It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
They're clearing forests worldwide for one purpose... $.


Well, duh, that's the obvious answer


I'll tell you what makes the money from clearing land in Indonesia (which by the way isn't expanding it's palm oil plantations, or at least not by much). They're clearing it to make way for soy plantations. As the demand for vegetarian 'meat' and other meat-substitutes increase, the profitability of growing more soy also increases.

So singling out normal meat is rather short-sighted, in my opinion. If you want to pin the blame on something, pin it on laissez-faire practices of wealth acquisition without any responsibility.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





Methane is actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow basis.



????

That's a quote from a totally unrelated "issue." I thought this would be the perfect article to take that from, given that it's not written with an "agenda."

Source.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Once again, not a black and white issue. We also see the problem from a perspective that is drastically different given our locations and culture.




In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] This is apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock are increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the developed world's livestock - and they are losing.





World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year. The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times its human population.





"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres' belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of the Centre for Food Policy.





Although grain-dependent industrial agriculture is the fastest growing type of animal production, not all farmed animals are raised in this way. Much of the world's livestock is still raised on pasture. Worldwide, livestock use roughly 3.4 billion hectares of grazing land.


Meat vs. Soy is kind of a weak argument, but I can see where you're coming from, given that I'm not a fan of soy or anything else that's processed. Exploitation comes in all forms, even from a vegetarian slant. As a vegan, I'm not preaching to any one of you. It's pretty obvious in terms of "what" is exactly hurting us the most.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
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.


First of all, Vegans are a MINORITY so the choice to eat meat is NOT a commonly accepted mistake. Secondly, it is NOT what you eat as much as it is how you go about getting it. Try rereading my post. I am as environmentally conscious as you claim to be - perhaps moreso. Try getting off your freaking high horse, drop the hypocrisy and respect your own words - IT'S A CHOICE!

I am not your Bro, will not be bro and would prefer that you not refer to me "manbro" or otherwise.

You quote me as saying "It's what primative people do." Where did I say that? And since when is the CHOICE to eat meat primative? We've eaten fruits and vegetables since the beginning of mankind as well - by your logic I guess you are primative as well.

I have a "set" paison and will continue to eat meat! In fact, tonight I am having the biggest freaking Porterhouse steak this side of the Mississippi and will think of you while chewing each and every bite of it! On January 5th I am travelling to a local beef farm to select my next victim for slaughter and butchering - an organic, free-range steer. By January 15th I will have 150 lbs of freshly butchered beef in my freezer and will enjoy every last bite of it with my family.

It's people like you that give a bad name to your cause.
Preaching and acting holier-than-thou. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that I have adopted a much more environmentally friendly lifestyle than most vegans. My wife and I grow, harvest, jar and can over half of the vegetables that we eat. About 25% that we do not grow we procure from local farmers or organic gardeners. The remaining quarter comes from the local store as avacodos just don't grow in Ohio.

Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you people simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that soy milk is probably as damaging to the environment as cow's milk - rainforest is leveled to crow the garbage, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are used to grow it. Hydrocarbon buring farm equipment is used to level the rainforest, prep the field, plant and harvest. Fresh water is wasted watering it. Hydrocrabons are burned transporting it to processing. More energy is wasted processing it. More waste is generated packaging it. More fuel burned getting it to market. You drink it and then the packing winds up in a landfill. Sound about right? Oh wait, you make your own Soy milk right??? My bad.



The primary difference is that I don't lay claim to have the most environmentally friendly lifestyle (as you do) because I don't eat meat.
Another difference is that despite my choice to eat meat, I DO go out of my way to ensure that my diet choices are as environmentally friendly as possible. The only way that you will convince me of your "Environmentalism" is when you will only eat what comes off of your property - good luck with that!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Oh, man.


I do grow most of my own in all months except winter. Squash, cucumbers, tomatoes, radish, and a few onions. Everything else comes from the farmers market. I grow potatoes in the colder months as well, but rely on organics from the produce market to get me through. I'm also lucky enough to have access to fruit orchards. Apricots, blue/black/raspberries, apples, cherries, etc..I'm predominately raw vegan, and stay away from anything processed such as soy milk and tofu.

To turn this into a soy vs. meat argument is totally off-base, as I myself have qualms with modern agriculture in all it's "shortsightedness."





Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you people..


Let's not forget that your entire argument in all it's blinding genius can be refuted by one single video. Glenn Beck, Peta, and the U.N... Eat crow.



And yeah... I am holier than thou. It's important you never forget it.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
It's people like you that give a bad name to your cause.


My 'cause'? You're nothing but a murderer in my eyes, and your 'cause' is nothing to boast about. My 'cause' - a planet where people respect their environment, other species, and ultimately themselves. And we'll get there or perish, regardless of your opinion.


Originally posted by kozmo
Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you people simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that soy milk is probably as damaging to the environment as cow's milk

Hypocrisy is you trying to chastise vegos on environmental matters. Irony is the fact that you do it so poorly. You could at least have done a quick wiki:


en.wikipedia.org...
Using soybeans to make milk instead of raising cows is said to have ecological advantages, as the amount of soy that could be grown using the same amount of land would feed more people than if used to raise cows [11]. This is debated as grazing land for animals is very different from land used to farm, and requires fewer pesticides. However, cows require much more energy in order to produce milk, since the farmer must feed the animal, which consumes 90 pounds of food and 25 to 50 gallons of water a day, while a soy bean needs merely water and land [12]. Because the soybean plant is a legume, it also replenishes the nitrogen content of the soil in which it is grown.


Please support your wild strawman arguments with some facts, and also note that noone here has been praising soy anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

So singling out normal meat is rather short-sighted, in my opinion. If you want to pin the blame on something, pin it on laissez-faire practices of wealth acquisition without any responsibility.


my hat off to you beachcoma, you really do show a great deal of wisdom when you post.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Once again, not a black and white issue.


Not trying to make it a black and white issue. I was only trying to show the other side of the issue. That's why I brought up soy as an argument. But even it wasn't soy, it's still not exactly clean and green on the whole, especially if it's commercial farming.

Anyway the whole point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with using food production as an environmental issue. It can get very convoluted, and to what end? People need to eat.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
People need to eat.

Less livestock = more food (and water).

Here's the UN Report online: Livestock’s Long Shadow
www.virtualcentre.org...



Livestock’s Long Shadow

Summary: This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation. The assessment is based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production.

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
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.


i think you make a few points here man, some good and some not so good. no one is saying we should not eat, i think what is being discussed without much clarity is the impacts of a globalized industrial agriculture complex. i will have to look through my papers for the exact quote and source, but the global agricultural complex using as much energy for shipping as the entire county of brazil, each year.

people have been eating MEAT for most of the time we have been around, however the predominance of meat in the human diet is a modern thing. first looking at hunter gatherers, say the dobe ju hoansi, yes hey eat meat, and the men dedicate their working days to killing it, but they still primarily subsisted on mongongo nuts. prior to current levels of processing and storage meat could only be kept in certain forms for certain periods of time. i believe this is where the origins of animal sacrifice comes from. not from worshiping the devil but from the need to consume all the meat when i was killed. so when the time came, generally special holidays, communities would gather,kill the animals, dedicate that killing to the gods and feast.

your final point about purchasing your meat locally and sharing the harvest with your friends or family is an excellent idea. it is the first in many steps of localizing food production and creating local food security. further more, it would also be a first step at overpowering the industrial agricultural complex by not buying into it.

finally i would just like to say that it is quite clear that the production of meat take a LOT more energy than the production of vegetable crops. it is easily provable. there are also too many of us to take to the hills killing the 'game' animals. moderating how much meat we consume is simply a responsible manner of living.

for fun check out THE MEATRIX



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Once again, not a black and white issue.


Not trying to make it a black and white issue. I was only trying to show the other side of the issue. That's why I brought up soy as an argument. But even it wasn't soy, it's still not exactly clean and green on the whole, especially if it's commercial farming.

Anyway the whole point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with using food production as an environmental issue. It can get very convoluted, and to what end? People need to eat.


sorry i have to disagree with you on this beachcoma. food production is the most FUNDAMENTAL and VITAL link between humans and the planet. to say that it is off limits as an environmental issue makes no sense. we CAN and SHOULD have means of producing our food that does not do the damage to the planet, and ourselves, as our production methods do today. i think that agriculture is the most basic environmental issue. without maintaining the integrity of our agricultural lands we cannot produce food, with out that ability we cannot survive. don't be discouraged. the form of food production that is predominate today has only been around for about 70 years. we CAN fix it.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
without maintaining the integrity of our agricultural lands we cannot produce food, with out that ability we cannot survive.


Now that you've put it that way... I suppose I can agree to that.

It will be tough, though. Human behaviour is economic behaviour. So long as there isn't a cheap way to produce food without having a big environmental impact, the whole idea will be opposed vehemently.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Sorry to keep butting in - but it is actually WAY more expensive to raise livestock.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


of course your right. i cant say that it is an easy road, only a necessary one.

edit:

reply to post by Shar_Chi
 


your not butting in, thanks for contributing your point, one i completely agree with. the more people who say it the more people will listen. we are all in this together, there is no 'us' or 'them'.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Shar_Chi
 


Question: Cost aside, which one is more profitable?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Question: Cost aside, which one is more profitable?

I have no direct data to give you, but I think organic crops is a safe bet.

Btw calculating Profit does entail Income minus Costs...

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I couple of points that don't come up in most of these conversations:


1. Most of the beef the US produces comes from the American midwest, which is semi-arid grassland. The steers spend a year or more on grass, before being finished on feedgrains at the feedlot. Record high grain prices (due to fuel costs) have reduced the amount of grain fed to this year's beef (causing a leaner product). But, most of the grassland in the American west is not suitable for any kind of irrigation farming, especially the water-intensive agriculture that produces vegetables and fruit. So, doesn't it make sense to use beef to convert the grass to food?

2. Before the cattle were in the American west, farting up the scenery, there were . . . millions of Buffalo, of the same genus as domestic cattle, but much larger. Bison also have larger diets, and thus more output. So, weren't the Buffalo putting out methane BEFORE evil whites killed them off to introduce domesticated cattle? There are fewer cattle now than there were buffalo before 1500, so why is methane a MODERN problem???

.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Some good points there. But don't forget, cattle in arid areas take huge amounts of fodder to bring to market. So we are back at square one - feeding cattle instead of feeding humans.

As for the Bison, there were 60 - 100 million before the culls (disgusting, lets not even go there). Now you have 100 million cattle. In hindsight, they should've just kept the bison eh?
I think the point is cattle numbers worldwide have increased substantially.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 



i personally would make the case for 'local organic agriculture, not strictly but as a main source of food production, processing, and distribution. i believe this for a number of reasons.

Industrial agriculture, while beneficial for corporations is a burden on local economies and the environment. In 2000 there was $417 billion in food shipped around the planet. In 2002 we were shipping 817million tons of food around the globe. Fruits and veggies in the US were traveling 2500 to 4000 kilometers, on average, from farm to table. (Brain Halweil, WorldWatch Paper 163, 2002, 16).

To quote Brian Halweil, in “southeastern Minnesota, a region emblematic of the American Midwest, Meter and Rosales found that while farmers had sales of $866 million in farm products in 1997, they spent $947 million on raising this food…(if not for federal subsidies, many of these farms would not be in business). Meanwhile, residents of the region spent over $500 million buying food based outside the region” (Brain Halweil, WorldWatch Paper 163, 2002, 22).

A study by the New Economics Foundation in London “Local Food Better for Rural Economy than Supermarket Shopping” (Press Release), London, UK, 7 August 2001, notes “a pound (or dollar, peso, or rupee) spent locally generates nearly twice as much income for the local economy” (Brain Halweil, WorldWatch Paper 163, 2002, 27).

I have also read a comparative study of organic vs. industrialized and hybridized apple farming in Washington which clearly showed an advantage to the organic production method over both the hybridized and industrialized systems. I can’t find the issue of Science or Nature that the article was in but I will look around and edit in the information later.

I could go on and on, I have a 90 page paper I wrote on this topic. The bottom line is that local production is beneficial to local economies, social structures, and environment. Global trade is fine, but it should be used in a rational way. Why buy products that come from 1000’s of kilometers away when they can be produced at home? It in the paraphrased words of Sym Van Der Ryn “it is entropically insane, much like cutting butter with a nuclear powered chainsaw”.

I wish I had more time to post, I would write more. I would also be happy to clarify any of the points I brought up.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would love to hear more about any analysis you have for implementing various models of localised food production. I am currently working with a company on a project with major implications for suburban market gardens.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join