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.


UN says eat less meat to curb global warming

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:24 PM
All of you seem to be forgetting all the waste those cows excrete before they make it to your plate. There are more cows in the US than people, and last I checked they poop a lot more than us. Where is all this wonderful dung going?

((asides from spilling onto the meat during the slaughtering process))

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:43 PM
This is just an excellent example of the consumer market influencing the supply/demand waltz.

Global government bodies: "Eat less meat."

Consumers: "No way, screw you, it's my damn right, it's in the constitution!"

Farmer: "Oh well, we're running out of water but we need to make a living. I'll just rely on more subsidies so I don't end up hanging myself."

Problem - there's six and a half billion people on the planet. Food prices are already rising, and there's less and less arable land due to droughts.

Is the solution to say "hey, buddy, do you really need that second burger..." going to help? Probably not, time will tell, but it's just simple common sense that says that things are going to get much tougher to maintain our current level of opulence.

If meat is essential for your three meals a day, please, by all means, learn to raise livestock, slaughter it, and butcher it, and we'll lessen the strain on the agricultural sector.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by mattguy404]

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:50 PM
Note to the U.N.

Global Warming is a hoax. You are perpetrating the hoax to enhance your own power.

Stop it!

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by Sweet Paula

We are the only generation who may have children that will not live longer than we do. What a terrible thought!

Make no mistake, this is being done intentionally. The goal is a population of a half-billion, ruled over by an all-powerful elite.

But you are right about the processed foods being deadly.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:43 PM
I'm actually quite shocked by the display of ignorance in this thread. I just assumed it was common knowledge that meat processing produces massive quantities of pollution, not to mention the grain required to feed the animals. Despite knowing this, I eat my fair share of meat. Yes, it's a detrimental habit, and yes, I have chosen not to abolish it. I am a terrible, terrible person.

I even did you all a favor. Here is one of the thousands of links available for information on the subject:

Seriously, I cannot believe this is news to any of you. For shame! But the fact that you're being snarky in your condemnation of the news makes it hilarious, my friends. Hilaaarrrrrious.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:47 PM
It's not the meat. It's the production of the meat.

The factory farming industry is a huge source of gases. Especially methane gas. Methane gas is multiple times more effective of a greenhouse gas then Co2 is.

Either way, the 7 of you in this thread that brushed this off as propaganda need not worry. I am a vegetarian, so i'll vouche those days for you every week

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by paperplanes

Thanks for that post. We were posting at the same time so I didn't read yours before I posted mine. Glad to see some people at least acknowledge this.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:58 PM
FACT: Cows consume about 14 times as much food as they produce.

Why need there be any more reason to not mass-produce cows for beef?

Beef used to be a luxury for the simple reason that it was a negative source of food. It continues to be a negative source to this day. The people on here who won't recognize that and just say "I don't give a damn, I LOVE STEAK!" are arrogant, to say the least.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:03 PM
It seems fairly obvious from this thread that the more bull that goes into the mouth the more that comes out. The resources that go into raising livestock could be far better spent. Of course, it is much easier to blame everything bad in the world on the 'NWO' than confront your own personal consumption habits. Block your ears and sing "nah nah nah"!

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by Shar_Chi

Nobody in this topic is doing that. The simple fact is that eating less meat probably WILL lower pollution in the atmosphere slightly, but as to what substantial effect it will have on global warming will be next to unnoticeable.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:56 PM
fine by me even tho i love beef i will just continue to eat the bambis and other animals i kill lol oh and cute cuddly lambs too.
plus venison and other wild animals are much healtier(even tho i'm not a health nut) because the aren't pumped full of steroids and god knows what else

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:07 AM
and forgot to mention if they are worried about the cows steers and bullscontributing because of many factors to should we also stop drinking milk? more effort goes into producing milk than in selling beef? or should we just allow them to go extinct? maybe that will save the world? but that would be hypocrosy and inane.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:33 AM
I have always wanted to be a vegitarian, because I feel like an ass everytime I eat the leg of some poor animal, but the meat just tastes too good to give up.
I don't know about the health aspect. I thought that meat contained a lot of iron and other vitamins. That is why they call it a balanced diet.

I kind of think that with the vitamins and supliments, we could survive with no food at all. but like I said, the food tastes good. especially meat.

And as for the UN; Aren't cows just the reincarnation of terrorists?

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:33 AM

Originally posted by jackinthebox
They're probably trying to argue that less cow farts will save the North Pole, but it's still bull-poo.

It is a known fact that livestock make up a large proportion of some pollutants that enter the atmosphere.

I think of it this way. The less meat we eat, the more animals are left alive to fart, therefore the methane levels skyrocket which = bad.

The more meat we eat, the less animals are left to fart therefore less methane in the atmosphere.

Does that make sense?

[edit on 8/9/2008 by Kryties]

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by Kryties

exactly my point. eat as much meat as you can and less animals there will be to fart. but other replies also said it was because of the farming rather than the farting that causes the gases. i heard about this months ago and just had to laugh!!! you think those semis on the highways aren't as bad as cows farting? makes my ribs hurt i'm laughing so hard. maybe we should hire people to stand behing every cow and person with a match in case they fart to burn off that methane lmfao or if it is is a farming reason maybe we should go back to no machinery for our veggies? do it by hand like the old days- and remember no horses could be used either since they fart-i'm sure than would cut down on pollution

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:08 AM
Maybe the UN should go on a real diet, like getting less U.S. taxpayer money.

I am tired of these people dictating and still having their vote mean almost the same as the U.S. when they don't even pull their own weight in funding.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:30 AM
The world we live in is shaped by the choices we make as individuals. Factory farming is the cause of the devastation the U.N. refers to. As meat became cheaper due to economies of scale people began to eat more of it. Now we are trapped in a vicious cycle in which people have become accustomed to eating meat daily and business is pressed to produce more and more every year.

- "Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., nearly 80 percent is used in some way to raise animals—that's roughly half of the total land mass of the U.S. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals."

- "More than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce one pound of farmed fish flesh."

- "The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people."

It is clear that the eating habits of industrialized society are inefficient and largely unhealthy. The U.N. shouldn't be telling anyone what to do, the U.N. shouldn't even exist, but we should be aware of what our habits are doing as a whole and if it looks as bad as this maybe we should consider some changes.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:17 AM
Some people eat to much meat.
Of course having some is ok but everyday 3 meals a day people are eating meat.
That couldnt be good for anything if you ask me.
We would all be better off and the world without eating so much meat and if we became vegetarians.
I am not a vegetarian but would like to become one.
Considering you can grow mushrooms in your closet with no energy sun or water and they are a staple source of protein.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by president

I don't know about the health aspect. I thought that meat contained a lot of iron and other vitamins. That is why they call it a balanced diet.

Yeah meat has nutrients the body needs.

But those nutrients can be found without eating any meat.

It's possible to eat healthy and sustain an athletic body without meat.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by Interestinggg

Trouble is there are some of us who find vegetables distasteful and prefer our meat
That and growing more vegetables means more fertilizers, space to grow, chemicals being sprayed and still includes transportation and packaging costs.

Don't really see much of a difference either way.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in