The study that states 51% of climate change is from agriculture is flawed. The most controversial part about the study is that it includes deforestation used for agriculture. It then makes calculations based on the loss of wild plant life yet makes no addition to the calculation based on the new crops grown on the land. Even if the land is used for cows, this land would have been purchased and deforested anyways for another purpose. We have limits on the amount of deforestation. It shouldn't be attributed to any one sector.
It also accounts for the refrigeration and transport of meat. Again, if everyone stopped eating meat, we'd need nearly the same amount of food to be refrigerated and transported. No large net change. (It would be less food since plants have a higher concentration of nutrients therefore less mass is needed to feed the same number of people)
It also accounts for the farms themselves. There would be farms with processing units regardless of it being meat or plant.
It's a flawed study.
We examine the greenhouse gas emissions associated with plant- and animalbased diets, considering both direct and indirect emissions (i.e., CO2
to fossil fuel combustion, and methane and nitrous oxide CO2
-equivalent emisEarth Interactions • Volume 10 (2006) • Paper No. 9 • Page 14sions due to animal-based food production). We conclude that a person consuming
a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the
emissions of 1485 kg CO2
-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources. Far from trivial,
nationally this difference amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions. We conclude by briefly addressing the public health safety of plantbased diets, and find no evidence for adverse effects.
The point is that car emissions and factory emissions are by far the biggest problem. To talk about banning the eating of meat detracts from solving the real problem. If people want to go vegan fine.
"Are you really saying people are right to drive gas guzzlers because I eat burgers??"
Yes, absolutely. If this is true burger boy you cannot complain about global warming if you are contributing to one of the top three cause of it. No more babbling about capitalism either. Matter of fact I don't want to hear a **** about "giving to the poor" either! You are a hypocrtie on every issue!
YOU ARE NUTS!! Nobody cares about what I do. The world should not destroy itself just because I eat burgers. The reasons for climate change are auto emissions and plant emissions. If we don't do something people will be living in caves 50 years from now if they're alive at all.
Okay last post of the night. I really don't care if the study is correct or not. The point is Wally's very source that he pointed me to backs me up. End of story.
As for the transportation... and the same amount of food... etc etc. You're just plain wrong. It takes 6 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of cow meat. Meat is heavier, more fuel is needed. Most vegetables are not shipped at freezing temperature (in fact... I can't think of ANY vegetable that's shipped frozen). Meat is. Sorry... you're wrong.
The simple fact remains switching to a meatless diet is better for the environment than switching to a Prius... that was my original argument. If meat production were to stop, greenhouse gas emissions would reduce and humans would still be fed. End of story.
I've stayed out of this conversation like politics, so this will probably be my only post on the topic. Ten or
twelve years ago I read an article about a guy who was a vegan for years, (can't remember how long it
was he was on a vegan diet), but he went blind. Your grandparents and further back ate what they wanted and ate huge portions of meat, yet lived into their late 80's and 90's. Most were not obese and
were not dying at an early age from the diseases that are now even plaguing people half their age. What
does that tell you? First ,products do not develop or succeed without consumer demand. If you didn't
want, easy, quick, convenient etc. it wouldn't sell and would be taken off the market. So cattle , chicken etc. are doctored with hormones and antibiotics. Vegetables and fruits are covered in pesticides. So you might say, buy organic. Do you think most families can afford organic? Packaged, canned etc are
so loaded with preservatives,/additives you wouldn't want to know. And many so called low-fat are worse than what the original was. A tomatoe and fruits don't taste the same, do you notice that?
Maybe if people changed their way of thinking and the timeframe they allow in the kitchen, instead of
making it a twice a year event for holidays, they would be healthier. Myself, I use a Nutribullet to make
sure I'm getting enough fruits and vegs. but that's not a meal replacement for me. I must admit any meat
I do have are small portions. So what I guess I'm saying imo, we need a healthy balance. When you go
to extremes one way or the other you get into trouble, but it's still not a solution to what they are doing
to the food supply, and ultimately, I think the gov wants to put the farmer out of business so they can
run, which would a disaster to the food supply. As it is, I try to support the local farmer as much as I can.
Again it 's a factor but It's not the factor. The site itself did not say agriculture emissions are the primary source of global warming. The site itself ranked agriculture emissions THIRD!!