How does Vegatarianism stop global warming?

[G1eet]

Anyone mention the soylent green option yet?

 

[Crimsane]

http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
also this. http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
and this. http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp

Also, it's been proven than the Global Warming phenomenon is being caused by the sun, as part of a solar event that is scheduled to happen as part of the natural order of things.

I'm confused. First, you try to support the idea that global warming is caused by people eating lots of meat, with an obvious vegetarian website. Then, you claim it's a natural phenomenon caused by the sun itself?

 

[pirateninj4]

http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
also this. http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
and this. http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp

Also, it's been proven than the Global Warming phenomenon is being caused by the sun, as part of a solar event that is scheduled to happen as part of the natural order of things.

I'm confused. First, you try to support the idea that global warming is caused by people eating lots of meat, with an obvious vegetarian website. Then, you claim it's a natural phenomenon caused by the sun itself?

You're right. Let me clear it up, the sun is mostly responsible. All the other stuff shows that in terms of greenhouse gas emission and carbon footprint stomping, meat eating is indeed a significant contributor. By our planet warming standards anyway.

 

[Insanum]

Ok, let me put this scenario too you:

Cows/bovine are creating methane, therefore adding too global warming. Now to eat said bovine you kill the cow, meaning it doesnt produce methane nomore.

If we all of a sudden stop eating cows & start eating veg only, what happens too all these cows? PETA would say we cant kill them all, but they would all start breeding creating more methane, etc.

 

[JayTee]

vegetarians are probly filled with self-doubt for what they are and figure if they can make the rest of the world do what they do then they wont doubt themselves anymore.
or, more likely, they are idiots

As a proud vegitarian, I've considered your arguement and have concluded that it is you who's the idiot basing beliefs of all vegetarians on one ad. There's also no arguement in your sentence. And you're just stringing insults together in the hope of becoming a hero.

I'm not going to try and persuade people to not eat meat, because that's just stupid. I think you'll find that most people feel the same way.

Vegetarianism is like religion. Some people are radical about it and try to recruit people using propaganda, and the others sit back and say "Why is this idiot representing us?"

Those ads are the idiots of vegetarianism.
Various religious cults and branches are the idiots of religion.
You are the idiot of omnivores.

i was actually refering to the idiots who say it would stop global warming

I just naturally assumed that because you were grouping vegetarians in general and ragging on everyone who is in the beginning of your paragraph, that you would throughout. You tricked me.

 

[SonicSoulstrike96]

Vegetarians say that cow farts are greenhouse gases. I thought I helped out there. I eat cows. =(

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm sure they'd say "eat a healthy alternative" but I like my meat so I won't. There's always money to be made out of making people panic I guess.

I'm fairly certain that meat IS in fact a part of a well rounded diet. Sure it can be replaced with something else if you really want to - that doesn't mean it isn't healthy by itself. It just means many people (By which I mean my countrymen) have a tendency to over eat meat.

 

[Serendipitay]

Printing posters that Vegan ism > Omnivore-ism, et yata et yata. This is all a bucket filled with walrusshit. Those veterinarians really seem stuck up biches.

Not eating meat is only bad for your brain, honestly - you NEED MEAT. You're not helping anyone by not eating meat. The meat'll still get produced, animals'll still die.

They don't suffer, they just die. It seems like a lot nicer death to me than to have a good life, enjoy food and then just *poof* die. I'd rather die like that than to die of old age whilst your children/grandchildren thing you're a complete mental and are fighting over your will.

 

[Nerjhyn]

Deforestation for cattle-growing space. Not good. Also, rearing an animal takes a lot of food that we could just eat ourselves.

Thats my dads reason for being a veggie.

However, applied to the whole world, it would fail.

Mass produced veggie's, on average, have a larger carbon footprint than mass produced meat. They also use more land and pesticides (which damage the environment in other ways).

As a general rule of thumb, vegitarians are often doing more damage to the environment than their meat eating counterparts.

The land, pesticides, and other chemical inputs used to mass produce veggies are used in ten fold amounts to grow feedstock to produce the same amount of food equivalent in meat.

This is why eating LESS meat, will help the environment.

That isn't how it works. Using pesticides on livestock will most likely kill them, using pesticides to grow hay or grain is inefficient and generally uncommon. Most livestock (in Australia at least) is free range, which means that it uses almost as much land as crops (still less though) but have very little processed feed. You can't justifiy vegitarinism by saying it's saving the environment, that is naive. The only sure fire way to garuntee you are not harming the environment is to not eat. Stating things like that without regard for facts or logic simply because it feels good to be a vegitarian is a bad thing, it is that kind of logic that has made the electric hybrids (like the toyota prius) so popular, and I don't think I need to point how that's horribly raping the environment.

In Australia? Exactly how much cattle do you think Australia produces with its semi-arid lands where all you can do is free range cattle?

Production (tonnes)
year
country
item 2007
Africa +
Cattle meat
4821789 A
Americas +
Cattle meat
28365911 A
Asia +
Cattle meat
12627535 A
Europe +
Cattle meat
11157955 A
Oceania +
Cattle meat
2878669 A
A = May include official, semi-official or estimated data
FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2009 | 03 July 2009
http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/default.aspx#ancor

Not even 5% of the world's cattle production. Even if Australia (lets include the rest of Oceania for the heck of it) practices sustainable ranching methods. Its not going to make much of a difference, when the rest of the world doesn't. If all cattle were free range, then there really wouldn't be a problem, assuming no forests or fertile arable lands were razed to range.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

Just saw 2(2!) commercials that implied that eating meat was causing Global Warming(which will trigger the next ice age btw).I've heard all the reasons for this (ie:deforestation,methane gasses,etc) but I don't understand how if I stop eating meat this will help.I mean all those animals and grazing land won't disappear magically and they'll just continue to breed and increase their numbers contributing more gasses to the atmosphere.Someone want to field this?What happens to all the animals if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat right now?What's the plan activists?

Its a damned lie. Probably a PETA commercial. They're known for their stretching things to suit their purposes. Not to start a flame war, but look at the seal hunt. Sorry if anyone's offended by it, but due to humanity's interference, its become a very important part of the ecosystem. If every year there were several hundred thousand, upwards of one million additional JUST harp seals, we'd be screwed within five years. The thing that really bugs me about them though ... is that they'll pay thousands to fuel helicopters, which polute copiously, and fly out on the ice floes for days at a time, to film the hunt. How friggin hypocritical is that. "Save the planet, but lets polute it, while we film ourselves thinking we've made a difference."
/rant
Sorry

 

[skutbag]

The meat'll still get produced, animals'll still die.

Well, hey, if that's the case then why try to make any of your own choices at all? Nice one.

They don't suffer, they just die.

Okay, at least you're right here: we all know that a chickens natural environment is a cage the size of a piece of A4 paper. Stop stating the obvious.

 

[Jaythulhu]

It doesn't, in any way, shape or form. It probably does more damage, since they are busy ripping out and eating the plants that help neutralise greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide.

Heh, I'm being mildly facetious there, but still, the very concept the OP provided is bizarre.

They don't suffer, they just die.

You, however, are an idiot. Unless you are referring to the vegetarians, not the animals, in which case I will offer a retraction and apology.

 

[Dys]

Deforestation for cattle-growing space. Not good. Also, rearing an animal takes a lot of food that we could just eat ourselves.

Thats my dads reason for being a veggie.

However, applied to the whole world, it would fail.

Mass produced veggie's, on average, have a larger carbon footprint than mass produced meat. They also use more land and pesticides (which damage the environment in other ways).

As a general rule of thumb, vegitarians are often doing more damage to the environment than their meat eating counterparts.

The land, pesticides, and other chemical inputs used to mass produce veggies are used in ten fold amounts to grow feedstock to produce the same amount of food equivalent in meat.

This is why eating LESS meat, will help the environment.

That isn't how it works. Using pesticides on livestock will most likely kill them, using pesticides to grow hay or grain is inefficient and generally uncommon. Most livestock (in Australia at least) is free range, which means that it uses almost as much land as crops (still less though) but have very little processed feed. You can't justifiy vegitarinism by saying it's saving the environment, that is naive. The only sure fire way to garuntee you are not harming the environment is to not eat. Stating things like that without regard for facts or logic simply because it feels good to be a vegitarian is a bad thing, it is that kind of logic that has made the electric hybrids (like the toyota prius) so popular, and I don't think I need to point how that's horribly raping the environment.

In Australia? Exactly how much cattle do you think Australia produces with its semi-arid lands where all you can do is free range cattle?

Production (tonnes)
year
country
item 2007
Africa +
Cattle meat
4821789 A
Americas +
Cattle meat
28365911 A
Asia +
Cattle meat
12627535 A
Europe +
Cattle meat
11157955 A
Oceania +
Cattle meat
2878669 A
A = May include official, semi-official or estimated data
FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2009 | 03 July 2009
http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/default.aspx#ancor

Not even 5% of the world's cattle production. Even if Australia (lets include the rest of Oceania for the heck of it) practices sustainable ranching methods. Its not going to make much of a difference, when the rest of the world doesn't. If all cattle were free range, then there really wouldn't be a problem, assuming no forests or fertile arable lands were razed to range.

It would be a little much for me to generalize based on my experience with cattle in other countries, I'm not sure how different it is TBH, but it's pretty much garunteed that there would be farms that employ similar techniques (especially in America and Africa where there's enough land).

That oceania stat, that is more or less Australia, NZ don't export a whole lot of cattle and most islands don't have the room. Sure, on the global scale it may not look like much, but bear in mind it isn't shortage of room, despite what hollywood may claim, there is no shortage of fertile, farmable land in Australia...it isn't all desert, what stops Australia from raising more cattle, it's demand. Obviously Europe will raise more cattle than Australia, pick a country and marvel at how gigantic their population is when compared to that of Australia. That said, it's a very viable option to choose environmentally friendly meats, and it is beyond naive to claim that "eating no animal products will help the environment", it simply isn't true. Regardless of what grain europian cows are fed (as really that is the only place where there's a land issue), it is exposed to way less chemicals than an equivilent mass of crop product.

 

[yeah_so_no]

Deforestation for cattle-growing space. Not good. Also, rearing an animal takes a lot of food that we could just eat ourselves.

If they ate more food than they replaced, we would have stopped raising them a long time ago. DAIRY Cows for instance only need grass and water.

Fixed this for you.

Most meat-producing cows are fed high starch, high energy feed pellets, to bulk them up quickly to get to your plate

Also, I think im going to stop posting, I just looked at my posts and I realised that im not actually helping either argument...

>:/

Oopz.

Any local farms near me just let the cows graze. Also it doesn't stop the fact that all they need is grass and water.

Thing is, those are probably dairy cows, and not ones at large dairy farms. The cows at the large dairy farms and the cattle that are going to become someone's delicious, delicious steak are, in fact, fed corn and other granins that they can't properly digest, because it's cheap and it fattens them up faster, meaning the cattle ranchers get more money. The problem is, the cows' systems aren't designed to handle what they're being fed--this is why cows have to be given antibiotics all the time, have stomach ailments [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm] (which drive up costs for medical treatment), why there's more e. coli problems, and why, well, cows are farting more. That's what's adding to the global warming factors. When cows are fed diets that more match what they evolved to eat [http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2449], the stomach problems drop and they don't pass nearly as much gas, but they also don't pack on the meat as fast.

I wish I had better sources; I read a really good article on this a few months back, but I can't find it.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Deforestation for cattle-growing space. Not good. Also, rearing an animal takes a lot of food that we could just eat ourselves.

Problem is we have to kill (therefore we should eat) thos animals to stop them from breeding and furthering the issue.

We shouldn't be breeding them in the first place. Maintaining a stable population in the wild is okay, because animals are nice. And whoever has the ability to hunt down and skin, gut and preserve the meat is entitled to eat it. But this stupid catering is..stupid.

 

[Baneat]

Less deforestation, lower demand for cows = less greenhouse gases produced out their rear ends (it's an awful lot)

 

[FluffX]

Many people's words, very little said.

Rising of sea levels. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise]
Metre rise in sea level = Bad for Bangladesh. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh]
Population of the rather flat China. (1.2 billion for those who don't feel like reading this). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China]

Yes, I used Wikipedia as a source. No, I don't care.

Oh hey, Al Gore didn't right/speak any of those articles! Amazing.

 

[Gotham Soul]

Vegans don't love the planet. They keep eating all the damn plants.

Please don't flame me, I'm very sensitive.