Amount of meat we eat will barely affect future climate change
For the last few days, the mainstream British media have been assuring us that rich westerners must seriously cut down the amount of meat we eat - and the rest of the world must keep to its current meat-light diet - in order to stave off planetary apocalypse. But what are the facts? The reports are all based on this paper in the …
This topic is closed for new posts.
"agricultural efficiency"
Driven by oil - mostly used in fertilizers, not as motive power for farm machinery.
The biggest single driver for climate change is population, not average meat consumption. If everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow, fertilizer usage would be back up to current levels within 5 years.
THAT is the man behind the curtain that all the handwaving is trying to distract everyone from.
TThis is good news for McBarfs ...
now they can cut down the rest of the Amazon Forest.
Of course there are "Beefeaters"
Somehow this evolved into a nice beverage that is best enjoyed with a splash of vermouth and a nice olive (I prefer a nice onion, but that is another story). In fact two weeks ago I enjoyed a nice juicy steak (it was around 12 ounces). Mighty tasty.
In addition I have a nice grill fired by propane (the one that uses charcoal briquettes hasn't gotten much use since I got the propane one). It produces wonderful tasty devices that are wonderfully fit for consumption.
So yes, I am a member of People Eating Tasty Animals.
The Problem with Greenhouse Gasses
There are no Greenhouse Gasses :)
Certain molecules vibrate with the frequency of infrared light and thus "store" energy which would be reflected otherwise.
H2O, CO2 and CH4 are the most prominent of those.
So if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, it gets warmer.
When it gets warmer, more water evaporates and releases water vapor into the atmosphere, which stores more heat and gets warmer.
Cold water stores more CO2 than warm water, so more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, which gets warmer.
At a certain point permafrost will stop being permanent and there is a lot of methane stored in permafrost. Which then will be released into the atmosphere which in turn stores more heat, I.E. it gets warmer.
Which leads to warmer oceans which evaporate more water into the atmosphere ....
Lewis "cross my palm with silver" Page, 100% certain fortune teller
You have to love the off the cuff, everything will be fine, unknown inventions will fix all our problems (because they did in the past) predictions from Lewis. How great to be gifted with second sight.
His prediction that "If agriculture doesn't increase in efficiency there's big trouble ahead ... There's no reason to think this will happen, however - agriculture has been improving its game for a long time" is a good indication of a general lack of thought and logic in his articles.
No-one can predict what improvements in agriculture may or may not happen. Especially with climate uncertainty (whether caused by CO2 or not things are getting weird).
It is a monumentally bad idea to rest the world's trust in the logical fallacy that "things will continue as before, and continue to improve as they have to date". Tell that to the inhabitants of Japan (no tsunami yesterday, today should be fine). Tell that to the people with antibiotic-resistant TB (we've easily invented new effective antibiotics before so we can again). Tell that to the engineers at Intel (we have managed to boost clock speeds every year from 1990 to 2005, we can keep going!).
No sense, no logic. The usual Lewis Page dribble.
Malthusian misanthrope
The problem goes back to Malthus, likely a liberal arts major who flunked math. He used bad data
as input to incorrect calculations, resulting in totally incorrect output (not too far from the
"CAGW" hysteria models of today".^
1) The planet is NOT a living organism (c.f. GAIA Gore-i-a), although living organisms inhabit it
2) There are plenty of resources available for the current population, and, if most projections bandied
about by OECD, UN, &co. are correct, population will start to decline starting at the middle of this
century anyway (oops, there goes the tax base...)
3) Models are just that...hypothetical extrapolations of data, sometimes questionable...such that
4) There is no replacement for observation - unfortunately we can't go back in time, and have to
accept what is available...but we should make every effort to have a "quorum" of data...one
tree (hello Briffa/Mann) does not constitute a forest....
5) The scientific method says that experiments must be reproducible and "falsifiable".
6) Science isn't by consensus, it's by experiment...the greatest advancements in science were
when current theory was disproved/corrected/refined (i.e. "falsified")
7) Research done on the public dime, on public time, at public instutions (US definition of public...)
is the property of the public, i.e. taxpayers funding said research. OK to charge for
printing/binding/etc., but holding OUR science behind a paywall is wrong
8) This "greenwashing" is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to usurp money from those of us
producing goods and services and squandering it on the "freetards" who believe it is better
to receive than to give...
Actually, they probably right but for the wrong reasons
Uncomfortable fact, but the rearing of livestock does appear to create a rather awkward volume of greenhouse gasses. The UN published a report on this in 2006, and it's nothing new.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772
Exeter's figures look odd to me, too; they're just another alarming distraction, and the whole bio-fuel issue is somewhat dodgy at the best of times. But the article headline may well be right, even for the wrong reasons.
Of course, politicians would rather clobber motorists than the general carnivorous population, so not much gets talked about agriculture.
Oh yeah, and it doesn't take much to work out that growing plants to feed cows in a shed isn't going to be as efficient as growing plants and eating them yourself - which could make a difference if the population increases.
Give it up already
There's really nothing to argue about.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming that vegan (not vegetarian, but vegan) diet is inherently healthier than non-vegan diet, beef-board-sponsored "research" notwithstanding. Although it's possible to live entirely on whale, for example, there's nothing nutritionally missing from a vegan diet except vitamin B12 (only because we no longer rip things out of the ground and eat them with the microbes still attached). And don't start with me on "where do you get your protein", else I'll introduce you to my fellow vegan, pet gorilla.
As for ecological impact, meat and dairy production is destructive in multiple respects: land use, water use, greenhouse gas production (especially methane), and food use (as livestock feed).
"Modern" production of meat and dairy, in which animal remains are used as feed for naturally herbivore animals, causes or spreads all sorts of fun diseases, from salmonella to BSE (which you get as CJD from eating it).
As for animal welfare, go on all you want about free-range this and cage-free that, but you're still enslaving creatures and ultimately killing them. If they had any say in that, I don't think they'd go for it.
I'm not trying to get you to stop eating meat. You'll do whatever you want. Just stop wasting time and energy pretending that it doesn't matter what you take from the earth and put in your mouth.
Re: Give it up already
"There's really nothing to argue about...." I suggest that translates to you just being too closed-minded to be able to consider any counters.
"....The scientific evidence is overwhelming that vegan (not vegetarian, but vegan) diet is inherently healthier than non-vegan diet...." Please do provide some links to back up that bumph.
"....I'll introduce you to my fellow vegan, pet gorilla...." Goodie, he can act as a light snack for an equally imaginary friend Mr T-Rex. I suspect yuour real friends are too undernourished from their diet to be able to put up much of a fight.
"....As for ecological impact, meat and dairy production is destructive in multiple respects: land use...." what, you mean like the much larger amount of land needed for fields used for wheat, corn, oats, carrots, brocolli, in fact ALL veggie food? "....water use...." Please name one crop that doesn't need water. Please, just try, just so the rest of us can laugh even harder. "......greenhouse gas production (especially methane)...." What, you want to kill off all the animals just because they fart? Going by your arguments, you should be top of your extermination list. ".... and food use (as livestock feed)....." Guess what, plants need fertiliser for productive farming. Now, where would you get the fertiliser without animals? If you actually lived even close tot eh countryside you might have noticed over the winter and the farmers started putting their cattle to graze on the fields because cow manure is an excellent way to replenish the nitrogen levels in the fields. No cattle, no replenishment, and fields would have to be abandoned after use for several years, meaning more land would be used without cattle.
"...."Modern" production of meat and dairy, in which animal remains are used as feed for naturally herbivore animals, causes or spreads all sorts of fun diseases...." yeah, because people never catch Tetanus from improperly washed veg, do they? Let alone a host of other bacterial infections.
"....As for animal welfare, go on all you want about free-range this and cage-free that, but you're still enslaving creatures...." So is it OK if I just hunt and kill wild animals then? Surely I can make exactly the same pointless argument about farmed crops - they're "enslaving" wild plants, making them live in an unnatural environment, and then we eat them!
"....If they had any say...." I'm sure if carrots could speak they'd tell you were to shove your veggieburger. Fail, fail, fail.
Re: Give it up already
> "There's really nothing to argue about...." I suggest that translates to you just being too closed-minded to be able to consider any counters.
FAILed translation. I just don't argue with reality.
> "....The scientific evidence is overwhelming that vegan (not vegetarian, but vegan) diet is inherently healthier than non-vegan diet...." Please do provide some links to back up that bumph.
If you were seriously interested, you'd have done your own homework. I noticed that you didn't provide any links, either. But you can start here: nutritionfacts dot org.
>water use...." Please name one crop that doesn't need water. Please, just try, just so the rest of us can laugh even harder.
[Us? Are you actually suggesting that you speak for others?]
Since you appear to be determined to miss the point in order to forward your beliefs, I'll try to spell it out for you. Crops do indeed need water. Crops fed to cattle, for example. You can eat the crops, or you can eat the cattle. If you eat the grain that you would have fed to the cattle, you use less water than if you fed it to the cattle and then waited and ate the cattle. A LOT less water. In cubic meters per kilogram of food:
Beef (grain fed): 15+
Lamb: 10
Poultry: 6
Cereals: 0.4–3
Citrus fruits: 1
Pulses, roots and tubers: 11
> equally imaginary friend Mr T-Rex
Not quite equal. Your imaginary friend is extinct, mine isn't. But I wasn't trying to make a childish "my daddy can beat up your daddy" argument. My point was that it's quite possible to build a lot of muscle without eating muscle.
> What, you want to kill off all the animals just because they fart? Going by your arguments, you should be top of your extermination list.
Again, nicely missed point. So childish that it doesn't deserve a response, but I'll try to respond in kind. It would take a whole lot of badly prepared beans for me to fart enough to match livestock's contribution to greenhouse gasses (about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane emissions and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions).
> Now, where would you get the fertiliser without animals?
Try leguminous cover crops. Next question...
> ... enslaving wild plants, making them live in an unnatural environment, and then we eat them...
Oh please.
> ...I'm sure if carrots could speak they'd tell you were to shove your veggieburger. Fail, fail, fail.
Yada yada yada...
Re: Re: Give it up already
"....FAILed translation. I just don't argue with reality...." No, you just ignore it.
"....I noticed that you didn't provide any links...." Try some of the following:
http://www.ayushveda.com/nutrition/health-benefits-of-eating-meat.htm
http://www.acu-cell.com/veg.html
Both of which have a few pointers on the problems with low iron, low protein veggie diets and phosphorus issues. And I love your link to a site with a video of a doctor that looks like he's at death's door! Funded by a charity investment group (cough*tax dodge*cough) run by an ex-Forestry Officer, a sociollogy major, and a lawyer. Yeah, they're just so qualified - NOT!
"....Are you actually suggesting that you speak for others?...." Yes, all the omnivores sick and tired of being lectured by know-nothing hippies. I notice you still can't provide a plant that doesn't need water. This is my surprised face, honest.
"....A LOT less water....." Very debateable. For instance, meat is a very simple and single source of amino acids and protein in one small portion. To get the same with veg means half-a-dozen different veg at best, all which have to be grown separately and then brought to the same site. If you go the usual veggie mantra and insist that you can use tropical nuts, consider that those are an exotic fruit and have to shipped across the World to reach us, causing far more pollution and using far more resources.
"....Your imaginary friend is extinct, mine isn't..." Wow, what a pathetic rejoinder. The whole point was to illustrate how stupid your non-point was. Want to put your gorilla up against a Bengal tiger? How about comparing to a mako, or an orca? How impressive is your gorilla compared to a Blue whale? Face facts - omnivores or carnivores usually sit at the top of all food chains, whilst herbivores are usually just providing the dinner.
"....My point was that it's quite possible to build a lot of muscle without eating muscle...." Buffaloes are bigger than lions, but that's just bulk due to their low-nutritional diet. Like cows, they need multiple stomachs to digest their food and a big frame to carry those stomachs around. Lions have one stomach, just like us (because we are not designed for a veggie-only diet, otherwise we too would have multiple stomachs), want to guess which one is the top of the food chain predator? Would you like a clue to help you, I'm guessing you'll need one.
"....So childish that it doesn't deserve a response....." LOL! The typical veggie/vegan schpiel is based on a childish inability to accept that eating meat is perfectly natural and beneficial. When you start with that level of argument don't be surprised when you get treated like a child. Go look at your teeth in the mirror and accept the fact you are an evolution based on meat eating as part of a healthy diet.
"....Try leguminous cover crops...." So, you want to grow more crops, using more land and water, just to provide fertiliser? That won't generate enough nitrogen for two stages of growth. You would have to leave twice as much land fallow for fives times as long. You also ignore the fact that cows can eat grass, a low-impact "crop", which does not make a good fertiliser, and will grow on many land areas high-value crops like corn won't. And then cows recycle the nitrogen from the grass through their pats in a far more efficient manner than any amount of legume-based fertiliser. Which means cows need a massively smaller amount of land than the equivalent amount of vegetable fields and forest required to grow the veggie equivalent. Thank you for demonstarting why your vegetarian gospel is based on faith rather than fact or science.
Re: Give it up already
I'm not going to go point-counterpoint with you on this, especially when the bulk of your argument amounts to little more than childish distractions ("want to put your gorilla up against a Bengal tiger?"), flawed logic ("omnivores or carnivores usually sit at the top of all food chains" -- umm, isn't that the very definition of food chain?), inconsistencies from one paragraph to another ("Buffaloes are bigger than lions, but that's just bulk due to their low-nutritional diet" versus "How impressive is your gorilla compared to a Blue whale"), misinformed generalizations ("we are not designed for a veggie-only diet, otherwise we too would have multiple stomachs" -- WTF?), collapsed distinctions ("you are an evolution based on meat eating" -- adaptation is not the same as evolution. We may be quite adaptable as a species, but our teeth, digestive chemistry, and 7m-long small intestine, are evolutionarily ill-equipped for ripping flesh from bones, breaking down fur and feathers, and digesting meat without putrefaction), reliance on discredited information (the whole protein argument was retracted long ago by its originator), and lame attempts to discredit a doctor who reviews and summarizes thousands of published, peer-reviewed, scientific research studies (because his web site is "Funded by a charity investment group (cough*tax dodge*cough) run by an ex-Forestry Officer, a sociollogy [sic] major, and a lawyer").
As for the "facts" provided by your two links? One is an uncredited blog posting, and the other is from a company that markets supplements and didn't provide a link for it's boldfaced reference to "clinical studies". It appears that you are the one demonstrating that your point of view is based on faith rather than fact or science.
As I said in my OP, you'll do what you want to do. Enjoy your meat and dairy. No need to get all worked up about vegans. Unless of course your greatest fear is that you're a latent :-).
Re: Re: Give it up already
"'m not going to go point-counterpoint with you on this...." So that's a big admission of failure.
"....the whole protein argument was retracted long ago by its originator...." Please do account for the amino acids point. Oh, you can't - what a surprise!
".....Enjoy your meat and dairy...." I have every intention of, and if even half you veggies stuck to the same principle it would probably be fine.
"....Unless of course your greatest fear is that you're a latent." No, I just have a low threshold of tolerance for idiocy masquerading as science due to a misplaced sense of moral superiority.
Re: Give it up already
"'m not going to go point-counterpoint with you on this...." So that's a big admission of failure.
No, I just don't like to waste my time.
"....the whole protein argument was retracted long ago by its originator...." Please do account for the amino acids point. Oh, you can't - what a surprise!
And what was your "point"? Oh yeah, that vegans need to get all sorts of vegetables and tropical nuts (or did you call them fruits? it was rather confused...) in order to get the amino acids in meat. Try soybeans. Or quinoa. Or spinach (surely, you must at least be aware of Popeye the Sailor Man). Each of those contain a full complement of the nine essential amino acids. And no Lipitor is required after eating!
Here's a link: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm
".....Enjoy your meat and dairy...." I have every intention of, and if even half you veggies stuck to the same principle it would probably be fine.
I've been a vegetarian for well over 30 years. Looks like it has "stuck".
"....Unless of course your greatest fear is that you're a latent." No, I just have a low threshold of tolerance for idiocy masquerading as science due to a misplaced sense of moral superiority.
Really? I've posted links and quoted real nutritional science. You gone on childish attacks (see above...). regurgitated hearsay, and quoted some random blogger. Moral superiority hasn't had a thing to do with it. But now that you mention... :-)
That's it for me! Go ahead, have the last word.
Re: Give it up already
"....No, I just don't like to waste my time....." Trying to argue that it is not natural to eat meat is so patently bollocks that it would have to rate as a massive waste of time to most people.
"....Try soybeans. Or quinoa. Or spinach...." Of which only spinach is native to the UK, the rest requiring very polluting transport from abroad. Yes, so ethical! One of the reasons vegans get such a bashing is because they often brainwash their children into the same diet, meaning they rarely get enough histidine which they would if they ate meat and dairy products. Most vegetarians are of an identically idiotic mind, often going veggie for the most stupid of "moral" reasons and then not having a clue what they need to eat to replace the essential aminos they lose form their diet when they give up meat, and wishful veggie advice like "oh just eat spinach" is the reason the majority of them end up so unhealthy.
"....you must at least be aware of Popeye the Sailor Man...." Yes, about as factual a source as the rest of your schpiel.
"....I've been a vegetarian for well over 30 years. Looks like it has "stuck"....." You obviously haven't been getting enough tryptophan, maybe you should eat a lot more of that spinach. Or just a steak. I was suggesting you veggies stick to your diet and stop lecturing the rest of us, which you obviously have not done.
"....Really? I've posted links and quoted real nutritional science...." What, a link to a veggie site that makes money selling veggie cookbooks? Hardly an unbiased source. Try a uni like this:
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-224
One of the findings of the study lead by Prof Felice Jacka (background here http://educationinnutrition.com.au/recordings/view/the_link_between_diet_and_mental_health) was that people that don't eat enough meat - especially veggies - were more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and other mental disorders due to insufficent essential amino acids in their diets. Explains why half the hippies look ready to cut their own wrists, along with their problems discerning reality from fiction. Looks like it hits Anon Cowards too. I suggest you go eat a few burgers for your own good.
Re: Give it up already
> Trying to argue that it is not natural to eat meat is so patently bollocks that it would have to rate as a massive waste of time to most people.
Your sweeping, unsupported generlization confuses "natural" with "normal". While it may be normal to eat meat, it is hardly natural given that we don't have proper fangs, stomach acids, and short digestive tracts that are found in natural carnivores. You can eat meat. You can be a fruitarian. You probably can be an insectivore. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
And since you've brought up "natural", let's talk about dairy. How natural is it to continue to suckle past infancy, into adulthood, throughout your whole life? To suckle something other than your own mother? To suckle another species? Natural?
> ... vegans ... often brainwash their children into the same diet .... Most vegetarians are of an identically idiotic mind ... the majority of them end up so unhealthy....
Yada yada yada.
> http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-224 One of the findings ...was that people that don't eat enough meat - especially veggies - were more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and other mental disorders due to insufficent essential amino acids in their diets.
Really. How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion from that link? The researcher found that people who eat what she considers to be a healthy, balanced diet are less likely to suffer from mental disorders than those who eat highly processed junk food. Maybe you should eat more carrots.
Why eat meat when you can eat vegitarians.
Low body fat, plenty of prime cuts for the freezer.
This could be a winner.
Mmm, Mmm, Good....
I love animals!
They taste great!
Especially Barbequed....
This topic is closed for new posts.
