Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks may Save Planet, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 13-9-2007 @ 07:54 PM by chickeneater
reply to post by downtown436




After Al Gore done with hyping the world, he will ask you politely to commit suicide in the name of Motha Eartha. So yeah, it's coming, don't worry.

In the mean time, please don't use refrigerator, stove, cooking top, and ESPECIALLY your toilet, flusing is completely wasteful and damaging! Compost your crap and grow vegi garden with it.


reply posted on 13-9-2007 @ 09:19 PM by khunmoon
Original posted by Blaine91555
You sure you are not a member? They are in the middle of a campaign that matches this post?


Let's keep PETA out of this. As I've stated earlier never heard about it before a few days ago when I encountered the acronym in another thread (yes, was about eating habits too). Can only say I sympathize with their cause, not their course, it seems sentimental driven to me. At least on an ideological level you need to gain consciousness on the topic at hand here.

Humans have the ability to go through 7 stages of development. We start with the anal stage - for the first few months of your life your sole interest is your feces.

After you've tried puttingt them in your mouth you develop a conscience of what's good for you, taste and otherwise. That's how you develop your judgement.

The next stage is the sentimental. That's were most people remain their entire life, so no wonder PETA is successful.

The other stages are social, ideological, intellectual, supreme.

At least I thought we could have kept the discussion on the social/ideological level. However, as I feared, it would take place on the oral/sentimental level.

I knew it was a subject open for jokes, but it certainly deserves more than that.

From a confessional view let me tell you I'm not that sure about GW like I used to be, but I'm still quit sure we are the main influence to our enviroment - and that we become what we eat.

So if you wanna be a herd of cattle, go ahead, I'm sure that's NWO is all about.

Don't see it nessecary to mention the health hazards of meat eating, but the psychologigal side effects of an agressive behavior is obvoius and should, the present world situation in mind, be taken into account.

My personal testamony is that I was a vegan, a macrobiotic for 15 years and I still am, not a vegan, cause I eat what I want. And I never wanted to eat my 100 grs a day, with the tenfold variation in target groups.

Heck, I never ate a kilogram of meat a day. That might be what I eat in a whole month.


reply posted on 14-9-2007 @ 01:41 AM by khunmoon
Allow me to post a central part of the Lancet study, and the core problem of the issue: a far from sustainable agricultural sector being pushed by the market to an even higher degree of insustainability.




Figure 2. Proportion of greenhouse-gas emissions from different parts of livestock production
Adapted from FAO.

Worldwide, greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture (crop production and animal husbandry) and associated changes in land use, are estimated to exceed those from power generation and transport. Methane and nitrous oxide, combined, are more important emissions from this sector than is carbon dioxide. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas whose full contribution to climate change has recently been re-assessed as being more than half that of carbon dioxide.41

A recent FAO report42 focuses specifically on the current and future effects of livestock production on the world's environment and climate. The report states that the world's livestock sector, which provides the livelihoods of about 1·3 billion people, is growing faster than other agricultural subsectors. Yearly worldwide meat production is projected (in the absence of policy induced changes of trend) to double from 229 million tonnes in 1999–2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and milk output to almost double from 580 million tonnes to 1043 million tonnes. Most of this increase is projected to occur in countries with low or middle incomes (figure 1). Livestock currently use almost a third of the world's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture, but also including the third of the world's arable land that provides livestock feed.


Figure 1. Trends in consumption of livestock products per person (milk, eggs, and dairy products, excluding butter)
The projected trends assume no policy-induced change from present consumption. Note the rapid recent increase in east Asia, dominated by China, where per-head meat consumption would reach European levels by mid-century. Cultural, agricultural, and political factors will determine how the composition of animal products intake actually changes in the future. For example, in the near east and in north Africa, higher intake of milk, eggs, and poultry are likely, whereas greater consumption of beef and poultry is expected to dominate the increase in Latin America. Reproduced from FAO, with permission.


As you can see from the last graph when the 'tigers' of the E Asian economies reagh our level, the whole planet will be in dire trouble.

I can only see one way: we have to go ahead as an example.

Unthinkable, some will rightfully say.

That's why wars come around, because if you don't wanna change they'll take care of the changes needed.


reply posted on 14-9-2007 @ 02:43 AM by Beachcoma
reply to post by Essan



Interesting that you brought up geography into the discussion. An article I read sometime ago mentioned that in certain latitudes, plants may actually exacerbate global warming rather than mitigate it. I'll try to look for that article and post the link here.

Edit: Found it here. It's about trees, not plants, but I wonder if it might be similar.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Beachcoma]


reply posted on 14-9-2007 @ 06:12 AM by Essan
Data used in the Lancet article appears to be derived from this FAO report:

www.virtualcentre.org...

Which I don't have time to read!

However, most people in N America, Europe and Australasia do (or can if they choose) eat meat, the production of which has not resulted in any deforestation whatsoever* It's therefore disingenuous to imply that all meat production is complicit in deforestation. Locally produced meat is one of the most environmentally friendly food products available. Unlike out of season fruit imported from abroad

*Unless we're going to throw deforestation of the native European woodlands 4,000 odd years ago into the calculations?

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^