Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming? Eating red meat like driving an SUV?

[Karmadillo]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817&page=1

<edit>

That surprising conclusion comes from a couple of scientists who have taken an unusual look at the production of greenhouse gases from an angle that not many folks have even thought about. Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies.

If you want to help lower greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in a report to be published in the journal Earth Interactions, become a vegetarian.

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that both researchers are vegetarians, although they admit to cheating a little with an occasional sardine. They say their conclusions are backed up by hard data.

<edit>

Energy used in agriculture has grown substantially in recent years, he says, and now stands at around 18 percent or 19 percent of the nation's energy use.

The researchers say their findings show that at least 6 percent of that use comes from the production of foods that are not energy efficient, like cattle and the food to feed them. Considering that the "mean American diet is responsible for an additional ton-and-a-half of greenhouse gas emissions a year from each of us," the savings could be substantial.

more...

[XemaSab]

1. .

:popcorn:

[ThomCat]

2. Attacks on vegetarians... 10, 9, 8...

:popcorn:

[Cassandra]

21. You do know that plowing ground for vegetables...

kills the thousands of small animals that live in the stubble. Moles, voles, mice and rats. Just sayin'. ;-)
Not really relevant to emissions but just wanted to throw that in to be a pain.

[ThomCat]

22. Hi Cassandra

:hug:

[Cassandra]

33. Hi

:hi:

[Brazenly Liberal]

61. All the more reason to be a vegetarian

To produce a pound of food, far more land has to be plowed under to grow feed for livestock than if the crop is fed directly to people. :-)

[Critters2]

205. 16 punds of grain for every pound of beef

Who's killing more bugs now?

[Xithras]

212. Most grain production is done in non-irrigated pasture.

Soil suitable for higher value crops like vegetables are rarely used for low value crops like grains and hay. Typically, these cattle feeds are grown on non-irrigates land that won't grow anything else.

Unless you want to divert the Mississippi river and start irrigating the entire midwest, you simply cannot "replace" grain production with vegetable and soy production. Wide expanses of American farmland are completely dependent on rainfall for crop viability, and these lands are rarely useful for growing the water intensive crops that most vegetarians think we should all switch to.

[Brazenly Liberal]

217. You need to tell that to all the feed-raising farmers who surround me.

Because they apparently didn't get the memo. They're raising thousands of acres of corn and soybeans for livestock feed. On prime farmland. Much of it being irrigated. Most of it eminently suitable for growing vegetables. In fact, that's what we grow. Vegetables.

[Critters2]

219. I take it you've never been to Iowa n/t

[laheina]

235. I think that you missed the point.

Beef is a terrible waste of the corn and soy that are grown. Wherever these materials are grown, they would be put to a much more efficient use to feed poor people.

Instead, some 16 pounds of grain and soybeans (on average) goes to produce one pound of beef. This says nothing about the gas and oil going into producing this pound or the water. It could all be used much more efficiently.

[astonamous]

3. Did this study include the...uh...cattle emissions? n/t

[Hand]

28. Not a minor issue, that...

Cattle and other ruminants belch (not fart) huge quantities if methane, which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That's been established as a major contributor to increased greenhouse gasses for decades now.

One of the very few times that Sen. William Proxmire was wrong with his "Golden Fleece" award was when he awarded it to government-funded studies of cattle-sourced methane. That research was done by some of the most knowledgeable and capable atmospheric scientists in the world.

Scary stuff. :scared:

[Xithras]

209. In a historical context it may be irrelevant.

Cattle ARE a source of methane gas, but they may not be a source of INCREASED methane gas output...there IS a difference. Throughout the planets history, countless millions of buffalo, wild cattle, wild sheep and goats, and many other large grazing animals have happily farted their methane into our atmosphere. While modern cattle certainly belch methane, their input is offset by the virtual extinction of natural methane producing grazers around the world.

Is the offset 1 to 1? I don't know, because NOBODY HAS RESEARCHED IT. Estimates of pre-slaughter bison populations run as high as 60 million, and the present US cattle population is about 90 million, so the odds of a 1-1 wash are slim. Of course, cattle are smaller and consume less, and their diets are different. So how do these compare? Until someone does the research, we really don't know if this is an issue or not.

[frustrated_lefty]

82. What about vegetarian's emissions?!!!!

[WillyT]

127. LOL !!! - My Sister's A Vegan... Hoo... Weeeeeee....

:rofl::evilgrin::rofl:

[Andromeda]

255. I've heard about those.

Once they get started, they can't stop.

[toddaa]

4. And away we go!

Chum in the water, chum in the water.

...Anyway, before the vegans show up, it should probably be pointed out that anyone eating vegetables that did not come from their back yard or their neighborhood aren't exactly doing the planet any favors either.

[ThomCat]

8. The vegans got here first.

While you are correct that transporting vegetables is an environmental problem, you're missing the point.

Transporting meat has all of those same problems, and then more besides.

[toddaa]

109. I get the point

I'm just not going to play the holier than thou game that inevitably these meat-eater v. vegan threads devolve into, much like this one has. That's my point.

[Inland]

12. But transportation isn't all.

Meat simply requires more energy and more land area than non-meat. It's a fact.

[laheina]

236. And water!!

2,500 for just one pound of steak: includes maintaining cattle for production duration as well as the irrigation of the feed that they consume.

That's roughly the amount that an average family uses in a month.

[expatriot]

13. Do you know how much soy it takes to make a pound of hamburger?

I know that for every calorie of beef that is "harvested" it takes like at least 20 calories of plant food.

So for every planetary ill that my 1 calorie of plant-based diet causes, multiply your one calorie of beef by at least twenty.

Then add the methane, all the fossil fuels burned in the much greater transport-intensive industry of meat production, the added intensive use of water resources, etc.

your calorie of beef causes much more planetary ill than my calorie of tofu.

[eppur_se_muova]

26. Yes, it is incredible that they feed SOY to COWS.

Cows don't get fat enough on just corn -- there's a point of diminishing return. If they add soy protein to their diet, they can metabolize more of the calories from corn. But it's something like 3 lbs of soy for each lb of meat gained !

I actually quit eating meat when I learned how much tropical forest is destroyed to produce one lb of hamburger. Raising grazing animals for food ONLY makes sense in areas where grass (or other fodder) is the only crop that will grow. Every place else, plant crops produce more food than grazers.

[ProfessorGAC]

155. Useless Statistic

You do know that the cattle have to eat JUST TO STAY ALIVE! Right?

The extra soy protein does allow them to get fat, but that 3:1 ratio includes the balance in the diet that helps the cattle stay alive and healthy.

So, that is a rationale for vegetarianism, but is apropos of nothing. I've got no ax to grind on whether people eat meat or not. But, i don't let conservatives get away with spouting statistics without context, and i'm not going to let folks here get away with it either.
The Professor

[eppur_se_muova]

164. Congratulations, you missed the point completely!

Cattle in feedlots are fed WAY more food than necessary to stay alive ... they go to feed lots to FATTEN UP. Otherwise, why not leave them grazing on GRASS? Answer: it would take YEARS longer to reach market weight, and the cattle would have meat without much fat, so it wouldn't qualify for the higher grades of meat (Grade AAA is fattier than AA, fattier than A, fatter than B, etc.).

No matter how much corn feedlot cattle eat, they are given more. This naturally leads to fat cattle. But not FAT ENOUGH to bring in top dollar!! And top dollar is what we are talking about, not "keeping them alive". Grass would do that. Feeding them twice as much corn does not make them twice as fat -- this is what is meant by diminishing returns. Feedlot cattle even suffer liver problems because they cannot properly digest all the corn they are eating, but the industry still wants them fatter. It turns out that feeding them soy meal (more protein than corn) keeps them healthier and lets them grow fatter. But the amount of digestible protein available to humans from soymeal exceeds the digestible protein in the beef that is produced by a large factor. That is not a "useless statistic" -- it is a clear sign that you are destroying more protein to make less protein, the only real advantage being that the beef protein is more marketable. People like beef, they pay more for beef, so in pure $$$ terms it's a "good" thing. But in terms of $/gram protein, raw materials expended/gram protein, energy consumed/gram protein, cattle are less efficient than soy. The only advantage of cattle -- and it is a real advantage in certain environments -- is that cattle can eat grass and other forage which is indigestible to humans, and convert it into human-digestible form.

Keep in mind, if we were not raising these cattle for slaughter, they would not exist in the first place -- so the question of feeding them to "keep them alive" is a moooooot point. If we hadn't all been sold on the idea that we *ought* to be eating lots of beef, we wouldn't be feeding all that corn and soy to cattle, and there would be more food available for other purposes, like feeding people. But there's not enough profit in that.

on edit: In case it's not obvious, I'm more appalled by the wasteful misdirection of resources by market interests than I am by the fact that some people eat meat. The beef industry has a lot in common with the oil industry, in that it is constantly trying to create more demand through marketing than can be justified on any reasonable grounds. What's good for the industry is not good for the customer.

[laruemtt]

5. it's all spelled out pretty clearly

in that 1970s standby from Frances Moore Lappe "Diet for a Small Planet." wish i had it here to retrieve quotes and figures from. i've been vegetarian since april 1976 immediately after reading that book. anyone have it on hand with some statistics showing the massive amounts of energy that go into producing red meat as opposed to grain and vegetable based diets?

[etherealtruth]

10. Add to that the huge amount of scarce water resources

...used associated with red meat production.

I am not diminishing the amount of water squandered by inefficient crop irrigation.

[laheina]

240. Here are some:

To bring 1 lb. of beef to market:

16+ lbs. of grains and soy.
20,000 calories of fossil fuel to 1 lb of beefs 500 calories of energy
2,500 gallons of water
soil erosion
import deficiencies

It's a fabulous book--just in case anyone wants to look it up!!:)

[Psephos]

6. The ultimate way to save energy

is to not be alive.

The real problem is that while the Earth's resources are finite, every year there are more and more people placing pressure upon them. If we all cut 20% out of our resource use, but world population goes up 30%, we're not only failing to improve things, we're making them worse.

That said, the health of the planet and of frequent meat eaters would improve with less meat consumption.

Peace.

[laheina]

242. Yes! and that's the point.

For those that so chose, eat meat--just eat less of it!

But even more, question our practices. Make an informed decision.

[RebelOne]

7. Well, at least I am doing a small part

of saving the environment by being vegetarian.

[expatriot]

9. This is nothing new... it is common sense.

http://www.goveg.com

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345321200.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[phantom power]

11. Every step up the food-chain wastes 90% of the input energy.

As climate change decimates earth's largest bread-basket regions, wasting solar energy and minerals on growing meat will become uneconomical, except for the very rich.

I expect that 25 years from now, most people will be back to the earlier lifestyles of eating meat once or twice a week at most. And we'll all know many, many ways to prepare beans and rice :-)

[expatriot]

15. you'd like this link:

http://smallplanetinstitute.org/

[Boomer]

20. That's a reasonable solution

>>...eating meat once or twice a week at most.<<

Promoting a strict vegetarian diet is laudable in theory, but in reality many humans enjoy eating meat and aren't going to give it up. Plus, maintaining a strict vegetarian diet requires thought and effort to prevent malnutrition. I know one or two vegans who simply stopped eating meat without changing their diets to compensate for the lost protein and ended up with serious health problems. So expecting our entire species to forgo meat is a bit unrealistic.

But the common overconsumption of beef (far more than is needed for dietary requirements) by our overpopulated species is definitely causing a problem of global proportions.

In my own case, I don't have children, so that should help balance out my request for steak. :evilgrin:

[phantom power]

23. If loving meat is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

The ecology and economics of it won't go away just because I crave me some slow-cooked ribs. Oh well.

It occurs to me that this game can be played in the other direction. If you want your diet to be a status symbol (and demonstrate that you are evil), you could eat predators, which are 10 times more thermodynamically expensive than the herbivores we mostly eat.

[Inland]

24. Nobody say NOTHING bad about my drive-thru ocelot filet dinner! nt

[mzteris]

37. Man is the biggest predator, ya know.....

I'm just sayin'

:shrug:

[Coexist]

48. Soylent Green, it is.

:smoke:

[Inland]

65. Done and done.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41236

[LeftyMom]

39. Not really

As long as one eats a varied diet based on real food and not convenience crap, eating a vegan or vegetarian diet doesn't really require a great deal of thought. The effort all goes into the learning curve in the first few weeks or months- after that it's just preparing food.

But yes, junk food vegans have health problems, just as junk food omnivores do. New Ovo-Lacto vegetarians who go nuts with dairy get sick as hell. In any diet one needs to apply a little common sense, but it's really no more time consuming for vegans to do so than for anybody else.

[Boomer]

120. Ah, there's the rub

>> As long as one eats a varied diet based on real food and not convenience crap... <<

You would think that's an obvious observation, but it's not. The people I was speaking of ate crap to begin with, just no crap with meat in it. :) One of them was a young co-worker of mine who basically ate take-out food and pizza and stopped eating meat as some kind of idealistic political statement without any accompanying interest in good health and eating habits.

[LeftyMom]

126. Yeah, that's a problem

Coke is vegan. Many potato chips are vegan. Consuming those things often is still a bad idea.

[Inland]

14. Nobody say NOTHING bad about my drive-thru rib dinner! nt

[Initech]

16. Or my chicken sandwich!

:popcorn:

[expatriot]

17. okay, not yours..but the guy's rib dinner BEHIND you in the drive-thru..nt

[Inland]

19. Right! He's a freeper asshole!

I've watched him idle his Tahoe right behind my Tahoe for the last fifteen minutes!

[Southsideirish]

18. I haven't had meat in 10 years and I never felt better. Now the sight of

it at the meat counter in the store makes me want to puke. UGH!

[porphyrian]

25. A better analogy would be to say that people who eat meat...

...are like people who use plastic. Both industries are environmentally toxic, and the consumers who give these industries money are indirectly responsible.

[Skidmore]

27. Gee, I thought is was about the cow fart study.

The one that said global warming was caused by cow gas. I agree that humans cause global warming, but I strongly suspect that if we all became vegetarians, the fuel used to produce additional fruits and vegetables would have a similar effect.

Soylent green, anyone?

[Brazenly Liberal]

62. Actually, there would be much LESS fuel used to produce veg food.

An enormous percentage of the crops grown now are grown as livestock feed. To show you how ridiculous it is here, I live in a large farming county that produces huge amounts of corn and soybeans, but I canNOT buy locally grown soybeans or corn because it's all livestock feed varieties, not the varieties people eat. If that cropland grew food for human consumption instead, you'd need only a fraction of it to feed the same number of people.

[laheina]

244. Half.

Half of all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are grown for American cattle feed or exported cattle feed. And cows are a lousy return on that investment in that it takes lots of feed to produce a little bit of beef. In other words, they are a drain on food resources.

Everybody should think about that next time there are starving people on the teevee.

[laheina]

243. It's cow belches. nt

[intheflow]

29. Vote #5 for GP is from this carnivore.

Not necessarily to bemoan meat-eating. Yes, bovine gases contribute to global warming, but what about all the fuel used to transport tuna to Denver, or any of the fresh fruits and veggies available at every major market in the US all year long? There's enough blame to go around to carnivore and vegetarian alike in this crazy, globalized world we live in.

So saying, I don't know what the answer is. Seems like an impossible dream to return to local subsistance farming. :shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

35. Thats why its important to buy as much local produce as possible

At least when it is available.

There are so many little things we can all do each day to save the environment. Here are 50:

http://www.justgive.org/html/guide/50waysenvironment.html

[Brazenly Liberal]

69. Not saying this to be argumentative, but...

vegetarians don't eat tuna. :-)

And people who eat meat also eat fruit and vegetables.

So that line of reasoning doesn't fly.

But I do see your other point and, taking your "enough blame to go around" and switching it to "enough credit to go around," we get to one of my favorite rants. Although I've been vegan for about 15 years and love it, this is a rant against some vegans:

Yes, I am vegan. And yes, I am convinced my diet is better for me and the planet - and more compassionate - than a meat eater's diet. But it pisses me off no end when people make the leap to say being vegan in and of itself makes them better people than someone who eats meat. Bullshit. There are lots of ways to be a good person. I have a sister who eats meat, eggs, dairy, the lot. Is my diet better than hers? Yes. Am I better than her? Hardly. She took a 50% pay cut to be the director of a free clinic, giving health care to the working poor. She goes on medical humanitarian missions all over the globe, to places where it's sometimes pretty dangerous. Her medical team was the first on the scene after the WTC went down, ahead of the Red Cross or anyone else. There are lots of ways to be a good person. And there are lots of ways to be an asshole. Both vegans and omnivores seem to find plenty of both.

[intheflow]

122. brazenlyliberal.

What a nice post! I could never think you were being argmentative. :)

[tandot]

128. Thanks for posting this, brazenlyliberal. My sister is a vegetarian

and I am the one who eats meat. I appreciate that she does not judge me for eating meat and never tries to convince me to become a vegetarian. I am eating now lots more vegetables and fruits, but still some chicken and fish (red meat about twice a month). I even changed recipes because of her and use vegetable broth instead of beef broth for my dishes. And I always tell her which products I am serving contain meat (or even the slightest trace of animal products) and which products I am not sure about. And, of course, I always make special meatless dishes when she comes over.

Some other vegetarians/vegans I know are highly judgmental and always try to make me feel like I am the biggest sinner to walk this earth. If the biggest problem on earth is me eating meat, we are the luckiest planet in the universe.

[noonwitch]

30. I don't care, I'm still eating steak when I want it

Personally, this sounds like bullshit science to me anyways.

[1620rock]

31. Umm, seriously though...

...gasses aside, the grain used to feed all of those cows etc. could feed the hungry of the world. :hippie:

[Llewlladdwr]

138. The problem isn't producing food.

It's delivering it. There are governments who use food (or rather its lack) as a weapon against their own populace.

[laheina]

245. Sometimes that is a problem.

North Korea is very much guilty of this. However, saying that there is only one problem is very much over-simplifying the issue of world hunger. Our wasteful habits of food production is another part of this issue. :)

[Beaverhausen]

32. Might I suggest you read this

http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

Ok- its from a vegetarian website but the article is footnoted with sources such as US Dept. of Agriculture and Time Magazine.

It's really not bullshit science at all. The production and transport of meat is a major environmental problem.

[rinsd]

54. Check those footnotes.....

Only one source is the USDA and its from a report in 1997.

And this guy is the author of the Time article.

Ed Ayres is editorial director of the Worldwatch Institute and author of "God's Last Offer: Negotiating for a Sustainable Future.

And the article reads like a veggie recruiting pamphlet.

[Beaverhausen]

59. How about the content? Can you disprove any of it?

If any of the facts listed are wrong please enlighten us.

[rinsd]

64. Talking points can be factually correct.

That doesn't make them any less of a talking point.

Its about overblown hysteria. Its not enough to tell someone that eating meat is unhealthy, now they have to be cast as planet killers.

It's like the Bush = Hilter thing. Its not enough that we are fighting against a dangerous right winger with fascist tendencies. He HAS to be the modern day Hitler.

[Beaverhausen]

66. Global warming isn't overblown hysteria. And if by eating less meat we...

...can slow down the effects why would you be against it? There are many things we each can to to lessen our "footprint" on the planet. Eating food that isn't so hard on the planet is one, driving a more fuel efficient/less polluting car is another. Recycling is yet another.

No one is telling people not to eat meat because it is unhealthy. That is a personal choice. Educating people on the environmental effects of the production and transportation of meat is another altogether, and in my opinion something that needs to be done NOW.

[rinsd]

70. I never said global warming is overblown hysteria

Its saying "you're eating meat is the problem".

"No one is telling people not to eat meat because it is unhealthy."

See I have no issue with this actually.

"That is a personal choice."

Indeed, it is one way or the other.

"Educating people on the environmental effects of the production and transportation of meat is another altogether, and in my opinion something that needs to be done NOW."

"Educating"...oh man are we in Orwell territory.

"can slow down the effects why would you be against it"

Because I am a shameful selfish individual who wants the planet to die.

Again, its not enough to state things as they are, they must take on a more grandiose scale.

[LeftyMom]

41. Here's similar information in The Guardian

As the Guardian is highly regarded and not exactly a hotbed of pro-veg bias, maybe this will do a little to persuade you of the credibility of the argument. If not, I suspect you're letting your wants override your logic.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5366035-105909,00.html

[rinsd]

55. Don't DUers pay attention to the authors....

"Jonathon Porritt is programme director of Forum for the Future and chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission. His book, Capitalism As If The World Matters, is published by Earthscan Hardback. He will be speaking, with Ken Livingstone, Monty Don, Caroline Lucas and others, at the Soil Association's 60th anniversary conference in London on Friday and Saturday. Further information at: www.soilassociation.org/conference "

[LeftyMom]

63. There's certainly nothing objectionable at the link

It's an organic farming group. There isn't a big pro-vegan bias in organic ag- you'll note that one of the conference topics was organic dairy production.

I don't see anything objectionable at the sustainable development commission site, either. That's http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/ if you want to check it out (they seem much more focused on transport, development and sprawl issues than food.)

[rinsd]

72. The two topics seemed to be intertwined to the author

and that's why I cited his background.

[laheina]

246. So, is it that the writer can't be an authority on the topic,

or is the author not supposed to believe what he or she is writing.:shrug:

An author's close relationship to a topic is never a reason to dismiss their opinions out of hand, one must just find other reputable research to corroborate it.

[Lorien]

131. Here's another one:

The Price of Cheap Beef:
Disease, Deforestation, Slavery and Murder
By George Monbiot
Guardian
October 18, 2005

If it's unethical to eat British beef, it's 100 times worse to eat Brazilian - but imports have nearly doubled this year.

For the past five years I have been at war with Farmers for Action. These are the neanderthals who have held up the traffic and blockaded the refineries in the hope of persuading the government to reduce the price of fuel. It doesn't matter how often you explain that cheap fuel, which allows the supermarkets to buy from wherever the price of meat or grain is lowest, has destroyed British farming. They will stand in front of the cameras and make us watch as they cut their own throats.

But through gritted teeth I must admit that they have got something right. In January the caveman in chief, David Handley, warned that foot and mouth disease had not been eliminated from Brazil, and that imports of meat from that country risked bringing it back to Britain. The buyers brushed his warning aside. In the first half of this year beef imports from Brazil to the UK rose by 70%, to 34,000 tons. Last week an outbreak was confirmed in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul.

You would, of course, expect British producers to throw as much mud as they can at cheap imports. You would expect them to question their competitors' hygiene standards and social and environmental impacts, and Mr. Handley has done all of these things. But, to my intense annoyance, he is on every count correct.

Unlike him, I do not believe that British beef farmers have a God-given right to stay in business. We shouldn't be eating beef at all. Because the conversion efficiency of feed to meat is so low in cattle, there is no more wasteful kind of food production. British beef producers would be extinct were it not for subsidies and European tariffs. Brazilian meat threatens them only because it is so cheap that it can outcompete theirs even after trade taxes have been paid. But if it's unethical to eat British beef, it's 100 times worse to eat Brazilian.

Until 1990 Brazil produced only enough beef to feed itself. Since then its cattle herd has grown by some 50 million, and the country has become, according to some estimates, the world's biggest exporter: it now sells 1.9m tons a year. The United Kingdom is its fourth-largest customer, after Russia, Egypt and Chile. One region is responsible for 80% of the growth in Brazilian beef production. It's the Amazon.

The past three years have been the most destructive in the Brazilian Amazon's history. In 2004 26,000 sq. km of rainforest were burned: the second-highest rate on record. This year could be worse. And most of it is driven by cattle ranching. According to the Center for International Forestry Research, cattle pasture accounts for six times more cleared land in the Amazon than crop land: even the notorious soya farmers, who have plowed some 5m hectares of former rainforest, cover just one-tenth of the ground taken by the beef producers. The four Amazon states in which the most beef is produced are the four with the highest deforestation rates.

Cattle ranching, if it keeps expanding in the Amazon, threatens two-fifths of the world's remaining rainforest. This is not just the most diverse ecosystem but also the biggest reserve of standing carbon. Its clearance could provoke a hydrological disaster in South America, as rainfall is reduced as the trees come down. Next time you see footage of the forest burning, remember that you might have paid for it.

Many Brazilians, especially those whose land is being grabbed by the cattlemen, are trying to stop the destruction. Ranchers have an effective argument: when people complain, they kill them. In February we heard an echo of the massacre which has so far claimed 1200 lives, when the American nun Dorothy Stang was murdered - almost certainly by beef producers. The ranchers believed to have killed her were, like cattlemen throughout the Amazon, protected by the police.

For the same reason, and despite the best efforts of President Lula, the ranchers are now employing some 25,000 slaves on their estates. These are people who are transported thousands of miles from their home states, then - forced to buy their provisions from the ranch shop at inflated prices - kept in permanent debt. Because of the expansion of beef production in the Amazon, slavery in Brazil has quintupled in 10 years.

So the government of a country which - despite its best efforts - has failed to stop slavery, murder and environmental catastrophe expects us to believe that its farm-hygiene standards are as rigorously enforced as those of any other nation. Anyone who has worked in the Amazon knows that there is no certificate which cannot be bought, and few local officials who aren't working for the people they are meant to regulate. If foot and mouth disease is endemic in the Brazilian Amazon - most of which is now registered by the government as "safe" - the ministers in Brasilia will be the last to know.

More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/2005/1018b...

[Lorien]

130. The perfect all American reply!

"I want what I want when I want it-and I don't care WHO gets hurt"!

Selfishness is a trait that crosses party lines. Pity.

[garybeck]

34. there is no doubt

that eating meat is much more harmful to the environment; it's a clear fact. people make their own choices. the key is awareness. if people KNOW the effect of their decisions, they can make the right ones. personally I focus on making people aware, not judging people or criticising them for the decisisions they make.

[BrightKnight]

44. 20 tons per household could generate a lot of energy.

Livestock production generates 130 time more excrement than humans. There are no treatment facilities. Livestock production generates 20 tons of excrement per household.

People are not going to give up eating meat. It might be possible to use the waste or at least treat it.

Collecting the waste in high density feed lots would not be difficult.

I believe that berating high nitrogen excrement dust can cause lung problems. Perhaps OSHA should look into how the facilities are run.

[BrightKnight]

229. .

posted in error

[BIgJohn83]

36. Okay so let me play the 'Gawd' card...

If god didn't want us to eat animals...why'd he make 'em out of meat?

[mzteris]

38. people are animals, too. . .

&

If all animals are meat, then why don't you eat kitty cats and puppy dogs?

[BIgJohn83]

50. dunno, I may have...BIgJohn is an eating machine...hence the moniker...

[toddaa]

111. Who says I don't?

Here kitty, kitty. :evilgrin:

[mzteris]

159. seriously -

they DO eat dogs and cats in other countries, but we don't in this country.

We - as a general rule - don't eat horsemeat (unless it's slipped into some commercial product unbeknownst :( ); don't eat snakes (I know *some* people do); don't eat mice or rats, raccoons or possum (unless handraised)

I mean - really, if "God" put animals here for us to eat - why be so persnickity?

Also, if "God" put animals here for us to eat, why did it take so long for "man" to evolve" to a dominant species? Why didn't "God" just put up some Mickey D's from the get go, ya know?

[toddaa]

163. Humans are not the dominant species

To believe that requires a mythical beast called "God". Food is food, whether its dogs, broccoli, or parameceum. If you don't eat it, something else will. Eventually, we all end up as compost. You may think you are at the top of the food chain, but nature's truly dominant species, the virus, considers you nothing more than a nice warm squishy environment for replication.

What you consider palatable is largely a result of cultural upbringing. Food taboos probably served early humans well as a way of distinguishing between something that was nutritious and something that was not. Dogs were at one time considered food by early man, but their hunting abilities were found to be more valuable than their taste and thus the dog became mans best friend rather than a tasty afternoon snack. What's interesting is the healthiest lifestyle you can lead is as a hunter gatherer. Once humans turned to agriculture, their health began to deteriorate.

Ultimately, we eat too much processed foods and our industrial agriculture is turning the environment into a waste land. Population reduction, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture are the only things that stand between us and extinction. The only ethical value I can find in vegetarianism is largely self preservation.

[mzteris]

166. the only ethical value

So you think that only humans "count" and that animals have no "value".

ok.

The healthiest lifestyle is NOT "hunter gatherer" - else they wouldn't have all died before they hit 40.

The healthiest - are vegetarians...

"According to the American Heart Association (AHA), vegetarians follow a diet that is lower in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol than their meat-eating counterparts. AHA reported vegetarians may have a longer lifespan compared to nonvegetarians, since they appear to have a lower risk for obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), this longevity may be due to vegetarians' higher intake of folate, vitamins C and E, carotenoids and phytochemicals. "

****
". . . Vegetarian populations tend to be slimmer than meat-eaters, and they experience lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other life-threatening conditions linked to overweight and obesity. The new review, which is a meta-analysis, compiling data from 87 prior studies, shows the weight-loss effect does not depend on exercise or calorie-counting, and it occurs at a rate of approximately 1 pound per week.

Rates of obesity in the general population are skyrocketing, while in vegetarians, obesity prevalence ranges from 0 percent to 6 percent, note study authors Susan E. Berkow, Ph.D., C.N.S., and Neal D. Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

The authors found that the body weight of both male and female vegetarians is, on average, 3 percent to 20 percent lower than that of meat-eaters. Vegetarian and vegan diets have also been put to the test in clinical studies, as the review notes. The best of these clinical studies isolated the effects of diet by keeping exercise constant. The scientists found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.

. . . Earlier this month, a team of scientists led by Tim Key of Oxford University found that meat-eaters who switched to a plant-based diet gained less weight over a period of five years. Papers reviewed by Drs. Berkow and Barnard include several published by Dr. Key and colleagues, as well as a recent study of more than 55,000 Swedish women showing that meat-eaters are more likely to be overweight than vegetarians and vegans. http://medicineworld.org/cancer/lead/4-2006/vegetarian-diet-help-to-lose-weight.html

[toddaa]

204. Humans are animals

The study you posted is interesting only in a modern context. Because those of us living in the Western world no longer spend every waking moment of our lives seeking out and preparing food, we tend to eat stuff that 100,000 years ago gave us enough calories to keep looking for more food, but today just clogs our arteries, gives us diabeties, and makes us fat. Yes, eating meat in today's world is not good for you. Neither is eating large amounts of starchy grain. French Fries, last time I checked, are a vegan food item and yet have no nutritional value apart from calories. Vegans generally have a better understanding of nutrition than nonvegans, but I suspect that diet of the most health conscious meat eater would trump a vegan diet based largely on refined starchy dough fried in coconut oil.

As far as value judgements on specific species, I thought I made it clear that virii were vastly superior to humans.

[mzteris]

213. so people who say

animals here for us to eat - don't understand that we're included in that category.

The health benefits are the reason some people are vegetarian/vegan.

For some the health benefits are side benefit for the human. The real benefit is for the animal's sake.

[livinginphotographs]

177. If god didn't want us to eat babies

Why'd he make 'em out of meat?

Great rationale. I'm off to eat some human babies. Bye all!

[bloom]

40. I've recently gone to eating vegetarian

partly because of this and partly because of how little meat is tested (and other problems like mercury and one thing or another) and the conditions that the animals live under. If I was going to eat meat - it would have to be animals that are raised well. It's easier just to not eat them.

[debbierlus]

43. What about a middle ground solution?

Cut way down on meat....

Use meat as an accent in foods (stir-frys, meatballs & LOTS of spaghetti)....

Alternate meat meals with poultry, fish, or vegetarian.

Save the roasts, steaks, chops for only special occassions.

[bloom]

46. I had done that already.

This works for me.

I like cooking with tofu and nuts and stuff like that. I do still use eggs and milk - partly because it's easier to cook.

[debbierlus]

49. Here is a link that says we should tax meat.....

I think it is a good idea....

It would automatically reduce meat consumption, and it would raise awareness of the environmental and ecological issues of eating meat.

http://www.taxmeat.com/ecological.asp

[ThomCat]

68. I'd be happy if we just stopped subsidizing it.

There was a NY Times article back in the early 80s that said hamburger would be over $30 per pound if the US Government didn't provide free water access, free grazing land, and a ton of subsidies to the meat industry.

It would be interesting to see how much money we are really paying now. I'm not real happy to be paying all that tax money so that meat eaters can support factory farms and the destruction of the environment.

[laheina]

247. Yes.

Meat and dairy are subsidized--but veggies aren't. Meanwhile, American children are becoming obese and heart disease is an epidemic. But at least 60% of our Congressional reps take money from the beef lobby. Something about that just isn't right.

[leftchick]

71. all of those accent foods you suggest

are substituted very well by soy products. I eat veggie bacon, bologna, meatballs, ground round, pepperoni etc.

Yves brand is the best!



http://www.yvesveggie.com/joy_of_soy.php

[DemExpat]

153. This is exactly what I have done for the past 10 years

and now that the kids are grown we eat less and less meat - from a great organic butcher near our home.

Some fish, we love beans, tofu, tempeh, eggs, and a couple of great vegetarian "snitzels" we found in the supermarket, some cheese......... these are more than enough to keep us from feeling "deprived" of good protein and good tastes.

Cutting way down on meats is not hard, and once you have several satisfying menus to enjoy, its very easy.

DemEx

[debbierlus]

232. I did this originally because of the cost.

I make a great rice dish that uses only 1 chicken breast & feeds four.

Beans are great, too.

Meatless spaghetti sauce tops extra large cheese raviolis and spaghetti.

I still do eat red meat. Grilled hamburgers once a week in the summer. And, for a very special, rare treat - prime rib (Christmas gets a roast).

I have cut way down on meat. But, I do still eat it.

[DemExpat]

233. Yes, I also eat meat each week.

And I do notice a difference in how I feel after a good meat meal - not daily because it makes me feel too congested energy-wise - but sometimes a piece of red meat gives a burst of energy and strength the next couple of days that no bean can give....:D

DemEx

[mzteris]

42. How much water does it take to grow a hamburger?

Take the quiz!

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc1.html

[Beaverhausen]

45. Here's another good one- What is your carbon footprint?

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209

mine is 6!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Oops. Mine Was 32

[Beaverhausen]

67. and there wasn't even a question about food

Mine is low I think because I drive a Prius and have a very short commute to work.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

95. Wow I got a 7, and that's including the roommates car!

average for US - 18.58

[tandot]

100. thanks for the link, Beaverhausen. My carbon footprint is 12

but we rent and don't have control over insulation and source of energy for heating.

It said that the average carbon footprint in the US is 18.58

[Nicole]

150. Mine was 6 also

I think the recycling & not driving very much lowered it.

[Critters2]

206. Mine was 6.2

I don't think that's too bad.

[Beaverhausen]

47. I only got 3 right

French Fries, tomatoes and a car!

That is a very eye opening quiz!

[karlrschneider]

84. I got lettuce tomato and car (!) but I don't believe 120 gal for 1 egg

that sounds like bullshit to me...

[Beaverhausen]

86. raising livestock uses lots of water

It's crazy, isn't it?

[mzteris]

91. gotta pay for

water for the chicken - including washing down "henhouse", water to process feed, and water for chicken itself; plus processing the egg - including washing, and water for carton. Whatever water involved for transporation as well.

It adds up.

[LeftyMom]

113. Bear in mind that's water for feed, the hens and shit cleanup

My guess is a whole hell of a lot of it goes to cleaning poo from the battery sheds and breaking it down in waste lagoons.

[karlrschneider]

123. Well, my granny raised chickens - not jillions, obviously but

maybe 30 or 50...she got a few dozen eggs every day and the only water they (or she) ever got was what got pumped by hand out of a shallow well.
Or if it rained...
:eyes:

[LeftyMom]

124. But almost none of the eggs in the US are raised that way

The usual method is to put six or so hens in a wire cage the size of a file cabinet drawer, stacked high with the feces of other chickens raising down on the lower birds. A battery farm can have hundreds of thousands of birds in each shed. Needless to say this creates a different cleanup problem than a few dozen chickens scratching for bugs and poopping in the soil.

Some info on battery hens and thier lives: http://www.factoryfarming.com/eggs.htm

[debbierlus]

51. Here is a good link for finding farm shares, grass fed beef, and more

In your area...

http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html

I am glad I came upon this thread...we are going to buy a farm share. My husband might trade his auction services for a farm share this spring.

What a GREAT way to live and do business!

[formercia]

52. Just hook me up to a hose

and let me do my part for high gas prices.

[smoogatz]

53. And in conclusion...

...we'd all be doing the world a big favor if we just dropped dead. Except then there'd be no one left to dispose of our bodies in the approved, environmentally correct manner.

[RobertSeattle]

56. Human Babies are bad for the enviroment...

:evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Eh, Doesn't Do Anything To Sway Me

I doubt the next big steak I eat is going to give me pause.

There are far more significant things we can do that won't rob me of my right and personal joy of eating steak. I'll continue to much rather support those causes LOL

[DrunkenMaster]

73. your "right" to eat a steak

Hilarious. Right up there with your God-given "right" to drive an SUV. You sure got a handle on the situation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Hi There Mr. Drunk. Yes, I Have The Right To Eat A Steak.

I have a right to eat a big juicy mouth watering 48 oz steak in fact. I have a right to eat it as much and as often as I feel the need to. Yes, I have that right. Hey, ya know what else? I also have the right to drive an SUV. I have the right to drive my chevy blazer. And you have the right to whine about it. But yes, I have those rights, so I do have a handle on the situation.

[mzteris]

78. I bet Jeffrey Dahmer

thought the same thing about his right to eat his meat of choice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. But He Didn't Have The Right To Murder. I DO Have A Right To Eat Steak.

You're just going to have to find a way to get over that and move on. :rofl:

[mzteris]

92. So if ol' Jeffrey just -

like - FOUND a dead body, it'd be okay to eat that?

ha. ha. ha.

[Beelzebud]

171. Not unless you're just hopelessly obtuse...

If you think thats a fair comparison, then I guess you vegetarians can be blamed for destroying the rainforests.

[mzteris]

211. Unless you actually

kill your own cow, I don't think you're guilty of butchering, either.

FYI - I'm responding to illogical statement of the poster.

[smoogatz]

96. Well now, there's a fair comparison.

Nice one.

[mzteris]

157. I thought so, too.

Scary, isn't it?

[WilliamPitt]

182. Eating steak is the same as eating people a la Dahmer?

Anyone wondering why it is so difficult to have a sane, serious debate on DU can look at the post above for a big reason why. Not the poster, per se, but the nonsense strawman hyper-stupid kind of over-the-top allegation contained above.

[mzteris]

215. Why do you think this is a stretch?

The poster said it was his RIGHT to eat the "meat" of his choice.

There's also been a discussion of what consitutes "meat" and whether people are "animals".

If eating an "animal" makes it "meat", then ergo - to a cannibal, "man" is meat. Follow?

So if this guy has a right to eat the meat of his choice, then old Jeff probably thought he had a right to the meat of his choice.

I'm just sayin'

:shrug:

It all boils down to whether you think "man" has the "right" to do whatever he wishes and the consequences to the "victim" be damned.

Kinda like bush, eh?


edit because I thought you were responding to a different post.......

[WilliamPitt]

220. Wow

Eating a steak, a few minutes ago, is the same as Dahmer slaughtering people.

Now, eating a steak makes one George W. Bush.

Can you even smell the bullshit you're spraying?

[mzteris]

221. Oh please......

I really like most of your stuff, Will, but now you're getting a bit testily personal and don't even see the logic/illogic of the arguments *I"M* trying to refute.

geesh.


If you look at "meat production"- it IS harmful to the environment. See the OP, see the water quiz I posted.

If you note the argument, the guy who says it's his RIGHT to eat meat, said he wasn't murdering people, just eating the product. So I said if dahmer just found the body it would be okay. I'm mocking his argument, get it?

And if you don't get that asserting one's rights without regard to the victim is a GWB trait, then I'm not sure who exactly I've been reading the past few years.

[DrunkenMaster]

79. hilarious

A really, really funny post that perfectly illustrates why the planet is currently headed down the freakin' toilet. Hold your head high, you defender of liberties, you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Damn Right I Hold My Head High... ...Wait, Not While Staring At

my big juicy steak though, but other than that, absolutely I hold my head high. :hi:

[flvegan]

76. Okay, list them.

I'm just curious as to what "those causes" are that have a greater impact in this or, as you stated, are "far more significant" and won't make you so much less joyous.

[mopinko]

58. our individual choices are a drop in the bucket.

it is the takeover of EVERYTHING by multinational corporations that is screwing up the planet. and like paper or plastic, there is a lot of accounting that is not really clear. don't try to make global warming the result of my steak, or even how many kids i have. if governments, especially our, wanted to take this shit seriously, and do things right, we could have our steak, and eat it, too.

[CrispyQ]

60. I choose to eat as far away from my DNA as possible. --nt

[Berserker]

74. I'm with you on that

I will never ever eat a monkey.

[smoogatz]

101. Chimp and gorilla are off my personal menu, too.

As are most monkeys, and anything that can talk, use tools, or make marks in the dirt with a stick.

[flvegan]

77. Some folks justify eating meat

just as they justify driving their H2. The difference? None.

"I want to."

"I like it."

"I earned it."

However, the same H2 owner would be torn apart by the same group here that won't release their death grip on their steak. Wait...not won't release...rather they don't want to.

Intriguing.

[Beaverhausen]

83. But they will profess to be "progressives"

:eyes:

[karlrschneider]

85. I'm not sure I appreciate your implication that a carnivore cannot be

progressive.

[Beaverhausen]

87. The justification that "just because I want to" do something

and ignoring the global environmental implications of doing it - yes, in my opinion - that is not progressive. I thought concern for the environment was a progressive ideal. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything. I just wish people would think about the effects of choices they make.

[karlrschneider]

89. Then I submit that we are "wasting" resources growing vegetables,

not to mention the huge amounts of energy required to harvest, package and ship them. There is such a thing as perspective...and priority.

[Beaverhausen]

90. and there is such a thing as the facts

but lets not muddle things up with those. :hi:

[karlrschneider]

99. See my post 97...I really don't feel guilty.

:eyes:

edit: typed wrong post #

[flvegan]

93. You should do a comparison.

Then speak.

Don't take it personally, just do the homework. Calorie v. calorie. Have at it.

[karlrschneider]

97. I'm not disputing the claims...however for my own part, I have avoided

producing any progeny. I think if you extrapolate what me having 2 or 3 children would likely have produced, you might agree that my occasional indulgence in a steak (which is 99% likely to be venison which required no expenditure to feed, shot by myself or my S.O.) doesn't represent a significant offset.

[flvegan]

102. Me neither. But then

I'm not going to justify buying an Escalade as an offset.

That said, go back and revisit the post made that I responded to. Nothing to do with your personal life choices, more about what you "submitted" in same.

Then, go back and revisit my response (about the homework). Let me know what you find, please.

[karlrschneider]

121. I'm really not interested in that sort of numerology. I've eaten meat

for 64 years and I am damn well going to continue for however many I have left. And since I made no kids, I really don't much give a shit about what happens in 50 years. There, I said it and my asbestos underwear is in place. It's mox nix to me whether the human species survives 10 years or 500 years...at some point they won't exist anyway. Nor will the earth and not even the universe. There's a limit to what altruism can accomplish.

[flvegan]

151. Well, okay, at least you're honest

"I really don't much give a shit about what happens in 50 years"

Sad. We could use smart folks like you on the frontlines. I hope your quotation reverbs in your head every time you see an H2 out there. Or, for that matter, if Bush bombs Iran. 50 years...who cares. You'll be gone, I guess.

Nice sentiment.

[Critters2]

207. What's it like to be the center of the universe?

Damned progressive of you!

[ThomCat]

165. I agree with you.

"because I want to" is not a progressive reason to do anything destructive. I think it Albert Einstein who said "You cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking you used to create the problem."

[Viking12]

158. Holier-than-thou bullshit

I buy my meat locally grown. Beef & chickens are free-range, grass-fed. I catch fish in the lake. I belong to a CSA program and raise a great deal of food in my garden. My environmnetal footprint is a great deal smaller than most of the sanctimonious vegetarians bashing omnivores on this thread.

[Critters2]

208. You're doing better than most

Me, I belong to a CSA AND I'm vegetarian. People don't need meat, and because of that, all meat production is wasteful.

[Viking12]

222. No, it's not necessarily wasteful.

I can't digest grass and neither can you. Grass-fed cattle are generally raised on land not suited for crop production. It's actually an efficient way to utilize the resource. Tilling land creates erosion and other problems.

[Critters2]

224. Eating meat is not necessary

thus, any foods fed to cattle are wasteful.

[Beelzebud]

172. A carnivore can't be a progressive? If thats the case, I don't want to be

one...

I thought progressives and liberals were for personal liberty.

[LeftyMom]

179. Compassion is also a progressive value, as is concern for the earth

As far as I'm concerned when one's personal wants conflict with the needs of the planet as a whole, the progressive thing to do is to put others' needs above one's own wants.

Me first and fuck the rest is for repubs, libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers.

[Beelzebud]

181. So me eating meat is "Me first and fuck the rest"?

Lovely.

I'd quit eating meat if I wasn't afraid of becoming a self-righteous twirp...

[LeftyMom]

185. Perhaps you don't realize this, Beelzebud

but personal attacks are against the rules of our fine community.

[Beelzebud]

187. Oh, but it's ok for me to be "Me first and fuck the rest"

And be lumped in with freepers, ayn rand fans, libertarians, and a whole host of other ppl I find offensive BECAUSE I EAT MEAT.

Do what you have to. After lumping me in with all that crap, and suggesting I'm not a progressive because I eat meat on occasion, I really don't care. If you think this type of self-righteous bullshit is going to win people over, or make people more "progressive" then you need to work on your vegan sales pitch.

[LeftyMom]

188. The evidence is there that eating meat is harmful to the enviornment and

to human health, to say nothing of the animals who suffer and die for your dinner.

If you eat meat because you know no better, I won't fault you. However, you've read this thread and you know better. You are responsible for the effects of your diet on the planet. Should you, knowing what you now do and having a choice, choose to act in harmful ways, yes that is "me first and fuck the rest" and no, such selfish and harmful behavior is not a fine example of living progressive values.

[Beelzebud]

190. NO. It's not living with VEGETARIAN values. "Progressive" has nothing

to do with it.

Living is harmful to health! Better stop doing that too!

I'll continue to eat meat, because thats what I eat.

You remind me of a god damned religious zealot trying to convert me to your religion by threatening eternal hellfire damnation on me. That shit isn't going to work.

How about this twisted logic: You expect everyone to adhear to your dietary decisions, no matter what their personal preferences are. Therefore you are not a liberal. A liberal would respect another free person's wishes, and not try to dictate to that person how their life should be.

[LeftyMom]

193. Keep sticking your fingers in your ears if you want

You want to do whatever the hell you want and nobody gets to guestion that. Nevermind who gets hurt or what the enviornmental impact is.

Jesus rollerskating Christ, I really can't believe that this selfish bullshit is so prevalent amongst self-professed liberals. :eyes:

[Beelzebud]

195. And I can't believe a self-professed liberal, would be so similar to

a fundie christian.

Are you going to share your views on what a correct marriage is next?

[LeftyMom]

197. When's the last time a fundie presented you with facts? nt

[Beelzebud]

198. LOL Ok you got me there. :D

[Critters2]

210. Then there's the fact that the meat industry is built on the backs

of underpaid, non-union, undocumented workers working in settings where OSHA is regularly violated. How progressive is that?!

[Beaverhausen]

196. Please read my next post - #87.

I think it explains my thoughts a little better.

I don't want to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do-but I do think that the more knowledge we have about the lifestyle choices we make the better off we will be in the long run.

I personally always welcome information about the food I eat, the products I buy, the services I use, etc. and want to make sure I am supporting progressive companies and causes whenever I can.

[politicat]

88. They didn't take regional climate into account, did they?

In my area, putting land under cultivation is highly irresponsible. We have low rainfall, the aquifers are way deep, the top soil is thin and since the land tends to slope, we have a serious problem with erosion. But bunch grasses and prairie grasses grow like... ahem... weeds in this area. Plus, most of the water that does pass us by is allocated to people further downstream.

And what was the primary species up until 130 years ago? Buffalo. Which eat the local grasses.

I can't eat the native grass, but buffalo can, and cattle can, too, if the cattle are treated like buffalo and are moved to fresh pasturage every day and not fed grain.

There are local beef producers who use no grain at all, and pig farmers who use food waste from local kitchens, and chicken producers who use pasturage (for the bugs) and locally raised grain. In the case of the cattle, they keep the grasses grazed short, which prevents wild fires in late summer, and put very needed nutrients back into the ground with their waste. In dry climates, dead plants do not decompose into compost when left on the ground, but merely desiccate and become fire fuel.

If I lived back east, like on my family farm in Indiana, I'd probably eat a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet because that is what would be most sensible for the land I would live on, but I live in Colorado. Here, the most sensible diet is one of range-fed meat and scrap fed meat and some local, dryland vegetables, and wheat. Any thing else takes too much water and commits the sin of ploughing our very delicate soil too much.

[goodhue]

94. this is kind of old news

Jeremy Rifkin explained affects of cattle industry on climate change in his 1993 classic Beyond Beef.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0452269520.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[smoogatz]

98. Progressives don't eat meat.

I hope all of the morally/ethically/environmentally pure posters to this thread have done the morally/ethically/environmentally correct thing and given up their internal combustion engines in favor of people-powered vehicles, shut down their fossile-fuel consuming appliances except for essential use (that doesn't include burning coal and polluting the air and water so you can post your self-serving and self-congratulatory opinions on DU, btw), and donated their excess living space, food and income to the poor. Otherwise, what kind of progressives are you, really?

[flvegan]

103. I LOVE a good strawman!!!!

This post rules!

Hey...guess what? Clinton...see, it seems that he might have gotten this blowjob, right...

[smoogatz]

105. See post #83. n/t

[flvegan]

107. Noted. And?

I'm positive that there was a point there, yes?

[smoogatz]

110. The obvious implication

was that meat-eaters can't be true progressives, because they're willfully damaging the environment through their selfish and unnecessary (and frankly disgusting--UGH!) insistence on consuming oozing, bloody hunks of cow muscle. (roll eyes.) Surprised you didn't pick up on that.

[flvegan]

112. Opinions vary.

Obviously.

Thanks for sharing yours.

[smoogatz]

115. Thanks for giving me your generous permission to do so.

I feel validated now. Really.

[flvegan]

117. Is that it?

Seriously...is that it?

[smoogatz]

133. No--it's the smug self-righteousness. That's what pisses me off.

Turning dietary preference into a black/white, right/wrong evangelical religion. Fuck that noise.

[flvegan]

140. Which, of course

you got from me, right? I mean, that's what I projected, yes, hence the previous response?

Dietary preference aside, c'mon...

[smoogatz]

142. So now everything's about you?

I'm responding in a general way to the tone and tenor of the thread. Do you always take everything so personally? And yes, there is a kind of militant vegetarianism on display here that bears many of the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion, including intolerance of other ways of being.

[flvegan]

144. No, strawman, I don't

however, you responded to me.

[smoogatz]

146. My initial response was to the OP, actually. Then YOU responded to me.

But hey, we can pretend it's all about you if you want, Mr. Center of the Universe.

[LeftyMom]

147. Accuse vegetarians and vegans of being self-righteous and hypocritical

and vegetarians and vegans will respond.

It's neither a sign that one is self-centered nor in any way surprising. :shrug:

[smoogatz]

156. You don't hear the sanctimonious self-congratulation in this thread?

You don't hear the pseudo-religious self-righteousness? Aren't you--those of you who accuse meat eaters of destroying the planet--essentially trying to convert us to your superior way of being?

[LeftyMom]

160. No, I really don't

I hear a lot of concern, but I know the veggies on this thread a lot better than you do and I know that not a one of them is a raving tofu thumper.

Do I wish more of you guys on this thread and at DU generally were veg? Of course I do, but because it really is better for your health, the health of the planet and of course because animals benefit. But that's no more superior and evangelistic than wishing that more people were leftists or carfree (which I was for years though I am not currently) or practiced Attatchement Parenting or any other idea and lifestyle change I happen to think is beneficial.

[smoogatz]

161. You might want to read through it again, then.

Or at least think about the tone of some of these posts a bit. To an omnivore like me, they sound unduly judgmental and more than a little sanctimonious. I wouldn't think of telling another adult human what they should or shouldn't eat, any more than I'd tell them who to sleep with or whether to drink alcohol or coffee or use non-addictive drugs. And, as you know, vegetarianism is no guarantee of good health, just as meat-eating in moderation is no guarantee of an early heart attack. Drink a glass of red wine with your occasional steak and take an aspirin a day, you're at less risk of heart trouble than a veg who eats cheese and eggs--or cooks in high-fat oils.

[LeftyMom]

167. I think you can read whatever tone you want into text.

As for the health benefits of a vegtarian diet, check out T Collin Campbell's The China Study, which is one of the better works on the subject. Vegetarians are at lower risk of heart trouble, cancer and a host of other maladies. You seem to recognize that already since you compare the diet of an omnivore who has several heart benefits (red wine, aspirin) to a vegetarian handicapped by a high consumption of cholesterol and saturated fats in cheese and eggs. As the vegetarians you are arguing with are mostly vegans, that seems a bit strange anyhow- I'd no more advocate that one eat cheese and eggs than that one eat a bacon cheeseburger.

[smoogatz]

168. I'm one of those throwbacks who believes that language actually has

meaning. That's what a dinosaur I am.

[LeftyMom]

170. Meaning is subject to interpretation and reader bias

You say you see a smug sense of moral supperiority in some of the posts by veggies on this thread. I do not. :shrug:

[smoogatz]

180. I guess that's your bias, then.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

[LeftyMom]

186. As I said before, I know the veg crew here pretty well

and they are good-hearted, grounded people. If you read smugness into any of thier posts I rather doubt it was intended.

[Critters2]

214. Yep!!

I'd love the whole world to give up meat. And you'd love everyone to agree with you about everything. What's your point?

[Beelzebud]

176. The reason you are being accused of that, is because you're acting

like that.

I've seen nothing but self-righteous bullshit form the vegetarians in this thread.

Suggesting people aren't progressive because they don't eat the same diet as vegs?

That IS self-righteous bullshit.

[flvegan]

148. Does one get

extra points for multiple, compounded strawman posts?

Just wondering, you know...considering. Your initial response, notwithstanding, to the OP.

[smoogatz]

162. You apparently don't understand the concept

of the "strawman" argument. I haven't made one.

[yewberry]

104. Can you honestly be suggesting

that if people can't do everything to try to leave a smaller footprint, they shouldn't do anything?

Progressives can & do eat meat--but they don't usually make a joke out of other people's sincere efforts & beliefs, do they?

[smoogatz]

108. I'm suggesting they ought not to be quite so judgmental

of others' dietary preferences. It smacks of food intolerance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. Progressives can't be strict vegetarians.

Because in order to be a true progressive, you have to have an open mind and experience new things. Such as various kinds of foods, especially those from different cultures. Sushi, for instance.

Honestly, what kind of progressive wouldn't try a tuna roll?

[flvegan]

116. This kind.

I wouldn't try a tuna roll because I know where it came from. I don't need it, and considering it's tainted origination, I'd rather not. An open mind, as stated, would suggest that a progressive might look into vegetarianism, rather than beating the shit out of it here.

I guess a true progressive, not having owned and driven an H2, should consider buying one. I mean, you know...to experience new things, right?

[LeftyMom]

119. The compassionate kind who doesn't make others die for thier wants

:shrug:

[smoogatz]

135. Plants display aversive behavior, you know.

It's entirely possible that they suffer, too.

[LeftyMom]

139. Even were that the case

(and the lack of a central nervous system makes that rather unlikely) many more pounds of plants go into the production of a pound of meat, dairy or eggs than a pound of veggies or grains for human consumption.

If one wished to minimize plant suffering, thier best course of action would be to go vegan.

[smoogatz]

141. It's true. Lots of critters without central nervous systems display

avoidance response to negative stimuli--plants no exception. Frankly, it seems to me that if the moral issue is not to cause the suffering of others by killing and eating them, it's really up to us to prove that whatever species we're consuming are not suffering on our account. I don't think moral half-measures hold water in this argument--if they did, then eating chickens and fish (which aren't much smarter than plants, really) would be acceptable. But if we decide that plants are okay, and stuff that's a step or two up the mobility scale from plants is also okay, then we're into a whole heirarchy--the slippery slope of moral relativism. No, the answer is to eat only that which has never been alive--dirt, gravel, and possibly Michelle Malkin. Okay, scratch that last thing.

[LeftyMom]

143. Well, being breatharian doesn't really work.

The responses of animals ranging from chicken and fish on up to pain are observable and obvious.

In plants response to damage is chemical rather than nervous and more analogous to our hormonal system than to the actions of nerves. As a result, it's rather likely a carrot has no more idea that it has been ripped from the ground than I have what my thyroid is up to. Less even, since I and a fish both have nerves to get updates on the action of our autonomic processes and a brain to process them, while plants to not.

[smoogatz]

145. You're such a nervous-system centrist.

Just wait 'til you're reincarnated as a rutabaga. Then we'll see.

[LeftyMom]

149. okay then

:shrug:

[shockra]

152. Ooh, you nailed that one down LM.

That post's a keeper. :D

[Critters2]

216. I always love this argument

It goes like this..."I don't give a rat's ass about the feelings of chickens or hogs, but I do worry so about the suffering of soy beans". It is to laugh!



:cry:

[WilliamPitt]

184. "what kind of progressives are you, really?"

The kind that doesn't need someone like you telling me whether I am progressive enough.

Ready for another straw man?

Here goes:

Progressives don't judge so broadly, either.

[LeftyMom]

189. Oh shit, this should be fun.

:popcorn:

[WilliamPitt]

194. Nah, I'm done

I actually do agree with those who cite the dangers of methane excretions from large herds of cattle; the information has been out there for a long time.

But getting compared to Jeffrey Dahmer (see upthread) and getting my progressive credentials questioned isn't any kind of way to carry forth this important debate.

In fact, it is horseshit strawmen like that which makes it nearly impossible to have a civil debate on this forum.

[yewberry]

231. The post you're responding to didn't question your creds

...he's questioning ours by suggesting that those who do something to lessen their energy consumption should STFU because they aren't doing everything to lessen their energy consumption (feeding and housing the poor are thrown in there for some reason.)

There's knee-jerking and assholery going on from both sides here.

If you want, we can do a straight trade--I'll be Dahmer for a while, and you can be a smug, self-congratulatory, self-serving nanny-stater who wants to steal food out of the mouths of good Americans.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. It's true. It's true.

But then again, when my steak blows a tire it doesn't flip and roll.

Pass the A1.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

118. I ate bear and reindeer in russia three weeks ago.

No, actually I chickened out, but they were on the menu and I saw lots of reindeer meat at the market in Helsinki. The people in the know said that bear was gamey but reindeer was delicious.

Back to the subject...I agree with the OP. And as soon as meat comes in at fifty dollars a pound, our abuse of it will quickly subside. But I can't see it happening voluntarily for humanitarian reasons.

[Boomer]

125. Good lord, whatever happened to moderation?

I'm not going to give up eating beef, but that doesn't mean I'm the environmental anti-Christ. There is a continuum between being vegetarian and ripping into a side of beef every single night.

For a variety of reasons -- from health to environmental concerns -- I'm CUTTING BACK on eating meat. Yes, I may indulge in beef every once in awhile, but I'm doing it less often and with smaller portions. Like having a small White Castle hamburger instead of a Whopper or a ribeye steak. It satisfies my craving, gives me a little protein boost, and helps me resist the temptation of going to Outback and pigging out. I may still be making a dent in the ecosphere, but at least it's a smaller dent than before. Someday I may baby step my way to vegetarian, maybe not. But some progress is better than none at all.

It's the equivalent of buying a Volkwagon instead of a Hummer. Yes, walking instead of driving would be even better, but it's still an incremental improvement over driving a massive gas-guzzling road hog of a car.

[Lorien]

132. Consider bison

it's healthier (leaner) and eco-friendly. Many mainstream grocery stores are now carrying it, plus you don't need to worry every time mad cow is discovered in the beef supply.

[smoogatz]

136. Bison is excellent.

Great burger, and great on the grill in kabobs. Haven't tried the steaks, though people swear by them. There's an organic bison farm just up the road from us (elk, too), and we try to support them as much as possible.

[Boomer]

202. That's a great idea, but...

I'll bet you're living in an urban area. I'm not likely to see bison in my neck of the woods. Heck, folks around here are still a bit suspicious of new-fangled veggies like "raddichio" and "endive." :scared:

Mostly I eat fish and chicken at home, beef when I eat out at a restaurant. Don't think I've EVER seen bison on the menu at Ryan's or Shoney's, but if I ever do I'll order it!

[Lorien]

129. Related link: the human and environmental costs of beef:

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

THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
GLOBAL HUNGER AND
POVERTY

Beef production causes human hunger and poverty by diverting grain and cropland to support livestock instead of people. In developing countries, beef production perpetuates and intensifies poverty and injustice, particularly if beef or livestock feed is produced for export.

* Seventy percent of all U.S. grain -- and one third of the world's total grain harvest -- is fed to cattle and other livestock. At the same time, between 40 and 60 million people die each year from hunger and diseases related to hunger. As many as one billion suffer from chronic hunger and malnourishment.1
* U.S. livestock -- mostly cattle -- consumes almost twice as much grain as is eaten by the entire American population. Globally, about 600 million tons of grain are fed to livestock, much of it to cattle.2
* Two-thirds of all U.S. grain exports foes to feed cattle and other livestock rather than hungry people.3
* In Africa, nearly one in three people is undernourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 22 percent of the people live at the edge of starvation. In the Near East, one in nine is underfed.4
* Chronic hunger and related disease affect more than 1.3 billion people, according to the World Health Organization. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species -- more than 20 percent -- been undernourished.5
* Undernutrition affects nearly 40 percent of all children in developing nations and contributes directly to an estimated 60 percent of all childhood deaths, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. More than 15 million children die every year from diseases resulting from, or complicated by, undernourishment.6
* If worldwide agricultural production were shifted fron? livestock feed to food grains for direct human consumption, more than a billion people could be fed -- the precise number which currently suffer from hunger and malnourishment.8
* Feeding grain to livestock is an extremely wasteful method of producing protein. Feedlot cattle require nine pounds of feed to make one pound of gain. Only 11 percent of the feed goes to produce the beef itself. The rest is burned off as energy in the conversion process, used to maintain normal body functions, absorbed into parts of the cattle that are not eaten -- such as hair or bones -- or excreted.8
* Cattle have a feed protein conversion efficiency of only 6 percent, producing less than 50 kg of flesh protein from more than 790 kg of plant protein. A feedlot steer consumes 2,700 pounds of grain by the time it is ready for slaughter.9
* Asian adults consume between 300 and 400 pounds of grain a year; three-fourths or more of the diet of the average Asian is composed of grain. A middle-class American, by contrast, consumes over a ton of grain each year, 80 percent of it through eating cattle and other grain-fed livestock.10
* Two out of every three people around the world consume a primarily vegetarian diet. With one-third of global grain output now going to cattle and other livestock, and with the human population growing by almost 20 percent in the next decade, a worldwide food crisis is imminent.11
* Three quaners of America's public western land -- covering 40 percent of the eleven western statss -- is leased to cattlemen at prices far below market value.12
* Nearly half of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other livestock. On very rich grasslands, two and a half acres can support a cow for a year. On marginal grazing land, 50 or more acres may be required.13
* In the 1960s, with the help of loans from the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank, many Central and South America governments began converting millions of acres of tropical rain forest and cropland to pastureland for the international beef market. Between 1971 and 1977, more than $3.5 billion in loans and technical assistance went to Latin America for cattle production.14
* Many major U.S. corporations invested heavily in beef production throughout Central America in the 1970s and 80s, including Borden, United Brands, and International Foods. Other American multinational companies such as Cargill, Ralston Purina, W.R. Grace, Weyerhauser-, Crown Zellerbach, and Fort Dodge Labs, provided most of the technological support for the Central American beef industry, from frozen semen to refrigeration equipment, grass seeds, feed, and medicine. 15
* The beef industry in Central America has enriched the lives of a select few, pauperized much of the rural peasantry, and spawned widespread social unrest and political upheaval. More than half the rural families in Central America -- 35 million people -- are now landless or own too little land to support themselves, while powerful ranchers and large corporations continue to acquire more land for pasture.16
* In Costa Rica, cattle interests cleared 80 percent of the tropical forests in just 20 years, turning half the arable land into cattle pastures. Today, just 2,000 powerful ranchincg families own over half the productive land in Costa Rica, grazing 2 million cattle most of whose meat is exported to the United States.17
* In Guatemala, less than 3 percent of the population owns 70 percent of the agriculitural land, much of it used for raising cattle. Nearly one third of Guatemala's beef production was exported to the U.S. in 1990.18
* In Honduras, land used for cattle pasture increased from just over 40 percent in 1952 to more than 60 percent in 1974. Total beef production tripled between 1960 and 1980 to over 62,000 metric tons annually. In 1990, more than 30 percent of the beef produced in Honduras was exported to the United States.19
* In Nicaragua, beef production increased threefold and beef exports increased five and a half times between 1960 and 1980.20
* By the mid 1980s, Central America had 80 percent more cattle than 20 years before, and produced 170 percent more beef.21
* In Brazil, 4.5 percent of the landowners own 81 percent of the farmland, while 70 percent of the rural households are landless. Between 1966 and 1983, nearly 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for commercial development. The Brazilian government estimated that 38 percent of all the rain forest destroyed during that period was attributable to large-scale cattle development benefitting only a few wealthy ranchers.22
* In developing countries, the poor receive no benefit from cattle ranching. Modern beef production is capital intensive but not labor intensive. The average rain forest cattle ranch employs one person per 2,000 head of cattle, or about one person per twelve square miles. By contrast, peasant agriculture can often sustain a hundred people per square mile.23
* Latin American countries are using more of their land to graze cattle, and to grow feed crops. In Mexico, where millions of people are malnourished, one-third of the grain produced is being fed to livestock. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed less than 6 percent of Mexico's grain.24
* When land in developing countries is used to produce livestock feed, much of it for export, less land is available to peasant farmers to grow their own food, and so less food is available. As a result, staple food prices rise, and the impact is mostly felt by the poor. In Brazil, black beans, long a staple food for the poor, are becoming more expensive as farmers have switched to growing soybeans for the more lucrative international feed market.25

FACT SHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEVASTATION

Cattle and beef production is a primary threat to the global environment. It is a major contributor to deforestation, soil erosion and desertification, water scarcity, water pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, global warming, and loss of biodiversity.

Deforestation

* Cattle ranching is a primary cause of deforestation in Latin America. Since 1960, more than one quarter of all Central. American forests have been razed to make pasture for cattle. Nearly 70 percent of deforested land in Panama and Costa Pica is now pasture.1
* Some 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for cattle ranching and other commercial development between 1966 and 1983. Brazil estimates that 38 percent of its rain forest was destroyed for cattle pasture.2
* Just one quarter-pound hamburger imported from Latin America requires the clearing of 6 square yards of rain forest and the destruction of 165 pounds of living matter including 20 to 30 different plant species, 100 insect species, and dozens of bird, mammal, and reptile species. 3

Soil Erosion and Desertification

* Cattle production is turning productive land into barren desert in the American West and throughout the world. Soil erosion and desertification is caused directly by cattle and other livestock overgrazing. Overcultivation of the land, improper irrigation techniques, and deforestation are also principal causes of erosion and desertification, and cattle production is a primary factor in each case.
* Cattle degrade the land by stripping vegetation and compacting the earth. Each animal foraging on the open range eats 900 pounds of vegetation every month. Their powerful hoofs trample vegetation and crush the soil with an impact of 24 pounds per square inch.4
* As much as 85 percent of U.S. western rangeland, nearly 685 million acres, is being degraded by overgrazing and other problems, according to a 1991 United Nations report. The study estimates that 430 million acres in the American West is suffering a 25 to 50 percent yield reduction, largely because of overgrazing.5
* The United States has lost one third of its topsoil. An estimated six of the seven billion tons of eroded soil is directly attributable to grazing and unsustainable methods of producing feed crops for cattle and other livestock.6
* Each pound of feedlot steak costs about 35 pounds of eroded American topsoil, according to the Worldwatch Institute.7

Water Scarcity

* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U. S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock. Producing a pound of grain-fed steak requires the use of hundreds of gallons of water. Producing a pound of beef protein often requires up to fifteen times more water than producing an equivalent amount of plant protein.8
* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.9
* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico. In California. where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice Age.11

Water Pollution

* Organic waste from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and agricultural salts and sediments are the primary non-point source of water pollution in the U.S.11
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average feedlot steer produces more than 47 pounds ofmanure every twenty-four hours. Nearly 500,000 pounds of manure are produced daily on a standard 10,000- head feedlot. This is the rough equivalent of what a city of 110,000 would produce in human waste. There are 42,000 feedlots in 13 U.S. states.12

Depletion of Fossil Fuels

* Intensive animal agriculture uses a dis proportionate amount of fossil fuels. Supplying the world with a typical American meat-based diet would deplete all world oil reserves in just a few years.13
* It now takes the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of grainfed beef in the United States. The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel and releases 2.5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as much as the average car over a six month period.14

Global Warming

* Cattle and beef production is a significant factor in the emission of three of the four global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.15
* Much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is directly attributable to beef production: burning forests to make way for cattle pasture and burning massive tracts of agricultural waste from cattle feed crops. When the fifty-five square feet of rain forest needed to produce one quarter-pound hamburger is burned for pasture, 500 pounds of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.16
* CO2 is also generated by the fuel used in the highly mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock. With 70 percent of all U.S. grain production now used for livestock feed, the CO2 emitted as a direct result is significant.17
* Petrochemical fertilizers used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Worldwide, the use of fertilizers has increased dramatically from 14 million tons in 1950 to 143 million tons in 1989. Nitrous oxide now accounts for 6 percent of the global warming effect.18
* Cattle emit methane, another greenhouse gas, through belching and flatulation. Scientists estimate that more than 500 million tons of methane are released each year and that the world's 1.3 billion cattle and other ruminant livestock emit approximately 60 million tons or 12 percent of the total from all sources. Methane is a serious problem because one methane molecule traps 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of CO2.19

Loss of Biodiversity

* U.S. cattle production has caused a significant loss of biodiversity on both public and private lands. More plant species in the U.S. have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).20
* Riparian zones -- the narrow strips of land that run alongside rivers and streams where most of the range flora and fauna are concentrated -- have been the hardest hit by cattle grazing. More than 90 percent of the original riparian zones of Arizona and New Mexico are gone, according to the Arizona State Park Department. Colorado and Idaho have also been hard hit. The GAO reports that "poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands."21
* Unable to compete with cattle for food, wild animals are disappearing from the rangs. Pronghorn have decreased from 15 million a century ago to less than 271,000 today. Bighorn sheep, once numbering over 2 million, are now less than 20,000. The elk population has plummeted from 2 million to less than 455,000.22
* The government has worked with ranchers to make cattle grazing the predominant use of Western public lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long favored ranching over other uses. BLM sprays herbicides over large tracts of range eliminating vegetation eaten by wild animals and replacing it with monocultures of grasses favored by cattle.23
* Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.24
* The predator "control" program cost American taxpayers $29.4 million in 1990 -- more than the amount of losses caused by wild animals.25
* Tens of thousands of wild horses and burros have been rounded up by the federal government because ranchers claim they compete with their cattle for forage. The horses and burros are held in corrals, costing taxpayers millions of dollars per year. Many wild horses have ended up at slaughterhouses.
* For several years, cattle ranchers have blocked efforts to re-introduce the wolf, an endangered species, into the wild, as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

But, regardless of party, most Americans revel in their selfishness. "I want what I want when I want it" should be the new American motto. Pity; the bad karma we're accumulating will soon balloon into scenarios few of us ever dreamed of.

[kestrel91316]

134. I'm not a vegetarian, but the environmental consequences are why

I eat about 75% less meat/chicken/fish than I did 10 years ago. We really can't afford to do the industrial livestock thing. If I could raise my own chickens/eggs I would reconsider.

[Ilsa]

137. Been there. Still doing it. Not eating meat, that is.

I can't chunk the SUV yet, but I can drive it alot less and bike more, and I can become a vegetarian, which I have, since last July. Since a vegetarian after incredible temptation from family and friends.

[B Calm]

154. Just when I been thinking seriously about starting the Dr. Atkins

diet......

[Beelzebud]

169. Oh great. Now the nanny-staters will be banning red meat next.

Stop telling me how to live my life!

If I want to smoke - I WILL

If I want to eat red meat - I WILL

I never tell people that they should stop being a vegetarian, so at least do the same for me, by butting out of my personal life!!!

[livinginphotographs]

173. No one is "butting in."

They're just making you aware of the environmental damage your "choice" to eat meat causes, you "choice" to drive a Hummer, and your "choice" to litter. Unfortunately, those choices affect us all and so we have the choice to tell you about it.

[Beelzebud]

174. I don't drive a Hummer, I don't litter, and I want people

to mind their own business!

You are seriously going to try to lecture meat eaters on what they do to the environment?

Give me a BREAK!!! jeez

Ever hear of Exxon Monsanto, ADM?

Lecture them about what they do to the environment and leave the average person alone!


This is the same bullshit that brings us bans on smoking in bars.. It's nonsense.

[livinginphotographs]

175. It's not nonsense

anymore than criticizing those who drive Hummers. Are you defending them?

(Interesting note about Monsanto, the milk you drink from factory farms contains the bovine growth hormone rBGH, so by purchasing non-organic milk, you support them far more than I do).

I don't want to ban eating meat. I'd just like carnivores to be a bit more honest with themselves and others about their impact on the planet. (and to not use so many exclamation points when responding to people who point out said impact)

[Beelzebud]

178. Yeah it is nonsense.

You eat the way you like

I'll eat the way I like

Period. End of story.

You can sit back in your chair at the end of the day with a nice smug smile on your face knowing you're better than the knuckle-dragging meat eaters, if you like. Currently it's stil a free country.

[livinginphotographs]

191. Thanks for missing the point.

Why is it we always get the meme about "fundie vegans" when meat-eaters constantly try to run away from the conversation with a "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!!" screed?

Sure, eat the way you like. But don't pretend you're not doing a monumental amount of environmental damage in doing so.

[Beelzebud]

192. The reason meat eaters "run away" from these

is because we aren't trying to dictate to you what you should eat!

In this thread, have I once urged someone to eat like I do?

No.

The reason you get this "fundie vegans" label is because that is what you act like! you are trying to "convert" me to your way of thinking, just like a fundie christian does! It's no differnt.

I'm not interested when they try to convert me, and I'm not interested when you try to convert me!

We aren't running from anything. We just don't feel that passionate about dinner, to want to convert people to our dietary choices...

[livinginphotographs]

199. And I'm not trying to convert you.

I see little chance of that happening anyway.

The only thing I find really distasteful is the complete dishonesty in so-called progressives harping on someone for driving a Hummer out of one side of their mouths but then get all indignant when its pointed out that a carnivorous diet does just as much if not more damage to the environment.

And having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you does not equal "trying to convert them."

[Viking12]

200. As long as you don't pretend that a vegetarian diet is necessarily benign

Unless the bulk of any diet is sustainably-produced, locally-sourced food then the environmental impacts are significant. Meat production can be environmentally problematic but so can veg/fruit production when that food is transported great distances. Likewise, meat can be produced in sustainable ways. Moreover, much of the vegetarian fare is picked by underpaid, uninsured farm workers. How is supporting that economic arrangement progressive?

It's not necessarily the food but the economic practices that get the food from the field to the table that should be the concern of progressives.

[livinginphotographs]

201. I completely agree with you.

We ALL need to look at where the products we consume come from, whether they be food, clothing, coffee, etc. And just as no one can ever be 100% perfect vegan, no one can ever be 100% perfect progressive consumer. That still doesn't mean I'm going to start eating animal products again, or shopping at Wal-Mart.

[Robeson]

253. Hey, welcome livinginphotographs!....

...haven't seen you here in a while. Glad to see you back...:thumbsup:

[Madrone]

203. How I feel -

I am a vegetarian. I never thought I'd be able to give up meat - I loved it, it tasted good, and I wanted it! But it nagged at me - and for a long time. I started wishing I *could* go veg - if only I wouldn't have to sacrifice my desires in order to do so. I don't know - after years and years of carrying this in my head and dealing with being so conflicted I just did it. And it was so much easier than I thought it would be. Before I did it 100% however I expanded my diet more than I ever had before to include more vegetarian dishes, and learned about a lot of different foods I'd never heard of before.

Since converting I've had 2 people I know follow my lead. I didn't ask them to, I didn't even suggest it. They asked ME questions, and I'd answer - but other than that I was silent about my beliefs on the subject. I don't discuss my beliefs with anyone really - I know most people are too selfish to even listen to what I'd have to say, let alone actually entertain the idea that there may be another (and in my opinion better) way of doing things. And yes, it IS selfish, and it's hypocritical (as progressives) to be an unabashed meat eater . I am no better than YOU - I was where you are! I can't judge anyone for doing what I have done, or for feeling like I've felt. I've changed my mind and my behavior to align more closely with my beliefs, but that was certainly not always what I believed - I spent most of my life not even thinking about or considering these issues.

All I would like from the "militant" meat eaters here at -DU- (because your average apathetic American or fundy Freeper I don't expect much from) is some intellectual honesty and the ability to admit that your insistence of eating meat for selfish pleasure is hypocritical and not necessarily aligned with the rest of your ideals as a "greater good" progressive. It's OKAY to have some conflicting ideas - it's OKAY to be paradoxical, and it's OKAY to exhibit a small degree of hypocrisy. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE not to - especially as progressives who tend not to be black/white thinkers. Just be honest about it.


FWIW - My conflicting/hypocritical issues are abortion vs. the death penalty. I am 100% pro-choice and not all that dismayed by the practice of abortion. On the other hand - I am 100% against the death penalty in any case. I don't believe it is our place to "play God" so to speak in the taking of a person's life, for one. Therein lies my hypocrisy. I would be much more consistent if I were anti-choice and anti- death penalty - but I'm just not. I'd prefer to be consistent - but have come to terms with the fact that after years of consideration and thought I am unable to align these two beliefs in a way that makes me not so much of a hypocrite. I am honest to myself and with others about this - and I don't try to excuse it. I KNOW it doesn't match up - and I don't try to pretend it does. I've found that people respect and appreciate my honesty and candor rather than continue to attack me over the obvious disparity.


I would respect and appreciate the same honesty from my fellow environmentalist, compassionate, meat eating DUers.

[livinginphotographs]

228. Oh my god, a well-thought out post...

This calls for some "people eating tasty animals" jokes!

[Critters2]

218. This has been a message from the Cato Institute

[livinginphotographs]

227. Or the other bastion of progressive thought...

The Center for Consumer Freedom. /sarcasm

[BiggJawn]

183. So eat Placenta.

Like Tom Cruise.
Cruelty free, no "greenhouse gases", and it's a renewable resource, like eggs!

[Yatar]

223. Unfortunately it would take vegetarianism on a massive scale

to have notable impact. How do we change a few billion people's eating habits?

I do agree tho that giving up omnivorianism on a major scale would definitely reduce emissions.

[Critters2]

225. We do it slowly

but it can be done

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

237. Unless people start eating too much cabbage, beans, and sweet potato.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[flvegan]

241. How do we change shopping and driving habits?

I mean, we're all against those tooling around town in an H2 and/or shopping at WalMart, right?

Every "massive scale" starts with one.

[knitter4democracy]

226. Great. I just started eating meat again after ten years.

I had to give up meat and dairy when we thought I developed endometriosis. Turns out, it was my appendix for ten years, and I started having horrible meat cravings (worst in years) a month after the surgery. I ate the meat, and I feel much better. I'm not going to start eating meat with every meal or even every day, but I have to say that I felt much better after eating meat than I had felt since the surgery.

Vegetarianism is a great thing. It's not the right thing for every human, though. Some humans need some meat, some need more than some, and some can't eat any. Some can't eat dairy (I can't, but I can handle sheep's milk cheese for some reason), some can, and some need more than the others. We're all unique, and that's okay.

We're keeping to eating natural meats raised locally. We're also getting with the CSA delivered produce this summer, too. That way, the small local farms have good prices for their stuff, and we get great food.

[BrightKnight]

230. Treat the excrement. People are carnivores. - n/t

[flvegan]

239. Omnivores, actually.

But then, facts are for the weak.

[BrightKnight]

254. more effective to work with human nature

Real problems require realistic solutions.

It would be better if everyone had a vegetarian diet. That is never going ot happen. It is just ivory tower, pie in the sky, defeatist noise.

Livestock production generates a huge amount of effluence. Sewage treatment facilities should be required in factory farms. They could probably make enought money from the methane to offset the cost to treatment facility.

[sendero]

234. Of course it does....

... (eating meat increases global warming emissions)

Here are a few more things that do:

Driving when yoo don't have to.

Running your thermostat below 78 degrees in the summer

Setting your thermostat above 68 degrees in the winter

Letting the hot water run while you brush your teeth or shave

Leaving the refrigerator or freezer door open a second longer than it needs to be

Preheating your oven a minute longer than necessary

Letting the teapot boil a few seconds after it whistles

Taking off hurriedly from a red light

Leaving your computer on all night so you won't have to wait for it to boot

Leaving lights on around the house

Setting your hot water heater higher than necessary

Not having your house reasonably weatherproofed and insulated

Driving a car larger than you need

Driving a car with a larger engine than you need

Not turning your electric oven off 5 minutes before the food is to be done

Using incandescent lighting instead of flourescent

Not understanding the relative energy usage of all your appliances so that you can take more care in using some versus the others

There are plenty more, many many things that large numbers of Americans are guilty of.

[flvegan]

249. And?

[Raine]

238. Life long vegetarian and

glad that I'm not adding to global warming in that regard. :-)

[Swede]

248. 2 vegetarians say it,so it must be true.

Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies.


I guess that's why Americans are dying by the age of 40.

[LeftyMom]

250. Would it make more sense if they believed it but ate cow anyhow?

:wtf:

[Swede]

251. It is commentary,not news.

I'm not disagreeing,but one study and everyone jumps on it likes it's hard science.

[LeftyMom]

252. Because a hell of a lot of other studies say the same thing

I posted similar info upthread. Hell, it's been well known that large scale animal agriculture was intensely damging to the enviornment since the 70's at least and the idea that vegetarian diets benefit the planet has been around at least since Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet, which came out in the early 70's ('72 I think, but I'm not positive and don't really feel like looking it up.)

[Evoman]

256. Um....

The thing is, we can all do things to cut down on global warming and energy use. Is it fair to say that none of the vegetarians here drive a car?

Probably not.

In fact, I bet most of the vegetarians here drive a car. But you really don't NEED to drive a car. Find a job closer to where you live, take the bus. Ah...but it isn't convenient, is it? You like to drive your car?

I eat meat. Not a whole lot, but a little. I don't drive a car. Even in the coldest weather, I walk to work. Every now and then, when I have a far way to go, I take the bus. You could tell me, "Yes, but Evoman..you could do more by cutting out meat!"

Well yeah, but you could stop driving too. Meat tends to be more convenient for me, like driving a car (even a hybrid) is to you. I work out...meat is one of the things I use for muscle growth. I've read studies that soy is not an efficiently used by the body to do that.

We all do things that are bad for the environment. We could all do things that make it better. But bashing other peoples bad choices, while justifying yours, seems to be disengenious.

I love vegetarians...they are doing something great for the earth. But so are non-driving people like me. In fact, on that "Carbon Test", I got a 2. Thats right...a 2. So little ol' meat eating me is pretty good at conserving energy.

Evoman