Would You Become a Vegetarian to Save The World?
by Most think of cap and trade and hybrid cars when someone says: “What can we do to combat global warming?” But, I bet there is one agenda being pushed by global warming gurus that most do not have on their “to do” green list- go vegetarian.
Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the leading experts on global warming, has everyone in the meat market gritting their teeth. Lord Stern suggests that to solve global warming, people will need to adopt a vegetarian diet. He is not alone in this sentiment. Other global warming guru’s like, Rajendra Pachauri, echo the need for a vegetarian diet. Using vegetables to combat global warming dates back to a 2006 United Nations report where it was concluded that livestock contribute 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
The vegetarian theory is universally based on three main points: direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs -via manure and flatulence, the amount of water it takes to raise livestock and irrigate land, and deforestation of land to raise livestock.
So, as of late, global warming studies have put gas guzzlers on the back burner to prove the point of a meat free diet. For example, a University of Chicago study recently estimated that switching to a vegan diet would have a bigger impact than trading in your SUV for a hybrid. However, I do find it ironic that many of the global warming “experts” pushing a vegetarian diet, like the two researchers for the University of Chicago and Rajendra Pachauri, were vegetarians before this even become an issue. So, I have to wonder if their agenda is not 100% related to global warming.
My Opinion:
I will be the first to admit that Americans eat too much meat. A study by the American Institute for Cancer estimated that only 27% of Americans eat the correct proportion of animal to plant food. In nursing school, I was taught that a meat portion should be no larger than the palm of your hand. I don’t know how scientific that is, but it is a good guide for a moderate diet. I think that too often the focus of a problem, whether it be global warming or combating obesity, is to ban or elimintate… instead of introducing moderation and making problem items more efficient. Prohibition should be example one that banning doesn’t work.
Unless these scientists and researchers are proposing to create an extinction issue by sterilizing livestock, there will always be animals that are farting, defecating, drinking water, and deteriorating the land. Those animals will naturally procreate whether livestock farming exist or not. One does not have to become a vegetarian to introduce animal protein moderation into their diet and aid the global warming cause.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentTeves
On November 4, 2009 at 5:32 am
Good stuff…
Petalm
On November 4, 2009 at 7:10 am
Well written.
CHAN LEE PENG
On November 4, 2009 at 10:30 am
Eating more meat is not only bad for your health, but also not good for our environment. The large scale domestic livestock has undeniably polluted the environment faster than a patch of vegetation.
Brenda Nelson
On November 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I am not a Vegetarian but have cut down my meat intake, most people eat 60% more meat a week than they actually need – a proper serving size is about the size of a deck of cards. and meat is not needed at every meal, or every day.
I encourage people to eat FREE RANGE EGGS as a protein source (keeping your own hens is great!!)
But the BEST thing I did for the environment, is stopped having kids after one! As much as we blame livestock – it is the numbers of people on the planet who are the biggest problems. Reduce the amount of meat you eat.. and reduce the amount of kids you plan to have.
Phill Senters
On November 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
If we et rid of all the animals, then the scientists will probably say we’re all gonna freeze because of “Global Cooling” like they did in in the 70s. It’s gonna be bad no matter what we do. Are we gonna kill all the cats and dogs when they blame some global crisis on them?
Uma Shankari
On November 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Hmmmm…I have a lot more to say on this. May be some other time. Basically, I agree with Nelson.
A good topic to debate on (Tho’ I haven’t contributed to it at all) and well expressed opinions, as usual.
Debrah
On November 21, 2009 at 8:15 am
You bring up a couple of interesting points that beg for clarification. The 2006 UN study that you mentioned was updated and the figures are more like 51% of the greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere are created by livestock of various forms. At the same time, 1/4 of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the world, have been leveled to make more room to graze cattle and to grow soy and corn to feed cattle. With the meat consumption projected to DOUBLE by 2050, how much more damage will be done to the planets lungs? Regarding your remark about flatulence, this is the result of cattle being fed soy and corn when their digestive systems were designed to eat grass. Unfortunately with current levels of meat eating, there is absolutely no possibility that that number of animals can be converted to a grass only diet. What’s more, the bulk of the animals consumed by the world are out of necessity confined to feedlots and barns. That means there are concentrations of manure and urine that must be managed (or not) in these feedlots. This waste is stored in ponds where it breaks down and emits vast quantities of methane as it does so. Methane is many times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide. So anyway you look at it, the consumption of meat is incredibly damaging to the planet.
Cutting back on meat consumption is helpful I’m sure, but with scientists projecting a doubling of the meat consumption rates by 2050, it doesn’t appear that it is much more than similar to touching your brakes as you hurtle downhill.
Debrah
On November 21, 2009 at 8:28 am
Free range eggs are no more helpful to the environment than battery eggs. The hens are still confined in a barn containing thousands of chickens, there is still a mountain of waste to deal with and it doesn’t solve the problem except to give the consumer warm fuzzy feelings that he is doing something wonderful.
The amount of antibiotics that all these animals must be fed to protect them from the incredibly filthy conditions that they exist in for their short lives, goes either into our water system through their waste or into the bodies of the consuming public. Same with the growth hormones that they are fed to make them grow faster so they can be marketed faster. Ever wonder why ten year old girls are getting their periods now?
The change to a vegetarian diet would not come overnight. People are too stubborn and slow to learn for that to happen. So the likelihood of huge legions of no longer needed food animals wandering the countryside will never happen. However, if the demand for meat dwindled so to would the production. And considering that a good number of animals are forcibly impregnated it would not be a naturally occuring event. And so what if there was a mass extinction of herefords and holsteins, etc? These are breeds that man developed so it wouldn’t be the same as how man has driven the Pere Davids Deer to extinction, or the Passenger Pigeon or the Quagga.