"Eating Beef More Destructive to Environment than Driving a Car"

Brief, interesting study being done on the effects of meat-eating & the environment. The numbers prove a large difference in energy-consumption on such a small scale... I'll look for greater, short-term impacts -- anybody have some stats like that 'around' -- please post them & thanks for checking the thread!

The article also mentions some facts I, and the study, left out that will obviously up the difference in energy-usage.

The environmental footprint of producing just over two pounds of beef is greater than that of driving a car for three hours, according to a Japanese study reported on "New Scientist."

The researchers found that it took 169 megajoules of energy to produce 2.2 pounds of beef (the equivalent of 4 average-sized steaks or nearly 9 quarter-pound burgers). This is the same amount of energy that would be consumed by leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for 20 days.

One-third of this energy went into producing and transporting the animals' feed.

In addition to energy consumption and greenhouse emissions, animal agriculture produces a great amount of pollution and consumes substantially more water than plant agriculture. Some of this effect arises merely from the fact that eating animals is less efficient than eating plants -- a single animal must consume vast quantities of plants before it is slaughtered, which means that all the energy, water and other resources used to produce those plants are ultimately going to the production of a much smaller quantity of food.

www.newstarget.com...

And eating palm oil products causes more carbon emissions that all transport in the world put together Of course, one can produce statistics to prove just about anything.

And anyway, by walking to and from work I save more than enough in terms of environmental footprint to have 4 steaks a week

reply to post by Essan


Are you sure about that, mate? There's a lot of disinfo out on palm oil, because it's in direct competition with soy, sunflower or canola oil.

reply to post by anhinga


People will never just "get it," Anhinga. They may be concerned, but only to the extent of caring enough to notice, not create change. We'll forever be surrounded by the apathetic with played out little comments you'll get in return to this subject about how much certain people "compensate" for their diet and lifestyle. I've seen that mans ruin is only within itself. The majority of people out there are all geniuses and we're fighting an uphill battle because some people "do other stuff."

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Not to rain on your vegan parade, but what do you think they clear mangrove forests and jungles in Indonesia for? Hint -- it's not for palm plantations.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by Essan

 

Are you sure about that, mate? There's a lot of disinfo out on palm oil, because it's in direct competition with soy, sunflower or canola oil.

I consider soya just as bad

But the reason is that a lot of the burning of Indonesian (and other) rainforests is to enable the growing of crops like palm oil and soya. Burning rainforests around the world generates about 20% of anthropogenically produced carbon emissions ......

www.foe.co.uk...

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


...I hear ya DeadFlag; the thing is, I wasn't even pushing a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle by posting this -- just showing the dangers of the post-industrial consumer-driven society to the environment.

And judging from a heart-disease-related-to-meat eating chart I saw recently, between the U.S. and most of northern Europe, they topped the death chart, whereas, South American & island populations had the fewest, aside from some African countries; I gotta find that chart to post here. Seems like a macro-biotic diet is fairly healthy a la the Japanese, yet today w/ the mercury polluting a lot of waters, I trust uncooked fish slightly less then say twenty years ago.

Well, maybe if we all just stop eating then we could solve a bunch of problems... No more fertilizers; no more transporting all that pesky food around for people to eat; no more having to use energy to cook all that of that nasty food to clear it of bacteria and viruses; no more water wasted drinking it and cooking with it - and just think of all the energy we would save by not having to treat water and raw sewage? Ultimately everyone would die of starvation but just think of what a beautiful place Earth would be?

Come on people - coming from a guy with a background in statistics I can tell you that you can get numbers to tell you anything you want... if you just torture them enough - which appears to be the case here.

Eat beef - mankind has been doing that since the beginning of time. If you're truly worried about it's environmental impact you could always locate a local beef farm near you and arrange, with friends or family, to have a local steer slaughtered and butchered and split the meat. I've been doing it for years. Not only do I save about 60% over grovery stores, I know the origin of the meat, how it was kept, what it was fed and the conditions under which it was prepared.

Everyone with more than 2 brain cells knows a non-meat diet is better for the environment. It's simply not up for debate. But I will try not to go on my usual vegetarian rant, cos frankly, meat-eaters are too easy targets and i get very nasty, but i just wanted to say im vego for over 8 yrs and never even heard of palm oil till recently, and dont have much canola or soy products either, mostly oat milk & extra virgin olive oil. Cant go wrong.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Everyone with more than 2 brain cells knows a non-meat diet is better for the environment. It's simply not up for debate.

I beg to differ. Most commercial farming practices of today are just as bad. You've got fertilizer run-offs, ammonia release, nitrous oxide release and whole bunch of other chemicals being released into the environment. Not to mention the fact that all those chemicals to fertilize the crops come from petroleum anyway. And then there's pesticide and herbicides to top that off.

If you are arguing that a vegan diet is better for health, I'll agree. But from an environmental perspective, I don't think so. Unless you're growing organics yourself.

I really thought this thread was going to be about cow farts.

If you look at any large production industry, of course they are going to use a lot of energy. Just think about how many steps there are from going from living animal to dinner plate. That is going to take resources. That is the price of living in an industrial world.

A better case for beef ruining the environment is the amount of methane that cows produce. 18% of greenhouse gases is methane (roughly). Cows (roughly) produce 400 quarts of methane a day. The demand for beef and dairy has increased the number of overall cows world wide. There has been numerous studies showing that cow gas is a big cause to global warming.

reply to post by Shar_Chi


Meat eaters are easy targets? For the sake of respecting the decorum on the forum and not violating the T&Cs I won't even go there.

And everyone with ONE brain cell knows that humans are OMNIVOROUS and have been since the beginning of mankind.

But moving on to your holier-than-thou vegan nonsense... Do farmers not use tractors to prep their fields? Do they not use fertilizer which creates runoff that pollutes our watersheds? Do they not use equipment to harvest their crops? Do they not transport said crops to marketplaces? Do vegan food producers not use equipment to process bean curd and that other crappy tasting foodstuff? Do they not package and ship their crappy tasting foodstuffs to the market for you to purchase? Does the packaging not wind up in landfills?

I find the whole vegan argument hypocritical at best.

...here's the chart I mentioned earlier:

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Everyone with more than 2 brain cells knows a non-meat diet is better for the environment. It's simply not up for debate.

I beg to differ. Most commercial farming practices of today are just as bad. You've got fertilizer run-offs, ammonia release, nitrous oxide release and whole bunch of other chemicals being released into the environment. Not to mention the fact that all those chemicals to fertilize the crops come from petroleum anyway. And then there's pesticide and herbicides to top that off.

If you are arguing that a vegan diet is better for health, I'll agree. But from an environmental perspective, I don't think so. Unless you're growing organics yourself.

Well yes of course I prefer organics as does any sane person. Dont see why you necessarily need to 'grow it yourself' altho actually i am working with an agribusiness to help promote that exact idea among communities... its quite possible to have an organic market garden just about anywhere. Personally, I think its the future.

Anyway, do you have any idea how much agricultural production goes into just FEEDING a single herd prior to market? The same company I work with provides fodder for organic beef lots, and man they go through TONS every single day. Tons and tons of fodder, from land which could be used for feeding a LOT more people than a single herd of cattle ever will. Such a waste... and I mean this is just one aspect of the debate.

I could go on and on but this is already a dead horse so to speak afaic.

Originally posted by kozmo
And everyone with ONE brain cell knows that humans are OMNIVOROUS and have been since the beginning of mankind.

I'm not. Don't pretend you dont have a choice.

Originally posted by kozmo
Do farmers not use tractors to prep their fields? etc
I find the whole vegan argument hypocritical at best.

What exactly is your point? I support sustainable organic agriculture as do most vego's. Any reduction to additives, chemicals, even transport is good afaic, and given the choice I'll always spend my money in that direction. So how is that hypocritical? But we were comparing vegetarian diet to meat eaters. How you go about farming is a completely separate argument, and one you would also lose.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Dont see why you necessarily need to 'grow it yourself' altho actually i am working with an agribusiness to help promote that exact idea among communities... its quite possible to have an organic market garden just about anywhere. Personally, I think its the future.

That's kind of what I mean by 'grow it yourself'. I was factoring in logistics.

reply to post by Beachcoma


They're clearing forests worldwide for one purpose... $.

As I look at our current swarm of "concerned environmentalists," I become quite irritated. Pseudo-environmentalists talking about nothing but global warming and how we're all affecting the environment or contributing to it's demise, but when it comes to limiting oneself, they fall silent. Collectively, we're failing ourselves and our planet because we're being very particular in the way we choose our environmental woes and as "our" response to these occurrences are weak, so is our understanding of "what" exactly is causing more immediate problems on a much larger scale. People from all walks of life continually let themselves down because they like the "taste" of meat.


"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."


And Shar_Chi isn't necessarily defending modern agriculture techniques because she thinks a vegetarian diet is better. Because eating meat is for those who are totally apathetic, indifferent, and completely oblivious, doesn't mean that those of us giving the criticism are in anyway a proponent of the agriculture industry. I don't even see where you picked that argument out of Shar's words, BC. This, with every other topic is not a black and white issue. We can go into great length about what needs to be done, even from a vegetarian standpoint, but picking an argument out of a very general statement isn't like you at all.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
im vego for over 8 yrs and never even heard of palm oil till recently, and dont have much canola or soy products either, mostly oat milk & extra virgin olive oil. Cant go wrong.

Palm oil is used in hundreds of common products, from crisps and biscuits to toothpaste and soap .... It's rarely if ever labeled as such, making boycotting such products nigh on impossible.

Originally posted by testrat
A better case for beef ruining the environment is the amount of methane that cows produce.

Although, oddly, methane levels have not been rising in recent years (I've not yet seen any explanation given why)

reply to post by kozmo


Regardless if we were omnivores then, doesn't mean we don't have a chance at righting our commonly accepted mistakes.

"We've been omnivores for like millions of years, bro. Although, I know that the meat industry is single handedly destroyed the personal welfare of us all, being a major contributer to emission related climate and air quality issues, water pollution, not to mention, this is all wildly unregulated. I could contribute my part just by not eating meat.. But, manbro, It's just 'what we do."

I'm not buying it. The planets fate is staring you in the face and you combat it with "It's what primitive people do."

We're not in the stoneage anymore. Get a set.

Originally posted by Essan
Palm oil is used in hundreds of common products, from crisps and biscuits to toothpaste and soap .... It's rarely if ever labeled as such, making boycotting such products nigh on impossible.

Ah yes, and btw accuracy in labelling is another beef i have