"Meat Is a Global Warming Issue"

[flvegan]

"There are many human activities that contribute to global warming. Among the biggest contributors are electrical generation, the use of passenger and other vehicles, over-consumption, international shipping, deforestation, smoking and militarism. (The U.S. military, for example, is the world's biggest consumer of oil and the world's biggest polluter.)

What many people do not know, however, is that the production of meat also significantly increases global warming. Cow farms produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane per year, the two major greenhouse gases that together account for more than 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions, substantially contributing to "global scorching."

According to the United Nations Environment Program's Unit on Climate Change, "There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock." The 2004 State of the World is more specific regarding the link between animals raised for meat and global warming: "Belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world's annual production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas."

The July 2005 issue of Physics World states: "The animals we eat emit 21 percent of all the CO2 that can be attributed to human activity." Eating meat directly contributes to this environmentally irresponsible industry and the dire threat of global warming."

more at link:
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/40639
=====================================================

I'd like to make one statement here, while I zip up my new flamesuit, as I'm sure many folks will have opinions that vary widely. I, for one, am vegan. For quite some time. However, I'm not posting this article to make those that have taken big steps towards reducing their "environmental footprint" think that I'm pointing a finger, screaming hypocrite. I'm not suggesting that. Folks that eat meat but walk, bicycle, use solar, take public transport, drive a Prius...whatever, have all taken some big steps. Every step, no matter how big or small is important, beneficial and deserving of appreciation.

[LaurenG]

1. Great post.

Something the author of "Diet for a small planet" has been trying to get across for years.:bounce: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[MADem]

2. I am not a vegan, I am not a vegetarian

But I eat meat maybe two or three times a month, and not a lot of it. Which is probably how much folks ate it back in "the old days."

You don't need bacon in the morning, bologna for lunch, and steak for supper to be happy. And you save a bundle if you go easy on the meat.

[ms liberty]

3. It's not that we eat meat, it's that we raise more than we need IMO...

Every grocery store has a meat case that's full to overflowing with meat available for purchase. It all has a sell-by date, so I always wonder how much ends up in the dumpster? Do we really need that much meat to choose from in our stores? The overabundance is the issue - the fact that Americans must have "plenty to choose from." And I think it probably is more prevalent here than in other countries, although I don't have any evidence or personal knowledge on which to base that opinion. Perhaps some of our DU'ers who live in other countries could answer that?

[WhiteTara]

34. it's how we raise them, house them,

slaughter them that is so wrong.

[TahitiNut]

4. I figure that each cow I eat ...

... is no longer farting or eating grain. :evilgrin: (I did, however, change to a propane grill instead of that awful charcoal.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. That's the spirit.

I'm going to go have a burger now.

[flvegan]

9. I have to ask...

Is it sarcasm, or do you just not give a shit?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I don't give a shit.

:shrug:

[flvegan]

16. Global warming thanks you, I'm sure.

Thanks, from those of us that do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Question..

what kind of car do you drive?

[flvegan]

24. Mazda Protege...30 mpg all day long.

Oh, and I telecommute. You want to make this personal? Let's dance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well there you go.

Want to make this personal? No. I don't give a shit.

[flvegan]

31. Sorry

to disappoint you in not giving you some strawman shit to throw back at me...mark.

[guinivere]

6. lol

I'm also doing my part to cut down on cow farts.

[1620rock]

10. Hmm, I eat no meat and sorta expect to live longer...

...er, do I really want to live longer all things considered? :shrug:

[flvegan]

8. Now, there's an idea...

what if you could capture the methane, uh, "expelled" by the cow and use it to cook with? No more fossil fuel to burn...sort of a yin/yang. Or eating it raw, I guess.

Of course, that doesn't change the whole "deforestation" issue or the pollution of drinking water...but, meh, those things will work themselves out, I'm sure.

[TahitiNut]

11. Cooking the cow in its own gasses?

Is that kosher? :dunce: I do like steak tartare. Yum.


:evilgrin:

[flvegan]

17. Of course it's not kosher.

That's just silly.

[Not_Longer_Than_20_C]

37. In Africa, I saw where a home where they shoveled manure

into a closed pit and piped the methane produced to their house for cooking. So a cow could easily have been broiled in his own gas, but I think the cows were too valuable to eat.

[TahitiNut]

70. Dairy farmers have actually heated the barns by capturing

... the methane (which rises) in the roofing above their stalls. (I read about that years ago.)

[bbinacan]

49. I'm with you but

I can't give up the charcoal grill. And I like my steak medium rare.

[BronxBoy]

97. Please tell me

that you don't cook t-bones on a propane grill

[TahitiNut]

117. Who can afford T-bone?

I can only afford round and sirloin and 'grilling' cuts - and hamburger. Over $5/lb. and I pass. (I also don't pay $x/lb. for bones.) I get the best value at CostCo. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

7. Jeremy Rifkin has written an excellent book on this...

Called "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture." He makes many of these arguments...

One does not have to become a Vegan, or even a vegetarian to make a difference. Simply cutting down ones meat consumption to once a day is a big help..

There are excellent organizations that deal with Animal Cruelty on factory farms, which if widely known would no doubt reduce meat consumption...

The best of these I think is the Humane Faming Association...

[Kailassa]

72. The Human Farming Association ...???

Ohh, the Humane Farming Association.

:evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

76. Nope I had it right...

"Soylent Green Is PEOPLE"

[Kailassa]

79. I wouldn't put even that past this admin,

if they believed they could get away with it, getting rid of "undesirables"
and making a profit at the same time.
But you can be sure they'd squeeze the oil out of our carcasses first.

But what the heck ... They might taste great, and that's all that matters.
They can always throw in the occasional repuke for that yummy pork flavor.

:evilgrin:

[WinkyDink]

13. I and the Mister gave up beef products years ago, but mainly because of

Mad Cow. If that helps otherwise, all to the good.

[Kickoutthejams23]

14. 21 percent of "human activity?"

So if we kill all the cows we reduce our contribution to greenhouse gases 21%.

Hmmm so how much will it be reduced if we also kill all the deer, buffalo, elephants and other bothersome mammals (Don't even get me started on those Global Warming terrorists the whales)

This doesn't strike you in some way as silly.

If we have no animals global warming will be reduced?

I agree we are in a warming trend and humans will have to adapt. (as opposed to our friends the Neanderthals who we killed of by severe climate change. The cold killed of the forests and they couldn't compete with the human upstarts in the new steppes.)

But tying it in to some Vegan religion that wants to eliminate the cow seems inappropriate.

[flvegan]

19. Didn't actually read the article, did you?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clyde_dubyaD40]

15. Let us not forget that the methane producing agent also

fertilizes the soil in which the vegetables are grown. To look at one side of the issue from a personal lifestyle choice perspective does not advance the debate. For myself, and this is only my choice, I eat meat on a daily basis. If you wish to be a vegan, more power to you. Besides, let me ask which you would prefer, a natural fertilizer or some chemical made by Monsanto or Dow?

[LeftyMom]

20. That's hardly the only or best source of soil amendment

Plowing under the unharvested parts of the plant, planting and plowing under a cover crop, rotating crops, composting wasted plant parts, excess food, neighborhood green waste and using it for compost all have similar effects, without the consequences to environmental and human health.

[Kickoutthejams23]

26. We are talking about methane production right?

A compost pile like you describe defiantly produces large substantial quantities of methane.

[LeftyMom]

28. It'd do that in a landfill too, only slower.

Food waste is unaviodable. Yard waste, aviodable if people change thier landscaping habits. Cow/pig/chicken shit? Pretty fucking aviodable- all you have to do is stop breeding, feeding and killing a few billion (yes with a B) in the US alone every year.

[flvegan]

22. This has to be a joke.

That sort of justification is not even laughable. You are right, though...it's about choice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. It's not meat per se; it's our industrial way of producing meat

We've turned the cow, a capable eco-friendly animal, into a fossil fuel machine. I think it takes about 25 gallons of oil to make a cow nowadays, at least according to Michael Pollan's excellent work on this. Yes, it's funny to be a smug meat eater (Lord knows I am), but the industrial production of beef is indeed part and parcel of an ecological organization tending toward disaster. That's undeniable. So the smugness, while funny in ways, is not really that funny.

[flvegan]

23. While I agree with most of your post, I have to say

the cow is not eco-friendly as a food source whatsoever.

"Smug meat eater" doesn't strike me as being any funnier than "smug H2 driver" though.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. How so?

I'm talking the cow raised under conditions other than those of industrial beef production.

[flvegan]

45. Regardless, the conversion of water/food for a cow into

caloric intake for a person...c'mon.

[Clyde_dubyaD40]

29. Using that logic can also be used when it comes to other

farm commodities. How many gallons of oil does it take to produce the metric tons of wheat, corn, beans and other vegetables that feeds the world? Larger populations demand more economical means of producing food. Do we allow people to starve because of the possibility of of producing greenhouse gases? Do we go back to when farmers were only able to work forty acres of land that fed a few dozen or do we use that forty acres to few hundreds. As much as I desire an good environment, I must also look at the reality of humanity. There are much better ways of cleaning our planet. IMHO

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. That's trite

The current problem is not one of under-production. Rather, there is over-production, and piss-poor distribution. Many people much smarter than me are working on sustainable agriculture that can feed the planet. That's not the problem. The choice is not between our current outrageous and unsustainable system and forty acre small farming that would leave humanity starving (though the greedy fuckers of agribusiness like to put out such nonsense). Your play for "reality" misses only one thing: the real situation in industrial agriculture. Nice try, though. The false choice you present is part and parcel of industry rhetoric. At the end of the day, the current system is simply unsustainable. That it is not even necessary to feed large populations, and causes far more problems than it solves, is the comical besides-the-point...

[Clyde_dubyaD40]

66. So what do you suggest we do? Should we stop farming

in this manner altogether? Do we wait until these intrepid individuals get done "working on sustainable agriculture?" Is it not prudent to over produce in case of drought, pestilence, disease or blight? American farmers work their asses off to make it so you can demonize their "industry rhetoric" with a full stomach.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. Yes, I suggest we immediately stop the current practices, tomorrow

I mean, are you serious? You are full of false choices, and it is a sign of sloppy thinking. Of course you can't stop the fully entrenched system quickly, but you can transition from it rationally less slowly, and that's the point. You seem to want it to last forever. It annot, and will not. The only question is whether it ends by our choice towards the construction of a better system, or whether it collapses into disaster, as it certainly will without our intervention.

We must take seriously the problems with the current system and begin seriously working towards alternatives. Will this be gradual? Yes, but hopefully not too gradual, because the current system is unsustainable.

Here's what will make it less gradual: the reduction of lazy thinking that says the current way is the only way to feed the world. That's bullshit, and it is bad, awful, and ultimately stupid and self-destructive industry rehetoric.

As for thanking the farmers, I do. The industrial farming system has done more to hurt and economically cripple farmers than anything else. The ridiculous farm policies pushed by giant agri-business has farmers overproducing corn at a fucking loss with only federal subsidies to scrape by with and - paradoxically - encourage such unsustainable and, frankly, downright irrational economic behavior. This is not a system that helps farmers either, friend.

[T Town Jake]

78. Excellent post, and I notice the poster you're replying to only manages...

...to sputter nonsense in reply.

:thumbsup:

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. Pretty passive aggressive there

Feel free to provide specifics.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

104. Care to explain yourself.

Because poster #29 is the one sputtering nonsense.

[NMMNG]

80. Answers

What an acre of land can do

- an acre of land can produce 40,000 potatoes

- 10,000 pounds of green beans

- 30,000 pounds of carrots,

- 50,000 pounds of tomatoes,

but

- only 250 pounds of beef.

YET

56% of U.S. farmland is devoted to beef production

80% of all agricultural land in the UK is used to rear livestock

50 per cent of all cereal crops grown in Britain are used as animal feed.

80% of corn and 95% of oats grown in the U.S. are eaten by livestock







What it costs to produce one pound of meat/beef

16 Pounds of grain and soybeans are needed to produce a pound of edible flesh

5,000 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of beef
vs
25 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat

78 Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef
vs.
2 calories of fossil fuel used to get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans

33% of all raw materials consumed by U.S. is towards the production of livestock
vs.
2% of all raw material consumed to produce a complete vegetarian diet




300,000,000 pounds of meat exported to U.S. annually from Central and South America

55 square feet of tropical rainforest is cleared to produce 125 Gms of rainforest beef

1,000 species face extinction every year due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses

survival of indigenous human populations, and their way of living, is also threatened by such operations

75 % of Central American children under the age of five are undernourished




http://www.the-south-asian.com/Oct2002/Vegetarianism2.htm

[Viking12]

96. Well, not all land is equal....

You might actually try farming sometime. The selective stats you use are very misleading.

A high percentage of land is unsuitable for producing crops. Try depending on growing 40,000 potatoes/acre and try surviving as a farmer.

As another poster pointed out, it's not meat per se, it's industrial processes used to produce meat. Unfortunately, those same industrial practices are used to raise "vegetarian" crops and are also significant contributors to climate change. I often get a good chuckle out of the self-righteous vegetarians that have no clue they're eating food imported from Mexico and South America. The food supply is extremely dependent upon oil. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides, and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. The industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels. Not to mention the oppressive labor practices used

Unless, you're eating strictly locally grown foods, you're every bit as culpable as those pesky meat-eaters. Most of the food consumed in our household is locally produced. From the local CSA to grass-fed-beef to free-range chicken to wild deer & fish to the veggies from my garden we eat well with a strong environmental conscience.

[mom cat]

119. Thanks Buffy. Those stats say a lot!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

103. However, the energy put into growing that grain could be put into

feeding humans directly, as opposed to feeding it to livestock. Eating meat is a huge waste of resources in terms of oil, water, and FOOD for humans. That, my friend, is the true reality of humanity.

Also, organic food can be grown for the same price & at the same level of production as the Monsanto frankenfoods. However, the government heavily subsidizes the frankenfood industry but not the organic farmers. It doesn't have to involve going back a couple hundred years in farming in order to grow healthy food ethically.

[Porcupine]

85. Alternative/permaculture meat production sequester GHG's

by building the soil in nothern states. Soil as vs. sand is sand, clay and silt AND substaintial organic matter(Carbon). The original midwest soils had been built up six feet higher than present farming practices leave them by free grazing of buffalo and prairie dogs. Some farmers are learning how to rebuild soils while grazing them.

http://tinyurl.com/zyyk3

You can have your beef and a happy planet too. Or you can have buffalo; you just can't have factory farmed, corn-fed beef.

[alcibiades_mystery]

101. Exactly my point

Cheers.

[rman]

107. That, and exsessive consumption

Ie there's only one way to reduce methane produced by cattle, and that's to reduce the number of cattle - which means we'll have to consume less meat. Of course less wastefull production of meat will help.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Funny. Every Time I Read An Article Like This, I Feel Like Goin To Outback

I think I'm gonna go there tomorrow night.

Let them work on fossil fuels first. I ain't givin up my 24 oz juicy ass steak. :)

[LeftyMom]

30. Mmmmm, enviornmental destruction and an RNC contribution.

Good choice of cuisine. :thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Sorry, But They Got The Best Pre-Dinner Bread Around And The Best Steak I

can enjoy consistently.

Besides, every single hour I work on any given day is technically contributing to the right via my tax dollars, so I tend to not really sweat the nickel that might make its way there via my steak. :hi:

[LeftyMom]

38. Why add to it?

I'm not being confrontational, I'm asking. I really don't understand why is any meal is worth funding those who fight your principles?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Honest Answer?

Cause I've never bought into that principle. It is too generic and narrow of a view of reality when purchasing from such a place. The fact is, far far more of my money is going to pay the salaries of good working class employees like you and me, who are quite likely to be aligned with my principles. I'm not so readily going to boycott places and by organizing such on a wide enough scale put those people's jobs at risk due to an idealistic notion that by doing so I'm going to make a dent in the contributions available to the RNC.

[LeftyMom]

48. I'm not saying don't go out for dinner

There are plenty of places to eat that are local, maybe progressive, maybe offering less enviornmentally destuctive fare. They have employees who'd love to get your tips too. :)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

105. There are far better choices to eat than Outback in this area.

Even with better steaks (or so I heard anyway). Put your money where your ethics are.

[flvegan]

32. I guess taste trumps all then, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. I've Never Eaten A Strawman. Do They Taste Yummy?

[flvegan]

40. Like I said...

I guess taste trumps all then, right? That's the justification it seems. It's not strawman when you raise it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

36. Smoking is a cause of Global warming!??

:rofl:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noahmijo]

46. Vegan here the only way to convert though is to show everyone

just how many cool dishes you can make up that do not involve animal products that taste twice as good plus you don't have to cope with the fact that you're eating a rotting carcus sprinkled with fecal matter.

[Clyde_dubyaD40]

51. As if it is better to eat something grown in fecal matter?

[noahmijo]

62. Yup

The actual grown product doesn't contain the fecal matter the soil below it does, but the fecal matter does not make up the actual product's composition whereareas the animal that becomes your dinner has not only been rolling in it for days it likely has been eating it as well and guess what part of the cow you eat...

Also it is possible though hard but possible to have absolute control over your grown product-what soil what nutrients it gets how it gets washed, ect.

Do you really believe meat farmers go the extra mile to ensure that their product doesn't poison you?


Plus as a vegan I am in company with people like this:





Meat eaters however can't deny that their choice of diet benefits these guys



Oh his organization are huge Bushie contributors btw

http://www.beefusa.org/deImages/Queen,%20John.jpg


Also you help contribute to this



Stare at this for awhile and see if you're cold hearted enough to still crave beef.

[Crandor]

47. Articles like this only help the Republicans.

This is probably part of the smear campaign against environmentalism. Now freepers can say "environmentalists want to ban meat!!!1" and they'll appear credible to the uninformed.

[LeftyMom]

50. It's not a smear campaign against enviornmentalism

It's what the god-damned data says. Science isn't about politics, it's about the truth. What we do with it when we find it is up to us.

[bbinacan]

54. Politics can sometimes influence

the science.

[LeftyMom]

57. Certainly

But this is something that

1. is well established

2. runs contrary to business interests, where junk science almost always is produced to favor some powerful economic interest

[bbinacan]

63. Established how?

The article linked by the OP is written by a sociologist who seems to cherry-pick his quotes from the research. No links to the research are provided.

[LeftyMom]

67. There are plenty of other articles and books on the subject

(feel free to check my journal or the OP's for links, let either of us know if you'd like more) and data linking meat consumption and enviornmental damage date back at least to the publication of Frances Moore Lappe's first edition of Diet for a Small Planet, which came out in 1972.

[Kickoutthejams23]

83. It is a smear against global warming.

If cows flatulence is 22% that means all the coal plants, suvs, etc are only 78%. Since nature produces alot more methane from sources other than cows. (Deer whales horses wetlands ect...) It isn't hard to conclude from that article that the human footprint on overall global warming is very very small.

This very well may be true. but it seems from the article that wiping out of the buffalo herds is better for the environment than not driving a Hummer.

In other words the article implies indirectly that humans are not to blame for global warming. It's the damn animals. (Not to mention that if humans are not causing this increase then I guess there is nothing we can do to stop it.)

Save the earth shoot an elephant is not a good environmental slogan.

[LeftyMom]

84. Nature has ways of dealing with it's own crap

Microbes, dung beetles, etc. What happens is that massive quantities of poop concentrated into feedlots, waste lagoons, chicken sheds and other confined places are more than nature can break down. Some get spread over fields (this is also used to deal with human waste) but there's no effective means of breaking much of it down in a safe way.

[lostnfound]

99. Bobby Kennedy Jr had an excellent documentary on that very subject

Happen to catch it late one night on public TV. Talked about feedlots polluting rivers and lakes in North Carolina, these massive factory farms with 15,000 or more pigs, and how factory-farm-lobbyists was disrupting the entire political system in parts of Canada, and how the small farmers around the big ones felt driven off their land because the stench from the big ones made them sick all the time.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

106. It is not a smear against global warming.

If you think the article implies that it's okay to drive a hummer, if we shoot elephants, then I suggest you go read the article a few more times over. Also, cows are not a necessary part of the eco-system. They are bred for us. They are not wild animals. The more people who up meat (or at least reduce their consumption significantly), the demand goes down, less animals are bred, less methane produced. The world does not need to waste vital resources on the meat industry.

[Kickoutthejams23]

116. Well wheat and soy aren't wild plants.

I mean come on man has been genetically altering animals and plants for thousands of years.(This actually is one of the humorous things about both the frankenfood debates and creationism but I digress)

You know the population of elephants and whales has increased pretty dramatically of late. And you can't spit in the woods without hitting a deer. I smell a global warming solution. :sarcasm:

In other words you are saying cows are different they are not "real" animals. Cool that relieves me any moral qualms about eating them. :woohoo:

I hardly think large mono crops of strawberries are a necessary part of the ecosystem. And considering the fuel and child labor used to produce them I hardly think it is some moral high ground when you eat them instead of a steak.

You know as bio-fuels become more popular we will need much more farmland for our energy needs. Gee I wonder where we will find it. (Hint go south till you hit the Amazon river and take a right) Maybe you should be fighting bio-fuels instead of cows? Or maybe we should stop importing vegetables from South America and Asia and stick with homegrown food such as in season fruits vegetables and meat.

Actually if you want to push a Vegan agenda fine appeal to peoples moral qualms and nutritional concerns. But I think you undercut your own arguments when you claim cows aren't "real" animals. And you torpedo global warming when you try to prove that flatulent animals are a bigger problem than industrialization.

[noahmijo]

64. Did the article lie?

if so show where and then tell me how a fact based article "hurts" the environmental movement?

Should we stop talking about global warming while we're at it cause you know what big fans the Flat Earth Society are of that.

[flvegan]

68. Friend, you'll be waiting a LONG time

for an answer to that one (Did the article lie?).

Nice post, btw.

[cigsandcoffee]

52. I'm happy to drive a little farty car, and may quit smoking someday...

But I'm not giving up steak. Sorry.

[LWolf]

53. How about if the meat that I eat

is wandering around out in my pasture right now, eating grass? Most of the meat that I eat comes from my own place, or my neighbor's small homesteads. My little place houses some sheep and chickens (and my horses, but I don't eat them.) The chickens free range in the orchard, and the sheep have plenty of pasture. Eight hens, 2 roosters, the chicks one broody hen hatched out, and 5 sheep, 3 that will lamb next spring. The lambs will eventually end up in the freezer or going to other small homesteaders. Providing meat is actually their secondary job; they do a great job keeping the acres clear and clean without tractor, mower, or winter burn-off.

I also, should I ever decide to go get a fishing licence, have trout and salmon in a river a 30 minute hike out my back gate. The deer population is more than healthy here, but I don't own a gun and have never been interested in hunting. Still, the deer are like rabbits in this region; small groups and large groups (I've seen as many as 30 together), there aren't enough non-human predators to keep them balanced, so that's always an option if I ever really needed it.

Is my footprint small enough?

[flvegan]

71. Can you handle the truth?

Your footprint, compared to altogether too many others, is tiny. I respect what you're doing. It's not about the "meat that I eat" in your circumstance. It seems that you're doing right by the environment, and that's what this is about.

Is your footprint small enough? I don't know. However, in what you've stated here, on topic, I'd say yes.

[LWolf]

114. That's good to know.

I can handle it, good or not; if not, then it's cause to examine habits and make adjustments.

I think everyone can do that, if they feel like it's ok to adjust one step at a time, and to gradually reduce that footprint.

[Cobalt Violet]

55. K & R.

The truth hurts people sometimes.

[tinrobot]

56. What's the environmental footprint of fish?

Better than meat? worse?

[LeftyMom]

59. Depends.

Your best bet if you eat fish is to go with relatively sustainable options. The Monterey Bay Aquarium prints a pocket quide to sustainable fisheries for each region of the country. Let me get the link and edit it in. :)

http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp

[TexasProgresive]

58. The vegetative matter that cows eat

would be eaten by wild ruminants or just die back and decompose into CO2 and Methane. It's part of a balanced system. The problem is all this carbon that was buried in the earth that we bring to the surface and burn. That carbon is unbalancing the system.

[LeftyMom]

60. but most cows aren't eating grass

They're eating soy, corn and grain grown specificly for them (often varieties that aren't bred or approved for human consumption.) Even if cow (and pig and chicken) shit were't a problem both for global warming and for air and water pollution, animal agriculture is still the cause of most of the enviornmentally destructive monocropping in this country.

[Kailassa]

77. Forests are not being cut down to make room for "wild ruminants."

A major issue here is deforestation in the Amazon to make room for cattle ranches.

The bulk of these forested areas are then burned, and mulch left unburned rots.
- not only adding further to the CO2 and methane, but removing major CO2 to O2
converters (trees) from the system.

I still eat meat, I love it, but only rarely these days. Concentrating on meat
as a food source blinds people to how delicious vegetarian dishes can be.

[Deja Q]

61. Can't the methane gas be collected then used for some purpose?

It is combustable...

[flvegan]

65. Like a dome over a factory farm?

Wonder what the cost would be there.

Even still, doesn't change the other aspects, does it?

[pooja]

69. People can afford beef still?

[amandabeech]

74. You can make a big difference just with cutting back on beef,

particularly the most succulent steaks. Hey, I like them, but they're a treat.

Those steaks get that way by feeding beef cattle lots of corn and soybeans. Much of the tougher meat is from dairy cattle who no longer give much milk.

Cattle, beef or dairy, are really made to eat mostly grasses, fresh or dried as hay. Cattle are the cousins of the buffalo that ranged across the plains. Cattle raised on pasture where appropriate for the soil and weather really aren't so bad for the environment as cattle raised on lots of corn that requires much water and much fertilizer. Supplements are fine, of course, and may be essential in raising healthy calves from healthy cows and in producing dairy products from healthy cows.

Like all humans, my body doesn't produce all the proteins I need. I have to either eat meat, fish, seafood, dairy or some legumes for my full protein needs, or carefully balance grains and legumes.

In ascending order of efficient production of a complete complement of proteins humans need, there are soybeans, farm-raised vegetarian fish like tilapia, fowl, pork and beef. Combos of grains and beans also will do.

A nicely prepared meal of tilapila like I had at ubiquitous Applebee's recently gives lots of protein with a lower load on the environment than corn-fed beef. So does something like kung-pao chicken or twice-cooked pork with tofu over rice. Vegetarian chili over rice or noodles or with corn bread, Cincinnati style, also does the trick with lots of flavor.

I guess that my rambling point is that you don't have to give up beef entirely or become vegan to reduce your environmental food load. Just eat less marbled beef and eat other, more efficiently produced protein instead. And need I add that many of us North Americans could also watch our weight and portions as well.

[newburgh]

75. Stick with chicken and fuel up yer car with it!

Or, as the general says about Rummy, chicken feces...

http://www.truehealth.org/methane2.html

[951-Riverside]

81. Touch my meat and I will touch your teeth with my fist.

...now excuse me ...heart tightning ...arm numb ...*plop*

[Lorien]

82. It sure is:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

but will most Americans give up their precious, beloved burgers to help save life on earth? Doubtful.

[Blue-Jay]

86. I agree completely!

(better, guys?)

[flvegan]

87. Agree with what, specifically?

I'll ask for forgiveness on this one, considering the track record.

[Blue-Jay]

88. I agree with anything you say, Sir.

Happy Saturday Morning!

:bounce:

[flvegan]

93. Okay, though I expected more...considering.

[upi402]

89. yes, go vegan! n/t

[Kickoutthejams23]

90. Quick fact check

First of all a locally grazed cattle is carbon neutral. Organic vegetables are often not carbon neutral.

Also there are other facts ignored by the author: link here http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazil_criticizes_media_reports.htm

"It also noted that soybean farming in the Amazon grew by 57 percent between 1999 and 2001 and was "an important factor in recent deforestation."

The agriculture ministry suggested that many of the recent press reports linking the country's agricultural expansion with rain forest destruction confuse the area legally considered the Amazon _ some 5 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) covering five Brazilian states -- with actual standing forest.

According to the ministry only 645,500 hectares (1.59 million acres) of cotton, rice, corn and soy were planted in what it called the "Equatorial Amazon," while 9 million hectares (22 million acres) were planted in the so-called "Legal Amazon." "


While cattle is a primary deforestation problem soy is quickly catching up due to the popularity of soy milk and other products. (No word on the energy cost to ship soy from Brazil to the US for processing.)

This complicated issue not helped by people who hijack it to support their particular set of beliefs.

[LeftyMom]

91. Most of that soy and all soy production is used for cattle feed and other

livestock production. 87% is exported to Europe as soy cakes used in livestock feed. One of the main motivators for Europeans to buy Brazilian soy for this purpose is the lack of availability of non-GMO soybeans from US farmers.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HongKonger]

115. China

What do you think is feeding the world's working machine in China?

Brazil's Soy.

Interesting that São Paulo headquarters more German companies than any other single city outside Germany. And São Paulo's GDP is around 60 billion euro, which makes it one of the richest cities in the world.

[lonestarnot]

95. Slash and burn.

[Lasher]

98. What about current and future human population levels?

This aspect is not mentioned at all in either your OP or in the linked article. It's true to say that some aspects of our food production are unsustainable, but so is a strategy of occupying a smaller footprint while ignoring the ongoing increase in the number of feet in the room.

[MadHound]

102. Trouble is, livestock is actually part of the organic produce equation

Manure, from all livestock, is a vital component not just for organic farming, but also conventional farming as well. Those fine veggies that you're eating, well they came a plot of dirt fertilized with cow, horse, sheep, pig or poultry manure. You take said shit out of the growing process, and farmers will be forced to use tons and tons of chemicals. You want more organic fruits and vegetables, then we've got to have a large supply of manure, it's that simple.

Besides, it isn't like millions of head of livestock haven't always been around. Just one hundred and fifty years ago, millions of wild buffalo roamed the Midwest and West, and they produced as much methane and CO2 as cattle do:shrug: Not to mention the plethora of other animal species which have dwindled in number or vanished entirely. Factor that in, and I imagine that the methane and CO2 rates have risen that much relative to what they've always been.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theophilus]

109. Overpopulation is the key here. We need to start reducing human

population....by choice. It WILL be greatly reduced through catastrophe if we don't choose to do so.
Anyway, can meat be grown in culture. Can you produce "steak" in a big petri dish? We could have a vast complex and still come out way ahead on the land issue. Let the government grow the meat and divy up the profits among the existing ranchers. Slowly let them "get out of the business".

We have TOO MANY PEOPLE eating too much meat. The huge meat "businesses" are a problem, too. We need to move back to the smaller farm and let many more folks add to the food supply. We can eat more chicken and fish. The main problems, imho, are too many people and poor husbandry practices. We need, in our culture, to get the idea, "Smaller is better" and take a big step back into the 1900s for our food production and many other things.

Fewer people. Jobs for people where they can actually have what they need in life. Affordable health care for all. The world could be a better place very quickly. Change WILL happen.


Let's Help everyone Live Positively by Environmental Rescue.

[HannibalBarca]

110. While I do believe

that human demands for meat are putting a strain on our ecosystem this line of thinking can be brought to a ridiculous point. For example if all 6 billion people on this planet switch to being vegans what type of strain would that put on our resources. Can everyone restrict themselves to eating and using only products derived from non animal sources??, can everyone afford to?? Of course not, like with all things in life there needs to be balance, which is what we dont have at the moment with our high density chicken/cattle farms. Proper resource management and alternative/renewable/ energy sources are the only way to sustain such a high population with equally high energy demands. I realise that some people have a very red meat heavy diet and while I don’t agree with that education is the best way of helping those people understand the implications for themselves and the planet instead of adopting a smug superiority and allying oneself with Einstein et al. I myself eat a very varied diet of vegetables, high fibre brown bread, fruits, chicken, pasta, a variety of fish and on a (very) rare occasion steak. Another salient point is that a lot of these pre packaged burgers you see in supermarkets do not actually contain real beef (at least not 100%) they are typically a mishmash of beef/water/colurings/presevatives/stabilisers/saw dust/eye of newt etc....

Additionally, as another poster has stated, population control in the form of freely available contraceptives and education in developing nations is a must. In this respect Bush along with the catholic church are simply inexcusable for their continued insistence on abstinence and no condoms policy.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. Considering the vast amount of grain that is grown simply for beef

production, vegan diets put FAR less strain on our eco-system. Also, it's actually cheap to eat vegan, provided you don't exist on processed foods. It's the processed products that many people rely on that adds undue expense to the diet.

[U4ikLefty]

112. I have a tasteless "meat & global warming" joke I will keep to myself

...you're welcome!!!

[arwalden]

113. Oh I Think I Know Which One You Mean... It's Hysterical!!!

[Gormy Cuss]

118. Thanks for the post, flvegan

I appreciate that the intent is to remind us all that we all leave an environmental footprint. The article is a tad too preachy for my tastes, but the issue of using so many resources to produce massive quantities of meat and the inevitable side effect of increase methane production is something that is not mentioned in many global warming stories. It's not a new idea -- Frances Moore Lappe discussed it in Diet for a Small Planet.

Human overpopulation is rarely discussed in global warming stories either.