off to grow CROPS.
This was MANS intervention. Not Mother natures. They did fine until man came along.(In truth they did fine while Native Americans hunted them for food and not so much so when the Europeans decided to Convert the grasslands to the growing of crops)
Now to the lands the Bison once grazed. The soil when first turned to the plow was the richest in the world. Huge Bumper CROPS were raised. Within 50 years of turning it to the plow this soil was depleted of nutrients.
The crops man introduced to these regions were not NATIVE to these regions. Thus they needed things like fertilizers, or Irrigation in order to grow. All of these added processes are a decrease in efficiencies. Fertilizers are made from Hydrocarbons and that process ADDS greenhouse gases.
The very act of plowing the land up releases greenhouse gases.
>>It will always take 10 times as many grains to grow a pound of chicken as a pound of grain. That's just predator/prey biomass relationships. Grains are living things and 'gotta live too'. Switching to vege-diet, like many Indians, will help ameliorate global warming
You really are unable to see how you contradict yourself here.
First Cows do not need to eat Grains. Bison did not eat grain. They ate grass and converted it to protein. We raised cattle and never had to feed them grain. They ate GRASS in summer and winter.
India has 3 times the Cattle as does North America.They are not fed grains. They eat grass. Those Cattle STILL emit greenhouse gases. If the constant population of Cattle in North America is 90 million cattle then all things being equal, North America's Cattle Population emits 1/3rd of that emitted By Indias population.
If North Americans EAT 10 million of those cattle then 10 million less are emitting Greenhouse gases. If that natural growth in population causes the number to increase to 90 million again, then the population of Cattle in North America still emits 1/3rd the greenhouse gases.
Further to that if the population of Herd Animals such as Bison, Wildebeast. Cattle Elephants ETC was GREATER in sum total 300 years ago (which i think it was) then then that population added MORE total Greenhouse Gases whether they were used as a food source or not.
Thus it inaccurate to claim that herd animals are behing the INCREASED rate of Global warming.
It's fascinating to watch those who eat meat argue in circles as the blood drips from their mouths. Trying to make your argument without acknowledging the waste, abuse, and inefficiency of the factory farming system is absurd and naive.
90% of the big fish in the ocean are gone because of industrial fishing. Meat produced in the U.S. is banned by Europe because it thoroughly contaminated and unhealthy, not to talk about the cruel conditions under which capitalists produce this meat like flesh. Watch Food Inc, the documentary.
You probably ignored this other article posted on this site which discusses the science behind this analysis:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/22-11
Furthermore, as Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith (author of the Vegetarian Myth) discuss, this issue is about sustainability, not the "right" of you and other capitalists to continue to abuse and destroy this planet, whether it be via factory farming or war.
I am not against eating meat per se, but I am against capitalist production of it because is incredibly destructive. Period. Sustainability means locally produced food, it means a respect for the animals own habitat, not for our consumption, but for their own right to live as a species. Consuming flesh has to be done with responsibility, compassion, and a commitment to the species you consume.
As long as i live in a city and don't grow my own food, being a vegetarian is not only healthier, but it is far less impactful on the planet.
"The Total Population is still 280 million whether 20 million eaten each year and replaced by 20 million newly born or NONE are eaten and they all live to 20 years."
And if methane release were the only issue, I suppose you would be right. But if you eat the cattle, you replace the 280 million every 1.4 years, so you need to grow 280 million cattle every 1.4 years to replace the ones you ate, while if you don't eat them you only need to grow 280 million cattle every 20 years. It obviously takes alot more grass to grow 280 million cattle every 1.4 years than it does to grow the same number every 20 years. An earlier poster claimed the cattle required the 'same amount of grass' whether we ate them or not. I'm saying 'no thats not true'.
If Indians switched off vegetarianism, they might go through one cattle a year per person. So they would need a billion cattle. And they would have to replace those cattle, grow new cattle, every year. I'm certain this would take more grass than the existing system. Instead of growing grass, they grow wheat, rice, beans, and legumes, and get 10 times more food value from the land.
You seem to be under the impression that GROWING cattle eat more grass then mature cattle.
This is no more true in Cattle then it is with humans.
A 240 pound ADULT humans needs more calories then does a 60 pound growing boy.
Indeed when we kept cattle on our farm through the winter for our Uncle we charged him on a per head basis with mature cattle charged about twice what we charged Calves and yearlings simply because a 1200 pound Cow eats more hay then a 300 pound calf.
Rule of Thumb was a full grown cow ate twice as much as a calf.
In other words your OLDER population of 280 million cattle would in sum total EAT more grasses then were 30 million of those cattle calves.
I would also point out that just as with Dogs and most any creature I can think of, OLDER animals FART more.
Si in fact in sum total keeping an OLDER population of cattle adds more to Global warming then does replacing part of that herd each year with younger cattle.
We are omnivores, therefore we can consume all the fish in the ocean, destroy the topsoil, pollute the environment, contribute directly to species extinction, and inject just about any chemical into animals so they become fatter, sicker and are more profitable. FUGIT! We can do anything we want, we are omnivores.
And we can change our food consumption patterns to purchase locally grown, and organic when possible produce, locally processed baked and other goods, and locally pastured meat.
If I can do it on $8.50 an hour, so can most other people in America, as long as there are farmers in the region that grow food in sustainable ways.
Chimpanzees and man have a common ancestor.
Chimpanzees are better adapted to consume meat.
On average, Chimpanzees eat the equivalent of a pea-sized piece of meat daily. Their preferred food is NOT meat. The only time Chimpanzees eat meat is when they practice cannibalism.
Just because we can (partially) digest meat, doesn't mean we have to.
Unless you like eating your fellow man.
my body also processes cocaine and heroin......so i guess that may be a part of my natural diet also!
Exactly.
Everyone knows it takes 10 lbs of feed to produce 1 lb of meat. Just the animal living and breathing consumes 9 lb of feed. Its hard to believe, given those kinds of ratios, that going to a vege-diet wouldn't be better for the planet than the diet we're on. Americans get so much meat in their diet, they end up burning most of it for calories, NOT using the protein for rebuilding their bodies. And meat is really bad 'calorie food' compared to carbs.
Now, I'll never give up meat. But, I really believe that switching to a partially vege-diet is better for the planet overall (and better for your health too).
We currently cut down massive quantities of Amazonian jungle so we can grow, essentially, Big Macs. There is just no way that neo-grassland and cattle is a better absorber of CO2 than the jungle it replaces. Just getting off the meat, and onto the tofu, etc, does a lot to prevent market forces that end up destroying jungle and species worldwide.
Myths abound.....
If there were a book, that debunks all of the standard vegetarian/vegan stories that are constantly trotted out as fact, would you read it?
"Everyone knows" indeed......
once again:
http://lierrekeith.com/default.htm
Don't tell me. Tell the former World Bank chief economist. Those guys are filled with myths, especially from the London School of economics.
Now there's an open mind for ya...
So I guess the answer to my question is, "No. I will not read such a book."
Yeah. I trust economists from the world bank....
Lierre Keith is not writing about the global warming consequences of a vege diet, she's writing about the health consequences of a vege diet. And at least one reviewer of her book says those health consequences may have had more to do with it being low fat rather than low meat (i.e. she wasn't getting enough fat in her diet).
She is against mono-culture, which makes sense, though is hard to combat.
The fact remains that a meat dish takes at least ten times as much plant food (aka sunlight and water) to produce than a vege dish. Given that ratio, I find it hard to believe the former Chief Economist of the World Bank is not correct. But, hey, I don't have your superior knowledge, from having read a single book!
I love meat, but bought a book 'The Vegetarian 5-Ingredient Gourmet', which has simple vege recipes, quick and cheap to make, with which I'm hoping to move to a more vege diet. I don't like recipes that say 'take 5 lbs of tomatoes, skin them, and reduce to a stew'. I like recipes that say 'take 1 can of tomato stew', and this is one of those.
"But, hey, I don't have your superior knowledge, from having read a single book!"
WTF? What is your problem?
Actually. I have read more than one book.
I recommend (as I did up thread):
Against The Grain by Richard Manning
The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer
The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith (maybe try more than the amazon reviews)
Those are books I've read in the past 6 months.
Also actually, Lierre's book does talk about the health consciousness of a vegan diet. But, it is called, "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability". The "sustainability" part is about environment. Period.
Try reading it. You might be surprised. In fact, I know you will be. What is the resistance about?
The resistance is I don't like reading about what I may already know. The impression I got is that Keiths text, when it turns to the environment, lambastes monoculture, not vege vs meat-diets per their global warming impact. Yet, that latter effect is PRECISELY what this article is about.
The article makes much of the methane production of our animals. My point is that its standard ecological understanding that 10 lbs of prey yield 1 lb of predator. You can eat 10 lbs of soybeans off your yard, or you can feed them to a chicken and get 1 lb of chicken. I like chicken, but you'll be doing the earth a favor if you forgo it once in awhile and eat tofu. Maybe Keith has a chapter or two that refute this.
I don't want to completely disparage Keith. The Amazon reviews indicate a book highly literate and original, but somewhat frustrating in its promotion of anti-corporatism and feminism.
"The fact remains that a meat dish takes at least ten times as much plant food (aka sunlight and water) to produce than a vege dish. Given that ratio, I find it hard to believe the former Chief Economist of the World Bank is not correct. But, hey, I don't have your superior knowledge, from having read a single book!"
As long as that animal is eating grass, which we cannot eat, instead of grains which we do eat, it doesn't matter so much. Though I do admit I have no idea how much extra water pastured animals need that they cannot get locally.
And if that grass is being purchased at the expense of Amazonian rain-forest (as it is), what then? And if grass is uncommercial to grow in an area, what do you think they will grow instead? (grain)
Switching to vege can help ameliorate these problems. Alone, it won't solve them. But, I truly believe, its healthier for our bodies and for the planet. As I said, I'll never go off meat (and I don't recommend it to other people). But the idea that vege cooking is good for both the planet AND the individual is an idea whose time has come. (Lierre Keith notwithstanding, and, frankly, what am I to think of someone who goes vegan for 20 years to the point of impacting her health from lack if dietary fats/B-12 ? This is someone who is going to take the extreme position, period, on anything. Its just in her nature).
Good point on the first, that's why I buy from local farmers and ranchers.
And on the second, if they're growing grain, then they're not pasturing their animals and those aren't the kind of animals I was talking about.
Well, of course, I try to go 'whole foods' when I can. The fact is, I sorta believe in American-style corporatism/capitalism, and eat Big Macs whenever I have a yearning. The simple plea 'try vegetarianism' is, for people like me, quite appealing, especially when coupled with 'easy-vege' cookbooks like are appearing recently. I just think its easier, for many of us, when we are cooking at home, to turn to the 'easy-vege' cookbook and fix something both easy, nutritious, and good for the planet. Cuz when you eat out, which (typical American) I do at least once every other day, you're eating meat. Lately, some restaurants in my area have started offering vegetarian cuisine exclusively. I can only feel sorry for them...
I'm an American. I'm eating out. Give me the whole cow. I promise to regret it later...
The evidence that a vegetarian/vegan diet is best for human health, the environment, climate change is overwhelming. However, I have come to dread these articles on CD because they always take on a depressingly adversarial tone. Those of us who are vegetarians or vegans are so often characterized as hypocrites, insufferably self-righteous, or just idiots. I hardly ever encounter these kinds of characterizations when the discussion centers around other kinds of efforts to address environmental degradation or climate change. I ate meat for years, but when I became aware of the cruelty involved in factory farming and the environmental degradation that CAFOs cause, I found the choice to quit eating meat to be quite easy to make. Evidently others see this as a some kind of line in the sand that they absolutely will not cross because.........? I just don't understand. To me it seems that "carnivorism" is more of a religion to many than vegetarianism is to me, since it is a conscious and, to me at least, rational decision based on plenty of evidence.
Oh by the way, ppeters, vegetarian dog food is pretty easy to come by. Dogs are omnivores and adjust pretty easily. Cats are harder, since they are true carnivores and it is wrong to try to impose my moral values on creatures who don't have the same moral choices I do. However, I am lucky to live in a rural area where it is pretty easy to purchase local eggs and meat from locally and humanely raised cattle. Making your own cat food is not hard to do, and you can make several pounds at a time and freeze it.
I would never say anything about someone being Vegan. Its a personal choice and I can't see for the life of me why anyone would object to it.
The problem you speak of may arise from exactly what you just said.
" but when I became aware of the cruelty involved in factory farming and the environmental degradation that CAFOs cause, I found the choice to quit eating meat to be quite easy to make. Evidently others see this as a some kind of line in the sand that they absolutely will not cross because.........? I just don't understand. To me it seems that "carnivorism" is more of a religion to many than vegetarianism is to me, since it is a conscious and, to me at least, rational decision based on plenty of evidence."
You are in effecty condemning others choices because they don't agree with yours. "carnivorism", "cruelty", "more of a religion to many than vegetarianism is to me","rational decision "
You have just said that anyone thats not a Vegan is irrational, cruel and immoral.
Guess what someones response to that would usually be?
Henry8, I am not "condemning," I am only trying to understand why some people seem to be so adamantly opposed to giving up meat eating, despite what I still believe to be overwhelming evidence that supports this as a healthier, more environmentally beneficial choice, and now a more rational choice with respect to climate change. I oppose the logic of a vegetarian diet to the seemingly irrational choice to continue to eat meat, especially meat that has been produced in CAFOs, which are environmentally destructive and cruel to the animals imprisoned in them for their entire lives. Many people simply will not even consider the arguments for a vegatarian diet. Their devotion to maintaining a carnivorous diet seems more like an act of religious faith than a rational choice.
My comment was really a counter to an earlier post that referred to vegetarianism as a religion.
"The evidence that a vegetarian/vegan diet is best for human health, the environment, climate change is overwhelming."
Please read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith. I doubt after an honest read of this work you will ever claim that statement again.
There is a question that I have been dying to ask of those who practice "vegetarianism" as a kind of religion: What do you feed your dogs and cats? I suspect that in the United States we feed more meat to our pets than many of the those in the Third World have in their diets.
So do you suggest that we could rid the atmosphere of a global warming gases by outlawing the feeding of meat (and fish) to our pets?
Why is pet food never present in any of these carnivore/vegan debates?
There are several companies that make vegetarian dog food. I feed mine Nature's Recipe and they love it. I have raised five vegetarian dogs (big ones too) and they have all lived to be 14-15 years old, except one who was hit by a car.
There is vegetarian cat food available too.
Considering cats are carnivores, I wonder if that counts as animal cruelty? :-)
there's a saying that goes like this,
"if I can choose to add to the level of mercy in the world or add to the level of misery in the world I'll choose mercy every time.
If I can choose between adding to the level of compassion in the world or adding to the level of cruelty - I'll choose compassion every time."
go vegan - it is the #1 thing you can do to save the environment and add to the level of mercy and compassion in the world.
I'll second that emotion.
When I was a kid, living in a little Yorkshire village, my sister and I would, on occasion, spend an afternoon gazing in on the local abattoir.
It was an old stone cottage probably of Danegeld vintage. Anyway, by perching on the high windowless sill we could see the goings on inside. It was more than horrifying for our tender little minds.
On our left below were pens: sometimes cattle, pigs, sheep. To the right was a little Quasimodo type hauling off these innocent creature to be "processed" (to coin a modern phrase).
Quasimodo would grab an animal, wrap a chain, hanging off the wall, around its neck, pull it tight against the masonry and zap it on the temple with a .22 caliber projectile: the creature writhed, stunted to the ground in momentary agony.
Most distressing, as the slaughter was going on, the animals in the pens were rustling and restless: they could not see but they knew. A high density, high pitch anxiety, intoxicated the air. The pending horror was palpable.
Living in ham hocks, roast beef and Yorkshire pudding country we didn't catch on for along time: I did about thirty years ago.
So, personally, anthropomorphic warming causes do not convince me.
What does convince me is the high density, high pitched anxiety emanating from those magnificent creatures should I, ever, again ingest one. I know what it does to me . . .
I have been a veggist-ista since.
Very touching story and very well put.
The way I see this is that every single person that eats meat has the right to choose to do so. Conversely, they also have the right to change their minds and not eat meat. If a person feels that they can contribute to the betterment of the world by not eating meat, let that be their choice. It's not they're being forced to stop...they are being given information to help them make an informed choice. Lighten up, people!
Everybody is on the bandwagon as long as it is somebody else's life style that needs to be changed.
Stop driving? WHAT?
Stop using gasoline motors to play? WHAT?
Stop buying plastic wrappers? WHAT?
Stop eating meat? WHAT?
Stop killing people for fuel? WHAT?
Stop watching television? WHAT?
My fellow amerikuns are funny. Maybe worse ....
"Stop driving? WHAT? "
I've never driven, and never plan to.
"Stop using gasoline motors to play? WHAT?"
You mean like, go karts for fun? Yeah I don't do that.
"Stop buying plastic wrappers? WHAT?"
I'm buying more and more from the farmer's markets, which usually comes with no packaging.
"Stop eating meat? WHAT?"
Working on it, I only buy bacon to cook for a nice breakfast on weekends. Next, I need to work on eating something other than burgers when I eat out.
"Stop killing people for fuel? WHAT?"
Well, since I never joined the military, I can safely say I've never done this.
"Stop watching television? WHAT?"
I'm starting to limit my TV viewing to specific shows at least, and getting out of using it as a background distraction.
I am attempting to live a good, fun, whole, and low-impact life, because I practice what I preach. How about you?
With all due respect, bacon is about the worst thing you can eat if you want to have a "nice breakfast." It's full of fat, cholesterol, nitrates and calories with very little nutrition. Try whole wheat pancakes or waffles or scrambled tofu for something healthy and tasty. There's even "Fakin' Bacon" if you crave that smoked flavor.
By the way, many restaurants offer veggie burgers these days, even Burger King!
Good luck.
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=b...
http://www.lierrekeith.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-Agriculture-Hijacked-Civilization/dp/0865477132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8...
70 million Bison once roamed the Plains of North America and they added a lot less Greenhouse gases then did plowing up those same Grasslands to grow Corn.
Just as an aside the Country with the most Cattle is India . They have three times the population of Cattle/buffalo as Canada and the US combined and beef is not part of their diet.
One of the fastest GROWING sources of Greenhouse gases in the Country of India is from lands being converted to grow rice.
>> While grasslands do not lock carbon back into the earth as efficiently as forests, their permanent, year-round presence does induce a net carbon-locking far superior to industrial farms or the usual agents of "modernization
This statemnt is incorrect. Grasslands can be a better sink for Carbon then forests as per a number of recent studies carried out in Ireland and Canada.
A study showed that the root systems of prairie grasses act as a better sink then do forests because they are able to sequester the carbon deeper inside the ground then a tree can. Remember that much of a forest floor can be bare and exposed wherein grassland is covered.
This has been confirmed by studies in Ireland and Canada wherein it determined grasslands can act as a better sink then forests or peat bogs.
That is as long as you do not plow it up.
As well it has been shown that Forest Fires release more Carbon back into the atmosphere then does a prairie fire.
As well diverse NATURAL forests are a much better sink then are replanted forests.
marijuana is good for that...among many other things...
Can you provide a link for those grasslands studies? I would sincerely appreciate it. Thank you.
Several weeks back I provided a link to the Winnipeg study but try as I might I could not find it again today. So doing a quick search I find several brief mentions.
http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/Habitat/1568/CarbonSequestration.html
There are many others much more detailed wih links to full studies if you do a Grasslands as carbon sinks search.
The fact is that once grasslands are tilled under to grow food crops a large amount of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Vegetable and Ceral crops are not all that good at sequestering carbon.
What prairie grasses do is send excess carbon down through the root systems deep into the ground where it then stored. The "Cover" provided by the grass then helps to keep it there. The difference with trees is that tress store a lot of the carbon as "woody material" rather then sequestering it in the soil./
The University of Manitoba Studies as example suggested no till acgriculture wherein the land cover not broken
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4061&method=full
http://www.edie.net/ireland/news/news_story.asp?id=16808&title=Irish+grasslands+could+be+valuable+carb...
Wish the heck I had the original University of maintoba study. It was much more detailed.
what is the real agenda here? 1) tax America 2) control how many kids are born (at least with some races and not others), 3) ban hunting 4) stop coal use 5) stop fossil fuels 6) stop nuke power 7) control what kind of cars people can buy (if they can buy them at all) and then just make energy prices so high that the middle and lower classes can freeze and walk to work. Of course the rich leaders of the climate change movement can afford to pay the high energy taxes. Al Gore will still get to heat and cool his 10,000 sq ft home! And Michelle Obama can ride private jets everyday.
A couple of points for you, owl-troll: Nobody is gonna stop Americans from shooting deer. They're like a plague in many areas. Do you really want to use up the vast majority of oil, coal and uranium in only a century or so? What then? Hope for a miracle fuel?
From the climateprogress website: In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, the IPCC concluded: "In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points"
So, you are complaining about slowing GDP by one-tenth of a penny on the dollar to prevent a climate catastrophe that will play out over succeeding generations?
Another typical obfuscation from a minion &/or deluded follower of the polluters; go after those whom have done more to publicize the problem their employers are enmeshed in by personally attacking Al Gore, or even a personality, Michelle Obama, who is at best a peripheral figure in this issue.
HINT: while this may work with your choir, the rest of us have seen through this flurry of BS and know damn well that even richer CEO's of the Oil, Coal, & Nuke industries (and their paid PR flacks, complete with astro-turf lobbying and those dumb enough to believe the lies) are whom should feel discomfort in this struggle.
So everybody switches from meat to beans and rice. Do you remember the bean eating scene in Mel Brooks comedy Blazing Saddles? And they were sitting in the middle of a herd of cattle.
Stern does not consider the effect of pasture-raised livestock, rather than CAFO livestock. Using principles of Managed Intensive Grazing (MIG), farmers use minimal irrigation, if any at all, and certainly far less than commodity crops such as corn and soy grown for industrial livestock. Also, the natural grass-fed diet does not result in these large amounts of methane eructations that unnatural diets such as corn and so do.
Further, by converting commodity croplands to grass and grazing livestock would reduce chemical runoff of pesticides and fertilizers, with the improvement of downstream effects (such as river and bay dead spots). While grasslands do not lock carbon back into the earth as efficiently as forests, their permanent, year-round presence does induce a net carbon-locking far superior to industrial farms or the usual agents of "modernization" (housing developments, malls, parking lots, warehouses, highways, etc.)
Finally, it is utterly unrealistic to expect that the dietary predilections of the majority of humans can be changed by Stern's argument. A better argument would be to convert industrial practices to humane, sustainable ones, thereby creating more healthful meats and a more environmentally friendly set of best practices.
Ah, I should have read your post before I asked someone else. Was a study ever done to compare the "emissions" of pastured/natural food livestock to CAFO/corn feed livestock?
No need to rely on Stern's argument to change the "dietary predilections of the majority of humans"... the collapse of the ecosystem will take care of that just fine.
What is utterly unrealistic is to suppose that raising cattle and pigs for human consumption, particularly at US/UK rates of consumption, will ever become humane OR sustainable.
Animal agriculture already takes up 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. Livestock raised for food makes up 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. It is the biggest single cause of slash-and-burn of the worlds forests. 70% of former Amazon rain forest is used for pastureland, with much of the remainder in feed crops. Animal agriculture accounts for the majority of water consumed in the US, emits two-thirds of the world's acid-rain-causing ammonia, and is the world's largest source of water pollution--killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick.
In other words, Finnegan, you're literally trying to put lipstick on a pig.
So, SunMesa, if you had to choose one option as more likely to succeed, you would argue that convincing all people who currently eat meat to simply cease, per Stern? Over switching from industrialized production to sustainable, pastured production? Really? Good luck with that.
A few decades ago no one would have really suspected organic foods would be the big industry they are now. In other words, my suggestion could actually work. Stern's? Not so much.
Don't blame sustainable farmers for "the collapse of the ecosystem." Traditional, pasture-based farming worked for millennia just fine.
"Sustainable" production is going to be way too expensive for the average citizen. Better to educate people about the reality of meat production, sustainable or otherwise. Not eating meat and dairy is alot more practical and affordable to do than many of the other lifestyle changes that are being bandied about, such as not driving or switching to solar power. It's not that difficult either if the spirit is willing.
Stern asking people to stop is of course not enough. Similarly, people won't decrease their driving a lot just because someone pleads for that. To get change here we need something more forceful: taxation. Tax the hell out of meat! Make the polluters pay, no one can argue with the fairness in that.
To reach "humaner" ways to harm and kill others on the scale of billions is just not credible. For criticism, see http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/mission-statement/
It's not going to be a matter of choice, so there is little point in discussing the likelihood of success of Stern's approach or yours. The end of the meat-gorging era is simply inevitable.
I don't blame 'sustainable' farmers, and/or hunter-gatherers, for the collapse of the ecosystem. On the other hand, the fact that something worked for millenia does not establish that it is sustainable. The exponential growth of the human population is INHERENTLY unsustainable, even with a purely plant-based diet. A meat-based diet simply expedites the crisis. To this extent, Stern's proposal merely buys time, without addressing the fundamental problem.
In that case, it really doesn't matter if people opt to eat meat or not, does it, SunMesa? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Which brings us back to this: it's a matter of choice. I choose to eat pastured meat, in moderation, and to enjoy life rather than worrying about the end of the world.
By all means live it up, Finnegan. Enjoy what's left.
One more time. The country with the largest population of Cattle is India.
The Biomass of all the Bison that once roamed the Plains of Canada and the USA (Along with other HERD Animals) is greater then the biomass of cattle today.
It is NOT that meat a part of the diet. It is the practices used to raise the same.
(Turning them from Grazing animals to factory raised and bred)
Plowing grassland up to grow Corn, releases more Carbon into the atmosphere then allowing that Grassland to remain as a source of food for grazing animals.
Burning down forests in Brazil to raise Corn for Bio-fuels releases as much if not more CO2 as would burning down the trees to convert to grasslands for cattle.
In this country it is cheaper to feed cows corn than hay because of the federal subsidies to corn farmers. We have far too much corn, but agribusiness is being paid to grow more.
Chicken houses use straw for litter. After this litter has all the chicken shit it can hold it is fed to cows also.
If you care about the total amount of suffering in the world don't eat meat. If you care about hormones, antibiotics, and dirty water don't eat meat.
Want to see growth hormones in action? Look at these little eight year old girls with butts and boobs. Don't eat meat.
You should look less at little eight year old girls and instead read more.
Growth hormones do not cause accelerated sexual maturity.
No doubt you have been reading apologists for the beef industry, an excellent source of information.
Observations of obvious fact does not make me a pedophile.
Your personal observation is your personal observation. It is not "obvious fact".
For example, you might perceive that young girls appear to mature sexually earlier, not necessarily because it is true, but because in modern culture, they tend to dress in ways that accentuate certain bodyparts, ways that make them APPEAR to be more sexually mature.
But even if one accepts the assertion that young girls mature sexually faster nowadays, there are many reason why this might be the case. There are multiple studies that indicate the chemicals found in plastics, in personal care products such as body lotions, shampoos etc, have effects on the sex hormonal system.
Not to mention pharmaceuticals in our drinking water. I doubt anyone will ever be able to pin it down, there's way too many factors.
I also wonder if a study has ever been done to compare "emissions" from pastured animals to those eating "feed" they were not designed to eat?
I was watching a Dr. Weil video yesterday. He does not promote a vege diet, but I recently bought an 'easy-vege' cookbook to help me ease into more of a vege lifestyle. He said something interesting: that animals concentrate natural and artificial toxins into their flesh, which are then passed on in concentrated form to those that eat their flesh. Now, I knew this of seafood; that salmon and tuna can now come with really high levels of mercury. But I hadn't realized it was also true with beef, pork, chicken, etc.
The concentration of toxins is true of all animals, especially those at the top of the food chain. ESPECIALLY humans.