For Those Who are Seriously Concerned About AGW [eating meat]

Great Debates
21

I was speaking to what I perceived to be the clear tone of the OP. I think it would be a great idea if the world’s resources were not used so much for the production of meat, and that more people should embrace a vegan diet (or even just cut down on their consumption of red meat). That reduced demand would certainly help combat AGW, as well as a host of other issues. If you wish, there is certainly a debate to be had over the study in the OP, as well as the entire issue of meat production.

I just don’t believe the OP was meant to be that debate, but was rather, as I pointed out, a regurgitation of the right wing talking points.

22

I apparently got seriously whooshed by The Flying Dutchman. I thought he was 100% serious. :smack:

23

You are partially right Hamlet, in that I’m “demonizing” proponents of AGW who are providing useless solutions to a very serious problem and ignoring far more effective and less disruptive ways to immediately bring down the greenhouse forces that are affecting our climate.

Immediate solutions such as light bulbs, hybrids, and tire pressures while positive are like fighting a global strategic war with water pistols. I want to see leadership that takes the problem seriously and deals with it as an emergency that it really is. I can’t see us giving up transportation overnight, but I can see us giving up say half our meat consumption overnight. If the next president made a call for that, I would think a lot more people would respond positively.

Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has gone up 31% since the dawn of the industrial age. Methane, with a force equivalent 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide has gone up 149% since then and the contribution of methane to total greenhouse forcing is 25%. Fortunately, methane is removed from the atmoshphere 12 times faster than carbon dioxide So the potential to significantly affect the total greenhouse forcing in the immediate future is very real.

Let’s get serious is what I’m saying. So far all I’m seeing is political posturing and squabling while the high price of CO[sub]2[/sub] disgorging fossil fuel is seen as more of a problem even though it has led to a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions this summer.

So let’s take the problem seriously is what I’m saying. For a good part of the world beef is a luxury. Its a luxury I’m prepared to scale back significantly if others take it seriously as well. But I’m not going to go it alone. That will just make me feel pompous and self righteous and deprived.

24

Good points. Shipping broccoli or rice half-way around the world isn’t better than eating a cow raised a few miles away.

One of my favorite things to say to Vegans who go on about the Environment and how their lifestyle is allegedly better for the planet is:

“How many insects and animals live in that vast soybean field that feeds you?”

And Mangetout, that’s like saying that since a couple of varieties of fish will survive somewhere, we shouldn’t worry about driving the rest of the to extinction. Yes, I’m being facetious about the exinction thing in general, but as above, the entire food chain argument has a lot of issues that aren’t exactly understood by the radical “stop the murder” vegans.

25

“How many insects and animals live in that vast soybean field that feeds you?”

Less than the amount that live in the vast fields required to feed the cattle that feeds you.

While I will fully admit that vegans and vegetarians have more than their fair share of disingenuous and annoying debaters, when it comes to the environmental impact of reducing meat consumption there is never a shortage of meat eaters to come along with their half of the story arguments.

We know that eating less meat, less processed foods, and local foods makes a huge environmental impact. Whether it’s more or less than driving SUVs versus driving Hybrids is not important. It would be nice if people could just accept that their own eating habits do have an impact on the environment.

26

Cite? Remember that livestock can graze where plants cannot be productively grown.

And how do humans compare with livestock WRT the OP’s issue?

27

Let me ask you a question then. Do you believe in AGW? Do you support the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 being regulated by the EPA, and renewable energy solutions? Maybe I have confused you with another poster and/or misread the OP, but it certainly sounded to me that you were simply mocking current attempts to deal with AGW. Sorry if I misinterpreted your tone.

Every little bit helps, so I’m not going deride people who drive hybrids and try to reduce their energy use, simply because there are bigger solutions that would entail more regulation out there.

Sorry you feel that way about your own personal attempts to change the world, but I agree that people should make the personal choice to eat less red meat. There are certainly other important things that need to be done, and I think going without meat is a small start, but it is a start. I, apparently, misread the tone of your OP.

28

There are already a number of links in this thread that discuss the environmental impact of meat.

Once again, the point is that we know in general that reducing meat consumption, in particular red meat consumption will have a significant positive environmental impact.

29

Absolutely. I think it is a real threat to my children and grandchildren. I honestly believe that most people including those who believe in AGW are not taking it seriously enough and that’s pissing me off.

The Kyoto Protocol is nice, but I don’t think it is very effective. EPA regulation enforcement seems to be dependant on the politics of the day. Renewable energy solutions are very important and we need to provide incentive to the private sector to unleash an unprecedented drive to develop and implement the green technologies. See my other thread on a carbon tax on fossil fuel consumption.

Well I sort of am mocking the AGW leadership on the issue, because I believe the approach will do more to lull people into thinking enough progress is being made. The immediate solutions proposed are no sacrifice at all and totally dependant on the good will of a few.

Well I don’t mean to deride hybrid owners either, but once they know they can do more for the environment by cutting back on meat consumption, and pay no heed, then I don’t want them to feel so smug.

And I’m not proposing regulation on meat consumption. I’m not a big fan of regulation which requires consistent enforcement to be fair and effective. I would propose an environmental tax on meat with a universal cashback to the citizenry

A small start? Sounds like you disagree with the UN report stating greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are greater than those from transportation.

30

The same acreage will feed more people if food crops are grown on it than if cattle are raised on it. Eliminate food livestock, and you don’t have to develop as much land for food. I’m sure that’s probably better for the environment.

I don’t really care, though. All of us want to do the right thing for the environment, but none of us are willing to revert back to hunting and gathering in order to eliminate greenhouse emissions. The only difference between us is where we’re willing to draw the line in which doing the right thing for the environment pushes too far into our area of comfort and convenience. I’m not going to stop eating meat, but I’ll try to use less fuel, put up with the air conditioning being a bit less comfortable, take shorter showers, and recycle.

31

Well, let’s go back to the time where herds of bison roamed the Plains. There were roughly (and estimates range widely) maybe 20% more cattle now in the USA than there were Bison. In other words, about all humans have done is relaced wild ungulates with tame ungulates. The numbers are not an order of magnitude higher.

The plains of Africa at one time teemed with herds.

Ect.

But 10,000 years ago, the Earth was rather cold. So, if ungulates are a huge cause of global warming, you’d expect there to have been GW then. But there wasn’t.

Ergo, herd animals are not a large contibutor to GW.

32

Not true. Read Omnivore’s Dilema. Feed corn has about 8-10 times the yield per acre than sweet corn. And, cattle are grazed until the last few months of their life, where upon they go to a Feedlot and are fattened upon corn, soy and quite a bit of byproducts, much of which would go to waste.

wiki:Prior to entering a feedlot, cattle spend most of their life grazing on rangeland or on immature fields of grain such as green wheat pasture. Once cattle obtain an entry-level weight, about 650 pounds (300 kg), they are transferred to a feedlot to be fed a specialized diet which may be made up of hay, corn, sorghum, various other grains, by-products of food processing, such as sugar beet waste, molasses, soybean meal, or cottonseed meal, and minerals. In the American northwest and Canada, barley, low grade durum wheat, chick peas (garbanzo beans), oats and occasionally potatoes are used as feed.

33

Not everyone eats meat just for the hell of it.

Sorry, no. After being diagnosed with diabetes (after already having been diagnosed with high blood pressure) and going on the boilerplate low fat, low calorie, near-vegetarian diet that was recommended, and then, for my own education, checking my blood sugar after eating anything to see what affected me most, and still having wildly high blood sugar/A1C numbers no matter what I ate, then, just for the hell of it, switching to a no/ultra low carb diet and seeing my blood sugar numbers (and blood pressure) completely normalize, and stay that way, I think I’ll stay a dedicated carnivore, thank you very much.

It’s not so bad, now that I’m no longer spending money on all those carbs.

It’s not just a “lifestyle” choice for me, it’s not wanting to go blind or have my feet amputated. It is, truly, a boring way to eat, and if it were just a “fad diet” to me I’d have gone off it long ago, but whenever I think about switching back to low fat, low calorie, which while also boring, has a lot more variety to it, I check my blood sugar and remind myself why I’m eating this way. A perk is that I’m rarely hungry and eat much less, whereas I was hungry a l l t h e t i m e while on low fat/calorie.

My regular doctor and my endocrinologist both know and approve. My doctor, somewhat stunned at the difference, took me off the high blood pressure medicine I’d been on for years (and was told I’d be on for the rest of my life) and my blood pressure has been totally normal for a year and a half now. My A1C numbers are now the same as someone who’s never had diabetes. Thank you cows and chickens. My gratitude is boundless.

I didn’t start this to lose weight, but I have lost 40 pounds so far.

We don’t own a car and haven’t for 18 years. I figure that makes up for my meat-eating footprint now.

34

No, it’s not. My post was addressing the factual accuracy of yours, not the moral implications of what we should or should not worry about.

35

No dice. You made the claim; you provide the cite. As I said, livestock can graze where it is not possible to profitably grow crops. Further, to give up cattle / beef would also mean no leather and no milk. To give up sheep / mutton / lamb would mean no wool. What are you going to use to replace leather for shoes? Plastic?

36

And how much of that soybean comes from Brazil?

37

It is totally pointless coming up with solutions to GW that ignore the human element.

You might say why doesn’t everyone who lives within two miles of their workplace walk to and from work rather then driving/getting the bus.
It would cut down emissions quite a bit and extend the use of the oil we have BUT people just wont do it.
Many of those people are probably seriously concerned about GW and the enviroment in general but when it comes down to a reduction in their perceived quality of life and the sheer inconvenience day after day then its a no go.

So saying things like why dont we all become vegetarians and other equally absurd "solutions"to GW not only wont happen but makes it more likely that people wont bother to listen when sensible solutions ARE actually suggested…

I seriously resent anyone other then a doctor dictating what I should or should not eat which is after all one of my most basic human rights(Canniblism excepted,god it was tough having to give that up).

Personally I believe that this is a veiled attempt by veggies to get us to follow their practices and GW is a handy pretext.

Cant make you feel guilty about eating our sweet,loveable four legged people?
Well lets try and achieve the same objective by making you feel guilty about the enviroment.
Its got to worth a try.

38

:dubious: That makes no sense, at least as concerns the beef market in the U.S.

Forest cover in the U.S. is on an upward trend:

(pdf) Cite.

Meanwhile, US beef production has grown to record levels. April and May of 2008 saw the US set records for beef production. Cite.

39

Seconded. I’ve been overweight since I was six years old. I’m now 47 and insulin-resistant (the preliminary stage to Type II diabetes). The only diet that has ever enabled me to lose weight and improve my insulin/blood sugar balance is a strict low-carb diet of meat, fat and vegetables. If I tried to live on a “meat is bad” diet of grains, tubers and legumes, I would soon weigh 300 pounds and be on medication.

40

I think this may be sort of a red herring. When we have really reduced our meat consumption to the point where there is not enough leather for shoes or wool for clothes as a by-product, let us know. But my WAG would be that we are still pretty far from that point.