She’s right on the last bit in some cases, and honey farming is beneficial to the bee population, but a lot of vegans don’t know that and their position is coming from a position of genuine concern. Also, I’ve heard more complaining about vegans than I’ve heard vegans talk about their diet.
I suppose it depends on many things. One is perception. You may not notice that song you like play 100 times, but the tenth time in the same day you hear the one you hate you’ll likely feel they are playing it too much. It also depends on the people around you. A friends mom is vegan and EVERY time I go on Facebook there is at least one post from her about vegan pride, or meat shaming, or vegan related things. My friend and his ex wife were both vegan when they were married. You couldn’t go anywhere to eat, mention food, or practically any product without hearing something about it related to being vegan. Some of that isn’t “complaining-“ saying you can’t go to a restaurant because they have no vegan options for instance. It can still be annoying. Conversely I didn’t know my coworker was vegan for almost a year and we talk regularly and have even gone to lunch together on several occasions. So I think it’s relative, and you’ll see as many imaginary arguments from non vegans to...
... vegans as vice versa. That said- of course some is just shameful joy. Vegans are an easy target for picking on. They aren’t a protected group and won’t cause outrage, but still allow that “us vs them” mentality many thrive on. They also are largely making an ethical stance, and people often like to tear down people they see as trying to be “better” than them, especially when they lack the fortitude to do what is right themselves. In the end though, like many instances of personal morality it’s something that should be... personal. Not other people’s problem or concern unless they ask. She makes a poor point because this assumes a “perfect” stance. By this logic one can’t refuse to buy from a company that uses non fair trade labor if they buy a product who’s parent company polluted a lake. People pick the issues that matter to them and they feel they can make some impact on, and can only fight one battle at a time. She does have a good point though in that vegans aren’t morally...
... perfect either, and we can’t say that someone who is vegan but buys from companies with unethical business practices is more moral than someone who isn’t vegan and refuses to buy from unethical companies, or a non vegan who buys from unethical companies but only ones that are truly environmentally friendly and sustainable. So there’s no need for a pissing match, people can just live the way they like and not bother other folks with it.
The first thing I would like to get out of the way is- no. Meat is not killing the planet. It is killing us. The planet will be around long after we are gone. It will probably foster life by after we are gone, despite all the things humans do that would make that seem unlikely. Meat is causing degradation of the ozone and toxicity in ecosystems. But considering NASA accidentally created an extremely resilient and nigh radiation proof bacteria, and human actions have led to many hearty strains of micro organisms, considering dinosaurs and many other creatures survived millions of years through cataclysm and ice age, and certain sea creatures are though to have made it through billions of years- the argument for killing the planet is weak. Killing us- maybe. The planet- no. Changing the planet? Yes. But it’s a bit conceited to equate to survivability of all life on earth to human existence, which is a mere blip on the time line of the planet. That said....
Sure it’s important. So is nuclear waste, or non bio degradable wastes and heavy metals. If humans went extinct tomorrow, the vast meat industry we have created with self regulate. Herds would think to starvation, predation, etc. methane levels in the air and nitrate levels in soil would return to normal in a “short” time from an ecological perspective. But heavy metals, certain chemicals, nuclear waste- these will have a far reaching impact that will extend beyond our species, but impact us while we exist as well. Fossil fuels and battery waste are far larger immediate and long term threats as well. I could name any number of very important issues. Are you saying that someone who is actively campaigning clean and sustainable energy, and also trying to find environmentally friendly methods of mass agriculture is an enemy of humanity if they eat meat, versus someone who does neither of the former but has given up meat? Or should a person abandon any other causes they stand for and...
... join this one? At some point- you can’t ask a person to do more can you? Only so much time, discipline, and attention a person has right? You could argue they could easily do all that and be vegan- but that the same argument many use to bait vegans isn’t it? They try to point out some “hypocritical” or otherwise seemingly “harmful” thing those vegans are doing? “Oh, you don’t eat meat but you still live on the grid...?” Are you such a saint? Do you never use mechanized or animal transport, do you sustainably grow and source all your own food, clothing, your home, etc? Do you own consumer electronics? When they expire do you personally see to it that they are broken down to useful components in an econforensly way (taking them to a “recycler” doesn’t count nor does donation as the end is the same generally.)
So I reject your premise. It is irellevent if it is important. The world is a complex place, and mass agriculture is a dirty business that poisons the soil, the water, relies on long distance transport using non eco friendly methods, is involved in deforestation and human rights abuses. Now- there are alternatives- but not enough to feed everyone on earth responsibility and ethically, and affordable. So where is that infrastructure? That is where your argument fails. You are putting the horse before the cart if your premise is that meat is destroying the planet and humans should resort to mass consumer agriculture to save it. Mass consumer agriculture is also destroying the planet. You’re trying to treat radiation sickness with chemotherapy, your trading in equivilenvies. Instead of trying to get everyone to eat plants, wouldn’t it be a bigger issue to try advocate better farming, less waste, more efficient and responsible consumer habits, and legislature to give advantages to local...
... sustainable growers? Because here are facts. America is the #1 meat eating country on earth per person. Kuwait, Australia, all make the top 20. The UK and China don’t even make the top 20. But China, despite not making the top 20- still as a nation consumes 20-30% of all meat eaten in the world. Population. So there’s another HUGE and more pressing issue. If you solve that issue, you pretty much solve the others. Even at historically low (but rising) per person meat consumption- China consumes all that meat because of its population. It’s pollution is so bad because of its population. Mass industry and many of the methods we use to meet demands are so harmful so that we can supply to a huge global population. When there were 10,000 humans on all the earth- meat consumption had no major impact. So again- there is a flaw for you. Give up meat to “save the planet?” Give up babies. No more humans=planet saved. Eating meat=no more humans. If you want to protect the earth-
Backing initiatives that would restrict population size, or ultimately lead to extinction of the species, are far better ways to save the planet. So again- I think your primary argument is less “save the planet” and more “save the species and wuality of life.” If you want to do that- then eating meat is a neat bandaid- but there’s still that issue of dirty mass farming, which is tied to that issue of mass population... so we go back to China. One of the worlds major polluters. One of the worlds primary meat consuming countries- but each individual alone is mostly eating vegetables. In fact, in most countries save for those “top 20” per capita meat eating countries- the average diet consists of primarily grains and vegetables and other plants. Interestingly enough, even many of the top meat eating countries diets are STILL primarily plant based even with all that meat. Also interestingly enough- many of those countries which eat a lot of meat aren’t particularly bad at polluting...
... compared to similarly developed countries which eat less meat. So it isntba direct correlation. Then there’s the United States. Oh man. Do we really put the screws to the world. Here’s a fun fact: google how much we throw away as waste. Look up per capita food waste by country. Guess who’s #1? Not only could that food feed people without, but it also could replace production of additional food for those with food- meaning less production, less transport, less garbage, less pollution. In fact- most people in developed countries eat far more quantity and far more lavishly than survival requires. Humans of even the recent past didn’t eat as much, as often, or near as rich. And they certainly didn’t throw out as much food as we do. They didn’t use as much transport for food or as much packaging. They survived just fine.
If you want an even SIMPLER EASIER change to people’s diets, that has even more “halo” benefits- ask people to stop eating so much. It’s good for other people, good for themselves, good for the planet, and it means less death for animals and plants. Or ask them to stop throwing away so much edible food- or... combine both since they have good synergy. Take less, waste less. That would have HUGE benefits pretty much across the board as far as impacting crosiers and the earth.
So @asteroid- I reject your argument on saving the planet as patently false, perhaps it would help, but there is no evidence that it would help any more than the several other awfully important issues I’ve listed for you. I agree that with a growing population, the habits of individuals have a large cumulative impact on a global scale, and it is important to be aware of that. But as far as “awfully important issues,” especially those pertaining to the survival of humanity, the protection of the environment, or even just the food industry and general diets and consumption of humanity, being vegan or not isn’t a corner stone issue. There are many ways a person can make an impact of similar or greater magnitude on these problems, Vega Ian isn’t the de facto methodology nor even the “single best” methodology to make a difference. Most of these methodologies are not mutually exclusive, but: 1. We can’t ask another to do more than we would ourselves. If you aren’t perfect, if you have...
That's just amazing. I see what are you trying to say but to quote you I reject your premise. I can't argue with you since your view is completely wrong and it's based on wrong presumptions and assumptions. But I have to point to a number of things. First of all, you knowwhat I mean. Why are you resorting to abstracton to prove me wrong. That's stupid. Secondly, you don't even know the impacts of meat eating, so I don't want to argue with that. You believe mass agriculture (I presume you mean eating plants and not in the sense people use it to talk about farming animals) impacts us as much as farming (meaning raising cattle and agriculture for feeding cattle) and that's laughable. Don't want to be rude but I think you have to check your stats man. That's so stupid it makes you seem like a flat earther. Instead of writing this long ass reply, you better get your facts straight.
I recommend watching "cowspiracy" or any other documentary by Kip Andersen so we can be on the same page if you want to argue based on facts and not fiction.
I think you only get facts from sources that suit you. Not to be rude. Are you aware of commercial farming practices? The effects of nitrate fertilizers? The myriad of large stock farming of plant materials for industrial uses like lubrication, bio fuels, additives, materials and other uses for plants beyond feeding people or live stock? Do you know what “crop rotation” is? Are you aware of where much commercial produce comes from, or what is involved in the land, labor, and transportation that goes into making sure that people through much of the world can get exotic and out of season fruits and vegetables? We aren’t talking abstractions. We are talking hard quantifiable numbers in carbon production, water tables and chemistry, run off, waste, and the ecological impact of repurposing local lands to grow cash crops as well as the impact of introducing certain species not native to an area.
I sadly cannot reccomend a documentary for you to watch, because I do not rely on entertainers with career and financial motivations to frame conclusions for me that they nearly tie up in a Ready for Netflix package I can watch on my lunch break. I reccomend google, and gettingbinformstiom from diverse sources on statistical facts as well as procedural realities of things. The world is a fucked up place. All you have to do to find dirt is look. But you do prove my earlier point. People have blinders. We are surrounded by and live and rely on systems that are horrifying. The only way to truly “live well” or as close as possible is to go live off the land in seclusion from modern society. It’s all dirty, and we can’t function like that. People- like you, cannot allow themselves to reconcile that in the end we are all dirty at least by association or enabling the sims around us.
I know what you are saying for the hundtedth time. But your facts are still wrong. Of course there are disadvantages for agriculture (of plants) but they are neglible compared to meat production. They are not negligble per se just negligble compare to raising cattle. Just go an watch those documantaries. The sources for any claims in the documentaries are in their corresponding websites. I get facts and don't care where they come from as long as they are facts. You again assume my ignorance, but I assure you this is not the case. I mocked vegetarians in my mind for a long time and just watched these documentaries about three months ago. I fact checked them and I am sure they will be useful in illuminating my points. Don't just count it as my misguided ignorance. Just go watch them.
So to my original point- you do your part. You find the dirt that gets under your nails and sticks, that really eats you. When you find it- do what you think is right. Feel free to bring it to the attention of others. Once they are aware- it’s up to them. The fact they don’t join your cause, despite your smug superiority- does not mean they don’t understand the facts. If does not mean they don’t care about the world. They may have their own evils they are fighting. They may know fully well or even better than you what the impact of their choices are. And they may have reconciled that. It is very likely the device you are typing and reading on is part of a massive destructive system of human, economic and ecological abuse. Yet- here we are. There’s this line see. It’s why people get so excited about new “green” technology and methods and don’t usually dig too deep. People want to drive their Prius and KNOW they are doing g a good thing. They don’t WANT to know about battery strip...
I practically didn't get any of this. What are you talking about? what is my "smug superiority"? I am not superior to you or anybody, and I don't feel that way and I don't want anybody to think that. I am just saying your facts ARE wrong. You say nuclear waste is more important than meat eating and that's not true. It shows you don't know the full picture and that doesn't mean you are inferior or anything. You are just wrong. There is no shame in that. People can be wrong but they have to be searching for the right thing. You do your part is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my life and I hate that phrase with passion. What does that even mean. Imagine we are in a boat which is sinking because water penetrated it. I started pouring the water out and "do my part" but it doesn't matter when others don't do their "part". Do you see how absurd that kind of thinking is?
and there is the line, we are human beings and we have an impact on our environment. This doesn't mean we can do anything we want. What is this way of thinking? All you say is that agriculture (plants) have impact. I know they have impacts. I am not stupid. We have an impact. But there is the important point on this line of yours and it is called "scale". Look at the scale and extent of the impact. We can compare the impacts plants and cattle have on the planet. This is the simplest of ways for explaining our argument.
... mines, or that a hybrid may save gas, but has all the same toxic fluids and the same maintenance as a regular car, plus the issues with the electrical components. See- an analog device will consume very little in production, and a lot in its life. A washing machine from 50 years ago will still be usable and serviceable in 50 years. But if you keep using it- it is very inefficient. It will consume far more water and electrocuted in the long run. But electronics use most of their resources in production and little over a life time. But people don’t keep them 50 years. In other words- most people are killing the planet every day, even when they are trying to help or do right. We stand on the necks of others as part of our existence. People who can’t reconcile this with the fact that they can do incremental good tend towards binary and limited views. Where either they give up on trying because managing all that “bad” is overwhelming, or they focus intently on one single facet of a...
... complex issue. The mechanism is the same. An inability or unwillingness to understand a holistic picture of reality, coupled with a need to hold on to a self image as a “goood person.” It’s a little too adult perhaps to say- but in reality good people do bad things through action or innaction all the time. So I am not speaking in abstracts. A witch doctor knows that rubbing an herb on a sick person sometimes cures them. A doctor knows why, and what the disease is. docukentaries are great. But when they are the primary source informing our world view it’s dangerous. It’s like only seeing one city in a country and assuming the whole country is like that good or bad- or like seeing a farm in a country so assuming the whole thing is farmers. It’s limiting and ignorant to believe that there is nothing beyond what we know or what we believe, we choose where we get information, so our knowledge shows our bias.
@asteroid- nuclear waste is less important how? According to who? If all meat production stopped tomorrow- the effects to the environment would undo themselves in short order. Nuclear waste will persist in the environment for many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. We make special signs to warn of danger because it will be dangerous so long that we do not know if humans will be able to understand the signs of we wrote them in any current language. The fact you can’t refute any of my points other than to say I am “wrong,” or point me to a documentary you watched, are not evidence you are right. You’ve declared yourself an expert based on the credentials of having watched a documentary, and declared my point sinvalid without even presenting circumstantial evidence to your point. You are literally standing there saying that I am wrong because you said so, and you are right because a film maker made a movie you watched.. and you said so. Wether you acknowledge it or not...
... your attitude is one of assumed superiority, as you have presented nothing to support your claims, and expect that your word and movie recomendations alone trump anything I have said. You have closed ears and a closed mind, and are the sort of person this type of meme is aimed at. You parrot jingoists and stand on unfaltering correctness without consideration to the act that your point of view or your concerns about the planet are a drop in an ocean. It is a large and relative scale when we discuss the future of a planet or species, and without evidence presented here you claim to know exactly what to do and the most dire need to address as though you were omnipotent and your mere word should be proof enough. “I don't need to tell you to have fun with that” because in your self created reality you are king of the hill and doing just fine.
Oh my god just stop it with your inferiority complex. Come on man be a little realistic. Your argument is ill-defined and ill-structured. You write so much that you are lost in your own writing. The point I am making is that you are wrong that eating plants is as devastating as eating meat. Nuclear waste has nothing to do with your argument or mine. Suffice it to say it is not a huge problem compared to raising cattle. I referred you to a documentary with documentation and not a movie. This documentary is a combination of various studies. You can check its website and see the papers and publications. If anyone reads your rants, it is abundantly clear that I have provided a source for my facts while you didn't and haven't. So I am in a bubble of my reality while I provided a source for my claim positing that you are wrong, and you are right because I think I am omnipotent. As a matter of fact, I indicated that I am not omnipotent and omniscient by providing a source which explains...
.... my points far better than I ever could. But you refuse to acknowledge that and furthermore claim that I think I am superior. I even conceided and said I give up you watch them or not check my sources or not, and I wished for you to have fun. But you refuse to see my point. I acknowledged your point at the beginning. I said yes you are correct. Everything we do may have a negative impact. But the important part is the "effect size". But you seem not able to grasp this simple point. Yes uranium waste is dangerous but drunk driving is "more" dangerous. Can't you understand that? Going into space is more dangerous but cancer ismore impactful and therefore more dangerous. This is simple math that you refuse to allow into your brain. I have to mention I always like your comments on the site but here you are "WRONG".
“Eating plants is as devastating as eating meat.” Neither is more decestating to eat- the point is the devastation aided in their production and subsequent distribution. You see linear things only. Direct cause and effect, but look no deeper. As for nuclear waste having no bearing- it doesn’t. That’s the point. It has NOTHING to do with food- but it’s still a major issue for the planet and life on it. My whole point. There are lots of problems, not everyone needs to be worried or is worried about the same ones. You’ve chosen meat as your pet project, the evil of the world that concerns you most. I personally think there are greater evils. You can do your part by not eating meat and I can do my part on other ways, and someone else can do their part in their way. You seem to be not able to follow anything that isn’t direct, and unable to consider concepts that are too large to fit into an hour or so documentary. That is alright. Your constant personal attacks and still failing to....
.... produce any evidence or support to your position, or even refute anything I’ve said, tells much. It’s fine. Not everyone can see bigger pictures or connect dots that aren’t right next to each other. That’s why we have pop culture activism. Some people need to be told what cause to follow and why by other people. Regardless of reasons or how well you understand your own actions you are doing good for the planet by abstaining from meat, so kudos to you for helping in your own way. Given that my original statement we disagreed on was that people can do their own thing to help- you’re not really doing well on the point of discussion. If you stop engaging- you’ve proved my point. I’m free to continue on my way, and you don’t stand behind the idea that evangelism is necessary enough to continue to evangelize. If you can not convince me you are correct, then your evangelism fails and I continue to do my thing- and the evangelism is shown not to be for pursuit of a greater good but for...
... a personal feeling of action, even if futile, to satisfy ones need to feel they are doing good with no actual measurement of doing good. The only way your point stands is to convince me you are correct. But simply repeating “I’m right, you’re wrong” is not going to convince me. So you stand at a fork in the road, you must either turn your back on your principals and by default relent on the matter, or you must commit to a protracted affair. I await your undoubtedly witty reply which will most certainly contain at least one personal attack (veiled thinly or backgandedly and likely passive aggressive) against me, some statement akin to “nuh uh, I win, you lose” followed by some version of “this isna dumb waste of time and I’m not playing anymore and YOU are actually pathetic or ignorant and I’m the bigger person because I quit!” I shall be interested to see this unfold, especially now that I’ve telegraphed it.
Ok man. Since you proved you are incapable of checking a website on your own I will do it to help you somehow stop this long ass thread:
Fact: Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.
Source: "Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006"
...
Fact: Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Source: "Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006
Environmental Protection Agency. "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data".
Fact: Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
source: Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”
Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009
Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009
Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015.
Fact: Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
Source: Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)
Vaidyanathan, Sayathri. "How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas is Methane? The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated". Scientific American. December 22, 2015.
Fact: Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
source: Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)
Fact: Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.
source: "Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006
"Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011
Fact: Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.
source: Tilman, David & Clark, Michael. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health". Nature. Vol. 515. 27 November 2014
Fact: US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.
Source: "Overview of Greenhouse Gases". United States Environmental Protection Agency.
"Key facts and findings. By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock". FAO. (New)
"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2015". United States Environmental Protection Agency (new)
Fact: Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.
Source: Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.
Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.
Fact: Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.
source: "Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources". EPA. February 2011
Geetanjali, Chauhan, et al. "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and its Environmental Impacts". Research Journal of Recent Sciences. Vol. 4 (ISC-2014), 1-7 (2015) (New)
Fact: Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually.
Source: "Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005". United States Geological Service
Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience. (2004) 54 (10): 909-918
Fact: Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.
source: "How Important is Irrigation to U.S. Agriculture?" USDA: Economic Research Service. 12 October, 2016
These ones I just add for clarity, the sources are on the page:
Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.
A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.
130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US.
In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second
3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted.
We could see fishless oceans by 2048.
As many as 2.7 trillion animals are pulled from the ocean each year.
For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.
Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.
40-50 million sharks killed in fishing lines and nets.
Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.
1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.
The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops
Up to 137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.
26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.
136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.
1,100 Land activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.
414 billion dollars in externalized cost from animal ag.
80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.
70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.
Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.
Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.
We are.
We are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people.
Worldwide, at least 50% of grain is fed to livestock.
82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.
15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than cows.
The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.
1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.
1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of beef.
Wow. you produced facts. Scientists were quite puzzled by methane. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has monitored mathane from global sites since about 1980. They showed a 1-2% increase yearly in methane production. It fell to closer to 1% in the 90’s... and then puzzling spikes. Many scientists scrambled to find the cause. A leading theory is agriculture. Another is increases in certain bacterial populations caused by global warming. While power transmission and production is a producer, and their studies found leaks which raise the actual production above reported numbers- power and petroleum are not thought the likely culprits. So that leaves us a few leading theories based on the carbon 12 13 signature of methane studied. Carbon 12 and 13 are like a finger print- it gives us an idea of how methane was produced. The NOAA compliled the most detailed collection of isotropic analysis of methane production on earth to date- and compared it to satalite imagery of....
... atmospheric methane. Their findings strongly back a theory based in increased production from tropical microbes as the leadin cause for the jumps we are seeing in methane.
So let me be clear here: on the subject of your much appreciated and well researched methane data- the jury is out as to wether the significant jumps in methane are livestock related. However- even at 1-2% increase a year- not all being from agriculture- that’s unsustainable. Methane traps more heat over 100 years than Co2, but only stays in the atmosphere 20 years or so. Meaning that if we decrease methane emissions we will see much faster and more meaningful results than with co2. So I never argued that livestock wasn’t a significant source of potential problems. The data above, some of it if you read the actual papers or reports, or sources they cite from, is questionable or needing context or qualifier, most needing proper interpretation and context, but not wholly in accurate or any less valid than other sources- which by and large agree with you and I, that commercial farming of agriculture is a major contributor of pollution and waste. So that’s established.
The part of my posts I have referred to you ignoring wasn’t to do with the weight of the threat which agriculture poses. It was to do with the basis to interpret that as the most pressing concern facing humanity, or the most worthy or productive to address. You see- wether or not it is the primary contributor of methane, or tropical bacteria are, or it’s martians with a fog machine in a VW van having a centuries long rave- we agree that reducing or eliminating livestock WILL help the planet. We see eye to eye here. Always have. But so what? Let me bring back heavy metals for perspective. Ok- we eliminate love stpck and end global warming (if we assume that’s the case,) and then... make it so almost no complex life form can survive anyway due to toxicity? If you want to say that we can solve that problem if we survive that long- the people in Flint would probably consider heavy metal a more immediate threat to survival than global warming no? It is relative. The threats we see as...
In actuality the meat lobby is very strong and many studies that say there is no real problem with meat and dairy are funded and commissioned by meat and dairy companies. Watch some of the documentaries especially what the health and forks over knives. Good ideas for your health too
... “the greatest,” or “most pressing” are relative to our time, place, priorities, perspective. Consider this for a moment- a person without children and no plans for them, who doesn’t believe in reincarnation- what beyond being a good sport, is their motivation to care what happens after they are dead? By default wouldn’t the problems that concern them most, likely be problems that effect them more immediately? The point you haven’t addressed is the original point. Not that eating animals is bad. Let’s take your word on that and say we at least agree it isn’t helpful. The unanswered question is what makes this the issue that every person should make their priority? You have made it a priority for you yes. You have your reasons. I doubt you’re starving and homeless or you might have other priorities. Or maybe not. That’s very individual isn’t it? Your statement is that this issue is so important that no one should eat meat. But... we know for a fact that SOME people can eat meat...
... and not adversely effect the environment. SOME people can drive big diesel trucks and not impact the environment. It’s the scale of the thing that makes it unsustainable- nothing inherent to the thing. And as I’ve mentioned but hope you might understand this time- there are LOTS of things that cause HUGE amounts of harm- and everyone does at least one of them. So yeah- livestock at current levels is unsustainable. It will cause drastic and likely unpleasant changes to our planet and possibly lead to extinction of us or other species. But, there are lots of other things that will as well. People will choose for themselves what causes speak to them, which seem most urgent or prudent just as you have. And some people won’t care. Ever. They are here for 60,maybe 100 years tops and plan to take what they can and give nothing back. That last one is sad, but it’s a reality.
@asteroid- you are very focused and like to speak but don’t seem to like to Listen. We have established meat harms the environment (in the simple terms you prefer.) We have not established that stopping production of meat is the most pressing concern to all people. Also- as per my previous comment predicting your replies- you have so far followed my predictions quite splendidly. If I wasn’t in my own head I’d say it was spooky.
Holy shit. I'm trying to eat my sandwich and catch up because I have a small break. I'll come back and read this book when I have time, but for now, tom cruise laugh meme right here... again.
Oh my god guest. Each time I think you are understanding the point you disappoint me again and meanwhile you think you are a great intellectual. In fact, I am getting curious. What sort of debating is this? Have you gone to a class for this? Why are you complicating a simple point. Meat eating is a major issue and nobody cares if you don't believe in reincarnation. My point isn't that people must do something. I am the one who doesn't believe in reincarnation and I don't care what you do with your life, what you eat or don't eat. That's not the point I am making. I am saying it is a major issue to whom it may concern. That's just it. You can do something about it or don't do. But you cannot say it isn't important. If you are not actively searching for a cure for cancer, it doesn't mean that cancer is not an issue as a whole or for you as an individual. I don't care what you do about the info, just don't deny that it is a problem that must be dealt with by whoever cares
Oh man. You are now psychic too? I never knew that I thought that about myself. Thank you for all the enlightenment you’ve brought. Do you realize though... that you’ve forgotten your own point? Seriously though, not insulting because if you really do I don’t want to be insensitive- do you have memory or cognitive issues? Do you recall how this started? I said: “people can just live the way they like and not bother other folks with it.” you replied that you agreed with everything I said except that sentence. Meaning plainly- you disagree with that sentence. Now- so many paragraphs later, you say: “I don't care what you do with your life, what you eat or don't eat.” you go on to say you don’t care what people do with the information so long as they acknowledge a thing is important- which is precisely what I said. That people can live as they like and just not bother each other with it. “Bother.” Not bring up or discuss- “bother” them. They may do as they like of the information...
... bothers them. I’ve already said several times here that we agree that meat and related pollution are major issues. So now- after all this- you turn around, and the one point younsaod ypundosagreed with- you agree with. What kind of debate is that? What kind of basic logical communications is that? “I agree with everything except for one thing which I will then agree with after hours of arguing.” So- we have established: we both agree that mass livestock is harmful to the environment, we both agree that people can do what they want, so we are not back to where we were before all this started, before you typed the words “I disagree with the last sentence” while all the while... you have agreed with the last sentence and just decided to keep that some kind of secret. So the kind of debate it is- is itnisnt a debate and never was. We are in agreement, and you just say things but don’t seek to remember what you’ve said, or what anyone else said. So it is a debate in your mind it seems?
Are you schizophrenic? Let me say it again. Meat eating is a great concern for human beings. You said it is not a big issue. I return to my example. Cancer is a big issue. I don't care if you personally don't do anything about that, as long as people know it is a huge problem that must be fixed and they are doing everything that they can. It doesn't matter if you, Guest-, personally do something about it or not. I said it is an important issue, you said no it isn't we shouldn't bother other people. I said it is a big issue. I provided references that show it is a big issue. You neglected the references (a sane individual would have said that I didn't know it is such a big issue, I will study more about it or I stop saying it is not important and vegans should quit bothering people, which seems a big demand from someone like you). People wear wristbands to increase awareness about cancer. I DO NOT care if you individually wear such a ribbon for cancer or not. You are not....
.... the center of the world. I don't care if you do anything. You can eat as much meat as you want. Likewise you can smoke as many cigarettes per day as you want. Why should I care? But if nobody cared about cigarettes and told people they are dangerous, I would settle for some people being honest and telling people about the dangers of smoking. You know that decades before people would watch adverts on TV for Camel and other cigarette brands. Now each pack of cigarettes has a warning on it and everybody knows about the dangers of smoking. At least vegans are doing something about it, talking about it, raising awareness. What are you doing? Just writing nonsensical long ass paragraphs saying no it's ok, meat production is not that bad, we shouldn't be worried. Go to sleep man, just stop it. This is pathetic
You’re changing what you have previously said retroactively. The start of all of this was you saying you agreed with my post save for the last line about people living their way and not bothering others. As for meat not being a big issue: Quote me. Quote- in context where I have said meat eating was not a big concern. It’s that simple. I’ve repeatedly said it is a big issue. Also, if we go back to the post where I predicted what your responses would be, you have pretty much crossed off the score card I laid out for floundering- including using the specific language. If you recall, or care to read back, I telegraphed that you would in fact eventually be so backed in that you would resort to saying some version of “I’m not playing any more, and by continuing to do so you are pathetic.” And you have quite literally done just that. If you step back a moment from arguing out of emotion for the sake of self image, you will see. But if you don’t want to- then end it. Show me the quote.
You cannot. Because you are simply having the argument in your head, as you want it to go. I can say anything at this point and it doesn’t matter because you aren’t actually reading or processing anything I say, you are at best skimming, but replying based on a script for a scenario you have imagined. Blue horn bill water chestnut. I wonder if you will notice that last bit of nonsense. Perhaps you will and call it out in your reply. Perhaps you will not. Let us see, for the sake of things. I can’t give good odds. I’m 50/50. You latch on to specific facets of things while ignoring others. So you may latchnon to that and then use it as some form of example to my lack of coherency or off topic debate skills, or you may completely miss it. This one I can’t predict so I am actually interested.
Conversations may evolve but your rants spiral. You talk too much and say nothing. Predicting my rational responses is not a superpower you blue horn bill water chestnut madman. Keep on living and stop ranting. I will not be a party to your nonesense. Good day sir
And now- ALL my predictions have come true. Interestingly enough you did notice. Predictably enough, you’ve proven nothing I say is relevant to the conversation you would have with yourself. You don’t actually need another person to have a discussion as you discuss with yourself. But it doesn’t matter. We are back where we started as I originally said. Mass livestock is bad for the planet, but to each their own. So best of luck to you, and my sincere wishes you open your ears and your mind before trying to discuss things with anyone in the future.
@funkmasterrex- who? Speaking for myself I can say it was not. I was trying to reconcile the seemingly incongruous statements between “I agree with everything but the last part,” to: (hyperbole:)”you’re a stupid face and your whole family is stupid and you are a poor debater and I am right because I just said I was right- but I’m saying I’m right about something I said we agreed on so I’m calling you right but somehow I fail to realize that...” down to the part where homie totally went 180 and then paraphrased the exact line I had said which they originally disagreed with- only they used the same line in earnest as if their own thought, as an argument against my stance they had originally disagreed with? Still a little confused honestly. Also- being honest... near the end it was maybe like... 10% to be a dick, and there is like... 30% to be a dick (not to you) in this reply. I do hope you enjoy Spoderverse though. I hear it is quite good.
My ride passed out so I just went to sleep instead. And nah I was just talking about how long it all is. I don't even know the content as I haven't read it yet.
Fact: Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.
Source: "Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006"
...
Source: "Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006
Environmental Protection Agency. "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data".
source: Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”
Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009
Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009
Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015.
Source: Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)
Vaidyanathan, Sayathri. "How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas is Methane? The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated". Scientific American. December 22, 2015.
source: Shindell, Drew T, et al. "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions". Science. 326, 716 (2009)
source: "Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006
"Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011
source: Tilman, David & Clark, Michael. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health". Nature. Vol. 515. 27 November 2014
Source: "Overview of Greenhouse Gases". United States Environmental Protection Agency.
"Key facts and findings. By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock". FAO. (New)
"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2015". United States Environmental Protection Agency (new)
Source: Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.
Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.
source: "Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources". EPA. February 2011
Geetanjali, Chauhan, et al. "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and its Environmental Impacts". Research Journal of Recent Sciences. Vol. 4 (ISC-2014), 1-7 (2015) (New)
Source: "Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005". United States Geological Service
Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience. (2004) 54 (10): 909-918
source: "How Important is Irrigation to U.S. Agriculture?" USDA: Economic Research Service. 12 October, 2016
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.
A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.
130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US.
In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second
3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted.
We could see fishless oceans by 2048.
As many as 2.7 trillion animals are pulled from the ocean each year.
For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.
Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.
Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.
1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.
The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops
Up to 137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.
26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.
136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.
1,100 Land activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.
414 billion dollars in externalized cost from animal ag.
80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.
70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.
Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.
Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.
We are.
Worldwide, at least 50% of grain is fed to livestock.
82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.
15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than cows.
The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.
1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.
1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of beef.