Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

    This made the front page of the times, yesterday.

    And the inevitable response from those with vested interests.

    So... what do OTFers think of this? (Ummm... what's the opposite of 'consensus'?)

    #2
    'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

    'Nice' idea, but rather harder in practice.
    You can't undo whole cultures at the drop of a hat.
    Presuming they are willing.

    What would happen to all the livestock though if there was suddenly a ban on further breeding?
    And what about subsistence farmers, which must be the majority?

    Comment


      #3
      'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

      Popping my cards on the table first, I was first a veggie now vegan, though I didn't do it for green reasons.

      I'm just surprised this is still 'news'. Are there really still people about who don't know how energy inefficient livestock farming is? It'll never happen for a number of reasons, but mostly the same ones that keep people wedded to their cars, half a dozen flights a year, and turning up the central heating rather than closing a window or putting on a jumper. (I was chatting with MrsCJ the other night and we were both tickled to remember a time when the idea of sitting around in a t-shirt in winter would have seemed laughable. I think most people in the west take it for granted now.)

      The cultures that need undoing, that can't be undone are mostly those of the developed nations. Meat's been associated with wealth - I'd guess it's an evolutionary thing, like craving fatty/sugary foods - so it's been interesting (and, tbh, sad) watching the changing culture in China and India. As a species we evolved eating meat occasionally. We could probably go back to doing that and make a big difference.

      Re: subsistence farmers, there are big portions of the earth where people couldn't survive without animals to convert the limited resources of the land for them, but we're talking pretty small numbers of people here and they wouldn't account for much carbon.

      What would happen to the livestock? You could be compassionate and let it end its days naturally, or eat it all up with a 'when it's gone, it's gone' approach. I've never understood that particular 'objection' to vegetarianism.

      Comment


        #4
        'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

        Yeah, the animal rights arguments are always going to be controversial, but the environmental justification for vegetarianism/veganism or at least cutting meat consumption to an absolute minimum is overwhelming.

        Comment


          #5
          'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

          it's not just about energy inefficiency though. Ireland is perhaps the best place in the world to grow cows, in that you literally just put them in a field for nine months of the year, and at a much higher stocking rate than just about anywhere else.

          The big problem about cows though is that when they're standing in that field eating grass, and thinking deep thoughts, they're farting all the fucking time. animal farts and the decomposition of their shite accounts for 26.8% of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than any other sector. It's as much as the industrial and household sectors put together.

          We could cut our greenhouse gas emissions to 1996 levels overnight by halving the number of livestock.

          Comment


            #6
            'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

            The Mighty Kubelgog!!! wrote:
            Ireland is perhaps the best place in the world to grow cows, in that you literally just put them in a field for nine months of the year, and at a much higher stocking rate than just about anywhere else
            What advantages does Ireland have over other places with similar climate/ economy/ food preference?

            animal farts and the decomposition of their shite accounts for 26.8% of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than any other sector. It's as much as the industrial and household sectors put together
            I thought most methane was expelled by burping?

            Comment


              #7
              'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

              I'm all for it (cutting back on meat, and more ethical farming methods) but as always, irritated by the "save the planet" bit.

              The planet will be fine, (if a bit battered and bruised) it's humanity and other species that are going to be fucked by climate change.

              Comment


                #8
                'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                well, there aren't actually that many places with the same limited temperature range, or abundant rain, or intensively developed agricultural infrastructure. If there was a bit more sun in the winter, you could nearly leave out the cattle 12 months of the year.

                Comment


                  #9
                  'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                  You could fit them with those miner's head lamps.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                    Lord Stern reads OTF.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                      That "human" methane emission figure would equate to less than 0.2 cubic metres. A year. That's what, a shoebox full?

                      My arse (well, actually not my arse, if you see what I mean).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                        As a species we evolved eating meat occasionally. We could probably go back to doing that and make a big difference.
                        That's very debatable (and I'd argue otherwise).

                        But yes, we could eat less meat.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                          Stumpy Pepys wrote:
                          As a species we evolved eating meat occasionally. We could probably go back to doing that and make a big difference.
                          That's very debatable (and I'd argue otherwise).
                          Which bit? The evolution or the difference?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                            Well, it depends on which group you look at, but the Inuit, for instance, survive on a diet entirely composed of meat.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                              Stumpy Pepys wrote:
                              Well, it depends on which group you look at, but the Inuit, for instance, survive on a diet entirely composed of meat.
                              And loads of other groups survive on a diet which is largely vegetable - or did until the evolutionarily recent influences of increased affluence and a desire to adopt more 'western' cultures. The healthiest 'cultural' diets, as measured by longevity and freedom from dietary-related disease tend to be low-calorie, largely vegetarian with lots of fresh fruit and veg and limited quantities of animal protein.

                              I'm not sure that such an extreme lifestyle as the Inuits' can held up as evidence of what may or may not have gone on 100,000+ years ago. Setting aside their high infant mortality (even when compared with other indigenous peoples of Canada, Alaska ), they don't have a great life expectancy and causes of premature death among Greenlandic Inuit after trauma (notably suicides and accidents, (27%)), were cancer (14%) heart disease (11%) and stroke (8%) (Bjerregaard and Young, 1988 The Circumpolar Inuit - health of a population in transition).

                              I did say -

                              there are big portions of the earth where people couldn't survive without animals to convert the limited resources of the land for them
                              which would go for extreme environments such as deserts or tundra.

                              I'm quite prepared to accept a role for animal protein in the evolution of the modern human brain. It's another matter to what extent animal proteins continue to be part of our diet if we consider the matter practically or ethically.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                I read the original article as we eat too much meat, not we should all become vegetarian. The title itself is pretty misleading. I agree with that and am trying to get Mrs Max to throttle back on the barbies here in Melbourne a little and introduce a couple of completely meat free days. That and we now go halves on a chicken breast where previously we had 1 each (Breadcrumbs can be so useful :-).

                                The farmers and meat lobby backlash is the usual knee jerk stuff you'd expect from people who spot a threat to their livelihood. Like fishermen, you sense they have to give up a lot of ground in the future as there simply won't be enough meat to go round in future years.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                  From the comments below 2nd article

                                  "If you are happy eating the decomposing corpse of a young confined animal, then perhaps you would consider not eating meat 1 day of the week"

                                  It's that sort of comment that tends to make people keep eating meat. Who'd want to be associated with a crank like that?

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                    Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:
                                    That "human" methane emission figure would equate to less than 0.2 cubic metres. A year. That's what, a shoebox full?

                                    My arse (well, actually not my arse, if you see what I mean).
                                    What's your rationale here? Humans in general secrete very little methane (human farts are mostly nitrogen with a dash of CO2), and many secrete none at all. It's all about the gut fauna.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                      I can still be green and eat meat. I'll just keep some chickens in the backyard. My neighbors do it, it doesn't seem that hard.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                        Isn't the truth that as a species, we evolved to be adaptable above all else? Hence our wide variety of habitats and diets.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                          I think (and I mean this isn't my field or anything, so I may be, er, talking out my arse) that the role of cattle-farts in global warming is more complicated than TMK implies.

                                          Methane breaks down in the atmosphere over time to form CO2 and water. Now, the CO2 isn't itself a problem, because meat rearing is, by itself, CO2 neutral in the long term: any CO2 released has all been sequestered beforehand in the plants that the livestock eat, so the net amount released averages to zero. It's only the oxidation of non-renewable sources of carbon (oil, coal, unreplaced forest) that increases atmospheric CO2 long-term.

                                          And the water, though implicated in the greenhouse effect, isn't itself a problem because any excess in the atmosphere simply falls as rain (though global warming raises the amount of water the atmosphere will bear, which is one reason some climatologists fear a runaway greenhouse effect).

                                          So the problem with methane seems to be this: that it exerts a stronger greenhouse effect than did the CO2 that was sequestered to make it. The effect is in the technical sense a "marginal" one (though that doesn't mean it's a small one): the issue isn't simply that methane warming happens, it's that there's a difference between methane warming and CO2 warming, and that the former is worse.

                                          Now, the half-life of methane in the atmosphere is about seven years. So the cattle methane pretty much all clears eventually. The issue then becomes how much damage it does while it's around. Opinions seem still to differ on this, though it looks like there's been a recent shift in the direction of alarm.

                                          At any rate, my guess is that the key change still needs to be reducing CO2 release from fossil fuels and cleared forest; the livestock methane business I'd guess to be less urgent. But I could be wrong.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                            I'd always assumed the detrimental environmental impact of cattle (and livestock, generally) farming wasn't so much to do with methane emissions, although that's part of it.

                                            I thought it was primarily to do with the huge areas of land that livestock uses; and even more, the huge amounts of arable crop used in feeding livestock. This is a problem in two ways - not just removing the arable land from being able to provide more, and cheaper, food on a planet with restricted resources; but also the huge amounts of carbon emission created by all the machinery that in farming.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                              Yes, I agree.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                'Go vegetarian, save the planet'

                                                La Lanterne Rouge wrote:
                                                I'd always assumed the detrimental environmental impact of cattle (and livestock, generally) farming wasn't so much to do with methane emissions, although that's part of it.

                                                I thought it was primarily to do with the huge areas of land that livestock uses; and even more, the huge amounts of arable crop used in feeding livestock. This is a problem in two ways - not just removing the arable land from being able to provide more, and cheaper, food on a planet with restricted resources; but also the huge amounts of carbon emission created by all the machinery that in farming.
                                                Water usage might also be an issue.

                                                I've seen various sources, none of which entirely agree, with statements such as this from http://www.elements.nb.ca/Theme/agri...egefr/vege.htm:

                                                On average, 18,500 litres of water are used to produce 1Kg of meat, the equivalent amount of water used by a typical Canadian family during a one-month period. To feed the typical meat-eater for 1 day requires more than 14,800 litres of water. In contrast, a lacto-ovo vegetarian needs only 1/4 of this amount and a strict vegetarian will use only 1/12th of this amount.
                                                Then again, according to http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html, a study of water usage in the USA, freshwater used to raise livestock seems to be < 1% of total freshwater usage, so some might consider it negligible in the overall scheme of things.

                                                Unless, perhaps, you take the view that "every little helps".

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  &#39;Go vegetarian, save the planet&#39;

                                                  I think agriculture is the largest consumer of water in the United States.

                                                  I thought the problem was not so much that cattle graze on arable land (since most grazing land isn't arable), but that grain is fed to them so they come to market quicker. So instead of eating useless (for humans) grass, they eat maize/wheat instead. Which raises food prices, it's the same thing with ethanol for fuel in the US.
                                                  Since corn is so highly subsidized, it's used for ethanol instead of other, more efficient sources like hemp or sugar cane. So it cuts into the food supply, while not being all that cheaper to the consumer when you add everything up in the end and including the rise of food prices.

                                                  That said, I don't get the premise of the article. If we do double our population or worse. Decreased meat consumption won't have to forced onto us, it will just happen.
                                                  Just like when the cost of gas prices forced some friends of mine to re-consider new bikes and train passes for transportation.
                                                  It's also why I wish my state would tax gasoline and spend it on new train lines.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X