A world without roast beef: who wants that except McCartney and Stern?

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/16/mccartney-stern-meat-free-mondays

Sir Paul McCartney arrived in Brussels yesterday to recruit support for his "meat-free Mondays" campaign. The argument seems so easy: cut down meat consumption and the planet will be saved.

But even if a world without roast beef was one in which we all wanted to live (please count me out), we need to think a little harder about what will really work to arrest global warming. Why are Mondays to be free of meat alone? After all, dairy cattle produce greenhouse gases as well as milk. Are we meant to become part-time vegetarians or vegans? And why single out meat? Asia's rice fields emit the same amount of methane as their livestock industry. It seems doubtful that a campaign for rice-free Tuesdays will be next.

A global deal to combat dangerous climate change at UN talks in Copenhagen next month is critical. But successful action won't end with a new international agreement, whenever it is struck.

For a start, we'll need to maintain the public pressure that is driving governments to agree action. That means guarding against demands for behavioural changes so unrealistic that they risk undermining public support for the steps we can and must take. The call last month by the government's former climate change adviser, Lord Stern, to give up meat-eating altogether could almost have been calculated to reduce public support for climate change action. In fact, the people's response, according to a subsequent opinion poll, was to deliver Stern a loud raspberry. But the reputational damage to a vitally important cause may have been more serious.

[Possumpoint]

1. Grew Up With

meatless fridays and hated it. Fish isn't high on my wanna list. Love raw vegatables and salads but also like to add meat and cheese to them. Understand the problem and methods of correction but don't want to walk down that road.

[Harry Monroe]

11. I grew up in New Orleans

Meatless Fridays were no sacrifice at all!!

[planetc]

2. Fact check requested

I think the editorial writer may have his facts wrong. McCartney came out a few months ago in favor of one meatless day a week, as that could have a significant impact on climate-unfriendly activities. He's been recommending vegetarianism for years, of course. But this is the first instance I've seen of him recommending the abolition of roast beef, so I think the Guardian's fact checker may have been out with the flu the day this was written.

[planetc]

3. correction to previous

It's the headline writer who was confused or not confused at all. The first paragraph of the essay credits McCartney with requesting meat free Mondays only. Of course, if you put McCartney in your headline, you instantly get a lot of interest you wouldn't get otherwise. Perhaps the headline writer just wanted to be as provocative as possible. Shame on them!

[niceypoo]

4. Kill and eat vegans

“Made by the people for the people from the people.”
~ Oscar Wilde on Soylent Green

“Soylent Green is other people.”
~ Jean-Paul Sartre on society

[happyslug]

5. Oscar Wilde died in 1900, the term "Soylent Green" was invented in

Oscar Wilde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde

Now Jean-Paul Sartre did live till 1980 and thus knew of the term "Soylent Green".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

I had to check if "Soylent Green" was a term used before it was introduced in the 1973 Movie "Soylent Green" but I could NOT find any (Which I suspect for it appears to be a term invented for the Movie). Thus a person (Oscar Wilde) who died in 1900 could NOT have used a term NOT invented till 1973.

Now the quote from Jean-Paul Sartre could be accurate, he lived till 1980, seven years after the movie, but given your first quote can NOT be accurate i would check I cite for it if I was you.

Please note the above assumes you are quoting the person most people call "Oscar Wilde", if it is NOT, you have to make that clear (For example US Master Sargent Adolph Hitler was asked why he did NOT change his name, said (paraphrased) "Why can't the other guy change his?"). Many people can have the same name as a more famous person, but then you have to make clear which of those people you are citing for most people will assume you are citing the most famous person of that name (Another example, Winston Churchill was the son of John Churchill who was the son of another Winston Churchill, this pattern in his family goes back several centuries, thus if you are quoting another Winston Churchill other then the English Prime Minster during WWII, you have to make it clear that the Winston Churchill you are citing is NOT the Winston Churchill of WWII fame).

I fear this comment of "Oscar Wilde" is NOT a comment from him or someone with his name, but a quote someone made up and attributed to Oscar Wilde. That happens more often then people may think and again it is a bad quotation and should NOT be used.

[niceypoo]

6. Oscar Wilde on Soylent Green. “Mother made a great lasagne!”

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Soylent_Green

[Dr.Phool]

7. I'm going to Arby's.

[bertman]

8. " . . . That means guarding against demands for behavioural changes so unrealistic . . ."

The way I see it, the changes that will be required if we are to make any substantial headway in the right direction, are going to be far too drastic for most Americans to accept or buy into.

We live like kings yet we don't know it. Our daily lives as Americans are so filled with waste and profligate use of resources that it boggles my mind when I contemplate it. Perhaps there are some geniuses out there who are coming up with ways to make this transition to a reduced-carbon-emitting lifestyle painless and non-threatening to our way of life. I hope so. But I doubt it.

And there's my happy thought for the day.

Cheerio.

[truedelphi]

9. Small dairy farms are not the problem. Factory farms are, yet almost evey

Time legislation gets passed -- it is the smaller farmers that are penalized.
California recently passed a "Happy Cows" proposition - and it mandates that cows be outdoors a certain amount of the time. Great, you say? But on rainy cold days, a normal cow might not want to be outside that long.

The big farming conglomerates have the money to grease the palms of those who check on the requirements being folowed. If people at Agency X require so much dough to go away, the large conglomerates can do it. The folks at Big Agra can bribe their way out of this.

Smaller farmers have to live with the insanity of trying to convince their livestock to be outside when they don't want to be there.

And the overall situation is not improved.

Cap and trade means more of this insanity to follow.

[malakai2]

10. Look on the bright side

If you're downstream of some big CAFOs, you are probably getting plenty of antibiotics and steroids in your water. The little guys don't look out for you like that.

[truedelphi]

13. I'd forgotten about that. Those downstream areas are almost

A free pharmacy, aren't they?

[handmade34]

14. well put

[fasttense]

12. Mmmm, roast beef an Brussel (sprouts) in the first 2 lines.

This story sounds delicious.

[handmade34]

15. many want a healthier world

very few people advocate abolishing livestock altogether, although most conscientious consumers understand a need for less consumption and kinder agricultural practices. This earth certainly has much land well suited to grazing and the production of livestock for human consumption. The problem is with CAFOs and profit motive that have given people the illusion that we can produce and that we deserve all the meat (beef, pork, poultry, etc.) that we can consume. Just as with many products (including gasoline) if the true cost to all people -and the earth's environment, were known, attitudes would be much different.

My comments in parenthesis

...targeting meat eaters in the fight against climate change alienates ordinary people (provides them information and opportunities to act to make change)

...but much of our grassland can only be used to rear animals: we couldn't use our green hills to produce cereals (then, this is the right place to raise livestock and eliminate large factory farms)

...we need to meet "the twin challenge of ensuring food security while reducing emissions". His proposal to boost international research into mitigating cattle emissions is a practical step. Abolishing livestock isn't (I have not seen evidence that anyone is talking of abolishing livestock altogether and food security does not mean copious amounts of meat)

...without widespread public buy-in, the societal shift needed to de-carbonise our economies won't follow. To encourage this democratic engagement we must frame policy in a way that incentivises and rewards people to do the right things (I agree)

...we all enjoy and truly value the fruits of a cleaner, more beautiful environment, and where individuals and communities live within their environmental means (living within our means is an excellent start)

...we can't allow political agendas (or large corporate interests CAFOs) to undermine the chance of success. Ultimately, we'll only achieve a good future if people want to get there...