Eating beef 'is less green than driving'

[Flabbergasted]

Eating beef 'is less green than driving'
Last Updated: 1:48am BST 23/07/2007

Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday.

Japanese scientists used a range of data to calculate the environmental impact of a single purchase of beef.

Taking into account all the processes involved, they said, four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide.

This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.

That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml

[porphyrian]

1. Preachy people suck. - n/t

[bryant69]

2. While i am likely to continue eating meat

This is simply a recital of facts. If the facts are wrong, challenge the facts.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

3. I'm sure. Preachy people still suck, though. - n/t

[Flabbergasted]

4. Why are you preaching then?

[porphyrian]

5. What makes you think I'm preaching? - n/t

[DS1]

6. You seem pretty preachy

Beef creates greenhouse gases

Preachy people suck


:shrug:

[porphyrian]

8. So, you agree then? - n/t

[Flabbergasted]

7. You are the only one making an emphatic statement of opinion.

[porphyrian]

9. So, you agree preachy people suck, then? - n/t

[Flabbergasted]

10. I'll leave that up to you.

[DS1]

11. he did a fine job of hijacking the thread. i feel dumb for the assist

[porphyrian]

13. As long as we're in agreement. - n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[bryant69]

17. Actually i'll disagree. Because you never defined the term Preachy

So what does preachy mean? Advocates an opinion? Is it preachy to say "I think you should vote against fucking republicans" in the next election?

Is it preachy to say "This war isn't good; we should call our reps and ask them to support ways to get out?"

Or is it simply preach to express an opinion you don't happen to agree with?

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

19. I didn't define it, but everyone else seemed to know what it meant immediately.

Lots of assumptions made, perhaps. Or maybe it's not a term that requires no specific parameters as you are asking for, such as "some" or "lots of."

[bryant69]

23. I can't define preachiness, but it know it when i see it?

Seems like a cop out. How can you object to something if you don't know what it is?

Why do you object to this information on meat and cars being presented? Or are you holding to the "I was just making a general statement, unrelated to the OP" line?

Bryant

[porphyrian]

27. Lots of things seem like a cop out.

I never voiced anything in response to the article but "preachy people suck," and I stand by that assertion. However, since you care about my opinion, I'll add, for you, that, regardless of whether or not the data is correct, the manner of its presentation sounds preachy, so I don't care if it's true or not, I'm thinking they suck for being preachy about it. Had they presented it differently, I probably still wouldn't care, because I don't have to prove my "greenness" to anyone and I don't harbor guilt for how I live.

[bryant69]

30. Ah - you must have a very high opinion of yourself.

Must be nice.

I'm curious about the assertion that you don't care about whether this information is true or not. Seems like an odd tack to take.

[porphyrian]

36. Actually, yes, I'm one of my favorite people. Most can't say that.

It is nice, thanks for caring.

I'll try to explain in terms you understand. The information isn't important to me - I didn't request it, I already knew about it and I know where to look up specifics if I need them. So, the only thing that matters to me about this unbidden assertion is that it's preachy in tone, thus making me feel that the bearer of said assertion sucks.

[bryant69]

39. The same could be said of most pro and anti impeachment posts

How many of them have you read that actually presented new information or a new argument? Maybe one a day. Should such posts stop? And don't such posts strongly advocate the acceptance of a position?

Certainly many pro-Impeachment people seem to feel that anti-Impeachers are Bush Enables and generally bad people. While anti Impeachers feel that pro-Impeachment people are pie in the sky and unrealistic.

Bryant

[porphyrian]

42. You mistakenly think I'm making a call for action.

I'm merely asserting that preachy people suck, and, for some reason, I am being asked to justify and/or qualify my opinion, which I don't feel the need to do, though these chats are fun. What that has to do with impeachment threads, I don't really get or care about.

[unpossibles]

21. so Al Gore sucks?

Martin Luther King Jr. sucked? Rosa Parks?

ok.

[porphyrian]

29. When did I call Al Gore, Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks preachy? - n/t

[unpossibles]

40. you said "preachy people suck"

with no qualifiers. Those people all have been "preachy" about several issues - they spoke out against environmental destruction, racism, economic disparity, and segregation. I just listed them as a way of saying that your statement doesn't really make sense.

I suppose that everyone with an opinion should just shut the hell up so no one has to be made to consider their actions. That would be far better.

[porphyrian]

45. Why does my opinion suddenly need qualifiers?

Where the fuck are your papers, Hoss? Since when do you get to define what I have to say?

[unpossibles]

52. so then you are saying that Gore, King Jr., and Parks do indeed suck?

that is what I meant by "qualifiers" - I don't care about credentials if that's what you think I meant.

you said "preachy people suck" and I simply tried to point out how ridiculous that statement can be - that "preachy" people have done many good things in the world.

I think what you probably meant to say is that "I don't like people making me question the choices I make." That makes much more sense. In other words, you either think all preachy people suck, including the above examples, or you think that the preachy people who suck are the ones you disagree with.

[porphyrian]

69. No, you're trying to speak for me, and you're wrong.

Stop it.

[unpossibles]

82. I am not trying to speak for you at all

in fact all I did was quote exactly what you said, and applied it as you said.

[porphyrian]

100. Now you're lying about what you did.

What's wrong with you?

[Megahurtz]

183. LOL! That's so funny!

:rofl: You just said one simple seemingly innocent sentence and all these people
pull their own statements out of their own asses and try to pin them on you LOL!
Just the juicy stuff rumors and gossip are made of! :rofl:
Hilarious! :popcorn:

[Annces]

14. Every right that a human being enjoys in this modern world

was obtained by somebody preaching at one point or another for your sake.

[Bake]

15. So saith the press officer for the Vegetarian Society ...

Su Taylor, the press officer for the Vegetarian Society, told New Scientist: "Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints, but one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat."

Hmmm ... anything questionable there?

It is doubtless true that production of beef has a carbon impact (hell, all of that methane floating around!). Same for pork, chicken, buffalo, beefalo, or any other meat. But there is also a carbon impact from growing corn or other vegetables: the fuel burned to drive the tractors and combines, or to transport fertilizer, to transport the product to market, etc.

There are costs to everything humans do on this planet. So shall we just stop everything we do and go back to the Stone Age? This article just seems a little self-serving.

Bake

[unpossibles]

20. while you are correct that fuels are burned for vegetables

even more is burned from making meat - those animals need to eat, and that same expenditure to grow vegetables is used to grow even more feed for food animals, then used again to transport and process the animals, then again to ship the meat to market.

Like driving, I don't think that many are saying "eat only twigs and never drive" but to make informed decisions on how to reduce our footprint, and to combine ideas, such as driving less, eating less meat, being more energy conservative, etc.

Or you can choose not to - it really is your choice. But don't say that this article is "self-serving" because you decide you want to eat meat. It makes great points, and sadly those points are seldom addressed, and always attacked by people who get defensive.

[Bake]

25. The article IS self-serving.

The quote is from the press officer of the VS (whatever that is ...).

It singles out beef, lays out only one side of the facts - those that support the VS' conclusion, and fails to present any context.

I've eaten meat my whole life, so it's not like I "decided" one day that hey, I want to eat meat. It was more a default position.

I do not contest the facts presented, only the one-sided nature of them.

Bake

[unpossibles]

32. I can hardly fault the vegetarian society (or whatever) for promoting this

and you do choose to eat meat. Most likely every day.

I would say the opposing viewpoint is presented every day by nearly everyone else, so I don't really see the point in presenting "the other side" - how eating beef is better for the environment.

[lostinacause]

62. Why beef? The answer is that cows produce methane. Methane, as

you may or may not know, is a very potent greenhouse gas. This means that other meets will likely have smaller emissions of greenhouse gases. Switching from beef to other meats makes sense from a health perspective too as they are much more healthy.

[flvegan]

75. What part of the study being done by Japanese scientists didn't you get?

Yes, the quote at the end of the article was from someone from the Vegetarian Society, but the study that put these numbers up, has nothing to do with them it doesn't appear.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. i get the study just fine. i dont buy that eating beef is worse than driving.

[flvegan]

89. Some folks don't "buy" that the world is round.

I also didn't imply that YOU had misread the post. You don't buy the study because, most likely, you don't want to. Your overgeneralization of the topic at hand aside.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. argumentum ad absurdum.

Disagreeing with the conclusions of a non-scientific press based upon a potentially misused scientific article is not the same as believing the world is flat.

[flvegan]

93. This type of study

has been done over and over and over again.

And no, I'm not going to do your googling for you.

Futurium argumentum est ignoredium.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Strawman.

Nobody said this type of study has not been done before, nor disagreed with the original conclusions of the study.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

94. ..

:thumbsup:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. some people like to bend scientific studies for their purposes.

2.2 lbs of beef is equivalent to 3 hours of driving. this i buy. now how many people drive upto 2 hours a day, how many people eat that quantity of beef daily?

molding a scientific study to fit your particular interest doesnt help anyone's cause.

[flvegan]

95. That's just ignorant.

The point is that eating (over however long) 2.2 lbs of beef has the environmental impact as driving 3 hours (however long that takes). It's a comparison of numbers. I don't see where anyone is saying that the completion of both acts would have to be in a day.

We could nitpick the damn thing all day. What kind of beef? How lean? Is that the pre-cooked weight? What kind of driving, stop and go? How many times do I start the car over those 3 hours? What kind of car is it, a Prius or a Hummer.

This is like discussing cfc bulbs with someone that doesn't like them. "But a regular light bulb uses the same energy in 20 hours that a cfc does in 1." "Yeah, but I don't leave my lights on for 20 hours straight."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. well in my world of science things are weighted. how often something is done, in what quantities

will determine its effect on the environment.

in your world of making propaganda out of science, this may be different.

[Gormy Cuss]

76. It always pays to look at the source article.

The Japanese study involve doing load calculations, not making a judgment, but "New Scientist" chose to attach the title "Meat is Murder on the Environment." That sets the tone of emotional reactions.

One data item of importance is the comparison was to an average European car, presumably much more efficient than the average American cars since they tend to drive smaller vehicles in Europe. Another fact is that the Japanese study did not include transport of cattle and meat to market in its calculations, so it understates the footprint in countries like ours.


The New Scientist article did have info on the effect of better livestock management practices as one of the ways to lessen the carbon footprint:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html

Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.

Possible interventions, the authors suggest, include better waste management and shortening the interval between calving by one month. This latter measure could reduce the total environmental load by nearly 6 per cent. A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy.

Note the Swedish study with lower calculations for grass fed beef -- as you noted, the way that this studies are helpful is that they can inform us on trade-offs in reducing environmental impact of all of our activities rather than make simplistic statements like "meat is murder on the environment."

[Critters2]

22. Eating meat uses more corn and other grains and grasses

than being veg. So, if growing corn has a carbon impact, that impact is lessened by not eating the animals that corn is fed to. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. So the more corn, grain, and grasses it uses...

then the more carbon it removes from the atmosphere.

:shrug:

[NobleCynic]

161. Not necessarily correct

You're assuming the carbon offset of the grain's photosynthesis is greater than the carbon put into the atmosphere through the production costs of the grain (transportation, fertilizers, etc.) But one should consider that the carbon captured in the grain does not stay captured, as most is generally released after consumption. (The methane the cow creates was formerly said grain.) The carbon only stays sequestered as long as the grain is not used. It is less of a wash than you would think. Especially when you consider the cycle as taking a relatively low potency greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) and transforming it into both carbon dioxide and methane, a relatively high potency greenhouse gas.

Edited to add: Mind you, cattle raised on the range have a far lower impact than those raised on feedlots because of the production costs of the grain. There are no production costs for natural grassland, especially land which is unsuitable for heavy agriculture. It is far closer to effectively carbon neutral in that case, although because of the methane, still not completely so.

This doesn't even touch on the issue of the sheer land usage devoted to raising cattle.

That aside, I still enjoy a cut of beef every once in a while. I'm not a vegetarian, but definitely a low meat intake type. I find Asian style recipes to be more to my liking, take a half pound of meat or less and stretch it to feed four.

[yellowcanine]

Beef can be raised entirely on grass - on sloping land not suitable for raising corn.

So grass fed beef would have even less carbon impact than corn - no carbon needed to harvest the grass - less carbon for growing the grass as it is a perennial crop and does not need to be planted every year like corn, and also less carbon lost because of soil erosion.

[OnionPatch]

132. Yep, too bad this info isn't out there

It might actually help small, local farmers compete against factory farms. Grass doesn't need to be transported. Grass-raised beef, purchased locally, cannot possibly have the same global footprint as supermarket beef because no grain was grown and transported to feed it. But the supermarket beef is cheaper and the bottom line is what's most important to too many people. :(

Edited to add: I meant for this to be a response to yellowcanine's post but something weird happened.

[Critters2]

137. Very little beef is raised this way.

Most beef cattle live in feedlots and are fed only corn and soy.

[yellowcanine]

188. In the U.S. and Europe, no - rest of the world - yes. And if one makes any

effort at all, it is possible to buy as much grass raised beef in the U.S. as you desire to have. If customers demanded it more would be raised that way.

[yellowcanine]

189. And there are more and more pastured dairies as well in the U.S.

Real big in Pennsylvania where dairies tend to be smaller - 100 to 200 cows.

[Spike89]

158. It is a bit too cut and dried

The release reads less like science than propoganda. Sure, animals require resources, can't argue with that. However, I'm a bit tired of useless and worthless "statistics" trying to make a point. How was that meat raised? Not all cattle are grain fed, and not all the grain fed cattle are given grain fit for human consumption. And what meaning are we to derive from "meat less green than driving?" Seriously, breathing is less green than driving (if you're talking about a lifetime of breathing compared to a 5-minute drive). Why did the report choose 2.2 pounds and 150 miles?
I am concerned about the environment, but I don't like crappy science being peddled in the media, no matter what cause it serves.

[slackmaster]

174. Cut and dried...

[Help me help Earth]

16. This will be my tip for green living for my eBay auction

of my ecological footprint. Ironically, a right winger who bid as a joke ended up winning, and this should annoy him nicely.

[Johonny]

18. So this is an advocacy

For genetically modified cows that use photosynthesis?

For the record the title of the thread doesn't naturally conclude from the text since it is based on your individual driving and eating habits. A person that drives a lot, but eats occasional beef certainly can't claim their driving habits create less GHGs than their diet...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. so eating 2.2 lbs of beef is worth 3 hours in a car.

since i dont drive and maybe have that much beef in a month or two, i think i am doing fine.

i think most people drive more than three hours in 2 months.

[grace0418]

43. Thank you! Who the hell eats 2.2 lbs of beef in a short period of time? If they do they

have more pressing issues than their carbon footprint. Like their health. Even with my very short commute and my effort to combine trips, carpool and walk/take public transportation as much as possible, I still drive 3-4 hours per week. I definitely don't eat 2.2 lbs of beef a week. Like you, maybe in a month or two.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. exactly, this sort of research ignores what people are more likely to do.

most people drive 3 hours more frequently than eat 2.2 lbs of beef.

[Throd]

73. You've never seen me at a Korean BBQ restaurant

Or at a Brazilian churrascarria

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Being on the computer is less green than being off the computer.

:shrug:

[Bake]

58. Exactly.

And I can't believe I'm agreeing with 'hooligan.

Bake

[Bonobo]

28. Do you have children?

[Gregorian]

48. That is the bigger issue.

But don't dare mention it for fear of creating great anger among most people.

I'm still trying to find good ways of talking about it. How each child is equated with energy. But not sounding inhuman about it. I don't think it's possible. Most people still hold their right to have children above the right of the planet to survive.

It's appalling how blind most people are. And the interesting part is, they are defensive about it. Even liberals. They turn the discussion around to make it as if we're the ones who are cruel and heartless. All I say to them is I want to leave a planet for their great great grandchildren.

I'm going back outside to listen to the CARS now.

[Bonobo]

116. The thing is, if you have kids, you live for them.

If you have kids, one of your biggest reasons for living is to protect them and see them get bigger.

But if you do not have kids, then what is your EXCUSE for staying alive and using resources? Simply because you like being here, right?

You see my point? Ultimately, you cannot apologize for having the drive to live, can you? Neither can you be blamed for having the drive to procreate and the concurrent optimism that your kids MAY help create a better future.

The problem with the OP's original post, and with what you are saying, is that utlimately, it would dictate that all but a few should willingly commit suicide in order to save the world. It runs contrary to the nature of all life, the desire for survival.

[Gregorian]

119. I'm not looking backwards.

Looking forwards. Stabilize the patient. That is the basic concept.

Planet earth is in the emergency room. Stabilize the patient. I don't know how we do it. But unless we start working both ends of this problem, it's going to get worse. The formula consists of two basic variables. Number of users, and what they are using. If we all have one child, the planet will be three billion in a century. If we all use renewable energy, our carbon footprint will be much less than it is now. It's pretty simple.

[Bonobo]

121. Well if mass death is the solution, there are quicker ways than birth control.

And I suppose some rich people will be happy to hold onto 99% of the marbles while we all die and kill each other for the remaining 1%.

That is what happened with Katrina. That is what will happen with the rest of the world. Africa will be a massive die off. Asia maybe, Middle East. Plenty of places where it could happen. And I'm sure some want to spur it on even.

[unpossibles]

170. the OP said that "all but a few should willingly commit suicide in order to save the world"???

that's not the thread I read.

Jesus. No wonder people get defensive about your beef if they don't realize they won't starve to death without it.

;)

Seriously though, I don't see how consideration of diet along with every other thing is a bad idea. :shrug:

I mean, do people expect everyone to stop driving completely or to just be a bit more rational about it?

[IndianaJones]

31. I eat beef and drive a full size Bronco....

yikes.

[OnionPatch]

143. Hey, none of us are perfect

I also drive an SUV. (13 years old and paid for!) I can't afford a new, efficient car right now and I can't afford to stop driving to work each day, either. But my next car will be a Yaris (40mpg) and I eat only grass-fed beef, which is a much greener option. We do what we can.....

[WhollyHeretic]

33. Wow there is a lot of defensiveness in this thread

Pointing out facts is not preaching and of course no one is perfect when it comes to the environment. We need facts to be able to make decisions to help lesson our impact and preserve the planet. Pointing out that other things hurt the environment too really isn't helpful, it is the tactic of corporations and conservatives.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. my defensiveness is due to the fact that the title to this research is grossly misleading

Eating beef 'is less green than driving' : 2.2lbs is worth 3 hours of driving.

how much beef do most people eat in a week?

how much time do most people spend driving?

[WhollyHeretic]

117. How about this study?

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

Vegetarians must have taken over the UN. Those evil bastards :wow:

[Critters2]

141. We are surprisingly powerful

While you meat-eating libs are watching the Neo-Cons, we're behind you, taking over even institutions you think are progressive.

Surprisingly powerful. And evil. Bwahahahaha!!!

[JitterbugPerfume]

34. there is a "middle way"

and I didn't hear anyone say we should live in caves and eat twigs and grass,

but we DO really need to start taking responsibility for our habits , as they affect all of us.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Yes. Pasture fed beef.

It's carbon neutral.

[mzmolly]

38. Good info, that's what I try to buy and I buy it from a local farmer.

:hi:

[JitterbugPerfume]

41. yes--

buy local and use common sense ! My dad used to say "use your head for somethng besides a hat rack"

[YankeyMCC]

61. Bingo

It's not an all of nothing, we humans are part of the world too and have every right to live here...we just need to live in such a way that we aren't destroying our own ecology, harming ourselves and everything else.

Here's a site people can start with to learn about grass fed beef and associated practices: http://eatwild.com/

[NobleCynic]

167. Not completely so

Because methane has a greater impact than carbon dioxide. But pasture fed is a hell of a lot closer to carbon neutral and it is certainly the way to go.

[mzmolly]

35. Can we give the cows some beano?

:P

Thanks for the info, I don't eat much beef, but I do eat organic beef from time to time.

BTW, what about the gas produced in humans from eating beans? Sorry, but that must be a wash? ;)

[NobleCynic]

169. Funny, but scientists are actually working on just that

Check the link:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/23/climatechange.climatechange>

[mzmolly]

175. Well then, I'm ahead of my time.

;) Thanks!

[JacquesMolay]

44. Stop eating beef!

Raising cows burns fuel, grain, groundwater and land up. We would benefit as a species if we just stopped doing this. I haven't had beef in over 3 years.

[Marrah_G]

49. Nope

Some of us enjoy beef. I'll stay out of your refrigerator if you stay out of mine :)

[slackmaster]

84. Thank you for your contribution

I haven't had beef in over 3 years.

Which leaves a little bit more for me.

:evilgrin:

[JacquesMolay]

86. yeah, that's real funny ...

... tell you what, in a few years, when we're starting to have grain, fuel, and water shortages because we chose the inefficiency of feeding them to cows, and you see economic collapse, tell me how funny it is then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. I'm sure when all that happens...

you'll be writing about it on the interweb.

[slackmaster]

105. Millenial fears like that have been around for more than a millenium

I'm approaching 50 years old. I've heard all that before, and then some.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

159. The fact that you are unable to articulate your point without name-calling says it all

There is no arguing with a zealot when the topic has degraded into a religious discussion.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Marrah_G]

197. You are a nasty little thing aren't you?

I've alerted for the numerous personal insults and don't bother to reply since I banish people with your personality type to the world of ignore. Have a nice life wallowing in your bitter pool of self-righteousness. You are the type that gives Vegans and Vegetarians a bad name.

[Bake]

120. Good for you. Sell a carbon offset for it.

As for me, I'm having a steak on the grill. Tonight.

Bake

[slackmaster]

160. You have to love the banner ad I saw when I viewed dbaker41's reply

https://www.tallgrassbeef.com/ecommerce/catalog/?gclid=CN62up_g0o0CFSjRhgod5VUuYg

;-)

[progressoid]

46. Plus, its really hard to find a parking place for a cow at the mall.

[Marr]

50. Who eats 2 lbs. of beef in three hours?

I love meat, but I doubt I consume more than 2 pounds of beef in a month or two. So my two month's worth of beef equals three hours of motoring? How is that even relevant? The comparison seems intentionally deceptive.

I mean, I could say that eating vegetables is less green than burning barrels of oil, since 5000 pounds of tomatoes is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions comparable to that of burning a barrel of oil, or whatever.

[yewberry]

55. No one is making that suggestion. 2.2 lbs=1 kg

The study was done in a country that uses the metric system and so used the most common weight measurement.

[Marr]

79. I'm aware of the metric system-- I don't see why the conversion to

kilograms is relevant. It says 2.2lbs. of beef. I'm saying that's alot of beef.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. From my observations, far more people spend 3 hours a day in a car than

eat 2.2 pounds (aka 1kg) of beef per day.

Some households have TWO wage-earners who each spend 3 hours a day in their cars, all those people who drive 90 minutes each way to work so that they can pursue the American nightmare of mortgage slavery, and after that, have to drive all over Strip Mall Hell to pick up their groceries, their parked children, and their dry cleaning.

Is the publication of this assertion a way of assuaging the guilt of suburban vegetarians?

[Marrah_G]

53. I spend 30 minutes a day in the car

I can't imagine eating 2.2 pounds of meat in a day. I eat some chicken, beef, pork or fish each day, but never that much.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. 2.2 pounds is more than even the most decadent steakhouses serve at once

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

56. That's what I was thinking

Restaurants usually have a 16 oz or 12 steak.

[NobleCynic]

171. It's cause 2.2 lbs = 1 kg n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Ha! I guess I should've expected these responses

Remember when people got "preachy" and told you that it might not be a great idea to simply throw trash on the ground or pour motor oil down a sewer drain? Pretty annoying, wasn't it? How dare they scold you! It's a free country!

If humans switched from a meat-based diet to a plant-based one, the world's petroleum reserves would last 260 years, as opposed to 13.

Raising animals for food requires more than one-third of all raw materials and fossil fuels in the United States. If we all adopted a vegetable- based diet, only 2 percent of raw materials would be used.

The creation of a single hamburger patty (often containing the flesh of up to 100 different cows) uses enough fossil fuel to power a car 20 miles and enough water for 17 warm showers.

More than half of the U.S. water supply goes to livestock production.

If water used by the meat industry were not subsidized by taxpayers, common hamburger meat would cost $35 a pound. You need 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat -- 2,500 gallons to generate a pound of meat.

San Francisco Chronicle (via Common Dreams)

Most of us are familiar with the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and its detrimental effect on the planet. Ever wondered why the rainforest is being deforested?

Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction (Center for International Forestry Research)
"This report explains the link between this frightening increase in deforestation and the growth in international demand for Brazilian beef."
PDF of this article

"The typical US diet, about 28 per cent of which comes from animal sources, generates the equivalent of nearly 1.5 tonnes <1 tonne = approx. 2,205 pounds> more carbon dioxide per person per year than a vegan diet with the same number of calories, say the researchers, who presented their results at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last week."
Source: New Scientist

Raising a 1,250 pound steer requires "an agricultural investment equal to 283 gallons of oil" – "everything from fertilizers on cornfields to the diesel that runs machinery on the farm." (Source: Appenzeller, Tim. "The End of Cheap Oil," National Geographic, June 2004, p. 99.)


If you read all these statistics and still eat beef, more power to you. But don't stick your head in the sand and, above all, don't shoot the messenger.

[Marrah_G]

60. All of us make choices in life on how we impact the earth

Some don't drive, some install solar panels, others are vegan. There are many ways to try and live "more green" and people need to find what works for them without insisting they can make the choices for others.

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Yes. I agree. As long as your eyes are wide open.

Facts are a good thing.
And it's important to be able to appreciate the relative weights of these choices.
Taking newspapers out for recycling won't offset the effect of driving a Hummer, for example.
By the same token, someone who buys organic cherries from Chile is almost certainly doing more harm than someone who buys conventional cherries from a nearby farm.

The key is to understand the consequences of our actions and not to insulate ourselves from them.

As Americans, our use of resources is way out of proportion to our population. Europeans and Japanese have as good or better a quality of life than we do and yet consume just a fraction of what we consume per capita.

[Marrah_G]

65. I agree

As long as people know the different ways they can make an impact and then choose what works for them. The only time I get irritated is when people make posts saying "Stop eating meat" or "Real environmentalists are vegan". (the second was from a thread a few weeks back)

AS far as Europe goes, one HUGE difference is both the age of the cities AND the density of the population. Public transportation is much easier in urban settings and due to just the sheer age and populations of European cities make them less car friendly with smaller homes.

[slackmaster]

165. I plan to do solar panels, but I've made one choice far greener than most peoples'

No children. Few people can beat that for sheer greenness.

I recycle everything I can, and I compost too.

[slackmaster]

164. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Remember when people got "preachy" and told you that it might not be a great idea to simply throw trash on the ground or pour motor oil down a sewer drain?

No, I can't recall ever hearing anyone say something like that.

If you read all these statistics and still eat beef, more power to you. But don't stick your head in the sand and, above all, don't shoot the messenger.

Rude messengers deserve to get shot. So do writers who overuse hyperbole.

[stuntcat]

193. ty

thank you. Reality bites a lot of people.

[Exultant Democracy]

63. Who cares about global warming / fresh water / sustainability, liberal nonsense

Stay out of my refrigerator cause I'm an AmeriCan not an AmeriCan't.

Why should I care about the planet when meat tastes good?

:sarcasm:

Can't put down a burger to save the planet... fucking pathetic.

I think what I find most disgusting is that as soon as we try to bring up this important issue people turn off they brains and start parroting the beef council. I don't in fact think that everyone needs to stop eating meat, but it is a fact that the way we are eating now is not sustainable and is unhealthy for the planet.

[Marrah_G]

66. So how does the world look from all the way up there?

Note: Self-righteousness is ugly in any form.

[WhollyHeretic]

67. Reverting to right-wing tactics

Can't attack the message so you attack the messenger
Classy :thumbsup:

[Exultant Democracy]

72. It is pretty sad, cause I'm not even one of the fire brands

I think their is a place for meat eating. In fact in many places in the U.S. where we have killed off natural predators it is only responsible for humans to fill that niche.

The shepherds and the cowboys both have a place in a sound ecology if only because there is no way to turn back the clock and the bison are already gone. What we don't need is the cow/pig factories what we don't need is thousands of acres of the rain forest slash and burned to make a few burgers. People who refuse to address this issue and face the fact that we need to make a change have equivalent moral standing to war supporters.

[slackmaster]

168. Criticizing a person's behavior is not attacking the messenger

:nuke:

[JacquesMolay]

114. "Why should I care about the planet when meat tastes good?"

good one, m8. They're going to have to find out the hard way. Mankind is going to have to stop eating beef at some point - the only question is on what terms - are we going to wait until we've done too much damage?

[Exultant Democracy]

151. Well the fossil records show what will happen when the permafrost melts

once all that methane is released it is probably lights out for anything larger then a house cat, but of course global warming is a myth I seem to keep forgetting that part.

[slackmaster]

194. I, for one, welcome our new feline overlords.

[Stuckinthebush]

68. Wow! People hate to have their meat questioned!

It is interesting to see responses on this thread.

[DemGa]

71. Indeed, looks like it touched a nerve!!

[HardRocker05]

77. yep, it's a "sacred cow;" pun intended. nt

[Stuckinthebush]

87. Ouch!!

:D

Funny

[Bake]

124. People hate to have their diets dictated to them

by people who may or may not be carbon neutral themselves. There's a reason for those pointed teeth we have - canines - and it's not for crushing plants.

Do you drive? At all? If you do, STOP IT RIGHT FUCKING NOW. You're killing the planet. Do you run your air conditioning in the summer? SHAME ON YOU. I mean, hell, you're burning up dead dinosaurs just cruising DU! So STOP IT.

The point is, there's a positive aspect to meat consumption (yes, even BEEF), and there are societal costs to it as well (carbon impact), JUST LIKE THERE ARE WITH DRIVING A CAR, and just like with almost every other lifestyle choice. Despite the protestations of a few posters in this thread that there's a "middle way" or that they're not advocating eating only twigs and berries, most of us have been through the carnivore/vegan discussion enough times on DU to know that SOME vegetarians/vegans/whatever-the-hell-that-means get very sanctimonious about how superior their diet is and how any carnivore/omnivore is inferior. So yeah, we omnivores do tend to get a little defensive. We don't attempt to dictate to others that YOU OUGHT TO BY GOD BE EATING SOME BEEF. And we don't appreciate it when you dictate to us. Yes, we're aware of the costs. There are costs to everything.

Bake

[La Lioness Priyanka]

191. people hate interference in very personal decisions. i dont like it when people tell me who to fuck

either.

[cobalt1999]

70. What I've never understood about these studies...

Quoting from the article, "Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, New Scientist magazine reported".

In the US there are about 100 million cows. Before Europeans arrived in this country there was about as many Buffalo living here quite happily for thousands of years w/o global warming. What about the carbon sucked from the atmosphere to grow the grasses these animals eat?

Should we just slaughter all large herbivores to stop their farts?

[unpossibles]

80. do you honestly not see the difference between what America looked like 100 years ago and today?

I get what you're saying, but we also had a lot more trees and plants to absorb CO2 and less things producing it.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2005/051216.htm

So, while this is not even the entire beef industry, just the largest farms for 11.6 million cows, that that adds up to roughly 1,740,000 - 2,030,000 tons of cow shit a week which adds up to a decent amount of methane, not to mention pollution of water.

And no, the solution is not for everyone to become vegan nor to immediately shoot all cows, but to make educated choices and to understand the consequences of our actions, from driving to polluting to eating. Yes, it sucks, but it's also just that we can all at least help a little in our own ways by being more considerate with how we use energy (such as not leaving every light in the house on all the time) to what we choose to eat for dinner.

And no, this is not an attack on your lifestyle or freedoms, and I apologize if it comes across that way.

[cobalt1999]

83. Of course the environment is different.

However, you have to admit either way we had about 100 million large herbivores living here. If it's cows or buffaloes, they were still producing tons of shit and methane. To me, that's a wash. We changed the species of herbivore that's all.

So what is the real difference when talking about Global Warming? The difference is human burning of fossil fuels, NOT the number of herbivores. Which is why these studies seem a little silly to me. The "lets go after anything that produces methane and has a carbon footprint" vs. the what's the real source of the difference. It's like analyzing the amount of methane herds of wilde beasts produce. Do they shit and fart? Yes. Does it contribute to greenhouse gasses? Yes. However, they've always been around, so it's silly to focus on them.

I agree everyone needs to make educated choices and understand the consequences of our actions. The difference, as I see it, is to focus on the human caused delta. You know almost 25% of our power usage each summer is spent on A/C. That is a pure delta. You'd be better off turning off your A/C and live like everyone did as short as 50 years ago.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. It's not the animals themselves.

Since the animals produce the gas by eating the grass that grow by absorbing the gas.

The animals are carbon neutral.

The difference is the cows/beef being driven around on trucks. Feed being driven around on trucks. Fossil fuels being used in the production of feed, etc.

So this is why you should eat pasture fed beef. It doesn't produce any more gas then it consumes.

And besides, if we didn't eat beef, all that stuff on the grocery store shelves would go bad, then start producing methane, which is a greenhouse gas. So eat beef, it's good for the environment.

[cobalt1999]

102. I agree about eating pasture fed beef.

However, the article clearly states that the MAJORITY of the greenhouse gases in their calculations are from digestive methane, not the transportation of feed and meat.

Take that major component out, and eating meat is much less impactful. If someone thinks they are being "green" by being vegan, then the danger is they'll drive more or use their Air Conditioning (which are MUCH more impactful).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. The article...

is a non-scientific article based on a non-scientific article which may have been based on a scientific article but who knows, because it wasn't cited. So there are going to be plenty of scientific fuck-ups. They might as well be blaming carbon emissions on purple monkey dishwashers.

I presume the original scientific article took carbon neutrality into the equation.

[cobalt1999]

107. unless they were counting methane as more harmful than CO2 extracted

However, you are right, the article is non-scientific. I'll keep my "purple monkey dishwashers around" for now. :)

[WhollyHeretic]

118. How about this one then?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. Yeah, that's also non-scientific.

And misleading.

[WhollyHeretic]

123. How about posting some facts of your own

I know it's not as much fun as pulling things out of thin air but it's a little more helpful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. Well, like I've already said...

they're talking about total emissions, without taking into account the amount of CO2 etc. absorbed from the atmosphere by livestock production.

Furthermore, they go on about how much nitrous oxide manure produces, and how much more IR it absorbs, but fail to mention that it's a trace gas and contributes a neglible amount to global warming.

[WhollyHeretic]

130. Again, facts would be nice

Nitrous oxide makes up a small percentage of the gas but it is the third biggest contributor to global warming.

And the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere by livestock production? Have any numbers for this?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. No.

And neither has the U.N., hence the misleading.

Nitrous oxide is the third biggest contributor to global warming? I'd like to see some support for that.

[WhollyHeretic]

138. Research it. You're the one who made the intitial claim that it has no effect

It's not hard to find the information, at least not for most people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. The three biggest contributors to global warming...

from what I can tell are carbon dioxide, then water vapor. Then one of the trace gases, ozone or methane depending on where you look.

Now support your claim.

[WhollyHeretic]

145. "Because I says so" is not a source. It's idiocy

A study?
A link?

Have fun.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

149. I agree. It's idiocy.

So why are you not backing up your claims?

You weren't using that stupid wikipedia article when you said "third largest contributor?" The one that didn't have a reference? The one where the closest reference was referring to War on Drugs inhalant information? You weren't, were you?

:rofl:

[flvegan]

177. With SOME posters it is.

Long standing, well established record of it, matter of fact.

Now you watch, there will be a baseless, shitty attack on what I just stated from...well, anyway.

Just watch.

[WhollyHeretic]

127. What is misleading about the UN study?

I'd really like some specifics.
You read the study?
The links are there to a PDF of the study.

[cobalt1999]

129. well without seeing how they did their calculations

who can tell? I followed the links and each one leads to their conclusions NOT how they calculated it. Also, the report seems to be damning the feed and farming practices more than the livestock. It's definitely not a call to vegan-ism.

Even then, they still account for methane produced from digestive tracks as a major component. See the above posts for how silly that argument is.

[WhollyHeretic]

133. Did I say it was a call to veganism?

Current livestock production is not not sustainable, people will not be able to consume this much meat. Especially with the population continually rising. Please let me see some evidence that disputes these studies? Your faith-based approach to the environment does nothing for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. What makes you think it's not sustainable?

Where are you getting that idea?

What about the beef industry in countries with negative population growth?

Talk about faith-based.

:crazy:

[WhollyHeretic]

142. I have provided studies.

Why don't you show something, anything, that backs up your ridiculous claims. "Because I says so" is not a valid point, unless one is a woo-woo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. You've provided one study.

And it doesn't say anything about sustainability or overpopulation.

:shrug:

[WhollyHeretic]

148. Obviously you didn't read the study or even the article about it too closely.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

150. I read it closely enough...

that I'll stand by post #146.

Did you read it?

[cobalt1999]

153. "with the population continually rising"

You said it. :) There is the problem. Maybe you should be advocating population controls and reductions more than giving up meat? I suspect that doesn't fit your agenda though, does it?

As for your silly "faith based approach" comment, I'm just trying to make sense of the premise in OP. I've gone through your links and there is still not a good supporting logic to blame meat eating as a significant contributor for global warming. Until I see it, I'll remain skeptical (as any scientist would).

I do concede the current practices are harmful to the environment in other ways and there are better methods (which seems to be the major gist of the UN study you cited).

[Bake]

126. Every cow I eat is one less beast farting out pollution!

But in the words of Ron White, "I'm only ONE MAN!"

Bake

[CRF450]

155. I got a question

My dog's fart stinks way worse than mine, is their anything I can do about it to reduce global warming?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Light a match.

Or eat the dog.

[slackmaster]

166. I know a guy who did that once with his Rottie

[CRF450]

173. Just kidding hehehe.

[Megahurtz]

187. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[RufusTFirefly]

74. Dividing a solution neatly into two problems

This famous quote from Wendell Berry seemed apropos:

"Once plants and animals were raised together on the same farm — which therefore neither produced unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into two problems."


By the way, here is what the United Nations said in January

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

[Matariki]

78. Animal Source Foods to Improve Micronutrient Nutrition in Developing Countries

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/11/3950S

The study in Kenya with malnourished children showed that *small* amounts of meat added to their diets improved concentration, health and energy.

People seem to take an either/or approach to this issue - either vegetarianism on one hand or a big ass plate of steak on the other. Things are rarely so simple.

[unpossibles]

81. true, although I think the only thing developing in America is our stubbornness n/t

[baby_mouse]

99. "Preachy", "Self-righteous", "Do-gooder"...

These are useless arguments.

[KurtNYC]

101. Less than 10% of the american diet is animal protein

and this study counts the methane that cows produce. This article and study seem to be disengenuous in their feigned concern for the environment -- they are trying very hard to make beef seem like the source of global warming. but it's the fossil fuels of course.

[cobalt1999]

104. Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!

If someone is truly concerned about global warming they would focus on the big things (fossil fuels), meat is far down the list.

The reason it's a topic here is some are not so much concerned about global warming as promoting vegetarianism. I don't see these same people starting threads about reducing their driving or living without Air Conditioning, which would be a much bigger reduction in fossil fuel use than giving up the hamburgers. In fact, I bet many of these global warming concerned vegans are sitting in an air conditioned house right now.

[WhollyHeretic]

109. Gee, making up facts is fun!!!

Unfortunately it's not really helpful to meaningful dialog.

"If someone is truly concerned about global warming they would focus on the big things (fossil fuels), meat is far down the list." Have anything to back this up? Or is it just a "gut" feeling?

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

[KurtNYC]

163. all of beef production is rolled into the "agriculture" category on this

graph:


So a small part of the smallest bar.

Here a links to various overviews of climate chnage -- none of them say that we all have to become vegetarians, not even anything close:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.earthday.net/resources/2006materials/Top10.aspx
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/difference.html
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/involved/individuals.cfm
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/activities/art19630.html

[NobleCynic]

172. But if you recognize beef produtcion as a problem

even a small one, you can research ways to minimize the impact.

Like a new pill that breaks down methane in the stomach of the cow:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/23/climatechange.climatechange>

Warming is a big problem, and even small improvements need to be considered. Beef production doesn't need to be stopped, but it can be made more sustainable.

(Edited for spelling)

[CRF450]

110. Driving without A/C, are you crazy?

You know it gets over way way over 100 degrees inside a car on a 90* day, right? I can do without it on when its under 85, but when its hot and muggy outside, its a lifesaver!

[cobalt1999]

112. Not driving w/o A/C

Reduce driving and turn off your A/C at home.

[CRF450]

135. Not possible with my job

I clean pools and spas April to October, so I do alot of driving 4 days a week. And when I get home, I have the A/C on cause from being out in the sun all day I'd still feel pretty burnt up for several hours.

[cobalt1999]

144. You mean nobody 50 years ago worked outside all day?

They survived.

Just kidding with you. :)

I'm the last person to get on their "high horse" and tell someone else how to live their lives. Which is why this whole "go vegan" thing is so silly as many of them have children, crank up the A/C, drive all around, and somehow think they are "greener". It's not really about global warming as converting people.

You do your best for your lifestyle, I'll do mine. Peace.

[LWolf]

154. I run an evaporative cooler at home,

which uses a lot less energy than A/C. Of course, I'm in a desert. Evaporative coolers don't work in humidity.

I never make just one trip into town for something, and do my best to make sure that errands are run on the way to or from work.

I also drive a leisurely 45 mph to and from work; slower if it's icy. I get away with that because there's not much traffic, and no traffic lights.

[LWolf]

108. Use of fossil fuels is a factor, of course, but

it is overpopulation that is the ultimate source of global warming.

[CRF450]

140. Agreed, and the sad thing is

Is that its not a big issue like global warming itself is!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

192. seconded.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. And auto emissions by themselves count for 1/3 of all greenhouse gases

but it's practically heresy to suggest that Americans choose (when given the opportunity--I know that some people are stuck) to live in areas or in ways that minimize driving.

Say you move to a new city. You look at a house or apartment close in and on a bus or train line, and you look at the rent or mortgage, and you think, "Eeek, that's too much."

You look at a house or apartment out in Outer Exurbia, and it's $400 less per month, so you think, "Good deal!"

However, you fail to consider the cost of buying, running, repairing, and insuring a car for every person in the household over age 16. If you do, suddenly that dwelling in Outer Exurbia doesn't look so cheap. In addition, you're spending a good deal of every day on the road.

So here's what I would tell Americans: If you have a choice, live close in and on a transit line. Yes, you can get by with a smaller house or apartment. Your parents did. If you're lucky, you can get by with one car or even no car. And no, living close in does not necessarily mean the slums. Every American city, even New York, has urban neighborhoods with grass and trees. Minneapolis and St. Paul, for instance, are made up MOSTLY of residential neighborhoods with grass and trees.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

152. I wonder if it's the oil industry that's pimping this stuff.

[Megahurtz]

185. Gotta be. n/t

[flvegan]

178. Where does that figure come from?

I've never heard that before.

[KurtNYC]

190. World Health Org (WHO)

and here is a classic example:

Quarter Pounder
French Fries
24 oz Coke = 1370 calories, 54% carb, 10% protein, 46% fat

[LWolf]

106. Having babies is less green than both.

I support farming that includes multiple crops and grass-fed and finished livestock, which is greener than many modern food production practices.

I support consuming more plants, and fewer animals.

I support conserving energy consumption, and renewable energy sources.

I also support efforts to reduce human population. Every additional human on an already over-crowded planet is another carbon footprint which will reduce the effectiveness of all those other solutions.

<snip>

Each year we add more than 70 million people to the more than 6.5-billion human fossil-fuel burners now on the planet. Yet most calls to action on global warming fail to address population growth.

We’re urged to “shop smart” when we buy cars, light bulbs and all the rest. Companies are rolling out new products to satisfy our desire to make earth-friendly purchases.

For all the useful talk about new products and innovative ways to cap emissions, there is little or no public discussion about the underlying cause of global warming — human population growth.

It matters enormously whether the world’s population in 2050 is 10.8 billion people or 7.8 billion people — the high and low projections made in 2006 by the United Nations. Consider how much less carbon pollution there could be in a world with 3 billion fewer people.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/20/654/

<snip>

A radical form of “offsetting” carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is proposed today – having fewer children.

Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon dioxide saving of nearly 750 tonnes, a climate impact equivalent to 620 return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population Trust says in a new report.

Based on a “social cost” of carbon dioxide of $85 a tonne**, the report estimates the climate cost of each new Briton over their lifetime at roughly £30,000. The lifetime emission costs of the extra 10 million people projected for the UK by 2074 would therefore be over £300 billion. ******************************************************************************

The report adds: “The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm

<snip>

Stage C. Halting Global Warming

Here are some of the steps we can take:

Lower our population through mandatory and voluntary population control measures worldwide

Change our eating habits to eat more plant and lower our meat intake

http://www.satglobal.com/global_warming.htm

[stuntcat]

195. oh no :o it's the unspeakable

Thank you. You're braver than me, I won't bring this up anywhere online because I don't think anyone can listen.
This subject hurts people's pride, I assume it's something to do with why humans are "in His image" ?? Anyway, it's really something to see it mentioned here.

[LWolf]

196. Lone wolves aren't afraid of ostracism, lol.

We should never be afraid of truth. If truth is irritating our world view, it's time for self-examination, and perhaps for a shift in perspective.

The primitive need to procreate is real and powerful. I don't think that everybody needs to be childless. Treat childbearing like dessert; one helping is plenty. :D

[The Straight Story]

113. Ban meat eating, like smoking - because both affect other people

We all know it is coming - Eventually we will live and dance with the unicorns and sprinkle fairy dust on each other. Utopia is just around the corner, we just have pass some more laws :)

[madinmaryland]

125. I eat 16 oz steaks while driving my SUV for three hours to the mall!!1!!

:evilgrin:

[MissB]

136. ...with the air conditioning on full blast and the windows down.

[sutz12]

147. Old news....most food is not very green...

You think it is efficient to ship veggies and fruit in from So America or Asia?

[LittleClarkie]

156. I'm going out for a burger

Anyone else want one?

This thread made me hungry.

[Blue-Jay]

157. If I drive for three hours do I need to buy a steak offset?

Mmmmm.....steak offset....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

176. I don't own a car, and I have no children.

I figure I break even at the very least.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

181. you can say that again.

[rucky]

179. The study doesn't count for different methods of raising cattle.

I doubt the free-range grassfed beef we get from the family up the road has near the environmental impact of the megafarm, forcefed, hormone induced corporate cattle.

Plus, even if you are shipping the feed, shippng grain to Japan is different than shipping grain to Iowa.

Still, the methane thing is a valid point to raise - but to say it does more damage than driving makes burning gasoline seem not so bad.

[SmokingJacket]

180. So it's okay to drive way across town to the farmers market for veggies?

I was feeling a bit conflicted. ;)

[matcom]

182. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

but if we DON'T kill the cows they will FART US OFF THE PLANET!!

what to do! WHAT TO DO!!

:rofl:

omg

[Megahurtz]

184. ROFL!!!

:rofl:

:popcorn:

[MrSlayer]

186. I'm doing as much as I can. I'm not giving up beef.

I don't drive, I use flourescents, I recycle and I try to conserve as much as possible. I draw the line at my beef. Life is too short not to enjoy it.