Maybe a more sober look at meat consumption could help. I'm sure someone could pull stats that make it plain that each American (and Westerner) eats a higher percentage of meat than a century ago...and greater quanities. Think there is evidence that it takes more resources to produce a pound of meat than a pound of vegetables. Diabetis is exploding along with waistlines - caused by high-density foods (sugar and meat). High food consumption is also linked with cardio-vascular diseases, some cancers and possibly Alzheimer's.

I have a pet theory - simple foods are heathier - simple fuels are greener.

 

Here's a link to the UN article and report:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...r1=environment

"When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain. "

Also a good quick watch is The Meatrix! It is funny, spooky, and eyeopening. And it's an award-winning cartoon version of the Matrix with farm animals. How can you resist that?!?
http://www.themeatrix.com

 

Maybe I should take BS more seriously.

 

Nice one Delta Flyer

 

Well, I like meat. And I'm an environmentalist. Cows (the main producer of greenhouse gases) will continue to produce gases even if fewer people eat tham, because the cows won't magically die off and the farmers won't stop producing because someone somewhere will eat meat. Man has eaten meat since the beginning of our time, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. More greenhouse gases are produced by decaying insects than by humans; should we ban bugs?
I recently learned that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. That means that we are currently dealing with the gases produced in the early 20th century, when standards were a lot less strict. I believe the United States has done as much as it can do with current technology and attitudes. The UN and other organizations need to spend less time bashing America and more time getting China, Russia, and Indonesia to start cleaning up their industries. Until you develop a global solution to greenhouse hases one country could reduce all it wanted to but another country's emissions would fill that void. If people just paid a bit more attention to the world around them, rather than their insular lives, then everyone would be better off for so many reasons.

 

My user name is "cast and blast" - guess what my stance on this is?

I love animals - they are delicious.

Scott

 

Well, in this capitalist society your biggest vote is with your pocketbook. If you choose not to buy something, and someone else does as well, and then someone else does again... you get the idea? It's like voting. This I'm one person and can't make a difference attitude is what's keeping you from making a difference.

It's not the actual eating of meat that isn't green. If you go kill bambi and eat her you aren't adding to the GW problem.

It the clearing of rainforest for grazing pasture so we can have triple cheeseburgers on McD's Dollar menu. That's what you need to say no to.

That $1 cheeseburger blows my mind when I am paying $2.99 for ONE organic avocado.

Throwing blame China's way doesn't offset YOUR carbon emissions. Everyone can improve.

 

abowles:
The reasons behind my saying I was not sure about that chart:
1) 17 year old data
2) very imprecise Y scale- you see 20, but it looks more like 14 to me
3) terribly general categories. I mean, come on- Industry? Energy Use? What the heck goes into those categories?
4) no applicable transporatation category, though you seem to have equated transportation with energy use for some reason. Without a transporation category, it's impossible to do an apples-to-apples contrast with the PETA spokesman's relative comparison. For all we know, transportation costs related to agriculture were bundled into that column, and the transportation costs related to industry were in that column, etc.

Basically, it seems to me to be a near-useless chart with no context or explanation. In context it may be valuable but it doesn't help us here at all. I'm not saying I know for sure that you're wrong or that PETA is right- the USDA link does state that
but they are hardly an unbiased source, and once again, the data is old (this page was last updated in 2000 and it does not cite a source for the figure, so who knows how far back it goes?).

Pardon my constant skeptical need for precision- I'm just that way.

 

Couldn't agree more. This is exactly why the current Bush stance on the Kyoto Protocol drives me up a wall.

 

Do you really believe the US has done as much as it can do to reduce greenhouse gases? I mean really? I was recently reminded of a campaign promise made in 1992 - to make CAFE 40 mpg by the year 2000. Well, know it is 2007 and we are still at 27.5 mpg. This while Europe is looking at going to 50 mpg (give or take) for 2010. Europe is also phasing out incandescent bulbs over the next 8 years - only California has made some steps in this direction. People in Europe cause roughly 1/2 the CO2 output per person as we do in the US - and you really think we are doing all that we can?