Cut Global Warming by being a Vegetarian?

This topic crosses borders between forums, so I'm not quite sure where it goes.



I'm not for or against vegetarianism (frankly, I'm still working it out for myself), however this article brings to light an interesting statistic:

Writing in this month's Physics World, Calvert calculates that the animals we eat emit 21% of all the carbon dioxide that can be attributed to human activity. We could therefore slash man-made emissions of carbon dioxide simply by abolishing all livestock.

Moreover, there would be no adverse effects to health and it would be an experiment that we could abandon at any stage. "Worldwide reduction of meat production in the pursuit of the targets set in the Kyoto treaty seems to carry fewer political unknowns than cutting our consumption of fossil fuels," he says.

(emphasis mine) source


Could changing our diets actually help deter global warming? (1/5 is a whooping number, all things considered...)

Obviously jobs would be lost and gained, and a general social change would have to come into serious being for this to _ever_ take any meaningful effect.

However, in light of the Mad Cow and the Bird Flu issues -- maybe this is the better route to go?

What do you think?

No. We would just be substituting human produced methane for livestock produced methane.

Cow farts versus people farts.

As I understand it, there's more 'animal production' worldwide than humans... So, even if we did an exchange (replaced human farts with cow farts), we'd still be better off.

Besides that:

By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.
...
Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

source (emphasis mine)


It's not even their farts, it's their poo!!

Two indicators of potential environmental degradation from animal feeding operations are total nitrogen excreted and excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Total nitrogen is an indicator of the potential for both air and water pollution from the entire operation (production facility, manure storage, and land application). Excess nutrients are manure nutrients produced on the farm in excess of the farm's crop needs. Excess nutrients are susceptible to running or leaching off the field and into water resources unless steps are taken to move the manure off the farm to additional land or to other industrial uses such as energy production or commercial fertilizer production.

In 1997, animal feeding operations controlled 73 million acres of cropland and permanent pasture. This land was estimated by Gollehon et al. (2001) to have the capacity to assimilate only 40 percent of the nitrogen and 30 percent of the phosphorus in the manure recoverable from animal production facilities and available as a crop fertilizer. Large farms, which constitute 2 percent of the total number of farms, accounted for almost half of the excess onfarm nutrients.

In 1997, 68 counties had manure nitrogen levels that exceeded the assimilative capacity of the entire county's crop and pasture land (fig. 4.5.3). Many more counties (152) have surplus manure phosphorus (fig. 4.5.4).
...
The major source of environmental degradation from confined animal production is the wastes (manure, urine, bedding material) that are produced. Animal waste can be transmitted through runoff of nutrients, organic matter, and pathogens to surface water; leaching of nitrogen and pathogens to ground water; and volatilization of gases and odors to the atmosphere. Pollutants may originate at production houses/lots where animals are kept; manure storage structures such as tanks, ponds, and lagoons; or land where manure collects or is applied.

source



It's poo-llution!!

(okay, that was bad...)

I'm not sayin' that we should all necessarily go vegetarian right this minute, but isn't this at least worth seriously looking at??


Or are our faces too buried in burgers and wings to bother contemplating other possibilities?

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Diseria]

Or are our faces too buried in burgers and wings to bother contemplating other possibilities?

And all dairy products - milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt....

The only food left would be fish. What about those who are allergic to, or won't eat, fish?

You're talking a full on vegan - not vegetarian - diet. That's not something our bodies were designed for; we are designed for eating protein, meat. Even our teeth are designed for that; ripping, tearing, then mashing/grinding.

I don't think it's reasonable. However, less red meat in one's diet is always a good thing...

Regards-
Aimless

^Not true...

Protein

It is very easy for a vegan diet to meet the recommendations for protein as long as calorie intake is adequate. Strict protein planning or combining is not necessary. The key is to eat a varied diet.

Almost all foods except for alcohol, sugar, and fats are good sources of protein. Vegan sources include: potatoes, whole wheat bread, rice, broccoli, spinach, almonds, peas, chickpeas, peanut butter, tofu, soy milk, lentils, kale...

For example, if part of a day's menu included the following foods, you would meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein for an adult male: 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup soy milk, 2 slices whole wheat bread, 1 bagel, 2 Tablespoons peanut butter, 1 cup vegetarian baked beans, 5 ounces tofu, 2 Tablespoons of almonds, 1 cup broccoli, and 1 cup brown rice.

Source

Originally posted by Aimless Searcher
And all dairy products - milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt....

The only food left would be fish. What about those who are allergic to, or won't eat, fish?

You're talking a full on vegan - not vegetarian - diet. That's not something our bodies were designed for; we are designed for eating protein, meat. Even our teeth are designed for that; ripping, tearing, then mashing/grinding.

Meat isn't the only source of protein, in fact, it's not even the most profecient, so what's your point exactly?

Our teeth are not design for tearing an dslashing, unless of course, you're a lion/human hybrid, but that's doubtful.

We're herbavors w/ omnivorish capabilities. Plants give us 80-100% of everything we need, and meat has only just a small portion (or nothing) of what we need, it's also only just quick protien for when agriculture is near impossible.

Think about it. When did man drastically change the way way he lived, and his brain cpacitity enlarge (cities, etc.)...when we started agriculture at the end of the ice age. The proof is there. We don't need meat (unless of course, like stated before, if agriculture isn't a possibility [deserts, etc.]).

hahahhah vegiterian ...nice


ill eat u all of you mmmm tastsy red meat

Landfills are the largest human-related source of methane in the U.S., accounting for 34% of all methane emissions. epa.gov

Eating people would achieve faster results in reducing anthropogenic C02 emissions. Whether voluntarily eliminating human or animal caused greenhouse gases saves the planet, before war and famine does...that remains to be seen.



Comprehensive free online book:

In every society where incomes rise, people move up the food chain, eating more animal protein as beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, and seafood. The mix of animal protein products varies with geography and culture, but the shift to more animal protein as purchasing power increases appears to be universal.

Of the three countries just cited, life expectancy is highest in Italy even though U.S. expenditures on medical care per person are much higher. Those who live very low on the food chain or very high on the food chain do not live as long as those in an intermediate position. The Mediterranean diet includes meats, cheeses, and seafood, but in moderation. Nutritionally, this is the healthiest way to eat.

What this means is that those living high on the food chain, such as the average American or Canadian, can consume less grain and improve health at the same time. For those who live in low-income countries like India, where diets are dominated by a starchy staple such as rice, sometimes supplying 60 percent or more of total caloric intake, eating more animal products can improve health and raise life expectancy.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Aimless Searcher

Or are our faces too buried in burgers and wings to bother contemplating other possibilities?

And all dairy products - milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt....

The only food left would be fish. What about those who are allergic to, or won't eat, fish?

Children need milk from their mothers. Women need calcium for their bones, especially as they get older. However, there are multiple sources of calcium that are not dairy products. (Search the juice section, for instance...)

While I am a fan of dairy products (born and raised in Wisconsin with a cheese fetish), I'm starting to think that the animal production is a farse. _Especially_ considering how much red meat people consume compared to how little exercise we get...

You're talking a full on vegan - not vegetarian - diet. That's not something our bodies were designed for; we are designed for eating protein, meat. Even our teeth are designed for that; ripping, tearing, then mashing/grinding.

As Arcane & Amuk pointed out, we are fully capable of eating nothing but fruits and veggies. We'd get enough vitamins and minerals without needing supplements.

Indeed, our intestinal tract is cleaned out by plants - because the body cannot break everything down. It's like a broom, and keeps the, well, crap from building up and causing problems.
Broccoli kills little cancer, cauliflower kills big cancer...
Fruits contains (or at least used to contain) all the potassium that we need -- our sodium intake is _way_ too high, and to balance that the body needs fruits.

The more I'm learning what the body _actually_ needs, and what's happening to people embracing the current habits... the right course of action seems so straight forward. Too simple - what is it that I'm missing?

Taste buds aside (and surely mine are screaming, along with my brain who is a sucker for habit), I am sincerely curious if we, as a race, are giving our bodies what it actually _needs_ verses what we consciously want.

No doubt that people ate meat 'back in the day' as a means of food. But that wasn't the only thing they ate, and definitely not in the same quantities as we eat it today... And dang it -- those humans at least chased their food down like proper animals!

What are we chasing? a paycheck? Survival has changed - yes, we all still need food, but we don't need to chase the food itself. It comes prepackaged, ready-to-cook.

I wonder what would happen to the economy if we began instilling this kind of change? (I'm assuming that the social change has already taken place -- big assumption, but the changing economy is a reason that people will point to in order to keep their habits intact...)



P.S. While I'm thinking of it -- what is the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan diet? Vegans don't eat _anything_ from an animal? (not even eggs?)

Originally posted by Diseria

Writing in this month's Physics World, Calvert calculates that the animals we eat emit 21% of all the carbon dioxide that can be attributed to human activity.

What do you think?

My initial reaction, without doing any research, is how do you suppose the emissions of large heard animals compare before their decimation by man?

Just a thought.


[edit on 23-1-2007 by loam]

Then we go back to the amounts of poo (manure), that's (from what I understand) a major source of emissions prior to butchery. The amounts of cow poo and how much the fields (providing the cow food) can soak up... too much poo, too little soil. (This was shown in a previous post.)

This brings to mind a further question: What if we put all the cow poo in with the human poo in filtration systems and such. Wouldn't that help to lower the overall emissions?

Hmmm, as loam says, most of the large herds of herbivores that use to roam earth have been destroyed by man. And replaced by domesticated herds of smaller animals.

Meanwhile, whatever you do, don't eat rice!

Methane concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled during the last 200 years. Its current atmospheric concentration of 1.7 ppm by volume, up from 0.7 ppm in preindustrial times, is much lower than the 345 ppm of carbon dioxide, up from 275 ppm. But one molecule of methane traps approximately 30 times as much heat as does carbon dioxide.

~ ~ ~

Recent global estimates of emission rates from wetland rice fields range from 20 to 100 Tg/yr (IPCC 1992), which corresponds to 6-29% of the total annual anthropogenic methane emission.

www.ciesin.org...


So, we can't raise cattle and we can't grow rice. Oh well, we could always eat the vegetarians ...

Originally posted by Diseria

P.S. While I'm thinking of it -- what is the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan diet? Vegans don't eat _anything_ from an animal? (not even eggs?)

Correct. Vegan's eat NOTHING from animals.

And a lot of them see it as a lifestyle, like not even wearing or using anything from an animal (kind of like rejecting the cruelty that happens). I realize that the last few are practically impossible. I don't really follow those.

I'm vegan for dietary purposes first, and because I hate how meat and dairy is treated at the farms second. But to not wear anything made from an animal (leather, etc.) is pretty hard. Almost everything made has something from an animal in it. Even tires contain animal parts...

But yes, to answer your question, vegans don't eat anything from an animal. But you'd be surprised how hard that is if you shop at say, WinnDixie or Publix, or a similar grocery. Almost all of the chips and bread contain dairy (for some odd reason). We have to look on the back of EVERYTHING, . But it's getting better, companies are starting to come around and apply for the 'vegan' symbol on their products, in the same way that they would apply to have the 'kosher' sign. So it's getting easier. There's actually frozen food company's dedicated to purely vegan diets. And they're actually pretty tasty.

Aside from that. I'd just like to reiderate to the rest of this board that the whole "can't get enough 'amino acids' if you don't eat meat" theory is out the window. It's a farce. Especially in this day i age, when you can get pretty much ANY fruit, vegetable, legume, nut, or grain from anywhere in the world. You're not stuck w/ a staple diet, you can have anything from anywhere.

It seems to me like what you're suggesting is that we abandon our primal nature so that we might more openly embrace the world of (polluting) technology that we have made for ourselves.

This proposition is symptomatic of a larger trend that really scares me. Must we strive so hard to destroy chaos? Eris prevails... human efforts to strip away our organic, disorderly nature will only end in tragedy.

Originally posted by Aimless Searcher

Or are our faces too buried in burgers and wings to bother contemplating other possibilities?

And all dairy products - milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt....

The only food left would be fish. What about those who are allergic to, or won't eat, fish?

You're talking a full on vegan - not vegetarian - diet. That's not something our bodies were designed for; we are designed for eating protein, meat. Even our teeth are designed for that; ripping, tearing, then mashing/grinding.

I don't think it's reasonable. However, less red meat in one's diet is always a good thing...

Regards-
Aimless

Not true as already stated!

Humans teeth and length of intestins (digestive tract) suggest that we are supposed to be herbavoires.

After watching a Liberty News: Truth About Food! (A must see) segment on the meat industry, I've decided to ween myself off meat. I had already stopped eating red/processed meat. Most humans are not designed to properly digest and process red meats. Red meat also contains sodium nitrate which is linked to various cancers, mostly pancreatic cancer.

www.libertynewstv.com...

www.newstarget.com...

I'v been vegan for many years now and i agree with you Diseria

If the whole world would stop eating meat it would end a lot of our problems...

Remember people,




eat to live don't live to eat.


Peace :0

Living things feed off living things...That's how it's supposed to be...

We are all parasites...

Animals are living things..

Plants are living things...

The real danger is the synthetic things we consume every day....

I wonder if the mites and mosquitos mind not feeding on you for a while..

It's survival people.....You are killing something no matter what you eat.....

(Plants don't have feelings) How do you know? Is it not just as cruel to sever a plant from it's lifeforce, throw it in a frying pan, and consume it just the same?

It all comes back out and sits in your septic tank in the same forms....The stuff your body didn't use.....After that, it goes off to to your local septic system to be reintroduced back into the environment....for plants to grow in and for animals to feed off of those plants...and into water that your own drinking water comes out of...

The cycle repeats....

One day, if I am the victim of a cannibal, then so be it...I was the weaker lifeform.....

We ALL take life that is below us...in some form or another...why should someone be made to feel that they are doing wrong?

Hypocrisy at its finest.....

Originally posted by QuasiShaman

Originally posted by Aimless Searcher

Or are our faces too buried in burgers and wings to bother contemplating other possibilities?

And all dairy products - milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt....

The only food left would be fish. What about those who are allergic to, or won't eat, fish?

You're talking a full on vegan - not vegetarian - diet. That's not something our bodies were designed for; we are designed for eating protein, meat. Even our teeth are designed for that; ripping, tearing, then mashing/grinding.

I don't think it's reasonable. However, less red meat in one's diet is always a good thing...

Regards-
Aimless

Not true as already stated!

Humans teeth and length of intestins (digestive tract) suggest that we are supposed to be herbavoires.

After watching a Liberty News: Truth About Food! (A must see) segment on the meat industry, I've decided to ween myself off meat. I had already stopped eating red/processed meat. Most humans are not designed to properly digest and process red meats. Red meat also contains sodium nitrate which is linked to various cancers, mostly pancreatic cancer.

www.libertynewstv.com...

www.newstarget.com...

Part of an article from NEXUS magazine. Don't believe everything from vegiterians. At the end of the day humans are Omnivores. Theres also a section Cancer and meat.

Also if you plan on cutting out meat production then Stop rice farming which produces 8% of all methane. Thats a big number too. All no fertilizers on any crops as this too produces greenhouse emissions.

So being vegeterian is not climate change friendly either...

Methane in Animals comes from Burping not Farting

www.nexusmagazine.com...

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth, like herbivorous animals, and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism. This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. Hydrochloric acid activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

Dr Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with that of the dog (a carnivore) and the sheep (a herbivore) clearly shows that we are closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep. While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores; nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder or an omnivore--much the same as our relatives the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee, who have all been observed eating small animals and in some cases other primates.

From the same source cited before about rice fields,

By using a combination of feasible mitigation technologies, however, there is great potential to stabilize or even reduce methane emission from rice fields while increasing rice production, without dramatically changing culture practices.

source

So the answer is not to stop eating rice, but to grow it with methane production taken into consideration.

Originally posted by ANOK

Protein

For example, if part of a day's menu included the following foods, you would meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein for an adult male: 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup soy milk, 2 slices whole wheat bread, 1 bagel, 2 Tablespoons peanut butter, 1 cup vegetarian baked beans, 5 ounces tofu, 2 Tablespoons of almonds, 1 cup broccoli, and 1 cup brown rice.

Source

Yum yum.

If it's all the same to you I think I'll do my bit by just commitiing suicide