Alpha Man Gummies Uk -Mosstrim Diet...
How it Works3 mins ago
Eating Meat And Climate Change
Normally when I come to this site, it's about crosswords. This isn't.
I accept the reality of climate change and I try to do my bit in not destroying our planet. But I am not sure why changing our diet will help significantly. I like to watch nature programmes like Blue Planet and one of the things that's struck me is that animals in the wild, fish etc in the sea eat vast amounts of flesh. What they eat between them must surely dwarf what human beings eat. Or am I wrong on that front?
So,if we cut back but they continue,will it make any real difference. Or should we concentrate on other ways to tackle climate change?
I accept the reality of climate change and I try to do my bit in not destroying our planet. But I am not sure why changing our diet will help significantly. I like to watch nature programmes like Blue Planet and one of the things that's struck me is that animals in the wild, fish etc in the sea eat vast amounts of flesh. What they eat between them must surely dwarf what human beings eat. Or am I wrong on that front?
So,if we cut back but they continue,will it make any real difference. Or should we concentrate on other ways to tackle climate change?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stevenj. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They don't usually eat animals contributing to the greenhouse effect though.
That said I don't buy having to go without meat is compensating for others overbreeding and overpopulating the world. And industry is a better place to correct damaging behaviour anyway, especially in certain countries. Hands off the steak demonising.
That said I don't buy having to go without meat is compensating for others overbreeding and overpopulating the world. And industry is a better place to correct damaging behaviour anyway, especially in certain countries. Hands off the steak demonising.
What these silly people object to is that the animals we breed to produce meat themselves eat vegetation and produce greenhouse gases. They think that we should eat vegetation instead and fail to realise that then we will be the creatures producing greenhouse gases. The number of animals we keep for meat is trivial compared to the number of animals wandering around the planet eating vegetation.
Yup, stevenj, it's irrelevant. I read some stats somewhere and cows contribute hugely to soil fertility and vegetation - which absorbs CO2.... or something like that, not a scientist, but it made sense. We tend to have 1, or possibly 2, veggie meals a week, because Mr. J2 likes omelettes and I like cheesy pasta. Believe me, after baked beans accompanying the omelette, Mr J2 was contributing nicely to air pollution. :(
Here's the science if you're really interested. (From PETA website)
Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to farmed animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh is extremely energy-intensive. And forests—which absorb greenhouse gases—are cut down in order to supply pastureland and grow crops for farmed animals. Finally, the animals themselves and all the manure that they produce release even more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all powerful greenhouse gases, and together, they cause the vast majority of climate change.
Carbon Dioxide
Burning fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide. Since it takes, on average, about 11 times as much fossil fuel to produce a calorie of animal protein as it does to produce a calorie of grain protein, considerably more carbon dioxide is released. Researchers acknowledge that “it is more ‘climate efficient’ to produce protein from vegetable sources than from animal sources.”
Chatham House, an international affairs think tank, has called for a carbon tax on meat to help combat climate change. Of course, eating vegan foods rather than animal-based ones is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint. A University of Chicago study even showed that you can reduce your carbon footprint more effectively by going vegan than by switching from a conventional car to a hybrid.
Methane
The billions of animals who are crammed onto U.S. factory farms each year produce enormous amounts of methane. Ruminants—such as cows, sheep, and goats—produce the gas while they digest their food, and it’s also emitted from the acres of cesspools filled with the feces that pigs, cows, and other animals on these farms excrete. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has shown that animal agriculture is globally the single largest source of methane emissions and that, pound for pound, methane is more than 25 times as effective as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.
According to Vasile Stanescu, a scholar at Mercer University, animals raised by “organic” methods emit even more methane than animals on factory farms do. He believes that so-called “free-range” or “pasture-raised” animals are “significantly worse” in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for an astonishing 65 percent of worldwide nitrous-oxide emissions. (Use the N-Calculator to calculate your nitrogen footprint and to see how you can lower your nitrogen usage.)
What Other Experts Say
The U.N. believes that a global shift toward plant-based food is vital if we are to combat the worst effects of climate change. Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world’s transportation systems combined.
Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to farmed animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh is extremely energy-intensive. And forests—which absorb greenhouse gases—are cut down in order to supply pastureland and grow crops for farmed animals. Finally, the animals themselves and all the manure that they produce release even more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all powerful greenhouse gases, and together, they cause the vast majority of climate change.
Carbon Dioxide
Burning fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide. Since it takes, on average, about 11 times as much fossil fuel to produce a calorie of animal protein as it does to produce a calorie of grain protein, considerably more carbon dioxide is released. Researchers acknowledge that “it is more ‘climate efficient’ to produce protein from vegetable sources than from animal sources.”
Chatham House, an international affairs think tank, has called for a carbon tax on meat to help combat climate change. Of course, eating vegan foods rather than animal-based ones is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint. A University of Chicago study even showed that you can reduce your carbon footprint more effectively by going vegan than by switching from a conventional car to a hybrid.
Methane
The billions of animals who are crammed onto U.S. factory farms each year produce enormous amounts of methane. Ruminants—such as cows, sheep, and goats—produce the gas while they digest their food, and it’s also emitted from the acres of cesspools filled with the feces that pigs, cows, and other animals on these farms excrete. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has shown that animal agriculture is globally the single largest source of methane emissions and that, pound for pound, methane is more than 25 times as effective as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.
According to Vasile Stanescu, a scholar at Mercer University, animals raised by “organic” methods emit even more methane than animals on factory farms do. He believes that so-called “free-range” or “pasture-raised” animals are “significantly worse” in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for an astonishing 65 percent of worldwide nitrous-oxide emissions. (Use the N-Calculator to calculate your nitrogen footprint and to see how you can lower your nitrogen usage.)
What Other Experts Say
The U.N. believes that a global shift toward plant-based food is vital if we are to combat the worst effects of climate change. Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world’s transportation systems combined.
Not that PETA could be accused of having an axe to grind on the subject.
It's still no excuse as a compensation for overbreeders. Let folk dictate what you must eat and all claim to be able to live the life you choose is lost. There would be no more free society, may as well sign up for serfdom.
If some UN committee has swallowed the argument then all the more reason to see them as having lost credibility. Let those who personally want to have weird diets do so. Maybe encourage those with more than two kids to get on board. Leave the rest of the world to live a decent life in peace and not start trying to tackle an issue from the worst direction.
It's still no excuse as a compensation for overbreeders. Let folk dictate what you must eat and all claim to be able to live the life you choose is lost. There would be no more free society, may as well sign up for serfdom.
If some UN committee has swallowed the argument then all the more reason to see them as having lost credibility. Let those who personally want to have weird diets do so. Maybe encourage those with more than two kids to get on board. Leave the rest of the world to live a decent life in peace and not start trying to tackle an issue from the worst direction.
it's chiefly about the destruction of rainforest to make way for farming cattle
https:/
https:/
//As we have been eating meat for thousands of years and animals eating veg and farting for even longer, why has this suddenly become an issue?//
Hmm.... Let me have a think.
I think I may have it!:
World Human Population:
1800.....1 billion
1927.....2 billion
1960.....3 billion
1974.....4 billion
1987.....5 billion
1999.....6 billion
2011.....7 billion
An extra 1,000,000,000 (yes folks, that how many a billion is - a thousand million) mouths to feed every twelve years. That just might have something to do with it. But do we hear any of our "Climate Emergency" lunatics bleating on about that? Nah. They'd sooner demonise me for eating a bit of meat now and then. Far less controversial. They can stick their recommendations where the Sun doesn't shine because until I hear of measures being taken to reduce the population (and I mean reduce it, not slow the increase) my weekly rare fillet stays on the menu.
Hmm.... Let me have a think.
I think I may have it!:
World Human Population:
1800.....1 billion
1927.....2 billion
1960.....3 billion
1974.....4 billion
1987.....5 billion
1999.....6 billion
2011.....7 billion
An extra 1,000,000,000 (yes folks, that how many a billion is - a thousand million) mouths to feed every twelve years. That just might have something to do with it. But do we hear any of our "Climate Emergency" lunatics bleating on about that? Nah. They'd sooner demonise me for eating a bit of meat now and then. Far less controversial. They can stick their recommendations where the Sun doesn't shine because until I hear of measures being taken to reduce the population (and I mean reduce it, not slow the increase) my weekly rare fillet stays on the menu.
Overpopulation would be less of an issue if over-consumption weren't so rampant. The USA is far less populous than Africa and India, but is far more of a culprit in environmental damage and CO2 emissions than either of those (put together!)
One doesn't need PETA as a source. It stands to reason that ultra-intensive farming of animals at the expense of forest is in itself damaging -- it doesn't help that cows are particularly gassy (from either end) and energy-intensive. And it doesn't help that meat processing and transport is going to contribute too.
The solution isn't to cut meat out of the diet altogether, though. You can make huge progress in reducing your impact on the environment just by refusing to buy imported meat products, and by just increasing the local food sources you use in general. I mean, also reducing meat consumption, but as a good first step buying local make sense -- both environmentally and in general.
But the idea that meat-eating is somehow irrelevant as an impact is utter nonsense. It defies common sense, for a start. Not to mention every major study in the field for decades.
One doesn't need PETA as a source. It stands to reason that ultra-intensive farming of animals at the expense of forest is in itself damaging -- it doesn't help that cows are particularly gassy (from either end) and energy-intensive. And it doesn't help that meat processing and transport is going to contribute too.
The solution isn't to cut meat out of the diet altogether, though. You can make huge progress in reducing your impact on the environment just by refusing to buy imported meat products, and by just increasing the local food sources you use in general. I mean, also reducing meat consumption, but as a good first step buying local make sense -- both environmentally and in general.
But the idea that meat-eating is somehow irrelevant as an impact is utter nonsense. It defies common sense, for a start. Not to mention every major study in the field for decades.
// NJ, don't the figures you quote (world population) make it very clear why we need to eat less meat? They do to me (especially coupled with Maydup's post). More humans = more demand (currently) for meat = global warming. //
forcing the population to change its eating habits but leaving the same population free to increase itself unchecked isn't going to do any good.
forcing the population to change its eating habits but leaving the same population free to increase itself unchecked isn't going to do any good.
