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.

 

Meat causes global warming

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Everyone knows living organisms release methane and other gases and all the cows and other animals being grown for food, are found to release much more greenhouse gases than the normal wild ones.


* Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.

* Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat.

* Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.



And the extent of this,


The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.


Even veggie food growth is manipulated by us to grow more and release more greenhouse gases.


In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included, incurs hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel for farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all lead to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just half a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 1.2 ounces of CO2 as a result of applying insecticide and fertilizer, pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table generates another two ounces of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, for a total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces.


But,


But that is nothing compared to beef



In 1999 Susan Subak, an ecological economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane has roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those emissions are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.


So, just see how we humans have manipulated the natural process of the life for our own convenience and now we are ending up killing ourselves.

Edit: Added link.

SCIAM link



[edit on January 19th, 2009 by peacejet]




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Everything in moderation I say. Plus USDA Prime New York Strip? To die for (I guess thats literally eh?)

How about carbon offsets for meat consumption? Id be willing to pay that.

[edit on 1/19/09 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Maybe we should make beeves and their by-products fart free.





posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
How about carbon offsets for meat consumption? Id be willing to pay that.


Carbon offsets are not the answer for this. These offsets work by planting more trees in some regions of the world, and there is an imbalance between the planting of trees to counter act the effects and the amount of green house gases being emitted. And also, trees absorb only CO2 and not other green house gases, though soil exchanges nitrogen with the tree.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Carbon offsets do no mean planted trees per say. Money can be funneled into other carbon reducing measures like wind power, solar, tidal power etc. or the research for them etc.

Are you simply advocating the entire elimination of meat products from our food chain? Sounds like a PETA thing to me.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Carbon offsets do no mean planted trees per say. Money can be funneled into other carbon reducing measures like wind power, solar, tidal power etc. or the research for them etc.

Are you simply advocating the entire elimination of meat products from our food chain? Sounds like a PETA thing to me.


If that is the case, it is fine, but many might oppose the idea of paying more taxes.

And I do not mean elimination of meat products, I said that the current artificial raising process is the problem.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
science to the rescue! news.bbc.co.uk... Although it sounds strange,i wouldnt be bothered by it as long as it tasted good,there will be more food for developing countries because there is no feed,more land...but it would hit farmers i guess if it took off..



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


You want to be a vegan..fine. Me? I will remain a carnivore and am happy too. There are just as many studies that say meat is good for you as there are saying its bad! I tend to mix lots of vegies with my meat so I get both benifits!

Zindo



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Hi there, the plan is good, but, I dont think it will feasible on a large scale and also, it might contain some genetic materials and chemicals that might affect us, who knows.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Let meat be good for us. But only if the environment is clean, we will be able to enjoy the good health.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by Solomons
 


Hi there, the plan is good, but, I dont think it will feasible on a large scale and also, it might contain some genetic materials and chemicals that might affect us, who knows.


No it would grow like any meat does,the only thing would be like it said in the article stretching it etc to mimick walking or what have you.No chemicals from what i can tell just natural cell reproduction.Im all for it,and it would easily be feasable on a large scale if the money was pumped into getting it up and running.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
And I do not mean elimination of meat products, I said that the current artificial raising process is the problem.


I wont argue with that, the organic beef from local sources as opposed to large factory farms is so much tastier than the mass produced stuff



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Isn't the new PC name for it "climate change"? Regardless, please send some of your global warming up here since it has been -40 and below for the last few weeks. Good thing my wood stove works so well!

You know, humans cause quite a bit of methane gas as well. Should we eliminate those pesky critters as well?

Other than what's obvious from your post, what would your suggestion be to curb this so called "global warming"?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
Isn't the new PC name for it "climate change"? Regardless, please send some of your global warming up here since it has been -40 and below for the last few weeks. Good thing my wood stove works so well!

You know, humans cause quite a bit of methane gas as well. Should we eliminate those pesky critters as well?

Other than what's obvious from your post, what would your suggestion be to curb this so called "global warming"?


Im still on the fence about man made global warming,but just because its called that doesnt mean it gets warm everywhere,it means freak weather occurences,so global warming could effect freak cold temps aswell.Anyway,im more worried about the methane trapped under the perma frosts in siberia,its melting right now and is around the size of north america,no one knows exactly but its about 70 to 400 billion tons of methane.100 billion tons of methane is the equivalent to 2 trillion tons of Co2,even if we completely stopped releasing Co2 tomorrow it will still melt and we will all still face sever weather changes,worldwide famines especially in thrid world countries etc



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Actually im pretty sure its ice cream that cause global warming. You see, every time I find people eating ice cream I notice that its hotter out! Also Eating ice cream leads to spousal abuse. In the months of the highest ice cream sales in the US we also have the highest spousal abuse.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Anyway,im more worried about the methane trapped under the perma frosts in siberia,its melting right now and is around the size of north america,no one knows exactly but its about 70 to 400 billion tons of methane.100 billion tons of methane is the equivalent to 2 trillion tons of Co2,even if we completely stopped releasing Co2 tomorrow it will still melt and we will all still face sever weather changes,worldwide famines especially in thrid world countries etc


You are spot on. That is the primary concern, as the ice melts, it leaves air holes in the ground for the gases stored inside to come out and spread into the atmosphere. That adds fuel to the flame.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
This of course is all subject to the 50/50 chance that Co2 emissions have absolutely nothing to do with climate change and that the planet and its climate has been changing long before we arrived and will be long after we are gone.

Eat as much meat as you like but try and drive to the shop in an electric car to balance it out.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join