[marden]

YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST

...PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

"The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian," says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "The best and easiest way for (a famous "environmentalist") to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately."

PETA’s letter to (a famous "environmentalist") is available upon request. For more information, please visit PETA’s Web site GoVeg.com.

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9579
http://goveg.com/environment.asp

[Chuckit]

In before Doofy.

[Brass]

I AM a meat eating environmentalist. But I prefer hunted meat to agriculture. It is not the meat eating that is the problem, it is the agriculture.

[CreepDogg]

mmmmmmmmmmm!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Brass 

I AM a meat eating environmentalist. But I prefer hunted meat to agriculture. It is not the meat eating that is the problem, it is the agriculture.

Please elaborate.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

Please elaborate.

The problem isn't eating meat, the problem is factory farming. Otherwise they'd be advocating that we slaughter all the carnivores on the planet.

[macintologist]

Why doesn't PETA ever protest lions and crocodiles.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem isn't eating meat, the problem is factory farming. Otherwise they'd be advocating that we slaughter all the carnivores on the planet.

If we all stopped eating meat, wouldn't we have to factory farm more vegetables to make up for it? We still need lots of energy to harvest corn, etc.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If we all stopped eating meat, wouldn't we have to factory farm more vegetables to make up for it? We still need lots of energy to harvest corn, etc.

True, but when we raise cattle we still have to factory farm all that corn just to feed the cattle.

Well, we don't have to, but we do.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If we all stopped eating meat, wouldn't we have to factory farm more vegetables to make up for it? We still need lots of energy to harvest corn, etc.

Yes, but still much less than for meat. For one, we don't need to grow even more vegetables to feed the vegetables.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If we all stopped eating meat, wouldn't we have to factory farm more vegetables to make up for it? We still need lots of energy to harvest corn, etc.

I learned in high school biology that only 10% of energy is retained through each level of the food chain.

So for example, an acre of agriculture contains 1000 "energy" lets say,. If we ate it directly we'd keep that 1000 energy, but by feeding it to cows and then eating the cows, we're only keeping 100 of the energy. Understand?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I learned in high school biology that only 10% of energy is retained through each level of the food chain.

So for example, an acre of agriculture contains 1000 "energy" lets say,. If we ate it directly we'd keep that 1000 energy, but by feeding it to cows and then eating the cows, we're only keeping 100 of the energy. Understand?

You could have at least used calories as the unit...

[CreepDogg]

So basically PETA is saying we should kill all the cows and eat their food. Interesting message coming from them.

Looking at the links, they go on to basically say that cow farts are worse for the environment than a Hummer. Yeah. I can see why Al Gore is jumping right on this bandwagon....

So, like a lot of things, maybe our production methods for food are inefficient. Some energy is lost in those cow farts (if only we could harness it!!!) From that, I struggle to make the leap that the only rational response is to stop eating it. Even if we're doing it now, it's clear we don't have to use non-sustainable resources to produce meat.

PETA is making me want to go out and order a Prius with leather seats.

[Cipher13]

Keep in mind PETA are a bunch of ignorant zealots.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So basically PETA is saying we should kill all the cows and eat their food. Interesting message coming from them.

1. Actually, the suggestion is that we stop making so many cows in the first place. We were going to kill them regardless.

2. PETA is quite supportive of the idea of killing animals if you can't do anything better with them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Some energy is lost in those cow farts (if only we could harness it!!!)

Who run Barter town?!?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but still much less than for meat. For one, we don't need to grow even more vegetables to feed the vegetables.

No, we use the manure from all of the farmed animals to feed the vegetables.

Surely nobody thinks the soil has an endless supply of nutrients to grow vegetables?

[marden]

BECK: OK. Now is there a way to find out my meat footprint? Because I imagine my meat footprint is enormous.

PRESCOTT: Well, let`s see. We know that the average meat-eater uses about 4,000 gallons of water a day and the average vegetarian about 300. So, over a year, I guess you probably use about 1.5 million gallons of water, and I probably use about maybe 10,000 or something, 100,000.

BECK: A lot less, sure. Is there a way to offset my meat footprint? Can I buy, like, protein points?

PRESCOTT: Well, you can go vegetarian or you can stop eating meat.

BECK: No.

PRESCOTT: Or you can eat less meat.

BECK: No.

PRESCOTT: Oh, come on.

BECK: That`s not going to -- OK, serious question. Is there like a free-range -- can you just say, "I`m going to do the free range thing," and have that count?

PRESCOTT: Well, unfortunately, the term "free range" doesn`t really mean anything in America. It`s just a marketing label.

BECK: I say we let the cows loose, and then we have to go hunt them for ourselves.

PRESCOTT: You know, people can go to our Web site. It`s goveg.com. They can learn more about vegetarianism and they can get the recipes that we offered to cook Gore, like faux fried chicken, and collared greens, and apple pie.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../08/gb.01.html

Damn you meat eaters!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Looking at the links, they go on to basically say that cow farts are worse for the environment than a Hummer.

This just in: Doofy is actually the man behind PETA's mask. Thousands gasp.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

No, we use the manure from all of the farmed animals to feed the vegetables.

Surely nobody thinks the soil has an endless supply of nutrients to grow vegetables?

Well, we also use lots of petroleum-based fertilizer. That's another thing I guess we'd need more of.

[CreepDogg]

"meat footprint"

I was just thinking about that - meat does tend to cost a lot more than an equivalent vegetable. So - the additional use of resources is accounted for in the price. So when I pay for meat, I've bought my protein points and I'm meat neutral! Hooray!

[centerchannel68]

Yes you can.

Amazon.com: The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists: Books: Michael Brower,Warren Leon

This book explains the biggest impacts our choices have on the planet. Numero uno is transportation. Sooooo become a veggie SUV driver, but it's better to be a carnivorous bicycle rider.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This just in: Doofy is actually the man behind PETA's mask. Thousands gasp.

Aren't you fed up with my threads?

[marden]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yes you can.

Amazon.com: The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists: Books: Michael Brower,Warren Leon

This book explains the biggest impacts our choices have on the planet. Numero uno is transportation. Sooooo become a veggie SUV driver, but it's better to be a carnivorous bicycle rider.

Not what PETA says...I think.

March 5, 2007

The Honorable Al Gore

One page via fax: 615-327-1323

Dear Mr. Gore,

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more than 1.6 million members, congratulations on your recent Oscar victory.

While the steps that you urge people to take in An Inconvenient Truth are inarguably important, the quickest and most effective way to fight climate change will come through diet change. Although we know that to people who’ve eaten meat their entire lives, this might be the most “inconvenient truth” of all, it is nevertheless the truth, so I hope that you will review the science on animal agriculture and include the adoption of a vegetarian diet among your recommendations. Reports in just the past few months from the University of Chicago and the United Nations underline the importance of this recommendation.

In the U.N. Report Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, scientists have determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. They go on to point out that the meat industry is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” And Greenpeace recently indicted KFC (and chicken consumption in general) for the current destruction of the Amazon rain forest, as it’s being chopped down to grow soybeans for chicken feed.

Researchers at the University of Chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

We love all that you’re doing to make the world a kinder place and are outraged that anyone would attack someone for not being perfect. But might we suggest that one good way to hush Rush Limbaugh and his ilk and to act as a role model in the fight against global warming would be for you personally to become vegetarian. To get you started, a PETA member and highly trained gourmet chef has volunteered to prepare you a delicious and eco-friendly meal of faux fried “chicken” with all the “fixin’s.” I’m also having some of this tasty faux chicken sent to your office for you and your staff to enjoy.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me at any time at 757-622-7382. Thank you for all that you do to make the world a better place.

Sincerely,

Ingrid E. Newkirk
President and Founder

[centerchannel68]

That's because the difference between a standard car and a prius isn't that big of a deal. Batteries are responsible for a TON of water pollution, which is something the prius relies on. Also, any NEW car is responsible for over 4 metric tons of emissions in the manufactering processs.

However, transportation is still the biggest choice we have to make, the one with the most impact. I can drive a car and get 25-35mpg, OR, I could buy an SUV and get 10-18mpg. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two, and one that impacts our environment far more than diet choices.

You aren't reading what was said properly. Again, the difference between a prius and a normal car is not so great, especially when you factor in the environmental cost of battery production, replacement every few years, and disposal/recycling. It is better for the earth to use a regular internal combustion engine'd car that gets 'good' mpg, and use it more effectively (less often).

[CreepDogg]

You know, I never really understood why vegetarians spend so much time and energy making "fake" meats. If you don't want to eat meat, why would you want to eat something that imitates meat? If I were vegetarian, I'd think I'd just want to be true to what I'm really eating.

I guess for the case of someone transitioning (like they're trying to offer to Gore), it makes some sense, kind of like a nicotine patch for smokers. But it just seems like an awful lot of vegetarian food is like this.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You know, I never really understood why vegetarians spend so much time and energy making "fake" meats. If you don't want to eat meat, why would you want to eat something that imitates meat? If I were vegetarian, I'd think I'd just want to be true to what I'm really eating.

I guess for the case of someone transitioning (like they're trying to offer to Gore), it makes some sense, kind of like a nicotine patch for smokers. But it just seems like an awful lot of vegetarian food is like this.

werd. Especially since poultry is much more eco friendly than beef. Why make fake chicken? Make fake beef, if anything, and eat real chicken.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

However, transportation is still the biggest choice we have to make, the one with the most impact. I can drive a car and get 25-35mpg, OR, I could buy an SUV and get 10-18mpg. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two, and one that impacts our environment far more than diet choices.

Agree. Plus there's a difference in the way the end user accounts for the resources. The cost of meat over veggies is sufficiently high that much of the resource 'excess' is accounted for in the cost. If one is fortunate enough to be able to afford meat, they're having to pay the cost of the additional resources used.

Not so with big SUVs - due to regulation differences between SUVs and cars, the cost of the use of additional resources isn't really accounted for. So people who shouldn't be able to afford the true cost are given the ability to use additional resources for 'free'.

[marden]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You know, I never really understood why vegetarians spend so much time and energy making "fake" meats. If you don't want to eat meat, why would you want to eat something that imitates meat? If I were vegetarian, I'd think I'd just want to be true to what I'm really eating.

I guess for the case of someone transitioning (like they're trying to offer to Gore), it makes some sense, kind of like a nicotine patch for smokers. But it just seems like an awful lot of vegetarian food is like this.

Transitioning, plus because certain things just taste good. The flavor and consistency of meat is pleasing. There's no naturally veggie equivalent.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The Oil We Eat

Someone posted this on the forums a year or so ago; I can't remember who it was, but for some strange reason I get the feeling they were from Alaska. In any case, it's a little older now but still a very insightful article.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You know, I never really understood why vegetarians spend so much time and energy making "fake" meats. If you don't want to eat meat, why would you want to eat something that imitates meat? If I were vegetarian, I'd think I'd just want to be true to what I'm really eating.

Do you eat your meat raw and with no seasoning or dressings? I'm betting not.

[Tiresias]

The genetic technology exists to accrue meat in a laboratory without having to kill an animal. Vast amounts of meat could be produced this way. The need for ranches, and stockfeed, are eliminated.

Homer: Mmmm... laboratory accrued tissue.. Gggahhrhgghrhr!

[HackManDan]

My boss is a vegetarian because she considers the raising of animal stock to be an inefficient and wasteful land-use. Being an urban planner who advocates for greater sustainability, she lives by her creed, which is something a lot of people don't do.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Agree. Plus there's a difference in the way the end user accounts for the resources. The cost of meat over veggies is sufficiently high that much of the resource 'excess' is accounted for in the cost. If one is fortunate enough to be able to afford meat, they're having to pay the cost of the additional resources used.

Not so with big SUVs - due to regulation differences between SUVs and cars, the cost of the use of additional resources isn't really accounted for. So people who shouldn't be able to afford the true cost are given the ability to use additional resources for 'free'.

Sorta. Cost, by meaning the price of something in dollars and cents, doesn't really equate with environmental impact. The beef industry produces 6 billion tons of wet manure a year, which affects water quality, even the atmosphere. Beef, in terms of environmental impact, is also not really the correct price in dollars, it should be higher.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you eat your meat raw and with no seasoning or dressings? I'm betting not.

No. Of course I cook and/or otherwise prepare it. But I also don't make 'faux' broccoli stalks out of ground beef to make it seem like the meat is broccoli.

[Gossamer]

Because you have no reason not to just eat broccoli. A lot of people aren't vegetarians because they don't like the taste of meat, but they don't like the environmental impact that producing it creates. I worked for caterer a couple of years ago and he made a really good mushroom burger for the veggies that didn't want his other (absolutely amazing) smoked meats.

[Gossamer]

That reminds me of Jim Gaffigan YouTube - Jim Gaffigan Eat Vegetarian

[Monique]

Yes I like meat, hate vegetables, prefer seafood, chicken, sometimes beef (maybe once or twice a month).

There is a huge difference between a lion hunting for his food and spraying hairspray in a rabbit's eyes to see the effect of that poison in an animal eyes or injecting chimpanzees with deadly diseases to have fun watching them died from a slow painful death.

Some of you who thinks PETA is overzealot should be the next one spraying something poisoneous into a rabbit's eyes to see them suffer.

And they are no corrolation between a human eye and an animal eye. Some people are just plainly cruel.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Sorta. Cost, by meaning the price of something in dollars and cents, doesn't really equate with environmental impact. The beef industry produces 6 billion tons of wet manure a year, which affects water quality, even the atmosphere. Beef, in terms of environmental impact, is also not really the correct price in dollars, it should be higher.

True. There are a lot of things where the 'actual cost' and 'environmental cost' are out of whack. It's possible for meat - but it's a lot more obvious and there's a lot wider gap for SUVs due to the artificial rules in place holding the price down.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Yes I like meat, hate vegetables, prefer seafood, chicken, sometimes beef (maybe once or twice a month).

There is a huge difference between a lion hunting for his food and spraying hairspray in a rabbit's eyes to see the effect of that poison in an animal eyes or injecting chimpanzees with deadly diseases to have fun watching them died from a slow painful death.

Some of you who thinks PETA is overzealot should be the next one spraying something poisoneous into a rabbit's eyes to see them suffer.

And they are no corrolation between a human eye and an animal eye. Some people are just plainly cruel.

There's also a huge difference between sharing information about practices a group opposes, and condoning strong-arm tactics and violence against humans to advance one's agenda. There are a lot of valid points in PETA's message, but their methods are suspect.

[Doofy]

:yawn:

I thought we'd been through all this.

On account of cows actually breathing out CO2 24/7, a veggie Range Rover driver has a much smaller carbon footprint than a meatie cyclist. That's not even taking into account the cow farts, water usage and 16x more land required for raising cattle than crop (per pound of protein).

Anyways. It's all BS. CO2 isn't responsible for global warming. Global warming is responsible for CO2.

And PETA are still a bunch of prats. Although some of the chicks in the on-street "rather go naked" campaigns do get the Uncle Doof "teh hot" approval.

[besson3c]

I wonder what hairspray would do to my eyelashes.... Let me try spraying some hai...


GAAHHHH!!

Gotta go...

[ink]

If you read the UN report, it notes that the majority of the CO2 emissions come from the VEHICLES and INDUSTRY involved in ranching/meat production. Animals themselves are actually carbon sinks. Vegetarians have been trying to bend this issue for some time now. Yes, you do save some CO2 production by going vegetarian, but it's not terribly significant -- others have estimated the savings lie along the lines of driving a hybrid car vs. a standard sedan.

In short, you can save all the CO2 that the UN report cites if you stop eating. If, however, you were planning on moving your production workload from meat over to plant carbon-chains, you will bring most (not all) of the CO2 over. That is, unless you plan to feed yourself with your own garden (and you could raise your own cattle and chicken as well, if you want to).

Also, the methane problem really isn't much of an issue. The halflife of Methane in the atmosphere is 2-5 years; not even close to the 100-year range of CO2.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ink 

If you read the UN report, it notes that the majority of the CO2 emissions come from the VEHICLES and INDUSTRY involved in ranching/meat production.

The UN report is utter crap. But then, what do you expect from a corrupt political organisation?

Originally Posted by ink 

Animals themselves are actually carbon sinks.

Nope, you're going to have to explain that to me. I must have been bobbing school on the day they did "breathing".

[ink]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nope, you're going to have to explain that to me. I must have been bobbing school on the day they did "breathing".

Read the Kyoto accord.

[goMac]

It's not that you can't eat meat. It's that you can't eat too much meat. When you eat a burger, you're eating a certain amount of the livestock population, in addition to using a certain amount of farmland that was used to raise that lifestock. If everyone eats too much meat, we run out of cows and we run out of farmland.

In addition, eating a lot of meat isn't healthy anyway. Humans weren't designed to eat a larger share of meat than other things.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Anyways. It's all BS. CO2 isn't responsible for global warming. Global warming is responsible for CO2.

And this is chemically possible how?

You do realize you can't have global warming without CO2, right?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ink 

Read the Kyoto accord.

No, I want you to explain how 16 acres of "breathe in O, breathe out CO2" animals is more of a carbon sink than 1 acre of "breathe in CO2, breathe out O" food crop and 15 acres of "breathe in CO2, breathe out O" fallow/woods/forest.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

And this is chemically possible how?

That big orange/yellow globe in the sky. You know, the one that supplies us with all of our heat.

Originally Posted by goMac 

You do realize you can't have global warming without CO2, right?

Loaded question. Try rephrasing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That big orange/yellow globe in the sky. You know, the one that supplies us with all of our heat.

That doesn't explain why we have a cycle. If it was as simple as the sun in the sky, we would have turned into Mars by now, because the sun is constantly warming the planet. The sun doesn't heat up and then cool down. Because, as you like to say, global warming is a cycle, what is causing the cycle to come and go?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Loaded question. Try rephrasing.

Why can't you answer the question as it is phrased?