Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is raising meat more harmful to the environment than raising vegetables?

I grew up on a farm and we had some scrub land and sloughs that we never touched. They were kind of sanctuaries for wild life. Coyotes, deer, antelope, badgers, gophers ducks geese snipes are only a partial list of birds and animals that lived near the small ponds. Trees grew all around them and the wild life found shelter food and water there. We would turn our cattle into that area and the year after year there was harmony as we would harvest the cows every year producing hundreds of pounds of beef every year with zero impact on the environment. Not far from the sloughs we would grow grain. Early in the spring we would turn all the soil killing all the native grasses of course that required using a huge diesel tractor to do it. Then we would go over the land planting seed. As we planted we would add chemical fertilizer and some very powerful mercury based poison to kill the worms that would eat our crop. It was not unusual to run over a ducks nest or see baby hares running in fear of the noisy machinery. Late in the spring we would spray the land with dangerous chemicals to control the weeds. Some time later we would spray with another deadly chemical to control the grass hoppers or other blight. Finally in the fall we would fire up the massive combine and burn hundreds of gallons of diesel as we took off the wheat which we hoped was of adequate quality to feed to humans. It often wasn't due to lack of rain or early frost or early snow. What did we do with substandard grain? Fed it to the cows. Now which one of these food sources had the greater impact on the environment? Hers is a hint. It wasn't the cows.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JoeyFoxx · 56-60, M
It’s not about livestock vs vegetation.

It’s about the variety and appropriateness of the farming.

For example, almond farming in California consumes a tremendous amount of water and some farms have had some seriously negative impacts on local water tables.

Meat imported from South America is likely contributing to strip burning in the Amazon.

It’s a bit of an invalid question to presume that it’s an either/or proposition
Carazaa · F
@JoeyFoxx We need complex proteins and we can get that many ways besides meat.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa By using meat by products. Some micro-nutrients are found only in meat. That is why vegetarians are slightly insane. They are missing the brain food they need.
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955 I eat too much meat and potatoes like most people, it is very bad. 70% of the grain in the USA is used for meat production. Ridiculous! We need complex amino-acids daily but we can get that other ways. If we continue eating the way we do we will not sustain the planet and we will continue to die from cancer and obesity. A mostly plant diet is just healthier to say anything else is not up on the research. Even cutting down the meat to once a week is helping the planet a lot which I am trying to do and is healthier. This is not my opinion it is the latest from the worlds research. We'll have to agree to disagree, Good night!
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa And what exactly do you think should be raised since there is no shortage of grains on the market?
Carazaa · F
@JoeyFoxx

Curbing the world’s huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.

The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming.


“Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little,” said Rob Bailey, the report’s lead author. “A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people’s lives and tell them what to eat.”

The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can “substantially lower” emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.

Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption, but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease and cancer. “The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world’s governments,” said Bailey.




The report builds on recent scientific studies which show that soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world’s climate into chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone make up 65% of all livestock emissions.

Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75% by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year.

Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world’s carbon budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as “impossible”. The Chatham House report concludes: “Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C.”



The consumer survey in the report, covering 12 nations including the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU bloc, found a link between the awareness of climate change and its impacts and the willingness to change behaviour. Acceptance that human activities cause climate change was significantly higher in China, India and Brazil than in the US, UK and Japan.


The good news, said Bailey, was that “the majority of future demand appears to be in the countries [like China and Brazil] that are the most receptive to change”. He said it was “pretty disappointing” that in developed countries, where meat and dairy eating is highest, awareness of livestock’s impact on the climate is low and willingness to change is low.



Brigitte Alarcon, sustainable food policy officer at WWF said: “Our LiveWell project has shown we can cut a quarter of our climate emissions from the European food supply chain by eating more pulses, fruit and vegetables and by reducing our meat consumption. National governments should improve food education to encourage healthy eating habits and environmental sustainability as a first step.”

A spokesman for the UK government said: “Greenhouse gas emissions from the UK agricultural industry have fallen by more than 20% since 1990. While food choices can have an impact on emissions, well managed livestock also provide many environmental benefits including supporting biodiversity.”

A separate survey by the Eating Better alliance, also published on Wednesday, shows that UK consumers are beginning to eat less meat. The YouGov poll found 20% saying they have cut the amount of meat they eat over the last year, with only 5% say they are eating more.

Prof Keith Richards, at the University of Cambridge and one of the researchers behind the two key scientific studies, said: “This is not a radical vegetarian argument; it is an argument about eating meat in sensible amounts as part of healthy, balanced diets.”




The Guardian




Greenhouse gas emissions /


Climate change /


Food /


Agriculture /


Farming /


news
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa You really need better sources of information. Most of what you posted is simply not true. The 'soaring' demand for meat is the result of impoverished people having enough money to afford a balanced diet. The lives of cattle does not effect the climate any more than the lives of humans effect the climate. Even the IPCC admits as much in its latest load of nonsense. Put simply there is no sudden change in the climate beyond what has historically occurred. Cattle in North America have simply replaced the bison that used to roam the continent in huge herds. There are fewer cattle now than there were bison before. Strange how that never gets mentioned. Finally large hoofed herbivores are important to the health of the planet. Removing them imperils the lives of many other dependent plants and animals. When the bison disappeared several bird species almost died out with them. Fortunately with the introduction of cattle those birds were not lost and are now thriving. The solutions you propose to non existing problems will create real problems in the environment the like of which you city kids are completely oblivious to. Kind of sad that you fall for all the wrong propaganda.
JoeyFoxx · 56-60, M
So, vegetarians are partly insane due to a nutrient deficiency.

That’s a new one. Care to share the study that supports it?

@hippyjoe1955
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@JoeyFoxx there have lots of them. Ever talked to a sane one? I haven't.
JoeyFoxx · 56-60, M
As a matter of fact, I have.

I think I have my answer though.

Thanks.


@hippyjoe1955
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955 I don't live in the city! I live in the biggest agricultural area in the world. I am surrounded by fields of rice and orchards.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa and you have been on a working ranch where there is livestock? You sound very much like city kid.
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955 You are not a very respectful man to women! If you want to win people to Jesus then you need to be less abusive, rude, and obnoxious!
I watch your debates with people who are debating you on Jesus, and if you don't know yet we are to love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use us, and reach out to the poor. Jesus says These are those who love me, Those who keep my commandments
"And the greatest commandment is to love God, and treat others the way we want to be treated."


I would spend a bit more time in the Bible in the morning before you get on here please, because you are not a loving witness for Jesus.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Sorry but I don't fall into PC nonsense. I have no idea if you are actually a woman or someone pretending to be a woman so I treat you exactly the way I would treat an ill informed man. You are simply wrong on the basics and using agendized studies doesn't cut it with me since I know how studies work. Pay enough money and some scientist researcher will tell you that smoking is good for your health. The facts are it is evident to me that you don't know a thing about animals or animal husbandry. May I respectfully suggest that you inform yourself before making a complete twit of yourself by citing studies based on bias.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippie, at this point it’s obvious you don’t know anything about animal husbandry, nor is there any evidence you’ve ever stepped foot on a farm 🤷‍♂️

The irrefutable evidence of you being a complete retard is all around us, however.