It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks may Save Planet

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:54 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:19 PM

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.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:40 PM
Less steaks, use less water, use less electricity, use recycled paper, etc, etc..

I think the answer is less people = saved earth.

We keep coming up with all the ways to save our planet, to use less of this and that, when we forget the main reason the planet's going to the dumps is because there are just too many people.

Eat less steaks, use more contraception.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Byrd

They assume that you can figure out that feedlots and herds aren't similar things. And they assume that you will understand that billions of cows plus billions is not the same thing as millions of buffalos.

Weird? I responded earlier and its not here?

You may be completely correct? I think you are underestimating the number of Animals prior to the rise in Human populations. But I'm not qualified to come up with a number. Where are the statistics from pre-Civilization anyway?

I'm not sure anything justifies knowingly omitting data when publishing on an important topic. The only two reasons I can imagine is laziness or hiding information that runs contrary to the conclusions made.

I think your solution of changing the source of meats is an excellent one
We can agree on that. I wonder if the World can show that much common sense? I do get tired of Chicken real fast though

Whichever way this goes in the future I'm sure we can all agree we want clean air and water. Even us evil meat eaters who insist on acting like the Primates we really are.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:41 AM
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.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:44 AM
EDIT: Double post... Sorry!

[edit on 14-9-2007 by khunmoon]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by khunmoon

Originally posted by EssanIf they were really concerned about stopping global warming they'd be campaigning to ban vegetarian products .........

I don't get that. Please explain yourself.

The UK climate (and the same applies to much of the Western world) isn't conducive to growing soya, but it is ideal for raising sheep and cattle.

If we replaced meat with soya products we'd be unable to produce so much food in the UK and would have to import more - increasing carbon emissions due to transportation, irrespective of whether more rainforest has to be destroyed to grow the soya.

Much of the land used for sheep and cattle cannot be used for any crops (upland pastures, water meadows etc)

Therefore, depending on where you live, it may be better (from a GW perspective) to be carnivorous rather than vegetarian.

And since methane levels are not rising, we don't need worry about those cattle burping

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:43 AM
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]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:25 AM
The cattle causing the methane problem also live on land that was cut down from rain forests! I don't know the ratio, a good percentage of cattle rasing and the meat you eat(fast food?) is from South America.
It would take everyone who eats meat, or a large amount of them to help cut back on the cattle "production".

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Essan
Not again

What they don't tell you is that one of the biggest sources of CO2 is burning rainforests - primarily to enable palm oil and soya to be grown.

Indeed, but just about 100% of the burning happens in countries who arent as developed as the western countries.

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
Has science ever stated WHEN Global Warming started?

Of course. It started around the industrialisation in England in the 18th hundred. Its usually a normal part of history class..

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:36 AM
According to the study 35% of the green house emision related to cattle herding comes from deforestation.

See post above.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:12 AM
Data used in the Lancet article appears to be derived from this FAO report:

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?

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:36 AM
Still more crap science. Until the 1870's the middle of the North American plains had millions of "fart-full" buffalo. Yet, the weather was heavy winter until the 1930's. After the near extinction of this herd. Perhaps we should "de-populate" places like China and India to stop my big bloody prime rib!!!!!!!!

Save Global Cooling!!!!!!!! Fart more!!!!!!!!

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:12 AM

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

No, we should not. But concerning our local meat produce we should take animal welfare in consideration.

I happen to come from the most intense pork producing country in the world - 5 million people, 20 million pigs, annual output 120 mill porks.

But you never see hogs anywhere in the countryside. Industrial farm units, hermetically closed super hyginic buildings, is what you see.

Except for the sows getting fixed with wounds and vertebral damage as a result, the only problem to people is the smell neighbours have to endure.

Previous the water enviroment suffered a great deal from the production. It's better now due to a strict enviromental policy, though agricultural production still are the single worst poluter.

Not saying the Danish pork production is sustainable, but I certainly agree local meat produce are in no way comparable with cattle herding of multinational foodchains.

Farm shops are gaining popular and they're imo sustainable - whether you buy pork, eggs or vegies.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in