how to reduce our environmental footprint

[tommac]

What would be the most efficient way to reduce our environmental footprint?

The criteria would be: the amount of change / the difficulty (cost financial and otherwise ) of the change

[geonuc]

Reduce the population. I don't know how to calculate the denominator in your ratio for that, but the numerator would be huge.

[Neverfly]

What would be the most efficient way to reduce our environmental footprint?

The criteria would be: the amount of change / the difficulty (cost financial and otherwise ) of the change

Mass global suicide.


Of course, this does nothing to alleviate the Earths own environmental footprint, or every other animals foot, claw, paw and leg prints.

[NEOWatcher]

Of course, this does nothing to alleviate the Earths own environmental footprint, or every other animals foot, claw, paw and leg prints.
You left out apods. :lol:

[Ferg]

What would be the most efficient way to reduce our environmental footprint?

The criteria would be: the amount of change / the difficulty (cost financial and otherwise ) of the change

If you want an efficient method, give people financial incentives to reduce their footprint by taxing environmental damage, then get out of the way and let them figure out the best way to do it. Use the money raised to repair the damage, or to reduce other taxes. Adjust the tax up or down to control the level of the reduction you want.

If you want to make sure the costs are enormous and the benefits tiny (or possibly negative), have the central planners at this board decide how to do it.

[Jason]

Soylent Green.

[Damburger]

The two simplest significant cuts you can make are car use and eating meat. Become a vegetarian cyclist and your carbon footprint will be slashed dramatically.

[Ferg]

The two simplest significant cuts you can make are car use and eating meat. Become a vegetarian cyclist and your carbon footprint will be slashed dramatically.

This has other benefits too, because it reduces demand for both meat and fossil fuels. Then all your neighbors in the global village will like you, because you have made it cheaper for them to consume more and increase their carbon footprints.

[Damburger]

This has other benefits too, because it reduces demand for both meat and fossil fuels. Then all your neighbors in the global village will like you, because you have made it cheaper for them to consume more and increase their carbon footprints.

Yeah, because as soon as someone hears their neighbour has gone vegetarian they eat twice as much meat.

By your 'logic' there is no point doing anything, because your efforts will be countered by everyone else. Real life experience shows this is simply not true.

[tommac]

Reduce the population. I don't know how to calculate the denominator in your ratio for that, but the numerator would be huge.

I thought of that but you need to be careful to get the ones that polute the most maybe use the 80:20 rule get rid of the top 20% of the poluters in the world.

[tommac]

I heard one theory that brazil should charge a tax on other nations for the use of their rain forest to help fight against deforestation.


If you want an efficient method, give people financial incentives to reduce their footprint by taxing environmental damage, then get out of the way and let them figure out the best way to do it. Use the money raised to repair the damage, or to reduce other taxes. Adjust the tax up or down to control the level of the reduction you want.

If you want to make sure the costs are enormous and the benefits tiny (or possibly negative), have the central planners at this board decide how to do it.

[tommac]

Tax gas to $20 a gallon and let it spin.

If you want an efficient method, give people financial incentives to reduce their footprint by taxing environmental damage, then get out of the way and let them figure out the best way to do it. Use the money raised to repair the damage, or to reduce other taxes. Adjust the tax up or down to control the level of the reduction you want.

If you want to make sure the costs are enormous and the benefits tiny (or possibly negative), have the central planners at this board decide how to do it.

[tommac]

The two simplest significant cuts you can make are car use and eating meat. Become a vegetarian cyclist and your carbon footprint will be slashed dramatically.

What is the deal with eating meat?

Also what needs to be done with china. they are now number one at greenhouse gas production.

[NEOWatcher]

What is the deal with eating meat?
Without diving too deep. Simply, there is another level of the food chain, and each level involves processing and shipping of food. That uses energy.
There's a lot more to it... but that's enough to know it does add something.
Also what needs to be done with china. they are now number one at greenhouse gas production.
Again; complicated. Number one in quantity? Number one in per capita? Number one in GDP?

I think if you scour the threads on energy and global warming, that you will see some very good suggestions. At the same time you will see some of the trade-offs (and ear steam) with each one of those suggestions.

Unfortunately, getting into whether or not they should be followed through has the potential for getting political.

[tommac]

Without diving too deep. Simply, there is another level of the food chain, and each level involves processing and shipping of food. That uses energy.
There's a lot more to it... but that's enough to know it does add something.

Again; complicated. Number one in quantity? Number one in per capita? Number one in GDP?

I think if you scour the threads on energy and global warming, that you will see some very good suggestions. At the same time you will see some of the trade-offs (and ear steam) with each one of those suggestions.

Unfortunately, getting into whether or not they should be followed through has the potential for getting political.

Cant we just threaten them with arms?

[Damburger]

Cant we just threaten them with arms?

Are you trolling or do you really want to kick off world war 3?

[geonuc]

I thought of that but you need to be careful to get the ones that polute the most maybe use the 80:20 rule get rid of the top 20% of the poluters in the world.
Heh. Actually, what I had in mind was not decimating the existing population, but rather increasing measures to get people to quit reproducing so much. Heck, in the US we subsidize the population explosion. That makes no sense.

[Larry Jacks]

I keep hearing people talk about the need to reduce the population but I don't hear anyone volunteering to off themselves. No, they expect "the others" to make that sacriface.

[geonuc]

I keep hearing people talk about the need to reduce the population but I don't hear anyone volunteering to off themselves. No, they expect "the others" to make that sacriface.
See my last post.

I volunteer not to reproduce.

[Ferg]

Yeah, because as soon as someone hears their neighbour has gone vegetarian they eat twice as much meat.

When prices go down, people consume more. This is an extraordinarily well established characteristic of human behavior, that has been found to hold in an incredibly wide variety of circumstances. It might be inconvenient for someone's ideology or theology, but that's not my problem.

By your 'logic' there is no point doing anything, because your efforts will be countered by everyone else.

False, and incredibly disingenuous. I did not say this, and it does not follow from what I said. If YOU think it does, the problem is with your 'logic,' not mine. If you knew it didn't follow from what I said but decided to attribute it to me anyway, then the problem is with your honesty.

Real life experience shows this is simply not true.

Real life experience does indeed show that the ridiculous caricature of an idea that you concocted and attempted to attribute to me is in fact not true. Real life experience also shows that the straw man fallacy is widely believed by people on message boards.

What real life experience also shows is that voluntary conservation efforts by one group of people are partly offset by increased consumption by others. The result is a net reduction in consumption, but by less than the full amount; whether the counter-balancing effect is large or small depends on the elasticities in the particular market. This is well understood by people in practically every branch of social sciences. In my opinion, someone in a policy job who does not understand this ought to be fired for incompetence. Perhaps it is not well understood by you, but that has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

What I said is clearly shown in earlier posts. Your distortion of what I said, intentional or not, reflects badly on you, not on me. I already understand logic quite well; I don't need to learn faulty logic from you.

[Swift]

What would be the most efficient way to reduce our environmental footprint?

The criteria would be: the amount of change / the difficulty (cost financial and otherwise ) of the change
Environmental footprint on what? What ecosystem, what problem? Something that helps decrease acid rain isn't going to necessarily help global warming, for example.

[Swift]

I keep hearing people talk about the need to reduce the population but I don't hear anyone volunteering to off themselves. No, they expect "the others" to make that sacriface.
I'm not planning to off myself, but it was one of the reasons my wife and I choose not to reproduce.

[Damburger]

When prices go down, people consume more. This is an extraordinarily well established characteristic of human behavior, that has been found to hold in an incredibly wide variety of circumstances. It might be inconvenient for someone's ideology or theology, but that's not my problem.

Really? How many steaks do you think you can eat before you feel sick? Are you going to force another one down just to spite vegetarians? If petrol gets cheaper do you spend your entire evening driving round the block for a laugh?

You childlike idea of economics really doesn't impress me. If you were an actual economist you would not be talking such dumbed-down rubbish.

[Neverfly]

Ferg, just my opinion from reading...
Although you make some good points (Folks in the US are notorious for increasing consumption), post 20 seems to me to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about what Damburger said.
I really cannot blame him for reacting.

Food for thought- for both of you really...

ETA: Welcome to BAUT

[Kaptain K]

"You childlike idea ..."

Borderline ad hom.

[SolusLupus]

No, I agree. It is a childlike idea. Though the proper term might be, say, sophomoric.

Damburger is correct. By Ferg's argument, we as a people might as well not do anything at all, because then everyone else will "make up for it" and automatically balance it out. I.E., someone will eat TWICE as much meat as he otherwise would if another person went vegetarian. But this is actually impossible to keep increasing; at a certain level, someone will find it difficult to stuff their face with so much of this meat. Yes, the meat is cheap, but this does not automatically mean that they will eat twice as much.

Furthermore, with increased demand in vegetable products and reduced demand in meat products, you're looking at more companies wanting to switch to vegetable products.

By the way, about meat products contributing to global warming: From (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Other source:

Encyclopedia of the Earth (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint)

Worldwide, agriculture contributes to nearly 14% of total greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., the food we eat accounts for 17% of our total fossil fuel consumption. The carbon footprint of an average American diet is 0.75 tons CO2-eq, without accounting for food transportation. On average, food travels 1,500 miles between the production location and the market. Meat products have a larger carbon footprint than fruits, vegetables, and grains: the carbon footprint of the average meat eater is about 1.5 tons CO2-eq larger than that of a vegetarian.

[Maha Vailo]

So, how are we to keep healthy without eating meat? As I understand it, it's difficult to get good quality protein, minerals like iron and zinc, and certain vitamins without including at least some meat in one's diet.

And what about places where it's too dry, too steep, or too cold to grow anything but livestock? Are the peoples of those areas screwed economically and dietarily, then? People say that "eating local" is an environmentally sound thing to do, but what do you do when most of the "local" foodstuffs are animal in nature?

What about the cost? In my experience, meat substitutes cost more than the meat itself. That's not going to help poor people any.

For those three reasons, I don't think it's a very good idea for humanity to cut meat entirely out of one's diet.

- Maha Vailo

[SolusLupus]

So, how are we to keep healthy without eating meat? As I understand it, it's difficult to get good quality protein, minerals like iron and zinc, and certain vitamins without including at least some meat in one's diet.At the very least, we don't need to eat SO much meat. And we certainly don't need to process it in the ways we currently do. There are plenty of ways to reduce meat consumption.

There's also other sources of good quality protein, minerals, and certain vitamins than just outside of meat. Meat makes it more convenient, and as all well know Convenience beats Everything, right?

Balanced diets, man. Balanced diets.

And what about places where it's too dry, too steep, or too cold to grow anything but livestock? Are the peoples of those areas screwed economically and dietarily, then? People say that "eating local" is an environmentally sound thing to do, but what do you do when most of the "local" foodstuffs are animal in nature?It's not an All or Nothing situation, you know. People seem to think that there's some sort of dichotomy between "consume so much meat, I get fat" and "consume no meat at all". That's just not true.

And yes, I know, sugar is one of the bigger causes of obesity. But so is overconsumption of meat -- the average American eats far more meat than they really need to.

For those three reasons, I don't think it's a very good idea for humanity to cut meat entirely out of one's diet.Yes, I agree. Cutting meat entirely out of a person's diet isn't always so possible, and it certainly isn't possible to force it upon everyone else, including as you say, those people in certain areas.

However, this doesn't mean that EVERYONE across the WORLD should go ahead and give themselves a free pass. By your own argument, SOME areas people are better able to go omnivore, and in SOME areas people are better able to go vegetarian. Extremism in this case is self-defeating, but the fact is we have a lot of room to go from one extreme (consume more than we need) to reach the more average balance (eat what we need, maybe just a bit more above, but no extremes)

[Maha Vailo]

At the very least, we don't need to eat SO much meat. And we certainly don't need to process it in the ways we currently do. There are plenty of ways to reduce meat consumption.

That I can agree with. But what ways do you recommend we process meat that have less of an impact on the environment than what we do now?

There's also other sources of good quality protein, minerals, and certain vitamins than just outside of meat.

Can you list a few examples? I'm turning up blanks.

It's not an All or Nothing situation, you know. People seem to think that there's some sort of dichotomy between "consume so much meat, I get fat" and "consume no meat at all". That's just not true.

Hey, I never said it was an all-or-nothing situation. I just poined out some of the flaws in some people's arguments that "we should all go vegetarian to save the Earth".

And yes, I know, sugar is one of the bigger causes of obesity. But so is overconsumption of meat -- the average American eats far more meat than they really need to.

Cites, please?

However, this doesn't mean that EVERYONE across the WORLD should go ahead and give themselves a free pass. By your own argument, SOME areas people are better able to go omnivore, and in SOME areas people are better able to go vegetarian. Extremism in this case is self-defeating, but the fact is we have a lot of room to go from one extreme (consume more than we need) to reach the more average balance (eat what we need, maybe just a bit more above, but no extremes)

Well, even if you live in the tropics, where fruits, veggies, and grains abound, you're still going to need at least some animal protein in your diet. Even traditional Hindus, often condiered the archetypal vegetarian, are merely lactovegetarians.

So, what do reputable nutritional authorities suggest how much food we should eat in a day, and in what portions, in order to minimize our impact on the environment and remain healthy at the same time?

- Maha "you are what you eat?" Vailo

[Delvo]

Can you list a few examples? I'm turning up blanks.There are a handful of particularly high-protein plants, particularly soy, some other beans, and nuts. Soy products, in particular, are made into meat-substitutes that are intended to be similar to meat such as tofu, although many people who've tasted those don't believe they've gotten the flavor or texture right yet. There are websites and books that specialize in teaching people who are interested in vegetarianism about these plants: what kinds of plants are the right ones, where to find them, and recipes using them. Also, there are vitamin and mineral supplements available in any drug store or food store. But if you want more detail, you're probably asking the wrong sources now, unless there happens to be a vegetarian who is registered at this forum and is reading this thread. Non-vegetarians generally don't know the kind of specifics you're asking for.

I just poined out some of the flaws in some people's arguments that "we should all go vegetarian to save the Earth".Nobody made such an argument here. You asked what YOU, an individual, can do. You were answered about what YOU, an individual, can do. And you've come up with ways to reject every answer to your actual question. In this case, the issue of what a whole population/culture/society can or should do is separate, so suddenly jumping to that instead does not truly counter what you're trying to use it to counter. Changing the subject and acting as if someone else had said something on the new subject that they didn't is nothing but an argumentative tactic.

Well, even if you live in the tropics, where fruits, veggies, and grains abound, you're still going to need at least some animal protein in your diet.Protein, but it doesn't need to come from animals. It just USUALLY comes from animals because it's more common in them. But there have been not just individuals in the modern era, but even whole populations without access to food from all over the world, whose main source of protein was something else, such as beans in much of pre-Columbian North America.

There are also people working on a way to use animal DNA to produce only the muscles, which could then be grown in a lab without the land and food wasted on the rest of the animal. Once that's ready to go, I'd be in favor of banning real meat, but the technology isn't ready yet.

[SolusLupus]

That I can agree with. But what ways do you recommend we process meat that have less of an impact on the environment than what we do now?Personally, I prefer to avoid the stuff altogether. I'm getting more meat from a hunter friend of mine personally, and I'm choosing to eat less meals with meat -- processed or not.

Does not mean I have given it up altogether, however.

Can you list a few examples? I'm turning up blanks.
Wow, really? That's actually pretty insulting to vegetarians. It's as if anti-vegetarians think that vegetarians don't ever even think for a second about their diet and how to go about it, and can't even stop for a second to say, "Hey. I kinda need protein!"

Do you really want a few examples? Okay.

How about you just read (http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/vegetarian_and_vegan/veganproteins.shtml) this?

Guide to vegan proteins

Here's a quick run-down of foods that are high in protein, as well as a few suggestions on how to make the most of them.

Grains, cereals, rice and wheat protein

[...]

Non-dairy 'dairy' products (Lonewulf's Note: I love Chocolate Soymilk personally. Very tasty!)

Nuts and seeds

Nuts: almonds, brazil nuts, cashew nuts, coconuts, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, peanuts, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios, sweet chestnuts, walnuts

Seeds: poppy, pumpkin, sesame, sunflower, linseeds (flax seeds)

Linseeds are a particularly good source of an essential fatty acid (called a-linolenic acid) that is important to proper nerve function and can help reduce the symptoms of arthritis and heart disease.

Pulses
Peas, beans, lentils

Tempeh
Tempeh is a fermented soya bean paste with a chewy texture and distinctive flavour, and can be used as a meat substitute in recipes. It may be deep-fried, shallow-fried, baked or steamed. It is normally sold frozen. In no circumstances should it be re-frozen if previously defrosted.

Textured vegetable protein
Textured vegetable protein (TVP) is soya flour that's been processed and dried. A substance with a sponge-like texture, TVP is available either cut into small chunks or ground into granules which resemble minced beef, and can be flavoured to resemble meat.

Tofu

All of these examples are with one link, that was found in about a handful of seconds with a quick google link. I highly suggest that you educate yourself before talking about examples springing to mind, or a lack thereof.

As for Zinc: Here (http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data5j.html)

Cocoa Powder, Bran Wheat, wholemeal, baker's dried yeast, all of these have a significant portion of zinc. For lactovegetarians (of which I haven't actually said is a bad life choice), there is cheese and egg dishes to get back a lot of that zinc. Uh, it seems like dried figs are also good for getting zinc. Not all that sure, chart is hard to read (at least, it's the best choice of the fruit options, most of which are close to nil). However, the best source are nuts. Good old nuts. Brazil nuts (my fave!) are the best. Also, pepper has a significant portion of zinc, as do... uh... sweet pickles I think (??) Then there's peanut butter, fruit and honey bars and sesame bars. Finally, it appears that certain beans are also good for zinc content, as well as Lentils.

As for Iron (same site): Iron! (http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data5e.html)

Ve vill PUMP YU UP!

Cocoa Powder (again), Milo, Ovaltine are all good sources of iron. Bran wheat, Cornflakes, soya, Muesli (whatever the heck that is), puffed rice (but not other kinds of rice --??), breakfast biscuits, and dried baker's yeast are all good sources of iron. There's also egg and cheese dishes, also for lactovegetarians. Seafood is good here, but I'll try to focus more on vegetarian alternatives. Dried apricots are good for iron, as are avocados, dried figs, dried peaches, prunes, dried raisins, dried Sultanas (what the heck are Sultanas?), and of course -- nuts. Stick to pistachios for iron, or roasted cashews. Mm mm! Then, finally, for sauces... well, I wasn't expecting this. This really came as a surprise. Apparently, curry powder is a REAL FRICKIN' GOOD SOURCE of iron, or else that bar just took some steroids... Pepper, osto cubes (?), mustard powder, sesame seeds, and worcerstershire sauce are all, apparently, VERY good sources of iron. Whee! I learned something new, whaddya know? Also: If you like sweets, get some Liquorice if you want some iron. Apparently those have a decent source as well. Carob bars as well! Kidney, mung, and soya beans, naturally, are good sources. Chickpeas, Leeks, parsley, blah blah blah.

That's not all, apparently, but I won't list every single thing with a bit of iron or zinc content. I'm sure you get the picture now... all that stuff you find in meat? Can also be found in vegetables, spices, grains, nuts, and even some kinds of fruits. This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise -- carnivores eat herbivores, who get their nutrients and protein from somewhere.

Hey, I never said it was an all-or-nothing situation. I just poined out some of the flaws in some people's arguments that "we should all go vegetarian to save the Earth".Well, I don't exactly recall where someone said that, but fine. Alright. In the most extremes, in all situations, no, global vegetarianism isn't quite as easy in the short run as people make it out to be. Long run, though? That's another question, and probably one that is more based on speculation as to what future technology may or may not hold or not.

Cites, please?
Do you really do deny -- or at least find it hard to believe -- that the average American consumes far more meat than is required? What, really? Wow.

You don't see cans and cans and cans of processed meat at your local grocery store? I remember seeing all too many.
Regardless, here (http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-beverage-stores/199639-1.html) is a quick cite:

More than 70% of Americans include too much meat and fat in the diets and too few vegetables, according to cancer researchers. A recent survey showed 72% of Americans center their meals on animal fats and do not eat enough vegetables that could prevent cancer, heart disease and other health problems, reported Reuters.

Here (http://www.realtime.net/anr/10eattip.html) is a quick guide to "eating tips":

Eat moderate portions. If you keep portion sizes reasonable, it's easier to eat the foods you want and stay healthy. Did you know the recommended serving of cooked meat is 3 ounces, similar in size to a deck of playing cards? A medium piece of fruit is 1 serving and a cup of pasta equals 2 servings. A pint of ice cream contains 4 servings. Refer to the Food Guide Pyramid for information on recommended serving sizes.

I'm pretty darn sure that the average American goes over this serving size. Just visit a steakhouse sometime if you're still so skeptical.

EDIT: Heck, I think I should this image alone should prove my point.

How many fast food joints (Burger King, McDonald's, etc.) have meals that are growing more and more to look like this?:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/31/knBURGER_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg

Mmm, yeah! That meal sure looks healthy! I'm sure that's just the amount of meat you need to live and be healthy, right?

Well, even if you live in the tropics, where fruits, veggies, and grains abound, you're still going to need at least some animal protein in your diet.Emphasis on the "some", right? Regardless, if you live in an area where you can get access to vegetable proteins, you should do just fine. Plenty of vegetarians get along just fine with a healthy diet in this way, I don't see why it's so impossible. Perhaps you can provide some evidence, for once?

Even traditional Hindus, often condiered the archetypal vegetarian, are merely lactovegetarians.So, what? They eat eggs, butter, yogurt, and drink milk? That's a pretty big step from wanting to eat a steak once a week, and then all sorts of junk meals that also have meat or meat chunks in them, and then to have even more meat for either lunch or dinner, and possibly two slices of bacon with your breakfast every morning, and then a quick hop, skip and a jump over to your local McDonald's (wherein 7% of Americans eat EVERY SINGLE DAY, from what I've read)...

So, what do reputable nutritional authorities suggest how much food we should eat in a day, and in what portions, in order to minimize our impact on the environment and remain healthy at the same time? Why is it that people really need to ask stuff like this and don't even bother to take, say, five seconds to actually attempt to look up the information? Or do they just obey people that say stuff they already agree with and ignore that anyone else exists?

The two sources above are quoted from nutritionists who pretty much give a guideline.

Regardless, here (http://www.cfs.purdue.edu/safefood/1995/activity4.html) is a useful link. Compare:

deck of cards 1 serving of meat
9 volt battery 1 serving of cheese
CD 1 bread serving (pancake)
light bulb 1 serving cooked vegetables

There's your recommended serving sizes for healthy living. Modify if you are naturally heavier or lighter, I assume.
- Maha "you are what you eat?" VailoThen I suggest you avoid nuts, turkeys, chicken, cow, and prunes. ;)

[Peter B]

Interesting thread, and interesting how warm it was getting in some places.

For me, the main incentive is likely to be monetary. It amazes me how much money people throw away without thinking about it on things which waste money. Why, for example, do so many houses have no insulation? Why spend money endlessly on electricity to heat or cool a house when you could spend money once to insulate it?

On a personal level, I've done a number of things to reduce electricity consumption, and thus save money. For example, we replaced the old thin curtains in our house with thick ones, to help retain heat. I've also installed some simple pelmets to reduce the air flow against our windows.

We installed a lockable screen door on our front door, meaning that we could keep the front and side doors open during summer to let air flow through and cool the house, rather than using the air conditioning.

We dry the clothes on the clothes line, rather than using a clothes dryer.

As incandescant light globes fail, we're replacing them with compact fluoros.

We'll be replacing our old fridge soon, with one which should use a lot less electricity.

Once we've got the home load paid off, we should be able to afford a solar hot water system, which should work without a booster for about seven months of the year.

Now the combination of all these things won't make much of a difference compared to the rest of humanity, but if enough people do these sorts of things, it could certainly make some sort of impact.

The important point here is that nothing I've listed above has any sort of negative impact on my quality of life, but the result is a slight saving in money, and incidentally a minor benefit to the environment. Why wouldn't others want to do the same?

I also try to catch the bus to and from work as much as possible, though not as much as I should.

In the grander scheme of things, there are other things which could be done. For example, in Australia, our fringe benefits tax rules provide higher tax rebates to people the more they drive their cars. The result is that some people are encouraged to drive their cars pointless kilometres, simply to gain a higher tax rebate. The sooner these sorts of schemes are restructured to encourage people to drive less, the better.

[SolusLupus]

For example, in Australia, our fringe benefits tax rules provide higher tax rebates to people the more they drive their cars.
Whut?

[Torsten]

Monetary considerations definitely factor into these decisions.

A couple of examples:

Replacing the ~80% efficient furnace in my home with a 97% efficient one would save ~8.5 Gj, and at current prices for natural gas that's about $130/year. I'll wait until the present furnace needs replacing.

My water heater also uses natural gas. If I could install a drain water heat recovery system with 50% efficiency it would save me ~6.5 Gj/year, or about $100/year, but the savings are much more for larger families that use more water. The most efficient of these simple devices cost about $800 here. The difficulty with this retrofit is that I don't have a long enough vertical run in my waste-water system to install the highest efficiency unit.

Again, when the current water heater needs replacing, I will consider the other kinds of units available, and that decision will be based on monetary considerations.

[Neverfly]

Lotta statements...:think:

Me- Carnivorous predator.

Salad is what food eats.

[SolusLupus]

Lotta statements...:think:

Me- Carnivorous predator.

Salad is what food eats.And that's your option, just like it's also your option to rev up your car and burn an entire gas tank while in park because you think it's funny.

Personally, I'd rather avoid all the various incredible amounts of health problems that would come from an all-meat, nothing-else diet.

[Neverfly]

And that's your option, just like it's also your option to rev up your car and burn an entire gas tank while in park because you think it's funny.
I don't do that- And I think that comparison is not equal.

Personally, I'd rather avoid all the various incredible amounts of health problems that would come from an all-meat, nothing-else diet.

I can't really get away with an all-meat diet. There's too much good food to eat that isn't all meat.

And grains either. It's in everything- rice, cereals, breads...

Lastly, I find most 'studies' on diet to be flawed. They don't account for the whole picture.

[SolusLupus]

I don't do that- And I think that comparison is not equal.Perhaps. From my perspective, it is.

I can't really get away with an all-meat diet. There's too much good food to eat that isn't all meat.

And grains either. It's in everything- rice, cereals, breads...Then, by your own quote above, you're food.

Perhaps you should look into eating yourself? Then you could answer the age-old question of, "If I eat my leg, would I still weigh the same?"

Lastly, I find most 'studies' on diet to be flawed. They don't account for the whole picture.So, please tell me how the "whole picture" states that 7% of Americans (that's about 21,276,312 people, according to the U.S. Population Clock and some simple math) who eat at McDonald's once per day, are being healthy and eating only the amounts of meat that they need? I'd like a cite on that. Because I think that's certainly something to be worried over.

Furthermore, I would think that the American Cancer Society would certainly be professional enough to be able to correctly enact studies on whether or not too much red meat would, you know, cause cancer. Considering that's their expertise. Can you please demonstrate where, in their studies, they went wrong? The exact problems with their studies and alternative explanations for the rise in cancer rates for those that eat far too much red meat. If you wish to demonstrate where the studies went wrong, here (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Eating_Lots_of_Red_Meat_Linked_to_Colon_C ancer.asp) is a link close to the source.

The study findings add weight to ACS dietary guidelines, which recommend limiting red meat in favor of other sources of protein, such as poultry, fish, or beans, Thun said.

"This is not a condemnation of red meat, but it is part of a growing body of evidence that red meat shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet," he explained.

Researchers aren't certain what it is about red meat that might influence cancer risk. The iron and fat it contains may be culprits. For processed meat, the salt, smoke residue, and nitrates and nitrites used as preservatives may play a role. Or it may have to do with the way the meat is cooked; high temperatures can create higher levels of cancer-causing substances in the meat.

You can eat meat (red or not) all you want; the entire world is backing you up by allowing you to eat almost any kind of meat, anytime you want, anywhere you want. But do not dismiss science, or offer pseudoscience in place of justifying your lifestyle. Unless you can actually demonstrate where, exactly, the studies went wrong. Saying "Well, their studies are flawed, so I won't listen to them" without demonstrating where the flaws are in particular studies cited, is a similar tactic to what certain people are doing in the "Intellectual Design" thread...




EDIT: Here's a bit from Scientific American, with an interview with University of North Carolina Chapel Hill nutrition epidemiologist Barry Popkin. This supports my "U.S. eats far too much meat" (and what meat they eat are the "wrong" kinds of meat that aren't, in fact, very healthy for you in excess)... in fact, it's a worldwide problem, not necessarily only limited to the United States. I'll highlight some key points:

Popkin: We have a world that is consuming more and more saturated fat and more and more hard fat meats and dairy products than we ever could have imagined 10 to 20 years ago.

[...]

Steve: And worldwide, the figures are astounding. You have a figure in the article, 1.3 billion overweight people versus only 800 million underweight people.

Popkin: Right! And the rate of increase of overweight is much higher than the rate of decrease; underweight is decreasing and overweight is increasing, so the figures are splitting and the estimate of 1.3 billion is at the lowest level. There are people that estimate it as double over underweight already. But the point is if you go to Egypt, you go to South Africa, you go to Mexico, you go to a large number of low- and middle-income countries, countries you think of as very poor like Egypt or countries you think of kind of lower-middle income like South Africa or Mexico, what you find are two thirds or three fourths of the men and women in the countries are overweight and obese.

So, pretty much, I think I have suitably shown a few things within the past few posts:

1) It is possible to ingest proteins, iron, and zinc with non-meat resources. Many of which can be found at the local grocery store.
2) An incredible amount of the CO2 gas that threatens the world with global warming, can be found in the meat processing industry.
3) Americans, and in fact a good chunk of the entire world, continues to eat foods (including meats) well into excess (although there are other factors, including lack of exercise and, you know, ingesting of too many sugars -- not just meat).
4) Excess of red meat can increase risk of cancer.

Conclusion: There are methods that the average person can cut back on their meat consumption -- and, in fact, much more that they can do to cut back on other consumption that makes them overweight and unhealthy.

When someone can correct any of the numbers above with their own sources, or can suitably demonstrate how the underlying studies are unreliable, I may be interested.

[Maha Vailo]

OK, in total, how many ounces of food (of each of the 4 groups) do I need to eat, and how much (or little) would it cost on average? I'll see what I can do to ration things out. Should I invest in a scale?

I'm also worried that if I ration things out like nutritional authorities say I should (6-10 pieces of bread, 8-12 oz. meat, etc.) I'm going to feel hungry in between meals. How do I satisfy those pangs without eating anything?

- Maha Vailo

[SolusLupus]

OK, in total, how many ounces of food (of each of the 4 groups) do I need to eat, and how much (or little) would it cost on average? I'll see what I can do to ration things out. Should I invest in a scale?Naturally, it should vary depending on your body type and weight. But substituting grains with meats (red especially), or increasing meat intake to feel more "full" is not a good answer.

And no, I don't think you should need to invest in a scale. Going with 10 ounces instead of 8 ounces shouldn't be catastrophic. Upping it to 12 ounces to 16 ounces, or going with a big mac every two days certainly isn't going to help you, though. You should be able to know approximately what food you're eating when.

If you really want advice, I think it would be a good idea to keep a journal of what you eat, and what's in what you eat. Keep note of nutritional information -- calories, saturated fats, etc. You can approximate or round up/down as you wish, you don't have to go for pure scientific accuracy naturally. But keep in mind that junk food you eat between meals and the odd coca cola also counts towards this.

Here's (http://www.thefeltsource.com/New-Food-Pyramid-Large.jpg) a helpful resource for having a general idea of how to balance out your meals.

I'm not sure on what the costs would entail. A good way to cut down on costs is to prepare your own meals. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us more on this point.

Regardless, aren't you at the least bit willing to do your own research? I'm willing to answer questions, but I'm using the exact same tools that are at your disposal as well. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to do basic research into nutritional information and diet suggestions, and it is not incredibly difficult to do a cost-comparison at your local grocery store.

I'm also worried that if I ration things out like nutritional authorities say I should (6-10 pieces of bread, 8-12 oz. meat, etc.) I'm going to feel hungry in between meals. How do I satisfy those pangs without eating anything?If your body type does not allow these portions to be enough, then perhaps you should increase your overall portions, while keeping them proportionally approximate.

Of course, I'm not an actual expert, that just seems the most "common sense" answer that I can think of.

Also, drinking more water should actually help with this. If you drink more, you might find yourself feeling less hungry between meals.

[Maha Vailo]

How am I supposed to know what my body type is, other than by guessing? From what I can tell, I'm about 5' 5", skinny arms (filling out thanks to all that heavy lifting at work), muscular legs (thanks to all that walking and biking), and a belly that needs a little work. I'm guessing I weigh about 160 lbs (don't know kilos, unfortunately).

That said, how much (in what proportions) do people suggest I eat of the 4 food groups daily?

I don't really want to invest in a journal. I do too much record keeping at work and in one of my hobbies, thankyouverymuch.

And yes, I've tried drinking water in between meals, and it just doesn't keep me full enough for long enough. Also, it hurts my stomach if I take it on a stomach that's too empty.

- Maha Vailo

[SolusLupus]

How am I supposed to know what my body type is, other than by guessing?*Sigh*

Body Type Quiz (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/becker3.htm).

2 seconds with google.

Also, I recommend you peruse this as well: Nutrition Advice - facts on body building, nutrition, and weight loss (http://www.nutriadvice.com/).

That said, how much (in what proportions) do people suggest I eat of the 4 food groups daily?AUUUUGH! I listed a link already! In case you're just colorblind and can't see blue color, here it is: http://www.thefeltsource.com/New-Food-Pyramid-Large.jpg

Grains -- 6 ounces every day (at least half should be whole. Vegetables -- Eat 2 1/2 cups every day (Vary your vegetables). Fruits -- Eat 1 1/2 cups every day (focus on fruits). Milk -- Get 3 cups every day. (Get your calcium-rich foods; Lonewulf's Note: Soymilk and similar kinds of substitutes can also apply here; Cow's milk or Goat's Milk is not the only way to get what's nice and wholesome in milk, and soymilk is actually lower in side effects, like cholesterol and fats!). Meat & Beans -- Eat 5 oz. every day (Go lean with protein). Note: Oils should go with the meals as well; fish oils, nuts and liquid oils such as corn oil, soybean oil, and canola oil.

Another source is here: http://www.nutriadvice.com/nutrition.html

This talks more in "servings" than ounces, though. I should also add that the Nutrition advice here goes along nicely with my claim that vegetarians can get proteins and minerals from other sources than meat. To quote: You will get plenty of protein in your diet, so there is no need for large meat portions. B vitamins promote a healthy nervous system and other functions. Note that Vitamin B can be found in other sources besides meat, as well. This page can explain some good sources: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/vitmineral.html#B1



Anyways, I think I'll give up on answering your questions. You really do not seem all that interested in learning, considering the lack of effort you put into doing your own research.

Regardless, do you admit that there is a problem or not? Is there a major problem with obesity, or not? Is there a problem with 7% of Americans eating at McDonald's once per day, or not?

In short, are you even going to touch on the basic premise in this thread or not? The thread is "How to reduce our environmental footprint", not "How Maha Vailo should diet".

Or are you going to say that there is nothing that can be done to change any of our lifestyles?

[Neverfly]

Perhaps. From my perspective, it is.
Oh, ok:)
Well, From mine it isn't.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/23.gif


Then, by your own quote above, you're food.
This is true. However, I will defend myself.
Unless you are a hot chick with a puppy.

Perhaps you should look into eating yourself? Then you could answer the age-old question of, "If I eat my leg, would I still weigh the same?"
I'm reminded of Voltaire...

So, please tell me how the "whole picture" states that 7% of Americans (that's about 21,276,312 people, according to the U.S. Population Clock and some simple math) who eat at McDonald's once per day, are being healthy and eating only the amounts of meat that they need? I'd like a cite on that. Because I think that's certainly something to be worried over.
McDonalds serves meat?
That's news...:doh:

But this is also an unequal expression on your part. Handing someone something that is cooked in unhealthy ways and claiming that ANY meat must also be unhealthy is unreasonable.
Also, I could get away with eating McDonalds every day. Others couldn't though.
I just have that kind of metabolism. Some envy it. I don't usually, I would like to gain a few pounds.

Furthermore, I would think that the American Cancer Society would certainly be professional enough to be able to correctly enact studies on whether or not too much red meat would, you know, cause cancer.
Like bacon?

Actually... I thought everything causes cancer?
Considering that's their expertise. Can you please demonstrate where, in their studies, they went wrong? The exact problems with their studies and alternative explanations for the rise in cancer rates for those that eat far too much red meat. If you wish to demonstrate where the studies went wrong, here (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Eating_Lots_of_Red_Meat_Linked_to_Colon_C ancer.asp) is a link close to the source.
Like your examples of determinism- Too many factors to take into account.
Like why don't I gain weight but other people do If eating lots of greasy foods?
You can eat meat (red or not) all you want; the entire world is backing you up by allowing you to eat almost any kind of meat, anytime you want, anywhere you want. But do not dismiss science, or offer pseudoscience in place of justifying your lifestyle. Unless you can actually demonstrate where, exactly, the studies went wrong. Saying "Well, their studies are flawed, so I won't listen to them" without demonstrating where the flaws are in particular studies cited, is a similar tactic to what certain people are doing in the "Intellectual Design" thread...
No, and I don't consider such social studies that impressive anyway.
"New Study finds that All males are gay"
Say wha?
They take like fifty guys- study them- then publish their results as if that accounts for 4 billion people.
Riiiiight.

"Study shows that Neverfly is a cross between a Grumpy Gator and a Short Necked Giraffe Too"

EDIT: Here's a bit from Scientific American, with an interview with University of North Carolina Chapel Hill nutrition epidemiologist Barry Popkin. This supports my "U.S. eats far too much meat" (and what meat they eat are the "wrong" kinds of meat that aren't, in fact, very healthy for you in excess)... in fact, it's a worldwide problem, not necessarily only limited to the United States. I'll highlight some key points:
Your Popkins agrees with me...
It isn't that meat is bad- it's that people eat it in the wrong varieties or aren't cooking it right.
:lol:
So, pretty much, I think I have suitably shown a few things within the past few posts:

1) It is possible to ingest proteins, iron, and zinc with non-meat resources. Many of which can be found at the local grocery store.
It's also possible to take multi-vitamin tablets too.
RedMeatWeCraveSustinanceFOOD!
2) An incredible amount of the CO2 gas that threatens the world with global warming, can be found in the meat processing industry.
I will try to fart less after eating pork chops.
3) Americans, and in fact a good chunk of the entire world, continues to eat foods (including meats) well into excess (although there are other factors, including lack of exercise and, you know, ingesting of too many sugars -- not just meat).
Factors?:think:
4) Excess of red meat can increase risk of cancer.
I agree!
<Lights a cig and munches celery stalks>
Actually, Sheetrock in houses causes cancer too.
And carpeting...

Conclusion: There are methods that the average person can cut back on their meat consumption -- and, in fact, much more that they can do to cut back on other consumption that makes them overweight and unhealthy.
Have you ever studied tribal Native American Eating habits- and their health?
Might surprise ya...

When someone can correct any of the numbers above with their own sources, or can suitably demonstrate how the underlying studies are unreliable, I may be interested.
In the information? Or in them? I don't wanna lead you on:lol:
AUUUUGH! I listed a link already! In case you're just colorblind and can't see blue color, here it is:
Now THAT is funnyhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif

Sorry Lonewulf, I just cannot resist joshin' ya a bit.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/3.gif

[SolusLupus]

Oh, ok:)
Well, From mine it isn't.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/23.gifFair enough.

This is true. However, I will defend myself.
Unless you are a hot chick with a puppy.Nah, I prefer meat that doesn't have clotted arteries and is filled with preservatives.

Besides, cannibalism is unhealthy, according to studies.

McDonalds serves meat?
That's news...:doh:Well, they claim it is...

But this is also an unequal expression on your part. Handing someone something that is cooked in unhealthy ways and claiming that ANY meat must also be unhealthy is unreasonable.I'm not claiming that ANY meat is unhealthy and unreasonable. I am claiming that the average American eats an unhealthy and unreasonable portion of meat, and a kind of meat that is not healthy for them. Of course, I guess you could claim that the average American eats in moderation and doesn't actually get fat, but the levels of diabetes and obesity in the average American population tells me otherwise.

Of course, it's not just meat that leads up to that -- but if they can't regulate their diet with things such as sugar, why am I supposed to automatically think that the average American knows just how much meat is good for them and eats that in moderation?

Also, I could get away with eating McDonalds every day. Others couldn't though.
I just have that kind of metabolism. Some envy it. I don't usually, I would like to gain a few pounds.You could also get away with other kinds of diets as well. I somehow doubt you need to have that particular kind of food to live or be healthy, and in fact I'd question whether you were really all that healthy at all, even if you weren't gaining in pounds.

I'd like to see your arteries monitored after such consumption for any length of time.

Like bacon?

Actually... I thought everything causes cancer?If you are claiming that everything increases risk of cancer equally, I ask you to justify this claim.

Like your examples of determinism- Too many factors to take into account.
Like why don't I gain weight but other people do If eating lots of greasy foods?Note that "gaining weight" is not the same as "unhealthy". It is possible not to gain weight, and to also be unhealthy. There are plenty of skinny people with osteoporosis, for instance, which can partially be caused by calcium deficiency.

And yes, there are many factors. But that does not mean that generic advice, modified slightly from person to person depending on individual needs, are necessarily useless. If advice works well for, say, 70% of the population, then that advice is what should be focused on, with the addendum that you should consult your physician as to advice for your particular situation.

No, and I don't consider such social studies that impressive anyway.
"New Study finds that All males are gay"I do not believe I have listed any such a study, nor do I remember any such study being in existance. I fail to see any actual concrete reasons for not paying any heed at all to the studies I've listed.

Say wha?
They take like fifty guys- study them- then publish their results as if that accounts for 4 billion people.
Riiiiight.Controlled studies of a randomly selected group of humans have been used for many different kinds of studies in science. By your argument, we should discard all the evidence that, say, smoking can increase risk of lung cancer, or that asbestos is a carcinogenic, etc.

Your Popkins agrees with me...
It isn't that meat is bad- it's that people eat it in the wrong varieties or aren't cooking it right.Of course. But eating meat into excess is not something that is required for most diets.

It's also possible to take multi-vitamin tablets too.Indeed, that is another option and one I suggest for those that like to moderate their intake.

I will try to fart less after eating pork chops.I suppose you find yourself funny. Personally, I found that kind of humor tiring after I left kindergarten.

You obviously do not find this subject to be very serious. Personally, I think that people should think about this instead of merely giving responses that would make a first grader roll his eyes. I came to this thread for an actual discussion, and not childish behavior.

And, in case you failed to understand, it is not your "farting" alone that is contributing to CO2 increase when it comes to the raising, transportation, and slaughtering of these animals.

Factors?:think:Yes. I have never claimed that increased intake of meat is the only way to become more obese. Nor have I ever claimed that increased portions affect all people equally. This would be a strawman.

I agree!
<Lights a cig and munches celery stalks>I believe I see the irony you're attempting to portray, as sophomoric as your style is. Yes, cigarettes also contribute to cancer.

However, you make a fallacy in logic when you claim that, because there are other methods of increasing risk to cancer, that this one automatically does not -- or that this increase of risk is nothing to be concerned about.

It is the same form of logic that can get you killed. Because you are statistically more likely to get hit than an automobile than any other method of death, therefore you should be able to check to see if your guns are unloaded by pointing them at your head and pulling the trigger because, statistically, people don't die that way as often.

Just because you are more likely to die from one source, does not make the other sources any less dangerous to your well-being.

Actually, Sheetrock in houses causes cancer too.
And carpeting...Do they increase rates of cancer proportionately to increasing intake of red meat?

I request a citation, and an explanation as to where the study actually came from.

Have you ever studied tribal Native American Eating habits- and their health?
Might surprise ya...This response is surprisingly vague. Without more details, I cannot actually comment.

Which tribe(s) (there were more than one, you know)? What did they eat? Did they eat wild, or domestic versions of the animal? How did they supplement their meals? Did they eat all of the animal and keep it going over time, or did they indulge themselves all at once while primarily focusing on the more fatty tissue (Americans focus a lot more on the muscle of the animal, and certainly don't eat much else all that much, with perhaps exception to the liver)?

There's a large difference between a wild and a domestic animal. Someday, if you come down to Germany, I can educate you on the difference between, say, a slab of meat taken from a wild boar shot by a hunter, and a pig raised in captivity. The differences in the slabs and type of fat may surprise you.

[Neverfly]

I have low cholesterol too.

[Neverfly]

Taking a bunch of fat guys who ate too much McDonalds and calling that a study of meat consumption is not exactly accurate.

There are plenty of healthy diet types that include healthy portions of meat- that YOU may consider to be in excess.
And that is my point.

You are looking at 5 factors out of 500 and claiming that's scientific- I am saying that it isn't as scientific as you would like.

[SolusLupus]

Taking a bunch of fat guys who ate too much McDonalds and calling that a study of meat consumption is not exactly accurate.I am truly surprised that I have to actually work hard to demonstrate this. That people seem to actually deny that meat consumption in the united states is higher than it truly needs to be, I never thought I'd see. It's as surprising as when I heard about Young Earth Creationism for the first time.

I suppose you'll find some ways to hand-wave away this (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1626) article (Based on 1997 figures)?

And this indulgence is not limited to Independence Day. Americans are eating more meat than ever before-the average American consumes nearly twice his or her weight in meat each year. As Americans throw more hamburgers, hotdogs and chicken wings on the grill, they lead the way in a global trend towards increased meat consumption.

The growing consumption of meat-particularly large quantities of high-fat meat, dairy products and eggs-is spurring a global epidemic of lifestyle diseases, such as heart attacks, strokes and cancers, as well as creating new pressures on land and water resources, contributing to water pollution and exacerbating global warming.

World meat production has surged nearly fivefold since 1950, growing from 44 million tons to 211 million tons in 1997. Per capita meat production stands at 36 kg, more than double the 1950 level. Today, people share the Earth's natural resources with nearly 1 billion pigs, 1.3 billion cows, 1.8 billion sheep and goats, and 13.5 billion chickens-over two chickens for each man, woman and child on the planet. (See Table 1.)

Look down to table 1, under Meat Consumption from Around the World. Compare the United States with the majority of countries around the world in per kilo of meat eaten per year.

Something tells me that people living in Germany or or the United Kingdom are not incredibly unhealthy because they don't stuff themselves full of meat (80 kilos vs. 120; that's about 1.5 times the amount of kilos per year in face-stuffing). The average rate of kilos of meat-stuffing per year in industrial nations is about 72 kilos. Compared to 123 kilos per year, that's hardly anything. If 300 million people could afford to get themselves more in-line with the averages of other industrial countries, that's about... (let me carry the 2)... 15,300,000,000 kilograms of meat per year. That's 15 BILLION kilograms. With a B. That's about 34 billion pounds, for us from the U.S. That's also about 16,900,000 tons of meat. That's about 8% of the world's total meat supply, shaved off by diet difference!

We don't use all of the animal in the U.S., either. Look here (http://ars.sdstate.edu/MeatSci/May99-1.htm) to find out how much of that edible meat translates into live meat. It's by a man with a very very cool last name. :D

Of course, if the U.S. were to go entirely vegetarian altogether, and not eat meat at all (and, I suppose, go vegan and not need to have the animals altogether, but that's a different argument for another day), making the assumption that it would even be possible to do so (thanks to geography, prices, blah blah blah), you're looking at, say, 36 billion of kilos of meat per year shaved off. That's about 40 million tons, or 19% of the world's meat supply!

EDIT: That was in 1997. 2007 is a different case. 284 million tons of meat across the world. Also, world meat consumption is expected to double by 2050. It looks like my figures may have been a tad off, according to this New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html):

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Also:

Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Those are just the icing on the cake. I suggest a thorough read-through of the above New York Times article to really understand the cause and effects of the world's meat-stuffing.

There are plenty of healthy diet types that include healthy portions of meat- that YOU may consider to be in excess.
And that is my point.And there are plenty of healthy diet types that do NOT include healthy portions of meat. Meat does not, in itself, a healthy diet make.

I feel I have already demonstrated this.

[Kaptain K]

I have low cholesterol too.

Me too!, to the envy of my brother and sister. Before my trip through the Hospital Zone, I used to (only half-jokingly) say my diet consisted of three food groups;

fried foods
red meat
fried red meat

My diet is more balanced now, but not radically so.

[Damburger]

I'm almost sorry for mentioning meat. I'm also very surprised, given the audience, such resistance to the simple and scientifically solid concept that you can reduce your energy consumption by eating from lower in the food chain - especially given that even meat eaters do this to an extent by refraining from eating carnivores. Lion meat might taste wonderful, but to farm it you'd have to grow plants to feed herbivores to feed the carnivores, and it would be incredibly land consuming. So we don't do this.

This issue seems more emotional than rational. Its always annoyed me that whilst I was a vegetarian now (I am no longer purely because my fiancée won't stop eating meat and we can't afford to eat two completely separate diets) was that people would make snide comments about me being effeminate for not eating meat. A lot of men who eat meat talk like they chased it down and smashed its skull in with a sharp rock, rather than buying it in a plastic container down the supermarket. They act as if eating the meat of docile, domesticated beasts that you didn't even kill yourself is something macho, and that anybody who doesn't do this is a big girls blouse.

Funnily enough, I never got this crap from people involved in meat production or those who actually hunt. Aggression towards vegetarians comes mostly, I find, from men who are so insecure about themselves they feel the need to justify their manliness in this absurd way.

[Neverfly]

Well, I disagree with both of you.

And I even CRAVE meat.
Last night- dinner was steak and eggs. Because If I ate one more thing that was made out of grain I was going to lose it.

And I still feel like I didn't eat enough.

I've got a big brisket at the bottom of the fridge- and chances are- that puppies gonna be dinner.

Secondly, it isn't consumption that is the problem- it is WASTE.

So pointing to Problems in the United States having to do with Junk Food gobblers that eat sugary crap and don't exercise just does not justify an anti-meat sentiment.

And there are other meats than just pigs and cows.
We eat Seafood too.
And Fowl...

It's more vegan hype than reality and many tribal diets consisted of a Lot of meat and corn.

Just because folks these days don't get off their butts doesn't mean "food is bad."
And sure, anything in excess can be bad for you. I just don't find your links about meat being any kind of evidence that the United States is eating meat in excess.
I would agree that the United States Wastes meat in excess, though, and I find that appalling.

[SolusLupus]

Well, I disagree with both of you.Indeed, but I have yet to see any good reason as to why you disagree with us. I have provided facts and data -- and you have provided zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Some anecdotes, yes. But that is all.

Secondly, it isn't consumption that is the problem- it is WASTE.And this would be where you give us hard data, instead of an empty claim.

Yes, waste is a problem. But you will have to provide data for me to accept that it is the only problem.

So pointing to Problems in the United States having to do with Junk Food gobblers that eat sugary crap and don't exercise just does not justify an anti-meat sentiment.No, but 70% of Americans being at higher risk of cancer than they need to be, and I have demonstrated that we eat far more per person (123 kilos per person in 1997, the number may have gone up in the past 10 years) than is necessary. And you have yet to dispute these figures.

And there are other meats than just pigs and cows.
We eat Seafood too.
And Fowl...I do believe that chicken was listed amongst those 123 kg per person figures. And if you notice, health isn't my only argument here. EXCESS is. Yes, Americans excessively eat meat. See the facts and get over it, or demonstrate why what I say is false. Empty statements mean nothing to me.

As for fish, yes, we eat fish too. How does this get rid of the point that we could reduce the amount of the WORLD'S meat we eat by a total of 8% by following in line more with the average of industrial nations?

It's more vegan hype than realityWhich so far seems to be something you take more on faith than data...

and many tribal diets consisted of a Lot of meat and corn.I asked you for some references and data on this, but it seems to have gone ignored. Do you also mean India, or the Middle East, or native Aborigines in Australia, when you talk about "many tribal diets"? Or do you just mean these "Native Americans" -- and in which case, which native american tribes? Give us some details and recipes, so we may fact-check your data.

So far, you're just making a vague assertion and have evaded my questions so far. This does not go a long way towards convincing me of anything.

Just because folks these days don't get off their butts doesn't mean "food is bad."There's a large difference between saying "processed and red meat is bad in large amounts, and you don't want to overindulge" and "food is bad".

This would not be your first strawman. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't your last.

And sure, anything in excess can be bad for you. I just don't find your links about meat being any kind of evidence that the United States is eating meat in excess.ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE KILOS OF MEAT PER PERSON IN AMERICA, WELL OVER ONE POINT FIVE TIMES THE NUMBER OF KILOS PER PERSON IN THE AVERAGE DEVELOPED COUNTRY!

Dear FSM, how can I make it any more clear?

That's 15 to 20% of the WORLD'S MEAT SUPPLY, all given to Americans -- who are only 5% of the world's population!

I would agree that the United States Wastes meat in excess, though, and I find that appalling.So, they WASTE meat, but no, they don't eat meat in excess?

And you have yet to demonstrate any figures, data, or studies.

So pretty much, nothing but empty claims, right?

Please answer this question:
True or false: Are Germans or people in the United Kingdoms unhealthy because they eat about 35% less meat per person?

If the answer is "yes", then please provide data.

If the answer is "no", then please explain how you have done anything to override my overall point, at all, that we can lessen the amount of meat in the average American's diet?



You know, maybe I'm just not able to comprehend because of my experiences, in the U.S. and here in Europe. When I was in the U.S., meat tended to be everywhere. I order a meal, I get tons of meat. I go anywhere, I get tons of meat. There was far more meat than anything else in everything I've ever eaten in the United States; I couldn't avoid it. Here in Europe, I order a plate, and meat is only a small fraction of the overall meal. The same is true with TV dinners, or soups and "fast food". Even in stuff in fast foods like the local Imbiss, you're likely to end up with as many vegetables as you are meat in your meal. Meanwhile, a Big Mac has a little sliver of lettuce with slivers of some other veggies, and the rest of the meal is pretty much empty bun and meat slabs.

The average sandwich I can pick up at the average store is entirely filled with vegetables and cheeses that are quite different from the cheeze-it cheeses you'll find on the average hotdog in the U.S.

I'm in a position where I'm easily able to tell the difference between one country's meals and another, and it astounds me to no end that people seem to think that the American diet is the "only" way to live, and that they're perfectly fine and live just like anyone else around the world with just the right amount of meat.

[Neverfly]

A whooping 8%!
Wow.

Ok I will reduce my weekly consumption by one bite of meat.

That will save the planet:)

And for the record Lonewulf, I have clearly outlined that Your data, links and figures are pretty questionable too.
Now, I agree that I have provided none. I have provided my thoughts on the matter, because replying to posts is quick and since I'm multi-tasking- it's quick and easy.

Later, when I have time to sit here googling, I can look up facts and figures etc. I may end up agreeing with you on some points at that time if I see something convincing.

But over-all, we already are all aware that the US wastes food. That the US eats an unhealthy diet. That many in the US don't exercise. These factors are larger contributors to the problem.
I can probably dig up like half relevant "studies" to support these claims too. Whoopie...

Also, remember that the US can AFFORD higher meat consumption with its large population that enjoys a higher standard of living than many developed nations.

In case you haven't noticed the price of meat lately...

[SolusLupus]

A whooping 8%!
Wow.8% of the world's food supply, yes.

Please note that. America can affect nearly 10% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S MEAT SUPPLY. That's 300 million people affecting 6 billion people.

That you don't find this amazing, I really don't understand. I guess that you may need a demonstration.

The world is about 6 billion people (6.8 billion last I checked). So, assuming 6.5 billion people, the U.S. is .3 billion.

These top asterisks represent the number of people per 300 million that is NOT from America, the lower ARE from the United States:

********************
*

That's not a lot of people in America.

And yes, it's only one small step. Did I say that it was the only step we should take? No? Okay, great! Glad we're finished up with this, nothing else to say.

Ok I will reduce my weekly consumption by one bite of meat.

That will save the planet:)Yeah, if this is the only kind of response you can muster, I'm just going to ignore your posts from now on. I won't miss anything in particular.

I am outlining that it is possible, with small steps, to make significant impacts, little by little.

And for the record Lonewulf, I have clearly outlined that Your data, links and figures are pretty questionable too.No, you have not "clearly outlined" that. You have dismissed them out of hand, or ignored them altogether when they didn't agree with your opinion.

There is a difference.
Now, I agree that I have provided none. I have provided my thoughts on the matter, because replying to posts is quick and since I'm multi-tasking- it's quick and easy.Unfortunately, I don't particularly care about your thoughts on the matter, when those thoughts do not seem to be backed up with anything substantial.

Later, when I have time to sit here googling, I can look up facts and figures etc. I may end up agreeing with you on some points at that time if I see something convincing.Then I await until you actually educate yourself before continuing.

But over-all, we already are all aware that the US wastes food.I have never denied this. It is up to you to show that "wasting food" is the only possible explanation, however.

That the US eats an unhealthy diet. That many in the US don't exercise. These factors are larger contributors to the problem.Of course they eat an unhealthy diet and don't exercise. When I deny that, please demonstrate.

Also, remember that the US can AFFORD higher meat consumption with its large population that enjoys a higher standard of living than many developed nations.A "higher standard of living"? Do you really think that Germans and people in the United Kingdom live a horrible standard of living, or people in Japan? Note that in Japan, that's 40 kilograms of meat per person. That's about 1/3rd of the meat intake of the average person in the United States. The Japanese are not suffering from horrible diets, last I checked. In fact, the average Japanese person lives a far healthier and longer life than almost any other average lifespan in the world.

Regardless, when you have actual relevant details, maybe I'll continue this conversation. Until now, though, I'm just going to ignore your posts until I see something more substantial than childish attempts at humor and hand-waving.

[Neverfly]

You know, maybe I'm just not able to comprehend because of my experiences, in the U.S. and here in Europe. When I was in the U.S., meat tended to be everywhere. I order a meal, I get tons of meat. I go anywhere, I get tons of meat. There was far more meat than anything else in everything I've ever eaten in the United States; I couldn't avoid it. Here in Europe, I order a plate, and meat is only a small fraction of the overall meal. The same is true with TV dinners, or soups and "fast food". Even in stuff in fast foods like the local Imbiss, you're likely to end up with as many vegetables as you are meat in your meal. Meanwhile, a Big Mac has a little sliver of lettuce with slivers of some other veggies, and the rest of the meal is pretty much empty bun and meat slabs.

The average sandwich I can pick up at the average store is entirely filled with vegetables and cheeses that are quite different from the cheeze-it cheeses you'll find on the average hotdog in the U.S.

I'm in a position where I'm easily able to tell the difference between one country's meals and another, and it astounds me to no end that people seem to think that the American diet is the "only" way to live, and that they're perfectly fine and live just like anyone else around the world with just the right amount of meat.

I don't know what McDonalds you were going to in the US, but I can barely find any meat on the Big Mac. The Big Mac is more like a Little Brother Mac.

You also seem to be stuck on fast food.

If I go to Applebees and order a steak- I get this tiny little thing that looks like it shriveled up when it died. I said I wanted a Steak! Not Kids Meal with A Beef McNugget!

Lastly, I really don't care what folks are doing in Europe. Maybe they pile on more veggies because meat costs a lot more.
But I don't live in Europe. I live HERE. And I want to live like I Do Here. That's why I live here. And Why I don't move to Europe.
Heck, even the Lower United States seems too socialistic and oppressive to me and I think I need to move to Alaska sometimes.

[Neverfly]

8% of the world's food supply, yes.

Please note that. America can affect nearly 10% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S MEAT SUPPLY. That's 300 million people affecting 6 billion people.

That you don't find this amazing, I really don't understand.
Considering that most of Asia (Not including all of Russia) consumes mostly Rice, Most of Africa consumes mostly rice etc- Not really amazing. It supports my statements.

Yeah, if this is the only kind of response you can muster, I'm just going to ignore your posts from now on. I won't miss anything in particular.
:rolleyes: Well, here I go again...

Maybe you need to learn how to relax a bit.

I am outlining that it is possible, with small steps, to make significant impacts, little by little.
True. One step may be less waste of products.

No, you have not "clearly outlined" that. You have dismissed them out of hand, or ignored them altogether when they didn't agree with your opinion.
Ok, I clearly outlined them out of handwaiving then.
I clearly Handwaived.
Something like that.

Unfortunately, I don't particularly care about your thoughts on the matter, when those thoughts do not seem to be backed up with anything substantial.
My thoughts are backed by meat.

I have never denied this. It is up to you to show that "wasting food" is the only possible explanation, however.
This is the second time you have claimed I said it's the Only problem when I never said that.

Of course they eat an unhealthy diet and don't exercise. When I deny that, please demonstrate.
I pointed it out as a major contributing factor.

A "higher standard of living"? Do you really think that Germans and people in the United Kingdom live a horrible standard of living, or people in Japan? Note that in Japan, that's 40 kilograms of meat per person. That's about 1/3rd of the meat intake of the average person in the United States. The Japanese are not suffering from horrible diets, last I checked.
And here- again- you are putting words in my mouth that I never said,implied nor suggested.
I never said other people have a horrible living standard compared to the United States.
The point was that the US can AFFORD the higher cost of meat.
Regardless, when you have actual relevant details, maybe I'll continue this conversation. Until now, though, I'm just going to ignore your posts until I see something more substantial than childish attempts at humor and hand-waving.

If you prefer me to drop the childishness- I could get all mad and post angrily rather than attempting to keep good humor in my posts so that the tensions decrease. In your case, you seem to be creating tension from it.

[SolusLupus]

I don't know what McDonalds you were going to in the US, but I can barely find any meat on the Big Mac. The Big Mac is more like a Little Brother Mac.

You also seem to be stuck on fast food.I did not just eat fast food. Far more meat than anything else was available on almost everything I had.

If I go to Applebees and order a steak- I get this tiny little thing that looks like it shriveled up when it died. I said I wanted a Steak! Not Kids Meal with A Beef McNugget!Admittedly, I never ate much at Applebees. But I certainly did eat at P.O.E.T.S., the local college campus food, almost every resteraunt and steak house... piles of meat. That was in Corpus Christi, Texas.

My anecdotes are just as valid as yours.

Lastly, I really don't care what folks are doing in Europe.That is obvious, because you write their way of life off as a "lower standard of living" without even thinking about it.

Maybe they pile on more veggies because meat costs a lot more.That's... a lovely explanation.

Sorry, no.

But I don't live in Europe. I live HERE. And I want to live like I Do Here. That's why I live here. And Why I don't move to Europe.Of course. And you can if you wish to. You seem to think that the only good foods are the ones piled up with meat. I assure you, you are wrong. But then, Americans can never be wrong, can they? Everything they do is the One True Way, and go away everyone else.

Dismissing the facts to justify it, though?

Heck, even the Lower United States seems too socialistic and oppressive to me and I think I need to move to Alaska sometimes.Perhaps you should. I personally don't care one way or the other. I list the facts. You deny them, and then justify it because you want your "good ol' American lifestyle!" Paint me unimpressed.

The fact that you don't seem to get is that your good ol' lifestyle has to be supported by other countries, has to be supported by other people. I see this all the time, people that think that they're the center of the world.

People want to smoke, but think that everyone else should bend over backwards, exposing themselves to second-hand smoke and breaking their backs to fix up their health problems through medical resources that could go towards the more deserving. People that want to get obese, don't actually work to attempt to control it, and expect everyone else to bend over backwards to support them. People that want to eat 123 kilos of beef a year, and then expect everyone else to bend over backwards and ship in meat products for them to consume -- not seeming to care the effects of pollution, global warming, or anything else.

"Responsibility" has become a bad word lately, and I'll admit, it's not just in the United States. There's plenty of other countries that also don't want to admit responsibility for various things.

I've honestly given up hope. People are so set on their own way of life, that they don't really care about the effects it has on other people. They want everyone else to fix their problems -- some scientist to come up with a super cure to global warming and to get rid of the building up of CO2. Some big business to stop CO2 production while ignoring their own CO2 output. People that think that other people should starve, while they eat all the more.

As long as someone else can potentially do something, the individual has no responsibility.

[SolusLupus]

Considering that most of Asia (Not including all of Russia) consumes mostly Rice, Most of Africa consumes mostly rice etc- Not really amazing. It supports my statements.That Japan lives in a "lower standard", because they actually have an intelligent diet and live longer lives?

That's funny.

True. One step may be less waste of products.Yes. That is one way.

That should not be the only way.

Cutting back on meat in the diet is another way. That is the simple truth.

This is the second time you have claimed I said it's the Only problem when I never said that.Okay, then. What are the other problems?

And here- again- you are putting words in my mouth that I never said,implied nor suggested.
I never said other people have a horrible living standard compared to the United States.
The point was that the US can AFFORD the higher cost of meat.Yes, they can AFFORD the higher cost of meat. So can Japan. Japan is not a third-world country, you know.

Just because you can AFFORD it, does not mean you should buy it.

If you prefer me to drop the childishness- I could get all mad and post angrily rather than attempting to keep good humor in my posts so that the tensions decrease. In your case, you seem to be creating tension from it.Because I am interested in the facts, which is becoming increasingly obvious that you are not.

Because you are growing increasingly arrogant with each and every thing that you say. You seem to think that your way is the "better" way to Europe or Japan, which are apparently so poor that the only reason they don't have 123 kilos of meat per person per year, is that they're not able to afford it.

I really don't think that I need to say that that simply is not true.


Essentially, your only argument so far seems to really be hedonism. You enjoy doing it, therefore it's okay, even if it partially contributes to something that is harmful. Well, you are free to that viewpoint, but nevermind me if I do not comprehend it, agree with it, or respect it.

Furthermore, sarcastic humor that mocks my points is not the kind of humor I find enjoyable. So yes, I would prefer if you knock it off. Or, at the very least, say something humorous that's actually, you know, funny.

[Neverfly]

That is obvious, because you write their way of life off as a "lower standard of living" without even thinking about it.
Stop doing that. That is not what I said.[ETA: You went off on another "Lower Standard Kick in the following post too. Your accusations of my not providing facts or childishness etc begin to strain when watching you straining at gnats with your straw men.]

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/off-topic-babbling/7720d1209308445-how-reduce-our-environmental-footprint-untitled.jpg

Let's factor in
Religion
And wealth
And Tradition.


Apologies for the skewed paste of the graph...[ETA: I thought by putting it in quotes- it would leave my spacing. It didn't- it "auto-corrected it and goofed it. Took a screenshot instead.]

[SolusLupus]

Stop doing that. That is not what I said.You certainly implied it.

here we go:
Lastly, I really don't care what folks are doing in Europe. Maybe they pile on more veggies because meat costs a lot more.

Also, remember that the US can AFFORD higher meat consumption with its large population that enjoys a higher standard of living than many developed nations.

In case you haven't noticed the price of meat lately...

I can only go by what you say. I cannot read your mind and judge that you think that there are other influences when you do not mention any of them.


Please explain why Japan eats only 1/3rd of the meat supply of the U.S. Is their diet bad or not? Do they have a higher standard of living, or a lower one?

Let's factor in
Religion
And wealth
And Tradition.So, tradition. Such as cultural differences in diets, right?

Apologies for the skewed paste of the graph...[ETA: I thought by putting it in quotes- it would leave my spacing. It didn't- it "auto-corrected it and goofed it. Took a screenshot instead.]I fail to see why you pasted this graph? Did you have a point to make, or did you just do it for easy reference?

[Neverfly]

Germany eats more pork than the US 54 to 31. China and Italy as well.
New Zealand eats a TON of Mutton compared to everyone else, including the US at 1.
Argentina seems to be the highest beef consumer- which is surprising.

I haven't heard news reports about Argentina's citizens falling over dead. Considering that Argentina is much smaller in population than the US...

[Neverfly]

You certainly implied it.
No I did not imply it.

I said the USA Has a HIGHER STANDARD.
Get over it already.

If I have a hundred dollars and you have 99 dollars and I say I have more money than you do - am I implying you are a Poor Hobo?
Sheesh!

Please explain why Japan eats only 1/3rd of the meat supply of the U.S. Is their diet bad or not?
Their diet is most likely culturally influenced.

So, tradition. Such as cultural differences in diets, right? Which may include, say, differences in meat?

I fail to see why you pasted this graph? Did you have a point to make, or did you just do it for easy reference?
Yes. ANd that is exactly why I pasted the graph.

You can see that Culture, tradition, religion and SIZE of the Population all play significant roles in consumption.
Also, there is some Interesting variance in what other folks eat.

Like Mutton.

And Argentina consumes a lot more beef than the US- but the US is a lot bigger with more people- so it accounts for more cattle being led to choppin' factories.

That doesn't mean that US citizens are pigging out on nothing but beef.

And how do you account for Germany's much higher pork consumption than the US?
Must be an anomoly huh?


ETA: The graph shows I was wrong on a few counts. I had accepted your word that the United States was pigging out on meat.
It turns out that is not the case.

[SolusLupus]

Germany eats more pork than the US 54 to 31. China and Italy as well.So?

This does not change the total amount of meat. 120 kilos vs. 80 kilos of total meat is a big difference. It does not particularly matter how the difference is split up; the TOTAL amount is far different. Eating one chicken a day, one steak a day, AND five slices of bacon a day means a lot of difference from simply, say, having SEVEN slices of bacon a day with none of the others. You're really reaching if you think that this makes an actual difference.

Argentina seems to be the highest beef consumer- which is surprising.Not really; they have lots of cows. Argentinian Cowboy is a pretty popular term.

I haven't heard news reports about Argentina's citizens falling over dead. Considering that Argentina is much smaller in population than the US...They have 2 years less in average life span than the United States, and 6 less years than Japan, according to this (http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm) link. Besides, increased risk in cancer affects a minority of the population, not the majority.

Besides, you're missing my overall point: That the U.S. can decide to decrease their meat intake. This is a fact. This is a fact that you continually ignore.

The United States simply chooses not to.

[Neverfly]

So?
So.. Let's nail this one.

Besides, you're missing my overall point: That the U.S. can decide to decrease their meat intake. This is a fact. This is a fact that you continually ignore.

The United States simply chooses not to.

YES! We DO!

Because we just found out that per person, the United States is NOT pigging out on meat, like you were implying and that I accepted on your word.

We found out that there is variance- You played the high beef hand but failed to see that Argentina was higher.
Or that Germany was Much much hgigher than the US in Pork Consumption.

Now your argument is that the United States- Just because it is big with a bigger population-Just because it also is not one culture but many- Needs to "Take one for the team" and reduce when we are average- just because you think so?!

Nonsense!

You wanted me to go get data- so I got a free moment and got some data. Little did I realize it would throw your claims into a tizzy.

[SolusLupus]

No I did not imply it.

I said the USA Has a HIGHER STANDARD.
Get over it already.

If I have a hundred dollars and you have 99 dollars and I say I have more money than you do - am I implying you are a Poor Hobo?
Sheesh!You cited the higher standard as a reason that the U.S. has more meat -- you actually stated that the U.S. could afford more meat, and that implies that the other countries don't have it because they can't afford it. Do I really have to go back and cite you word for word to demonstrate this?

Why did you bring up having a higher standard at all?

Their diet is most likely culturally influenced.Indeed. And I don't see them dropping over dead because they don't consume as much meat.

Yes. ANd that is exactly why I pasted the graph.

You can see that Culture, tradition, religion and SIZE of the Population all play significant roles in consumption.Indeed, they play roles. How does this go against my overall point that we can choose to eat less meat?

We can. We don't have to eat that meat. We won't die if we eat less meat. Really, this is pretty simple.

Also, there is some Interesting variance in what other folks eat.

Like Mutton.

And Argentina consumes a lot more beef than the US- but the US is a lot bigger with more people- so it accounts for more cattle being led to choppin' factories.The 123 kilos per person is per person -- population size doesn't matter. 300 million people eating 123 kilos per year each is a multiplication problem.

Varying your diet with simply pigging out on other kinds of meat does not really explain much.

And how do you account for Germany's much higher pork consumption than the US?
Must be an anomoly huh?Not really?

ETA: The graph shows I was wrong on a few counts. I had accepted your word that the United States was pigging out on meat.
It turns out that is not the case.????

123 kilos per person per year doesn't demonstrate pigging out?

Ow, my head.

[SolusLupus]

So.. Let's nail this one.Feel free to.

YES! We DO!

Because we just found out that per person, the United States is NOT pigging out on meat, like you were implying and that I accepted on your word.Uhm... wrong.

We found out that there is variance- You played the high beef hand but failed to see that Argentina was higher.It's 123 kilos of meat per year, per person. You are essentially saying that if I eat a steak, a whole chicken, and 7 pieces of bacon per day, that that is much better than say, simply eating 10 pieces of bacon per day because there's variation. This is not a logical argument.

Or that Germany was Much much hgigher than the US in Pork Consumption.Irrelevant. See above.

Now your argument is that the United States- Just because it is big with a bigger population-No, because they eat more per person. That's PER PERSON. You do know what that means, right?

10 people eating 10 eggs per person = 100 eggs eaten.

Needs to "Take one for the team" and reduce when we are average-We're average? Please demonstrate this.

just because you think so?!No, because we eat 15-20% of the world's meat supply, while only being 4-5% of the world's total population.

Nonsense!

You wanted me to go get data- so I got a free moment and got some data. Little did I realize it would throw your claims into a tizzy.Unfortunately, that is because you are misreading the graph. I can only wonder if it is unintentionally or not.




Meat contributes to global warming.

Americans eat the most amount of total meat per person.

Therefore, Americans contribute the most to global warming when it comes to meat production.

Therefore, Americans should be the ones to cut themselves down and bring themselves down to average.

Please demonstrate my failure in logic here.

Sorry, no, you haven't "nailed" anything. But I'm starting to feel like nailing my head to the wall, given how much of a headache your posts are giving me. Seriously, you think that 123 kilos of total meat is just fine, hokey dokey okay? That's not "average". That's 1.5 times the amount of meat eaten in the average developed country, including the United Kingdom. It does not matter how that meat is added up; it's still meat. And all of this meat -- poultry, beef, and pork -- contribute to global warming. It is not like it's only poultry, beef, or pork that does so and the other ones are a-okay for consuming more of.

[Neverfly]

No, You are misreading the graph.

What makes up the United States?
Just Germans?

Just Asians?

Nope. The United States is made up of cultures from around the world, that enjoy the foods from home.

This means right there- that if you graph out a per person rate of consumption- it will be higher on many counts because of the diversity.

The US was lower on many products than other nations.

And higher on others.
Over-all- it was highest on Per Person because of its diversity.

Uhm... wrong.
Uhh. No.

You were going on about Big Macs...
and comparing that to a rabbit food encrusted German-burger and about US Citizens devouring meat in excess...

C'mon now...

[SolusLupus]

No, You are misreading the graph.Please demonstrate how?

What makes up the United States?
Just Germans?

Just Asians?
No, no, and irrelevant. The food I see in the United States is different than the food I see in Europe. People, when going to Rome, usually tend to do as the Romans do.

Nope. The United States is made up of cultures from around the world, that enjoy the foods from home.

This means right there- that if you graph out a per person rate of consumption- it will be higher on many counts because of the diversity.Eh?

The US was lower on many products than other nations.The products add together, per person, per year. Still don't get your point.

And higher on others.
Over-all- it was highest on Per Person because of its diversity.This is still not a logical argument. It is still stuffing your face with a steak, a whole chicken, and 7 pieces of bacon a day and claiming it's "better" because it has diversity.

Uhh. No.

You were going on about Big Macs...FSM, it was one diversion in a much longer post that I made! It was just an attempt to get my point across! McDonald's is one of the most famous, popular fast food chains globally! Of course I'd use it to make a point, but it was NOT the primary focus of my posts!

YES, we consume more than just beef.

YES, we consume a lot of poultry, beef, and pork.

YES, other nations consume more of one than the others.

But NO, this does NOT mean that we're "average"! We still consume MORE, combined, than any other nation! This is simple mathematics! 2+2+2 = 6. 0+2+0 = 2!

And NO, this does NOT mean that it's nothing to be worried about! It's the TOTAL amount of meat -- POULTRY, BEEF, and PORK -- that are contributing to global warming!

So YES, I do feel that Americans should feel at least part of the burden of responsibility for their diets!

and comparing that to a rabbit food encrusted German-burger and about US Citizens devouring meat in excess...

C'mon now...Indeed. "C'mon now".

"rabbit food encrusted"... that's great. You're an omnivore, you know? There are such things as "omnivores" in the world. Hell, you haven't even tasted what we have over here, and already you're throwing over arrogant assumptions. I think I should just throw you on my ignore list now and save myself the indignity of having to be subjected to another intolerant statement like that again. Believe me, if you think a Big Mac looks anything like what you get out of an Imbiss here (which are Turkish, I should add, and don't look like Burgers at all)... then you would be sorely mistaken.

Also, 1.5 TIMES the total amount of meat, PER PERSON, PER YEAR... and you just shuffle that under the carpet? Seriously, what?

Mark Twain once said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts." You are starting to become the epitome of that quote, given how you seem to think the food is over here.

[Neverfly]

What is "FSM?"



I'm a somewhat omnivorous Carnivore. I eat other things when they land on my meat.

And that's my way. You can disagree with me- But I'm not telling you that you should eat meat. Well, you cannot tell me what to eat or how to eat it.

If I want to smoke two packs a day, wolf down nothing but junk food, never exercise and swill beer- I can do that!
As long as I don't break any laws- It's within my rights.
Now I don't do that. I don't eat much fast food ever. I prefer actual meat (Rare- not Well Done) to processed meatlikesoyloaf.
I exercise aplenty (whether I want to or not- I have no choice:p) and I don't drink at all- So don't take those statements as ammunition to claim I am what I just described later.
I'm 5'6" and about 135 lbs give or take...
I've got six pack abs and biceps. I drill through concrete with an eight lb sledge and a chisel when most guys would end up panting and break out the hammer drill.
My cholesterol is very low- as is my BMI.
And this is not exactly by choice either. It's part metabolism and part Job requirement.
I'm still carnivorous and that is not going to change.

When I lived in California- Used to drive out to the farms Get Fresh veggies.
Farmers markets- not that grocery story junk. It's not that I'm a total veggie hater- in spite of my blustering words either.

My first post about this in the thread was in humor- nothing more. But I still like to eat dead animals.

ETA: Mark Twain once said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts." You are starting to become the epitome of that quote, given how you seem to think the food is over here.Actually, Lonewulf, you are demonstrating this a bit more strongly than I am...:whistle:
I have been outside the USA too. To several nations INCLUDING
Germany
Ireland
Bosna I Heregovina <<< ('nother ETA- Javopi's!!! I have the recipe if anyone wants it!!http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/38.gif)
and Kuwait and Korea.

[SolusLupus]

What is "FSM?"Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I substitute it for "God" or "Lord", given my atheistic leanings.

I'm a somewhat omnivorous Carnivore. I eat other things when they land on my meat.So you have "rabbit food" on your burger, eh?

And that's my way. You can disagree with me- But I'm not telling you that you should eat meat. Well, you cannot tell me what to eat or how to eat it.No, and I haven't been telling you what to eat or how to eat it.

I am merely pointing out the CONSEQUENCES of those actions -- consequences you are ignoring, and want to ignore.

I am also suggesting that if anyone is serious about combating CO2 emissions and global warming, that cutting back on meat in their diet can influence that. You don't seem to agree, and now are arguing over morality than the facts.

Personally, I feel that if I am helping to commit an action that affects the rest of the world, that I should feel some responsibility for my actions. You seem to disagree, but that's okay. People are going to make decisions that will continue to end up causing major problems with the rest of the world because of the hedonistic mindset that as long as they enjoy it, none of the consequences of that choice matter -- or that someone ELSE will have to clean up the mess.

That's fine. If there's a way for the Human Race to go, perhaps that's one of the best. Beats going to war. Ending with a sigh of pleasure instead of a bang...

People claim that it's impossible (or at least very very difficult) to live healthily as a vegetarian with the right sources of nutrients. I demonstrate that's wrong; you do have to be careful of your diet, but it's not quite so incredibly difficult that the average Middle Class American can't actually accomplish it. Heck, people manage to be vegetarians even in such places as England. ;)

People claim that Americans don't eat more meat, on average, per person, than anyone else in the world. I demonstrate that's wrong (and it still seems that people don't quite understand it yet). I demonstrate that the whole production of meat leads to increases in global warming -- no one responds to that, so I just assume that they don't actually question this fact. That's all I'm pretty much doing in this thread -- defending the facts, and demonstrating who is partially responsible for the state of the world today. Of course the United States isn't the only problem -- but they do seem to be the single most contributor when it comes to meat consumption.

There are other things that can be done -- limiting use of fossil fuels is one method. Which, indirectly, means limiting energy use (even if you are on a grid that relies on non-fossil fuels, so that energy can potentially be exported to others).

If I want to smoke two packs a day, wolf down nothing but junk food, never exercise and swill beer- I can do that!Sure, but do not make the mistake of thinking that there are not consequences of your actions, that can affect other people besides yourself. Just because you "can" do something, does not mean you should.

As long as I don't break any laws- It's within my rights.Yes, I recognize that. It is often within our rights to commit suicide (as long as it's through legal methods), and it is within our rights to harm our neighbors through pollution, up to a certain amount today. But that does not mean that actions don't have consequences that can affect other people besides yourself.

Eating meat contributes to global warming. Average American eats far more meat than any other nation, in total.

Now I don't do that. I don't eat much fast food ever. I prefer actual meat (Rare- not Well Done) to processed meatlikesoyloaf.I'd take processed soymeat over processed meat any day, but even then I'd much rather go with stuff that's far more wholesome. I just made a snack of soy beans, and they're quite tasty without any processing.

I exercise aplenty (whether I want to or not- I have no choice:p) and I don't drink at all- So don't take those statements as ammunition to claim I am what I just described later.
I'm 5'6" and about 135 lbs give or take...
I've got six pack abs and biceps. I drill through concrete with an eight lbd sledge and a chisel when most guys would end up panting and break out the hammer drill.
My cholesterol is very low- as is my BMI.
And this is not exactly by choice either. It's part metabolism and part Job requirement.
I'm still carnivorous and that is not going to change.So? What about this information should I really care about?

When I lived in California- Used to drive out to the farms Get Fresh veggies.
Farmers markets- not that grocery story junk. It's not that I'm a total veggie hater- in spite of my blustering words either.No, you just use aggressive words to describe people that eat stuff you don't like.

My first post about this in the thread was in humor- nothing more. But I still like to eat dead animals.And I understand that.

ETA: Actually, Lonewulf, you are demonstrating this a bit more strongly than I am...:whistle:I lived several years in Indianapolis, Indiana, Corpus Christi, Texas, Montgomery, Alabama, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Willingboro, New Jersey. Believe me when I say I am not ignorant as to American food.

And no, I am not prejudiced against the U.S.A. But I do go by facts, and the facts state that the average American eats 1.5 times the total amount of meat, per person, than anybody in any other developed country -- and 3 times the total amount than people in Japan.

I also demonstrated that if the U.S. brings themselves down to equal to the average European country, or heck, even just the United Kingdom... that would be 8% of the total world's meat supply going bye-bye. This isn't the end-all, be-all solution, but I'd like to think that it's a good start.

I have been outside the USA too. To several nations INCLUDING
Germany
Ireland
Bosna I Heregovina
and Kuwait and Korea.I've lived in Korea for about 7-8 years, personally. It's interesting that you've been to these places and don't seem to get how the local food is different than the United States food. Perhaps you just ate at the wrong places.

[Neverfly]

I just ate peanut butter sandwich.:(

I put chocolate chips on it. Was interesting...:think:

[HenrikOlsen]

That Japan lives in a "lower standard", because they actually have an intelligent diet and live longer lives?
That one had me rolling on the floor when my weird thought-processes linked "intelligent diet" with "eating whales".

Japan has very little farmland, and a lot of coastline, so their major source of meat is fish instead of cow.
That's a matter of production scarceness influencing food traditions, rather than lower standards.


Eating cows can actually be more energy efficient than strict vegetarianism since eating cows is a way to metabolize the cellulose part of plants that would otherwise be unavailable for us.
Note that I'm not saying it is so now with high intensity artificial fed cows, but for low intensity farming having cows convert the otherwise inedible parts of the plants to milk and meat is more efficient than going vegetarian.

[SolusLupus]

That one had me rolling on the floor when my weird thought-processes linked "intelligent diet" with "eating whales".I was under the impression that the Japanese were eating far less and less of whale meat in present periods. And yes, they are coastal, but I do not believe that eating fish contributes as much to global warming as the eating of beef, poultry, or pork. I may be wrong.

Eating cows can actually be more energy efficient than strict vegetarianism since eating cows is a way to metabolize the cellulose part of plants that would otherwise be unavailable for us.Inefficient? Perhaps. Do you have a cite on this? And how much more efficient? I mean, if I'm a vegetarian, and you compare me with a meat eater, how is the meat eater at an advantage, and how much so? Is there any way you can compare the two in a meaningful way?


However, there is a way in which meat eating can be argued to be more inefficient in another way. From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html) article:

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

[...]

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. This does not seem to scream "efficient" to me, at least from an all-around gain concern.

Note that I'm not saying it is so now with high intensity artificial fed cows, but for low intensity farming having cows convert the otherwise inedible parts of the plants to milk and meat is more efficient than going vegetarian.Again, I'm not sure I really agree with this.

By the way, do you have anything to comment on the increased rate of meat consumption you see in the United States vs., say, Germany or the United Kingdom?

[peteshimmon]

Just plug your vacuum cleaner dust into holes
around trees. The extra nutrients will give
a growth spurt that takes up extra CO2. And we
will all live happily ever after.
Tum-te-Tum...

[Disinfo Agent]

Meat contributes to global warming.

Americans eat the most amount of total meat per person.

Therefore, Americans contribute the most to global warming when it comes to meat production.

Therefore, Americans should be the ones to cut themselves down and bring themselves down to average.

Please demonstrate my failure in logic here.I would say the right conclusion is that we should all cut down on the amount of meat we eat. Well, those of us who already eat more meat than we need, but that's not just the US.

[SolusLupus]

I would say the right conclusion is that we should all cut down on the amount of meat we eat. Well, those of us who already eat more meat than we need, but that's not just the US.No, I agree, that should be the overall conclusion, yes. But it's also true that the average american has a lot longer a way to fall in their meat consumption per year...

However, I admit, I did phrase myself poorly. The conversation was getting rather... frustrating... with Neverfly, and in my haste I phrased what I was thinking improperly.

[Neverfly]

However, I admit, I did phrase myself poorly. The conversation was getting rather... frustrating... with Neverfly, and in my haste I phrased what I was thinking improperly.

Oh, sure... Blame the white guy.

[SolusLupus]

Oh, sure... Blame the white guy.I don't think you're white. You look more... clear.

[Disinfo Agent]

I hope those last posts were tongue in cheek but, just in case, this is obviously not a matter of race. There are people of all races in the US (or the West) and outside it, are there not?
It is a matter of those who are privileged -- and the vast majority of us in the West are privileged -- sometimes becoming lazy couch potatoes. If we fight the tendency to become lazy couch potatoes, everybody will win.

[SolusLupus]

Honestly, I'm too cynical to say "win". I'd say that we'd lose less harshly, however.

I cannot view global warming in any way that is really a winning situation for the human race. Even if we removed all CO2 production globally, this would not stop the CO2 already in existence; but it may just give us enough time to find a way to get rid of that which we have, but even then, I'm not sure if we could remove all of the symptoms.

Even if we change our diets, it is true that global vegetarianism really isn't an option for all people. While we can possibly come close, there is always geography and economics to keep in mind, as well as extra infrastructure that would have to be created to replace the meat with vegetables. So either way, even if we lessen CO2 production, we lessen it only by a fraction (even if that fraction may well be sizable) -- which would barely compensate for the increase in demand within the next few decades. (After all, the demand for livestock is expected to double by 2050 -- which would include double the effects from that livestock, and double the need to feed them). And even then, that which comes from livestock is only a fraction (although a sizable one) of total CO2 production. Fossil fuels and vehicles give off a sizable amount. China is now wanting to industrialize full time, making them contributors. Gasoline is not much of an option for vehicles for long, and people are already talking about using coal (of all things) to power vehicles, which is even dirtier than oil. This does not hold much promise, in my view.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but I think that as a human race, we've just been too apathetic and too self-centered for simply too long. We're the frog in boiling water, and only now are we starting to realize that our flesh is charring.

But maybe I'm wrong, and things really aren't that bad. I hope they aren't. But with so many people still denying global warming even as the effects and symptoms build up... I don't hold out much hope.

Of course, we'll probably survive the whole of global warming, but the question is, do we survive while still being able to uphold the grand life style that's held up as prime? I'm just not sure.

[Disinfo Agent]

At this point, I wouldn't be so quick to predict that we'll "probably" survive global warming (unless we end up going back to pre-industrial societies), but at the same time I do see the potential for a win, if not several.

The big optimists (where I do not count myself) hope it might jumpstart a push for cleaner energy sources, and perhaps even technologies that will leads us to space.

Me, I think there's the potential for our species of stubborn apes to finally realise that we're all in this thing together; that we need to grow up and start thinking of mankind as a whole, instead of our parochial concerns. If this doesn't serve as a wake-up call to us, I can't think of anything else that will.

[Chuck]

Except for population control, all remedies treat the symptoms while the disease gets worse.

[Disinfo Agent]

What's with this obsession with population control? :eh:

Global warming is a technological problem. You can't solve it with eugenics.

[Tinaa]

On my small part, I've had a zero-scape yard for several years, I use canvas bags for groceries and my family carpools instead of using four different vehicles. We buy vintage clothes as much as possible, try to buy local produce, even grow my own and can it myself. (I make great zucchini pickles!) Unfortunately, we live in the sticks so public transportation is just a dream!

[Pstar]

Not picking on you in particular, but I've got to pick somebody's quote, so here goes.

Me, I think there's the potential for our species of stubborn apes to finally realise that we're all in this thing together; that we need to grow up and start thinking of mankind as a whole, instead of our parochial concerns. If this doesn't serve as a wake-up call to us, I can't think of anything else that will.

Then we are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. I think the way to solve environmental problems (or the way to get anything done, for that matter) is to exploit the way people do behave, not to hope that they'll change the way they have behaved for thousands of years. In an environmental context, that means penalizing activities (financially would be the most effective way) that degrade the environment, and rewarding activities that improve the environment.

This places me at odds with a large cross-section of environmentalists, who, given the choice between

a) Something that improves the environment, but works because it exploits people's self-interested behavior,

and

b) Something that will only improve the environment if people behave selflessly, and wont' work because people don't behave selflessly

will choose b) every time. That's the great irony of environmentalism; many environmentalists would rather destroy the environment than give up their naive world view.

Now everyone queue up to chastise the nasty person who says these horrible things, and once he goes away, revert to naive and ineffective idealism. It won't do one wit to save the environment, but you can tell all your friends how great you are, and that, after all, is the important thing.

[Disinfo Agent]

Hi.

Then we are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. I think the way to solve environmental problems (or the way to get anything done, for that matter) is to exploit the way people do behave, not to hope that they'll change the way they have behaved for thousands of years.I don't see the position you've just described as being at a polar opposite from mine. :)

You are assuming that someone -- enough people, with enough influence (environmentalists? politicians and legislators, more likely!) -- will try to so exploit people's habits to overcome the climate crisis. But even those clearvoyant souls will never do that until they care about the fate of mankind, as opposed to their own more immediate personal interests. And, if those movers and shakers happen to be politicians, then I think you'll agree that the best way to make them care is by making the public care.

I'm not saying that personal interest and mankind's interest are necessarily incompatible under all circumstances. But sometimes they are indeed, and then a moral choice must be made.

[Neverfly]

I hope those last posts were tongue in cheek but, just in case, this is obviously not a matter of race. There are people of all races in the US (or the West) and outside it, are there not?


It was tongue in cheek.

A school teach had been discussing race with her kindergarten class.

A concept that went over their heads (Being wee ones) they began to debate vigorously how a person could be a color and what color they would be.
Most these kids were black or Mexican or Asian in heritage, but they were trying to make it more distinct by trying to be adults- and getting the color Juuust Riiiight.

The teacher, who was white, asked the students what color she was. They thought about it and debated that again- reaching a consensus that the teacher was Clear.

The story made it onto the News and many magazines- and has been forwarded through many emails.

I don't know if it's true.

[geonuc]

This places me at odds with a large cross-section of environmentalists, who, given the choice between

a) Something that improves the environment, but works because it exploits people's self-interested behavior,

and

b) Something that will only improve the environment if people behave selflessly, and wont' work because people don't behave selflessly

will choose b) every time. That's the great irony of environmentalism; many environmentalists would rather destroy the environment than give up their naive world view.
Welcome to BAUT. :)

I think you've completely mischaracterized the majority of environmentalists here. It's been my experience that any passionate person who cares about the welfare of the planet, particularly in terms of its ability to sustain the human species, would choose a).

And most environmentalists are that kind of passionate person. There are exceptions.

But really, welcome to BAUT. :)

[Neverfly]

Then we are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. I think the way to solve environmental problems (or the way to get anything done, for that matter) is to exploit the way people do behave, not to hope that they'll change the way they have behaved for thousands of years. In an environmental context, that means penalizing activities (financially would be the most effective way) that degrade the environment, and rewarding activities that improve the environment.

This places me at odds with a large cross-section of environmentalists, who, given the choice between

a) Something that improves the environment, but works because it exploits people's self-interested behavior,

and

b) Something that will only improve the environment if people behave selflessly, and wont' work because people don't behave selflessly

will choose b) every time. That's the great irony of environmentalism; many environmentalists would rather destroy the environment than give up their naive world view.

Now everyone queue up to chastise the nasty person who says these horrible things, and once he goes away, revert to naive and ineffective idealism. It won't do one wit to save the environment, but you can tell all your friends how great you are, and that, after all, is the important thing.

Pstar, I think you just made a lot of sense.

I disagree with One Thing though.

Imposing hefty fines.

I'm TIRED OF IT.

I'm being fined for everything these days- it's like anytime they want to bug me- they go after my money.

I'm a single parent- the price of gas and cost of living keeps going up- Messin' with my money is like taking food out of baby boys mouth and it gets me... UPSET.

Now, I know what you're gonna say:
"See? It's effective."
No, it isn't.
They are fining people for EVERYTHING these days and I cannot sit worrying about FINES for every danged thing- only for that money to go to graft.

Pick something else to bug me with- Fines will only inspire us- Like Excessive taxes- To get very rebellious if they keep piling new ones on.

Figure out another way.

[Disinfo Agent]

The teacher, who was white, asked the students what color she was. They thought about it and debated that again- reaching a consensus that the teacher was Clear.Cute story. Probably a poor translation of a word that also means "light", though. (Unless the word "clear" is O.K. there, too. It might be...)

[Neverfly]

Cute story. Probably a poor translation of a word that also means "light", though. (Unless the word "clear" is O.K. there, too. It might be...)

I dunno about translation- Happened in the USA. English speakers.
The kids chose "clear" because... well.. that's how the mind of a child works sometimes...

But yeah- Off Topic- just wanted to... clear.. the air.

[Disinfo Agent]

I dunno about translation- Happened in the USA. English speakers.
The kids chose "clear" because... well.. that's how the mind of a child works sometimes...Yes, I can see that happening with children. The two words do have close meanings. :)

[Neverfly]

Carnivorous predator that I am...

I accessed the web this last job call (Picked up my son after) while i was writing the invoice- since I had the trusty HP 48G out- and crunched some numbers while I was at it.

Damburger and Lonewulf are making a valid point.

Meat production is indeed a factor that could- not in huge amazing ways- but subtle yet effective ways, help reduce CO2 production.

I admit too- it bothers me that folks buy their meat pre-packaged in plastic.
People waste it too. They do not respect that life that died that they may gain nourishment.

So, I offer this proposal:

We halt (I'm actually kinda serious- I know it won't happen but I prefer the idea) meat production.
Instead, ranchers set up Hunting ranges- in which folks that want to eat meat may stalk and hunt their prey properly.
Those who prefer not to have to actually kill, skin and gut their prey- may find alternatives.
Like lil' green beans.
Yummers.

This reduces CO2 production, invigorates the predatory spirit, reduces waste and teaches folks how to value life. Folks may be a bit healthier too.

[geonuc]

We halt (I'm actually kinda serious- I know it won't happen but I prefer the idea) meat production.
Instead, ranchers set up Hunting ranges- in which folks that want to eat meat may stalk and hunt their prey properly.
Those who prefer not to have to actually kill, skin and gut their prey- may find alternatives.
Like lil' green beans.
Yummers.

Not too practical, though? Lot of people in this world and a lot of mouths to feed.

I think Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, or another suitable alternative text, should be required reading. Pretty good discussion of the food production machinery we have created, and it ain't pretty.

[Camel Snot]

What would be the most efficient way to reduce our environmental footprint?

The criteria would be: the amount of change / the difficulty (cost financial and otherwise ) of the change

I think maximum efficiency, the way you state it, is not a good goal. For a given level of change, you want to minimize the cost. Or at least I do, a lot of the people in this thread seem to reject the notion of efficiency altogether. But you shouldn't want to maximize efficiency the way you have stated it.

Let's suppose you begin to implement some environmental improvement program, and you wisely reject the advice of most of the posters, instead choosing to do so in the most cost effective way. That means, you choose the cheapest way to achieve a small improvement in the environment. Now, how do you achieve a further improvement? By definition, whatever you do now is less efficient than what you did at first, because at first, you choose the most efficient way to improve the environment. So any further improvement brings down the efficiency ratio you defined. So if you are maximizing this ratio, your solution should be to implement a very tiny amount of environmental improvement in the cheapest possible way, and then stop.

I agree with you (and disagree with most everyone else) that you want to maximize the ratio for a given level of improvement; that is, you want to achieve a given level of environmental improvement at the lowest possible cost, or you want to achieve the maximum amount of environmental improvement for a given level of cost.

That's the kind of efficiency you want - what is the cheapest way to achieve 100, 200, 500, whatever units of environmental improvement (however a "unit" is defined). But the way you defined it, the solution is to choose the most efficient way to improve the environment a small amount, and do nothing else. Unless that's what you meant, I would change your goal.

Most of the responses seem to reject any notion of efficiency altogether though.

Good question. It deserves better answers.

[Maha Vailo]

Sorry I've been busy, but I just have to say a big thinak you to Lonewulf for helping me with nutrition advice, even if he did get a little angry about it. I'll see what I can do with regards to rations, although they do seem a little skimpy (sigh).

Now I'm wondering just exactly how the Egyptians and the Indonesians get by with eating so little meat - I've never eaten their cuisines before, unlike the case with me and Indian food (a feast for the senses if there ever was one!). I'm guessing that the situation with regard to Indonesia is similar to Japan in that they get a lot of food from the sea (after all, the country's a bunch of islands), but I'm not so sure about Egypt. Is that country considered part of falafel-and-hummus country?

Now, on a note that's more related with the topic of reducing one's environmental footprint, my father and I are seriously considering buying bikes. That way, we can make trips to nearby places (like the grocery store) without spending too much money on gas. Unfortunately, my mother, who has a foot problem, can't ride a bike, so she's probably out of luck.

- Maha Vailo

[SolusLupus]

I accessed the web this last job call (Picked up my son after) while i was writing the invoice- since I had the trusty HP 48G out- and crunched some numbers while I was at it.

Damburger and Lonewulf are making a valid point.Hallelujah. Nice to see I wasn't speaking in vain.

Sorry I've been busy, but I just have to say a big thinak you to Lonewulf for helping me with nutrition advice, even if he did get a little angry about it.I apologize, I get easily frustrated and hot-headed, I admit.

I'll see what I can do with regards to rations, although they do seem a little skimpy (sigh).There's ways to "cheat" to make things more filling. From here (http://health.yahoo.com/experts/nutrition/8709/tips-to-feel-satisfied-with-less-food/):

Eat your meal slowly. It takes about 20 minutes for your brain to get the message that you have eaten enough and to then communicate that feeling of satisfaction (or fullness!) to your stomach. Put your fork or spoon down between bites of food, talk with others at the table, chew your food thoroughly, and drink liquids during meals to slow your rate of eating.

Drink plenty of non-calorie beverages each day. Interestingly, the feeling of thirst can sometimes impersonate that of hunger, so make sure you are drinking enough fluids every day.

Change your eating schedule, or create one that works. Skipping or delaying meals can result in overeating. If you skip meals often, try to eat on more of a schedule. You will then feel more satisfied with what you do eat.

Enjoy your food. Take the time at meals to simply enjoy what you are eating. Taking pleasure in what you eat will help you feel more satisfied.


Now I'm wondering just exactly how the Egyptians and the Indonesians get by with eating so little meatEgyptian stuff looks pretty good. Egyptian Recipes (http://www.touregypt.net/recipes/). Pistachio couscous? Sign me up!

I've never eaten their cuisines before, unlike the case with me and Indian food (a feast for the senses if there ever was one!). I'm guessing that the situation with regard to Indonesia is similar to Japan in that they get a lot of food from the sea (after all, the country's a bunch of islands), but I'm not so sure about Egypt. Is that country considered part of falafel-and-hummus country?To be fair, Egypt isn't exactly lacking in meat, although probably don't eat quite as much meat as, say, Americans do (then again, almost no one does).

Now, on a note that's more related with the topic of reducing one's environmental footprint, my father and I are seriously considering buying bikes. That way, we can make trips to nearby places (like the grocery store) without spending too much money on gas. Unfortunately, my mother, who has a foot problem, can't ride a bike, so she's probably out of luck.Yes, unfortunately, some people have more problems than others in cutting back. I hope your mother's problem isn't serious.

[Neverfly]

Hallelujah. Nice to see I wasn't speaking in vain.

Usually the case. Now, I'm not up and agreeing with your or Damburger in this particular case, but I am admitting to the fact that if the Global Effort was made...

I see no significant difference in the USA cutting back if no one else does.

Similarly, I will never back down on the enforcement side of the issue.
Some have expressed a desire to enforce it with fines or whatever else.
Nonsense.
That type of dictatorship is ultimately counter-productive. No matter how good the cause seems.

But I do listen, no matter how resistant I may seem.

My lifestyle includes lots of meat. It's just my nature. Maybe lots of folks can do with out it. I cannot.

If the rest of the United States wants to go without meat - they have that right. I'll just think they are crazy.

[SolusLupus]

What's with this obsession with population control? :eh:

Global warming is a technological problem. You can't solve it with eugenics.Actually...

Every extra person that is born in the United States, is another person that we have to spend energy on. This includes any potential new housing, heating, air conditioning, etc.

Every extra person needs food -- including meat. If they were to fall in line with the idea that meat is necessary and SO much meat is perfectly fine, then that's contributing to the problem.

Yes, we could all make a lifestyle choice and eat far less meat. But as long as we're eating some per average person, more people soak up more problems. This only gets worse as they book jet flights and buy a car, which they pump fossil fuels into to drive along.

Part of Global Warming's problem is that it is a result of us attempting to live as high as possible for as many people as possible (except for those people over there; when we feel guilty, we'll just ship them food and feed them a fish, and then wonder why they don't get around to feeding themselves and grow poor as their only internal product is the same stuff we're giving them).

The thing is, developed countries (the ones that contribute the most to global warming) are actually falling behind in population. If you look at this (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html) link, it lists the birth rate and death rate by country. If you notice, birth rate has been decreasing dramatically, and the death rate has stayed more or less the same.

Er... except in the U.S., I guess; 14 kids per 1000 people vs. 8 deaths, only slightly different from 1980 and 1990 by 2; and 1975 is about equal in birthrate to today. That's not very dramatic. But still, the trend seems to be, death rate stays the same, birth rate goes down.

But yes, there are steps that need to be taken to control the population. The U.S. does what it can already, although making or attempting to make abortions illegal is a step backwards IMO; but still, the average person has ready access to birth control at any point of time, and the State governments are working hard (in my experience) to attempt to prevent store owners from making them less accessible. (personally, I vote we get rid of all the government-sponsored "abstinence only" people -- who have had plenty of time to demonstrate that their method was useful, and have failed miserably).

However, another thing we must attempt to prevent is the spreading of the message that abstinence is the only answer to, say, poor countries where there is a good amount of poverty and starvation. No, that's not the way to do things.

Population control can potentially play a big part in controlling part of the problems of the world today -- less demand for food, for water, and for resources. But for it to have a noticeable impact, it would have to be population control in developed countries, if we're talking about global warming and CO2 pollution, meat production, transportation like jet planes, etc.

The thing is, it would have to be drastic to have a significant enough impact to really add up. 300 million Americans eating 70 to 80 kilograms of meat per year can add up to a very significant difference... more significant than, say, simply losing 50 million Americans. (300 million *50 lbs. per year adds up to a lot more than 50 million *123; that's 15 billion kilograms of food vs. 6 billion kilograms of food).

Pretty much, I'm of the mindset of, if you can get away with encouraging instead of forcing, then all the better. We get rid of abstinence-only programs, and everyone that can speak out against them should.


Similarly, I will never back down on the enforcement side of the issue.
Some have expressed a desire to enforce it with fines or whatever else.
Nonsense.
That type of dictatorship is ultimately counter-productive. No matter how good the cause seems.I'm demonstrating the difference between point A and point B. I am not telling how to actually get there.

My lifestyle includes lots of meat. It's just my nature. Maybe lots of folks can do with out it. I cannot.

If the rest of the United States wants to go without meat - they have that right. I'll just think they are crazy.Then it is good that my message wasn't centered solely on going primarily without meat. My overriding message has simply been that simply cutting back can make a very significant difference. 8% of difference, worldwide, can go a long way. And if Americans -- of all people, Americans, who's major exports have been Coca Cola and McDonald's -- can start to show the world that they can eat in moderation... I think that it would set a very significant example.

[Disinfo Agent]

I apologize, I get easily frustrated and hot-headed, I admit.You do seem to have a rather Latin temperament, for a German... :D

[SolusLupus]

You do seem to have a rather Latin temperament, for a German... :DPlace of residence != place of citizenship, or place of culture.

[HenrikOlsen]

Similarly, I will never back down on the enforcement side of the issue.
Some have expressed a desire to enforce it with fines or whatever else.
Nonsense.
I think the intent was taxation, not fines.

I can see taxation as a means to modify behavior work quite well, IF the alternative is actually equally available as the taxed one.

For example if the gas station has both gasoline, gasoline/ethanol mix and ethanol and they are differentially taxed so the ethanol came out as the cheapest alternative, then taxation works as a way to change behavior.

On the other hand, it the gas station only has gasoline, but it's taxed to make it cheaper to run on ethanol, then it won't work as it's supposed to and the tax will be seen as more government theft.

Same if gasoline is taxed to make electrical cars cheapest to run (they already are), but electrical cars cost too much for the normal buyer, then that tax won't change behavior either.

But I think that when the alternatives are actually available, taxation to make those with the least impact cheapest is a valid way to influence consumer choice.

[Neverfly]

I disagree. All it does it break peoples backs and contribute to graft.

[Brasilian Barbecue]

cultural imperialists

[SolusLupus]

cultural imperialistsWell, that was a productive post.

[korjik]

Actually...

Every extra person that is born in the United States, is another person that we have to spend energy on. This includes any potential new housing, heating, air conditioning, etc.

Every extra person needs food -- including meat. If they were to fall in line with the idea that meat is necessary and SO much meat is perfectly fine, then that's contributing to the problem.

Yes, we could all make a lifestyle choice and eat far less meat. But as long as we're eating some per average person, more people soak up more problems. This only gets worse as they book jet flights and buy a car, which they pump fossil fuels into to drive along.

Part of Global Warming's problem is that it is a result of us attempting to live as high as possible for as many people as possible (except for those people over there; when we feel guilty, we'll just ship them food and feed them a fish, and then wonder why they don't get around to feeding themselves and grow poor as their only internal product is the same stuff we're giving them).

The thing is, developed countries (the ones that contribute the most to global warming) are actually falling behind in population. If you look at this (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html) link, it lists the birth rate and death rate by country. If you notice, birth rate has been decreasing dramatically, and the death rate has stayed more or less the same.

Er... except in the U.S., I guess; 14 kids per 1000 people vs. 8 deaths, only slightly different from 1980 and 1990 by 2; and 1975 is about equal in birthrate to today. That's not very dramatic. But still, the trend seems to be, death rate stays the same, birth rate goes down.

But yes, there are steps that need to be taken to control the population. The U.S. does what it can already, although making or attempting to make abortions illegal is a step backwards IMO; but still, the average person has ready access to birth control at any point of time, and the State governments are working hard (in my experience) to attempt to prevent store owners from making them less accessible. (personally, I vote we get rid of all the government-sponsored "abstinence only" people -- who have had plenty of time to demonstrate that their method was useful, and have failed miserably).

However, another thing we must attempt to prevent is the spreading of the message that abstinence is the only answer to, say, poor countries where there is a good amount of poverty and starvation. No, that's not the way to do things.

Population control can potentially play a big part in controlling part of the problems of the world today -- less demand for food, for water, and for resources. But for it to have a noticeable impact, it would have to be population control in developed countries, if we're talking about global warming and CO2 pollution, meat production, transportation like jet planes, etc.

The thing is, it would have to be drastic to have a significant enough impact to really add up. 300 million Americans eating 70 to 80 kilograms of meat per year can add up to a very significant difference... more significant than, say, simply losing 50 million Americans. (300 million *50 lbs. per year adds up to a lot more than 50 million *123; that's 15 billion kilograms of food vs. 6 billion kilograms of food).

Pretty much, I'm of the mindset of, if you can get away with encouraging instead of forcing, then all the better. We get rid of abstinence-only programs, and everyone that can speak out against them should.

I'm demonstrating the difference between point A and point B. I am not telling how to actually get there.

Then it is good that my message wasn't centered solely on going primarily without meat. My overriding message has simply been that simply cutting back can make a very significant difference. 8% of difference, worldwide, can go a long way. And if Americans -- of all people, Americans, who's major exports have been Coca Cola and McDonald's -- can start to show the world that they can eat in moderation... I think that it would set a very significant example.

This post seems to state that everything is the fault of the USA and if it is going to get fixed, Americans are the only ones who should have to do anything.

You give this impression starting from the first line. Guess what, anyone, born anywhere, will require energy and food.

You give this impression in your last paragraph also. You imply that all the US has given to the world is Coke and Burgers. What about airliners, GPS, smallpox eradication, a thousand different medications, food enough for the whole bloody planet.

If you want an 8% reduction in consumption, then start consuming less in stead of just blaming the US.

[geonuc]

If you want an 8% reduction in consumption, then start consuming less in stead of just blaming the US.
I don't have the numbers handy, but I really don't think having Lonewulf restrict his energy consumption will result in a benefit equivalent to an 8% worldwide reduction. ;)

[Damburger]

What's with this obsession with population control? :eh:

Global warming is a technological problem. You can't solve it with eugenics.

I totally agree. That old argument has reared its head a lot recently due to food price increases, and I really find it very racist. People arguing for 'population control' aren't volunteering themselves not to have children, or even their countrymen usually. They are volunteering foreigners. They also tend to accuse them of 'breeding' too much as if they are talking about foxes or rabbits.

The challenge of living within our environmental means is not political or national in nature, and although Americans are noted for their consumption it isn't productive to point fingers or for Americans to get defensive about it. The very fact we are using computers to talk means we are all energy consumers to some extent.

[Grizzle]

But I think that when the alternatives are actually available, taxation to make those with the least impact cheapest is a valid way to influence consumer choice.

Even if the only game in town is gasoline powered internal combustion engines, taxation on impact would reduce usage. And it is, in a lot of places, already, although the stated reason for the tax usually is something other than enviornmental. Then there are places where fuel is heavily subsidized, probably everyone can guess what happens in those places.

[Neverfly]

Even if the only game in town is gasoline powered internal combustion engines, taxation on impact would reduce usage. And it is, in a lot of places, already, although the stated reason for the tax usually is something other than enviornmental. Then there are places where fuel is heavily subsidized, probably everyone can guess what happens in those places.

Not by very much.

I use my truck. I don't play with my truck.

Heavy equipment, hauling trailers, hauling my tools...

Anything smaller than a large SUV is utterly useless to me.

Most people use gas because they need it.

How about Taxing the holy living daylights out of the folks in Montana on Water Usage- you know... To make sure they don't use it.

I don't know about overseas- but around here, back home in California, and I have heard about the east coast- the cost of living has gone up dramatically. Most households require both parents working these days.

And the most popular punishment these days seems to be to take as much money (What to do with all that money taken) as you can. Yeah! Go for the wallet! that'll get 'em!

We are already living in the Tax EveryTHing age. I'm paying so much in taxes I can't keep track of my finances some times. Taxes on every last danged thing I own or use or even THINK about owning someday. Taxes for making money. Taxes for Spending money. Taxes for me, my kid for my insurance...
I'm sure there's a dog tax for my dog too. One hundred years ago we didn't have A THIRD of the taxes we are paying now.

George Washington would roll in his grave...

[SolusLupus]

This post seems to state that everything is the fault of the USA and if it is going to get fixed, Americans are the only ones who should have to do anything.That is an inadequate and rather sophomoric summary of my post.

USA consumes far more meat than any other country. This is a fact. My statement was that if the average American changed their diet to equal the average European, they would influence the entire world's meat supply by a good 8%. This was a demonstration of just how much more the USA required in resources.

It only makes logical sense that I should spend more time on those that contribute the most to global warming. It makes little sense for me to, say, go to India and point out the problems with overconsumption of meat.

You give this impression starting from the first line. Guess what, anyone, born anywhere, will require energy and food.That is true. But some require more than others. Someone in Uganda, for instance, expends far less energy on average than, say, someone from a more developed country.

If the burden of responsibility should fall on anyone, it is the one that spends so many resources that causes the most influence. It is those that can influence the world the most that should be focused on, don't you agree?

You give this impression in your last paragraph also. You imply that all the US has given to the world is Coke and Burgers.That statement was more tongue-in-cheek more than anything else. However, McDonald's and Coca Cola is more well-known American Symbol" more than food exports and GPS.

What about airliners, GPS, smallpox eradication, a thousand different medications, food enough for the whole bloody planet.GPS is very darn useful, and yes, that is a great resource, as are the medications. However, the United States is not the only country that can provide any of these. But yes, credit to where credit is due. Despite my earlier tongue-in-cheek statement, the United States has provided a lot to the world. Yet, it can provide so much more -- don't you agree?

I am not sure about food enough for the "whole bloody planet" -- do you have any actual evidence of this claim? While an American -- Norman Borlaug -- did work hard to feed one billion people, he did not work solely inside of the United States; he had to go to the parent countries to grow crops locally. And, this may surprise you, but the United States imports food. In fact, their food imports has been going up since 2005. Food Imports on the Rise (http://www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2005/Feb/imports.htm).

Food imports have been steadily rising for four years. There were a few months in 2004 when the United States imported more food than it exported.

“Of course this does not make the United States a net food importer – yet,” Infanger said. “But the trend on agricultural trade is clear if you look at the yearly summary data. The agricultural trade surplus – the difference between exports and imports – has deteriorated since 1996 when it was $20 billion. But with rising imports and roller coaster exports, the trade surplus next year is projected at only $2.5 billion.”

[...]

The steady increase in agricultural imports is a trend that Infanger said will not go away. Consumers expect a wide variety of foods from around the globe. He said exports will vary with production levels, global competition and the value of the dollar.

If you want an 8% reduction in consumption, then start consuming less in stead of just blaming the US.300 million people going from 123 kilos per person a year to 70-80 kilos of meat per year will have a much more suitable influence than, say, me consuming less as an individual.

But if you note my earlier posts, I have already pointed out that I am working to consume less. Meat is no longer a mainstay of my diet, where I can afford it. And I'm pretty sure I don't eat 6+ ounces a day.

[SolusLupus]

I totally agree. That old argument has reared its head a lot recently due to food price increases, and I really find it very racist. People arguing for 'population control' aren't volunteering themselves not to have children, or even their countrymen usually.I volunteer to never have a child, unless it is through sperm donation (where the mother would have a child anyways, no matter what I said or did).

They also tend to accuse them of 'breeding' too much as if they are talking about foxes or rabbits.People in poorer countries have a much higher rate of reproduction than those in more developed countries. This is actually usually encouraged by people from developed countries -- namely, the religious types that view birth control (yes, even condoms) as a "sin". Mother Theresa was very popular with her "don't have abortions, don't have birth control" message -- and she's still a praised and popular hero across the world. As it is, countries such as Uganda are having less less birth control available to them, and are being taught "Abstinence Only" BS -- which was actually sponsored by the United States. Uganda: 'Abstinence Only' Program hijacks... (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/30/uganda10380.htm)

U.S.-funded “abstinence-only” programs are jeopardizing Uganda’s successful fight against HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch said in a new report today. Abstinence-only programs deny young people information about any method of HIV prevention other than sexual abstinence until marriage.

Proper adequate sexual education and the increased availability of birth control can go a long way. Unfortunately, it's been an uphill struggle so far.

But yes, I agree, it should be all countries that should cut down on the birth rate. However, developed countries already are. I fail to see why I should focus on the countries that, on average, are volunteering to have less children, and have their birth rate about equal their death rate?

On the "bright" side, our failure to truly combat HIV and AIDS may end up taking care of the population problem, given enough time...

The challenge of living within our environmental means is not political or national in nature, and although Americans are noted for their consumption it isn't productive to point fingers or for Americans to get defensive about it.I'm not pointing fingers. I am pointing where a great amount of influence can be made. The United States is the largest consumer of meat per person, that can be changed and make a huge influence on the demand for meat. However, this influence can be made all the bigger if all nations start to follow suit. I have never denied that and, in fact, have stated as much in this thread thanks to Disinfo Agent's post.

People, unfortunately, don't like facts very much, and "Responsibility" is becoming a bad word and an insult to today's world.

Regardless, when ONE COUNTRY consumes nearly 1/5th of the entire world's meat supply, why should I focus on the countries that consume far less per country? The U.S. has the hugest density, and thus has the greatest potential impact. I would be blaming any country that was consuming so much more meat than any other nation. I go to where the facts and data take me -- if people don't like that and get defensive about it, well, tough.

The very fact we are using computers to talk means we are all energy consumers to some extent.Of course we are. But computers (well, the average computer) are not one of the larger culprits in CO2 production. Regardless, steps are being made in this direction, as well.

Energy Star (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.ShowProductGro up&pgw_code=CO).

Since computers are in use many more hours per day than in the past, ENERGY STAR has strengthened its requirements to better save energy among computers and related equipment under today’s usage patterns. Qualified products must now meet energy use guidelines in three distinct operating modes: standby, sleep mode, and while computers are being used. This approach ensures energy savings when a computer is active and performing a range of tasks, as well as when standing by. Newly qualified computers must also include a more efficient internal power supply.

[Neverfly]

On a global scale- just how much, exactly, does meat contribute to Global Warming?

[SolusLupus]

On a global scale- just how much, exactly, does meat contribute to Global Warming?I put up a link that explained much earlier, but I'm much too lazy to dig through to find it. Regardless, good question!

*Googles*

Humans' Beef with Livestock (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html)

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

If we got rid of meat entirely (which is a rather unlikely prospect, if not outright impossible), that would remove 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. On a global scale, that's pretty significant. That's about 1/5th of the world's CO2 production.

[SolusLupus]

Some more information on computer energy usage, that I thought was interesting:

Saving Electricity (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html).

A typical desktop computer uses about 65 to 250 watts. To find the figure for your particular computer you can contact the manufacturer (not me), or see my section on measuring electrical use.

With most devices you can look at the label to see how much energy they use, but that doesn't work so well with computers because the label gives the theoretical maximum, not the typical amount used. A computer whose label or power supply says 300 watts might only use about 70 watts when it's actually running, and only 100 even in peak times with serious number-crunching and all the drives spinning.

[...]

Add another 35 watts for an LCD monitor, or 80 watts if you have an old-school CRT. Don't forget related devices. My cable modem uses 7 watts, my D-Link DI-604 router uses 4.5 watts, and my Motorola phone box for use with Vonage uses 2 watts while idle (3 when I'm on the phone).

Laptop computers use about 15-45 watts, far less than desktops.

Looks like I'd save energy using my laptop than with my main computer + flat screen monitor.

Since I mostly use my computer for internet browsing, e-mail, and word-processing anyways, it looks like that's what I should aim for using more often.

Some other information:

When your computer sleeps (aka "standby", "hibernate") the computer uses 0-6 watts. (So does the monitor.)

[...]

A screensaver that shows any image on the screen doesn't save any energy at all -- you save energy only if the monitor goes dark by going to sleep. If you turn the monitor off at the switch it will use 0 to 10 watts. (Some electronics equipment draws a small amount of energy even when it's switched off.)

[Neverfly]

Well. I for one, am a little confused.

Cow Farts cause Global Warming.

Ok.

Yet, there was life passing gas (methane etc) on this planet for well over 200 million years.

In fact, the current human population was outweighed by the dinosaur population. (No pun intended...)


So ummm...

I think the problem is a disruption in balance- not in farting cows.

[Fledermaus]

MODERATION! Is the key to it all, as we all take for granted everything around us.Meat, Vedge, Gas, Petrol etc the list is endless, every one wants a easy life and the more we earn the more we try to make it easyer for ourselves.

Ok I like to do my bit! I walk where I can instead of useing the car, use the steps instead of a elavator, I make my own meals instead of ready made muck, I recycle everything I can, I switch off and unplug my TV computer all my appliances except the freezer and the alarm clock (that will be replaced shortly by a annoying key up thing) I do this every time I stop useing them, mainly as I am afraid of fire! but it has become a good habit in the long run as it has reduced my carbon foot print before it was a issue.

I dont obsesse about what effect my buying meat has on the enviropment as I buy fresh meat and freeze it for when I need it, I grow my own vedgys, fruit and herbs. I do this as this is how I was brought up, I also repair my own vehicles useing parts from breakers as it is cheaper and in the long run there isnt the extra cost of the import and taxes, its a greener way of doing it, this isnt the reason why I started to use used parts it is easyer for me to and less expensive. I like to save my spare cash not put it some large companys till, I have always done things the old way as I get more pleasure from it and the end product is always better. Not every one is this way inclined, maybe if they were then there would be a decline in the emissions in all the countrys that over produce convenient foods and electrical goods etc.

We only need so much but everyone treats the world as if it is all throw away and its ok to bin everything and keep buying new up to date things.Granted some new household equipment is great and uses less energy, water etc but why replace something that isnt at the end of its life! We have too much of everything and we know it, even when we think we are skint and cant afford things we should really look at what we have around us and see what we have. We all have faild to see what we wont have if we dont stop consuming everthing that the earth has to offer, most people are to wrapped up in their own world of me and cant see the bigger picture. By not doing a small thing like buying fresh meat from a butcher or a hunter, you add to the emmisions, by driveing all over town hunting down alternative vedge or haveing it deliverd is adding to emmisions, but most people dont even think about it and just do their normal routine. I understand not everyone lives where they can walk to the store or grow their own vedge but there are different ways to help the earth and every one can do their bit.

The truth is some refuse as they are too lazy to even think about it never mind do it, some people just want to talk about it and never actually do any thing, some do the tineyest bit and think they have saved the world, but every one has a right to be a free person until it becomes law! As very few people listen to their conscience and rearley consider what their actions bring and very few think about what haveing a family does to the enviroment. They usually think about the financial cost to themselves and how they will cope, not how the earth will cope! I for one dont have children and I haven't chosent not to I cant go full term, but I never wanted kids either. I alway felt there was enough in the world from being a child on, I also thought that the world was too terrible to brign kids into. I still feel the same, over population isn't the main problem over consumption is the main problem.

Since the end of the WW2 every one has just made up for what wasnt available then and it has grown into a problem that is still growing. What people expected then to be happy and comfortable is totally different now, is it evolution? is it greed? Will it ever change?
Not in my life time, I think it will take something unbelieveable to shake us up and make things really change, something to brake the circle we have made for society.Possibly a world war we dont ever want? Or the Earth rejecting us totally?

[Neverfly]

FlederMouse, are you making up for not having posted in a while by doing it all at one go?:neutral:

[geonuc]

Yikes!! Sorry, I can't read that, Fledermaus. It hurts my brain. Can you edit to put some paragraphs breaks in?

[Disinfo Agent]

I totally agree. That old argument has reared its head a lot recently due to food price increases, and I really find it very racist. People arguing for 'population control' aren't volunteering themselves not to have children, or even their countrymen usually. They are volunteering foreigners. They also tend to accuse them of 'breeding' too much as if they are talking about foxes or rabbits.

The challenge of living within our environmental means is not political or national in nature, and although Americans are noted for their consumption it isn't productive to point fingers or for Americans to get defensive about it. The very fact we are using computers to talk means we are all energy consumers to some extent.I agree with everything you say, but to be honest in this particular case I fear I may have misinterpreted Chuck. :o

Perhaps his point was (as Lonewulf has also said) that we should all have fewer children, because in a world with fewer people there won't be as many greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere. This is true, and it's a delay tactic we may be forced to resort to eventually, though it won't solve global warming by itself; only postpone the problem.

[SolusLupus]

This is true, and it's a delay tactic we may be forced to resort to eventually, though it won't solve global warming by itself; only postpone the problem.If you can point me to a solution, even a hypothetical one, I'd love to hear it.

Everything listed in here is a delay tactic. There is no solution. The CO2, the Nitrous Oxide gas, the Methane, it's already in the upper atmosphere. It's even having effects on satellites in orbit around the earth. Right now, the question is how we prevent chugging more out there -- and nearly doubling all that chugging within 2050. Not only do we have the population of the earth to worry about, but also all the extra meat that we'll be chugging out, and possibly coal-run vehicles instead of gasoline-run vehicles.

[SolusLupus]

Well. I for one, am a little confused.

Cow Farts cause Global Warming.That seems a rather... "interesting"... way to put it.

But yes, the waste of 10+ billion farm animals that are mass produced for our consumption are contributing.

Ok.

Yet, there was life passing gas (methane etc) on this planet for well over 200 million years.Farm animal life is a bit different than life in the wild. However, methane was actually what warmed the planet to begin with.

NASA (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011212methane.html) explains.
METHANE EXPLOSION WARMED THE PREHISTORIC EARTH, POSSIBLE AGAIN

A tremendous release of methane gas frozen beneath the sea floor heated the Earth by up to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) 55 million years ago, a new NASA study confirms. NASA scientists used data from a computer simulation of the paleo-climate to better understand the role of methane in climate change.

In fact, the current human population was outweighed by the dinosaur population. (No pun intended...)

So ummm...

I think the problem is a disruption in balance- not in farting cows.You don't think that mass producing 10+ billion farm animals for 6+ billion people is a bit of a disruption in balance?

Keep in mind that this is 18% of the contributions to Global Warming; which is a sizable chunk, but not definitive by any margin. If we were back in the Dinosaur age and only had this methane, CO2, and Nitrous Oxide gas to contend with, that would leave out the 82% of other contributions -- something I'm pretty sure the planet's atmosphere and global climate can handle.

This is the whole pie: Also from NASA (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/methane/image2m.jpg). (Note that this is for Methane only)

Don't ask me why Rice Paddies are so high on the list. That's new to me too.

[SeanF]

I volunteer to never have a child, unless it is through sperm donation (where the mother would have a child anyways, no matter what I said or did).
I like it!

I volunteer never to eat meat unless it's already packaged at the store, because that just means either somebody else will eat it or it'll get thrown away, no matter what I said or did.

:)

[SolusLupus]

I like it!

I volunteer never to eat meat unless it's already packaged at the store, because that just means either somebody else will eat it or it'll get thrown away, no matter what I said or did.

:)Unfortunately, the comparison is very much invalid. The meat that goes on sale will fund the meat supplier, causing them to slaughter more animals for meat. This isn't quite the same as sperm donation. While you could say donating sperm "funds" the sperm bank, they aren't exactly going to thrust the sperm into women because of it. In short, by buying meat, you kill another cow. By selling sperm, you... uhm... well, you impregnate someone with *one* kind of sperm instead of another. Big deal. What on Earth led you to believe that the two have the same net effect? I really don't get what distortion of logic you have to undergo to even start to think that the two situations are comparable.

Nice try, though. Either that, or you have some very morally questionable sperm banks. I do believe I will avoid where you live in the near future, in fear that they will take any girls I know and forcefully impregnate them.

Perhaps you can explain your logic slowly to me? I may just comprehend if you explain it in detail.

[Fledermaus]

[FlederMouse, are you making up for not having posted in a while by doing it all at one go?:neutral:]

:lol: I have been a bit side tracked clearing the computer out!

[korjik]

That is an inadequate and rather sophomoric summary of my post.

USA consumes far more meat than any other country. This is a fact. My statement was that if the average American changed their diet to equal the average European, they would influence the entire world's meat supply by a good 8%. This was a demonstration of just how much more the USA required in resources.

It only makes logical sense that I should spend more time on those that contribute the most to global warming. It makes little sense for me to, say, go to India and point out the problems with overconsumption of meat.

That is true. But some require more than others. Someone in Uganda, for instance, expends far less energy on average than, say, someone from a more developed country.

If the burden of responsibility should fall on anyone, it is the one that spends so many resources that causes the most influence. It is those that can influence the world the most that should be focused on, don't you agree?

That statement was more tongue-in-cheek more than anything else. However, McDonald's and Coca Cola is more well-known American Symbol" more than food exports and GPS.

GPS is very darn useful, and yes, that is a great resource, as are the medications. However, the United States is not the only country that can provide any of these. But yes, credit to where credit is due. Despite my earlier tongue-in-cheek statement, the United States has provided a lot to the world. Yet, it can provide so much more -- don't you agree?

I am not sure about food enough for the "whole bloody planet" -- do you have any actual evidence of this claim? While an American -- Norman Borlaug -- did work hard to feed one billion people, he did not work solely inside of the United States; he had to go to the parent countries to grow crops locally. And, this may surprise you, but the United States imports food. In fact, their food imports has been going up since 2005. Food Imports on the Rise (http://www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2005/Feb/imports.htm).



300 million people going from 123 kilos per person a year to 70-80 kilos of meat per year will have a much more suitable influence than, say, me consuming less as an individual.

But if you note my earlier posts, I have already pointed out that I am working to consume less. Meat is no longer a mainstay of my diet, where I can afford it. And I'm pretty sure I don't eat 6+ ounces a day.

I wasnt really talking about just one post. You have given an impression that you consider all of the problems of the world to be the fault of the US. If some of your replies were supposed to be tounge-in-cheek, I did not see them that way, and I suspect that Neverfly dosent see it that way either.

Mind you, I am talking about impressions, not data. You give the impression that you are critisizing as much as providing data, which quite a few americans react really badly to. Especially when coming from Germany.

[SolusLupus]

I wasnt really talking about just one post. You have given an impression that you consider all of the problems of the world to be the fault of the US.That may be your perception, but that is not true.

If some of your replies were supposed to be tounge-in-cheek, I did not see them that way, and I suspect that Neverfly dosent see it that way either.Then I apologize for not being more clear.

Mind you, I am talking about impressions, not data. You give the impression that you are critisizing as much as providing data, which quite a few americans react really badly to. Especially when coming from Germany.Which is ironic, because I'm a United States Citizen, and my mother works for the United States Government.

But Neverfly would know that; he's talked with me, back when my profile said "Corpus Christi, Texas" for location.

I find it hilarious that people automatically assume that current place of residence automatically means that you are a citizen of that country, and continue to treat me like I'm a native-born German. If only I knew it took was to change my location on my profile...

Regardless, who I am and who I am not a citizen of should make no difference in the end. I point out what is happening, and what is helping to cause it; and what can be done to help ease the situation the world is getting into. This does not make me a "cultural imperialist", but simply someone answering the question posed by the OP: What can be done to reduce our environmental footprint?

I am pointing out the simplest things that can be undertaken. As far as I see it, changing my diet is a lot simpler than changing transportation, infrastructure, or fighting to implant nuclear power stations, hydroelectric power, solar, wind, geothermal and wave power to substitute for coal. Not that none of these things shouldn't be undertaken, of course. Just that they're not as simple as changing our diet for one, and for two they're pretty obvious and have been said dozens of times over.

The U.S. is not free from criticism, and nor is any other Country. No one blinks an eye when people (including in the United States) start to question the morality of other countries, and how they treat their citizens (in China, Iraq, Iran, etc.), their economic policies, or sometimes even their local beliefs (which, admittedly, depends on just who you're talking to); I do not see why the United States should be free from criticism involving that which they are most involved in -- in this case, meat consumption. When they consume nearly 1/5th of the entire world's meat supply, I do think that heads should turn... especially when that meat is shown to have detrimental effects to the environment. This is true of anything else, and I consider no country free from criticism in this regard. I'm not an expert on Germany, but from what I've heard they've committed very questionable practices too; decommissioning Nuclear, and then having another country to run coal plants for them to run their power grid on. But I'm not too sure about that.

[Neverfly]

Yeah, I can vouch for Lonewulf- he has the temperament of a Texan;)

[SeanF]

Unfortunately, the comparison is very much invalid. The meat that goes on sale will fund the meat supplier, causing them to slaughter more animals for meat. This isn't quite the same as sperm donation. While you could say donating sperm "funds" the sperm bank, they aren't exactly going to thrust the sperm into women because of it. In short, by buying meat, you kill another cow. By selling sperm, you... uhm... well, you impregnate someone with *one* kind of sperm instead of another. Big deal. What on Earth led you to believe that the two have the same net effect? I really don't get what distortion of logic you have to undergo to even start to think that the two situations are comparable.

Nice try, though. Either that, or you have some very morally questionable sperm banks. I do believe I will avoid where you live in the near future, in fear that they will take any girls I know and forcefully impregnate them.

Perhaps you can explain your logic slowly to me? I may just comprehend if you explain it in detail.
Analogies, by their very nature, are not perfect. :)

Nonetheless, the sperm bank cannot give out sperm they don't have. One fewer sperm donor means one fewer pregnancy. That the woman will find some other "donor," if not you, is not fundamentally different than that the meat packer will find some other buyer, if not me.

I mean, you could just as well have a child in the typical fashion while telling yourself that your wife would just go to some other "sperm donor" if you didn't do it. The belief that you're not contributing to the population is false either way.

[Jim]

Speaking of carbon footprints...
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2008/nq080429.gif

[SolusLupus]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not perfect. :)Yes, and yours is wrong on almost all the significant levels.

Nonetheless, the sperm bank cannot give out sperm they don't have.Me not giving them anything won't make any suitable difference.

One fewer sperm donor means one fewer pregnancy.Nope, sorry, wrong. There's far more sperm made available than women that actually use it.

That the woman will find some other "donor," if not you, is not fundamentally different than that the meat packer will find some other buyer, if not me.Wrong again. I have already demonstrated how.

I mean, you could just as well have a child in the typical fashion while telling yourself that your wife would just go to some other "sperm donor" if you didn't do it.Nope, not really.

The belief that you're not contributing to the population is false either way.I am not contributing any more than what would have already been contributed.

However, if you wish to prove that another pregnancy would occur and that there isn't already more sperm than there are women looking for donors, I'd be VERY interested in you backing up your empty claims with evidence.

[SeanF]

Me not giving them anything won't make any suitable difference.
Suitable is a pretty vague term. Me buying a single steak won't make any "suitable" difference, either. That cow's already dead. I'm not buying the entire cow, so my not buying the steak won't keep it alive if somebody else is buying the ribs.

However, if you wish to prove that another pregnancy would occur and that there isn't already more sperm than there are women looking for donors, I'd be VERY interested in you backing up your empty claims with evidence.
Sorry, Lonewulf. If no guys were donating sperm, none of those women would be pregnant. By being a sperm donor, you are helping to make that happen. It's the exact same thing as saying that I'm keeping the slaughterhouse in business by buying a steak.

One customer doesn't make or break the business, regardless of what business it is - but every customer is just as culpable as any other.

[SolusLupus]

Suitable is a pretty vague term. Me buying a single steak won't make any "suitable" difference, either. That cow's already dead. I'm not buying the entire cow, so my not buying the steak won't keep it alive if somebody else is buying the ribs.

Sorry, Lonewulf. If no guys were donating sperm, none of those women would be pregnant. By being a sperm donor, you are helping to make that happen. It's the exact same thing as saying that I'm keeping the slaughterhouse in business by buying a steak.

One customer doesn't make or break the business, regardless of what business it is - but every customer is just as culpable as any other.At the very least, donating sperm is a controlled process with much forethought and choice involved. If every child was born with much forethought behind them, I do not think that there would be a major population boom.

Livestock contribute to global warming by 18%. Just small changes in the diet -- by not eating as much meat on average -- can make a very substantial difference.

Sperm donation is the same way as simply changing the diet. It does not cause a substantial population boom in and of itself. Unless you want to provide any evidence that the donation of sperm causes a significant population boom, then I'll only see your posts as a pointless attempt to point out hypocrisy as if this invalidates my original point in this thread -- and seeing your posts as ultimately pointless, I'll simply ignore them from here on in unless they have an actual point to them.

After all, when you make claims like this:

One fewer sperm donor means one fewer pregnancy.
And have yet to back up this claim, I just don't see the point in further discussion.

Eating meat is a multiplication problem. 5 people eat 6 oz. of meat a day, that is 30 oz. of meat a day. However, sperm donation is not the same fashion. 5 people donate sperm and there is one woman looking for a donor, that's still only one child born. If there are 20 women and 100 men, then adding on an extra man does not make a substantial difference. It is not sperm donation that is contributing heavily to population increases, after all. It does not -- as you seem to believe -- cause an extra child to be born. The process just simply does not work that way.

That you seem to fail to see the difference between these two things is not my failing.

[Neverfly]

Livestock contribute to global warming by 18%.
:doh:

You act like Livestock are some new thing that is a Cause of Global Warming (Insert death music here).
Humans EATING the meat may help keep the numbers in animal population up...

But if humans STOP eating meat altogether, animal populations will decrease a bit but still need to be Conserved Too!

Or do you recommend a mass slaughter of "waste and useless" farters?

Ummm.... before the white man skinned the buffalo, they Buffalo ranged about 100 million in number prior to 1860.

Prior to that:Hundreds of Millions.

And that is JUST the American Buffalo we are talking about. In Addition to all the wild horses (Which have also decreased dramatically in number), cattle, and other large grazing aniumals. Most of all of them have decreased in population. Only cattle have increased in population. All others have sharply fallen, some to the point of endangerment of their species.

Let's head on over to Africa- and cover the populations of large roaming animals there.
And how many have roamed in history.


Lonewulf, I think you found a pet peeve to natter about.

I'm not impressed.

Animal farts are normal.

Its human industrialization that caused a sharper increase in CO² productionb.

Going after some other natural factor is Nonsense.

[SolusLupus]

:doh:

You act like Livestock are some new thing that is a Cause of Global Warming (Insert death music here).
Humans EATING the meat may help keep the numbers in animal population up...

But if humans STOP eating meat altogether, animal populations will decrease a bit but still need to be Conserved Too!

Or do you recommend a mass slaughter of "waste and useless" farters?

Ummm.... before the white man skinned the buffalo, they Buffalo ranged about 100 million in number prior to 1860.

Prior to that:Hundreds of Millions.

And that is JUST the American Buffalo we are talking about.

Let's head on over to Africa- and cover the populations of large roaming animals there.
And how many have roamed in history.


Lonewulf, I think you found a pet peeve to natter about.

I'm not impressed.

Animal farts are normal.

Its human industrialization that caused a sharper increase in CO² productionb.

Going after some other natural factor is Nonsense.You seem to not realize what the diets of livestock are today. As I said earlier, there is a great difference between the way animals are kept captive today, and how they survived in the wild.

You're also ignoring the facts because they do not fit in with your own personal view. If you dispute the evidence, then please go on and explain why it's wrong. Provide facts and data; hand-waving will never impress me.

You're not the only one that isn't impressed. I'm still waiting for you to actually say something that is impressive by any score.

I provided the facts and data. I provided the links. If you wish to show me where they are wrong, please do so. The only "pet peeve" I have are people that continue to deny the facts simply because they don't want to believe them. To me, you are no different than Creationists attempting to hand-wave away the evidence for evolution simply because they don't want to believe it, while providing half-baked arguments.

As it is, the data points to nearly 1/5th of the world's global warming centered on livestock. Livestock that every individual in developed countries today can choose to eat -- or at the least, choose to have fewer portions thereof.

Energy and similar methods are also ways to combat global warming. I already have been working on those methods. Implanting more nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, wind, and wave energy as opposed to using fossil fuels would also be a method, although providing fuel for transportation may be more difficult.

Simply cutting down on the energy usage of the average person could help. After all, 1 watt a person for, say, 1 billion people would equate to 1 billion watts. Every little bit of a difference could help.

[Neverfly]

You seem to not realize what the diets of livestock are today. As I said earlier, there is a great difference between the way animals are kept captive today, and how they survived in the wild.

You're also ignoring the facts because they do not fit in with your own personal view. If you dispute the evidence, then please go on and explain why it's wrong. Provide facts and data; hand-waving will never impress me.

You're not the only one that isn't impressed.

OHHH OK
You want to play this... Ok.

Livestock today eats a mixture of BEEF- yes- that's right they are being fed their dead.
http://jivdaya.org/rendering_plants.htm
Methane production within the digestive tracts of livestock is produced mainly when they eat PLANT matter- which is mostly what they ate in the old days.
They are probably producing less fumes now- than their ancestors did.

[Neverfly]

Lonewulf- providing "facts" and links is all fine and dandy. But how about providing some logic and sensibility?
You are the one ignoring that Large, grazing animals have been roaming this planet in abundant numbers for millions of years.

Chasing that Goose- although it can technically be considered a Factor in GW- is nonsense.

Volcanoes can be considered a factor in GW too.
Shall we raising funding to Build Giant Corks and fly around the world stuffing them into Volcano Vent holes?

[SolusLupus]

OHHH OK
You want to play this... Ok.

Livestock today eats a mixture of BEEF- yes- that's right they are being fed their dead.
http://jivdaya.org/rendering_plants.htm
Methane production within the digestive tracts of livestock is produced mainly when they eat PLANT matter- which is mostly what they ate in the old days.
They are probably producing less fumes now- than their ancestors did.So, NASA is staffed by people who don't know what they're doing? They're the ones that came up with the statistics for methane gas worldwide, and found livestock to be a major producer. Not as major as rice paddies, though.

Methane isn't the only gas that's being expelled. Of course, you'd know that if you bothered to read the link I provided earlier.

And yes, you're right, cows were fed beef -- their own dead -- and this resulted in the Mad Cow disease being spread.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow) explains:
A British inquiry into BSE concluded that the epidemic was caused by cattle, who are normally herbivores, being fed the remains of other cattle in the form of meat and bone meal (MBM), which caused the infectious agent to spread.[7][8]

The two links, respectively: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/controls-eradication/causes.html

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/

From the BSE report:
The feeding of MBM to all farmed animals was banned in 1996 and an EU-wide ban has been in place since 2001.

So, pretty much, not anymore.

That you seem to want to promote Mad Cow disease by wanting cows to be fed their own dead to lessen their impact on the atmosphere strikes me as suitably hilarious. You actually want to spread Mad Cow disease... that's just fantastic.

[SolusLupus]

Lonewulf- providing "facts" and links is all fine and dandy. But how about providing some logic and sensibility?Creationists often call it "logical" that a creator "had to be involved" and that humans can't logically "evolve from monkeys".

You are the one ignoring that Large, grazing animals have been roaming this planet in abundant numbers for millions of years.Not quite so many ungulates, no. Those animals are brought up on a different diet than the animals currently in captivity.

Chasing that Goose- although it can technically be considered a Factor in GW- is nonsense.Then you are telling me that people that work in, say, NASA, don't know their own jobs. It's easy to label something "nonsense" when you don't agree with it. It's hard to do so while you have nothing backing up your claim, if you want to be taken seriously.

Volcanoes can be considered a factor in GW too.Volcanoes are producing 15-18% of greenhouse gasses? Link, evidence?

Shall we raising funding to Build Giant Corks and fly around the world stuffing them into Volcano Vent holes?Yeah. This is about as equivalent to your "I promise to fart less" comment earlier. I'm about to throw you on my ignore list; wouldn't make any appreciable difference anyways.

[Neverfly]

That you seem to want to promote Mad Cow disease by wanting cows to be fed their own dead to lessen their impact on the atmosphere strikes me as suitably hilarious. You actually want to spread Mad Cow disease... that's just fantastic.

Lonewulf...

Over-all, I like your posts and you have a good mind. You promote good ideas usually and you promote critical thinking.

But you have a flaw.

I'm going to say this one time:

DO NOT PUT WORDS OR IMPLICATIONS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY NOR IMPLY.

Do you have any idea how annoying and aggravatingly frustrating that is?

That is a Total Straw Man attack habit you have that does nothing but detract from your arguments. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously considering you have a very strong tendency to distort what you read.

[SolusLupus]

Lonewulf...

Over-all, I like your posts and you have a good mind. You promote good ideas usually and you promote critical thinking.

But you have a flaw.Just one? From the tone of your posts, you'd think I had a plethora.

I'm going to say this one time:

DO NOT PUT WORDS OR IMPLICATIONS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY NOR IMPLY.

Do you have any idea how annoying and aggravatingly frustrating that is?

That is a Total Straw Man attack habit you have that does nothing but detract from your arguments. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously considering you have a very strong tendency to distort what you read.Well, to be fair, I had a hard time taking anything you said seriously since the beginning of this thread, starting at "I promise to fart less".

And it certainly seemed like you were praising cows being fed their own dead with your post. But yes, I suppose I took it too far.

Even if cows were fed their own dead, and even if this would provide less methane, you would still have to show evidence that this would be enough to make a substantial difference -- and that such a decision could be economical in any way, shape, or form. Cannibalism tends to be unhealthy. Animals simply aren't really designed for eating their own as a mainstay of their diet.

You can write off the data as "nonsense", but everything I read disagrees with your assessment. You write off the New York Times, NASA, and various organizations completely off without even attempting to look at the data they looked at themselves. You draw assumptions and do not seem to take in all of the various factors. Furthermore, you seem to believe that methane is the primary gas that livestock excrete. That is not true.

[Neverfly]

Creationists often call it "logical" that a creator "had to be involved" and that humans can't logically "evolve from monkeys".
Straw Man.
Logic does exist and you are plenty capable of failing to use it.

Not quite so many ungulates, no. Those animals are brought up on a different diet than the animals currently in captivity.
Yes, I said that and you distorted it into some rambling meaningless nonsense that had nothing to do with what I said.

Then you are telling me that people that work in, say, NASA, don't know their own jobs. It's easy to label something "nonsense" when you don't agree with it. It's hard to do so while you have nothing backing up your claim, if you want to be taken seriously.
The Folks in NASA were probably asked to consider ALL factors. That doesn't mean that we should stop eating meat INSTEAD of finding better ways to power our lifestyle without chugging massive amounts of fumes into the sky- which, incidentally, is a much larger number than 18%.

Volcanoes are producing 15-18% of greenhouse gasses? Link, evidence?
I never said a percentage.
Heck, for all I know, humans could be a significant contributer on an all bean and soy diet.

Yeah. This is about as equivalent to your "I promise to fart less" comment earlier. I'm about to throw you on my ignore list; wouldn't make any appreciable difference anyways.

Reduction to Absurdity argument. If you cannot handle that and need to ignore- Knock yourself out.

[Neverfly]

Lonewulf: Answer this please...

If the United States reduced their intake of meat to be "equal" with the rest of the Globe as you claim....

How much would the percentage (From 18%) drop?

Given a more green friendly and cleaner energy producing lifestyle in the future- and the pressure we are under to Conserve Natural Wildlife- How much can that conserved Wildlife contribute to GW in the future?

[SolusLupus]

Straw Man.Er, not really. I was not claiming it was your own position, therefore, not a strawman. Look the term up.

Yes, I said that and you distorted it into some rambling meaningless nonsense that had nothing to do with what I said.I fail to perceive any great difference.

The Folks in NASA were probably asked to consider ALL factors. That doesn't mean that we should stop eating meat INSTEAD of finding better ways to power our lifestyle without chugging massive amounts of fumes into the sky- which, incidentally, is a much larger number than 18%.And this would result in your straw man. I have never, since the beginning of this thread, stated that we should look for no other methods. The Original Post talked about HOW TO REDUCE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT. I provided a solution. Since then, it's simply been people pointing out how illogical I am, how the facts don't add up, and me defending my position as one based in fact.

How you can to assume that I was promoting one method as the one and only one, I fail to comprehend. Nothing in my posts ever even suggested that. Almost every other post, I stated that lowering meat consumption is one step that can be taken on a long road.

As it is growing obvious just how much you read my posts, it is now apparent that there is no further reason to read any of yours

Reduction to Absurdity argument. If you cannot handle that and need to ignore- Knock yourself out.Unfortunately, your Reduction to Absurdity was in itself an absurdity. I can reduce anything into an absurd argument.

"Oh, you think killing humans is immoral? Then what else is immoral? Killing cows? Reduction to absurdity, your argument is absurd!"

The above argument is about as equivalent as talking about plugging volcanoes because I suggest that changing our diets could have an influence.

[SolusLupus]

Lonewulf: Answer this please...

If the United States reduced their intake of meat to be "equal" with the rest of the Globe as you claim....I did not say equal to the rest of the globe. I said equal to the rest of developed nations. Do try to not put words in my mouth, as you find it so distasteful yourself.

How much would the percentage (From 18%) drop?I provided the figures. I guess you are simply too lazy to do the math yourself.

If the U.S. dropped their eating habits to be about equal to the average developed nation, dropping down from 123 kilos a year per person to 72 kilos per year, that would be about a reduction of 8% of the world's meat consumption. 8% of 18% is about 1.5% of global greenhouse gasses.

If all of the developed nations dropped it further (by, say, 5 kilos), that would help even further.

It's not a lot, but it helps. It isn't a panacea, but if you have one available, I'd love to see it.

Given a more green friendly and cleaner energy producing lifestyle in the future- and the pressure we are under to Conserve Natural Wildlife- How much can that conserved Wildlife contribute to GW in the future?More details, please? I don't quite get your question.

Regardless, I think that we should do whatever we can to reduce greenhouse gasses. I dunno about you, I just feel that way. I don't think that we should go about this half-baked.

[Neverfly]

Ok so it would drop from
18%
to
16.5%?

[SolusLupus]

Ok so it would drop from
18%
to
16.5%?About, pretty much. Not a lot.

Still, the U.S. alone can drop global warming from livestock emissions by 1.5%. That's the U.S. *alone*, just by trimming back on meat. That's a significant difference for only 300 million people on diet alone.

I'd also note that there are probably better methods of keeping livestock in captivity that could reduce emissions. Not overfeeding them for one, or shoving them full of drugs to make them bigger than they really should be. I'd also note that they're currently coming up with more "green" ways of "growing" meat...

It's not as significant as, say, changing from coal to nuclear power stations. It's not going to be a panacea or a cure.

And I do note that you haven't actually contributed your own ideas on this thread. If you're really so set on reducing global greenhouse emissions, what is your advice?

[SolusLupus]

Here's some news for people that love meat, and hate global warming, by the way: Fauxmeat, as well as better methods of raising animals.

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/vertical-farm-toronto-sky-farm

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/invitro_meat

http://www.archined.nl/archined/3251.html

They now can grow the muscle of animals without the cerebral system, and it's much better on the environment. It's predicted that these new methods can become commercially viable by a few years, IIRC.

[Neverfly]

If you're really so set on reducing global greenhouse emissions, what is your advice?

Yeha Noha.


But no one likes my idea much because they lack the survival wits to make it.

[Kaptain K]

Anybody who thinks that cutting meat from the diet would drastically cut methane production has never hung out with vegetarians much!

[Fledermaus]

Anybody who thinks that cutting meat from the diet would drastically cut methane production has never hung out with vegetarians much!

:lol: I know what you mean!

Like I said in my previouse post, we are to used to the conveniance of everything not just meat. There is a growing problem of obesetiy in the wealthy countrys and we do eat too much meat, more than our bodys need.
Them that eat excessive meat daily are making them selves ill and shorten their lives, maybe thats why they dont care about the enviroment, they wont be here to see the devastating results!

The truth is a large majority of people dont think about enviromental issues when doing their monthly shop. Most are thinking about what they can afford to buy, how much they can buy to fill their larders.

All the issues need to be addressed not just eating meat and the way the animals are reared or processed. The whole mixing pot needs to be looked at and we need to re educated each other all around the world.

Again I said in my previouse post, moderation! Apply this to everything and if every one did this there would be a dramatic change. But be aware it will affect economys, export and import all over the world, granted it would be for the best interest of the earth. I dont know of any large company that will be happy to loose 10 million from their proffits and be happy to say its for the good of our future and the health of our enviroment.

Our over production and over consumerism is a circle we have created and need to break, if we can and want to!

[SolusLupus]

Anybody who thinks that cutting meat from the diet would drastically cut methane production has never hung out with vegetarians much!Well, this was an incredibly vague post. Care to quantify this with any more information? I suppose you might just be joking, but I'm not really in the mood for it, given that I have had little to no support in this thread, despite the evidence I have provided all throughout.

I provided statistics by an organization that should be respected here -- NASA -- which well demonstrated that ruminants contributed quite a bit to methane production. Of course, this goes easily ignored; apparently data isn't as important here as I first thought.

Besides, it has been a strawman to claim that I'm only talking about methane, which is what everyone here has been focusing on. If people here really believe that methane is the only greenhouse gas in existence, then I suggest you educate yourself more on the subject matter before commenting.

I will repeat this once again (for the third time in this thread), and then I'm out of this thread, as I have better things to do with my time:

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

Only 37 percent of the gas that comes from livestock are methane. It is Nitrous Oxide that is the problem, at 65 percent.

According to this (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm) report, Nitrous Oxide is a good 296 times worse than CO2 gas over a period of 100 years. It, Methane, and CO2 gas are the three most major contributors to global warming, and Nitrous Oxide has a tendency to stay in the atmosphere a lot longer than CO2 or Methane.

To see where the Nitrous Oxide comes from, it might be a good idea to see what the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html) has to say about it.





EDIT: Hmm, reading through the EPA report, I was surprised. Apparently, crops themselves through agricultural soil management take up the whopping huge portion of all of the sources. Manure management only takes up a very small portion. However, the majority of crops in Corn and Soy go to feed livestock, from the New York Times article:

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.So, since a huge amount of crops seem to go towards feeding the livestock, I don't think that this puts a dent in my proposal any.




Regardless, there are other reasons to eat less meat (including lowering risk of cancer for red meat), or at the very least to change the way we feed livestock. There's a ton of reasons in the New York Times article, but so far everyone's been too lazy to give it a good glance.

I note that someone brought up how many buffalo there were in the U.S.; I believe the figure thrown out as hundreds of millions, but I'm a bit skeptical of that number. Regardless...

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total. I'm thinking that I may have been mistaken as to how many animals there were being raised for livestock. 10 billion animals a year, unless I'm reading this wrong, for the United States alone.

I'd go into it more, but the rest really has less to do with global warming and more of health issues, such as the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I should probably reserve this for a new thread.

[Kaptain K]

Well, this was an incredibly vague post.
If you hang with vegetarians, be sure to sit upwind!

[Ronald Brak]

Chickens are small animals.

[SeanF]

At the very least, donating sperm is a controlled process with much forethought and choice involved. If every child was born with much forethought behind them, I do not think that there would be a major population boom.
If the number of children remains the same, it doesn't much matter how much forethought was put into the process.

And have yet to back up this claim, I just don't see the point in further discussion.
Doesn't matter.

You are claiming that you're not actually contributing to the population if a woman uses your sperm donation for impregnation, and your reason is, "If it wasn't Lonewulf sperm, it'd just be John Smith sperm and would happen anyway." But you're not unique or special in this - if you can say that, then John Smith can say, "If it wasn't John Smith sperm, it'd just be Lonewulf sperm." In fact, every sperm donor can say the exact same thing.

So now we have all these in vitro babies being born and literally no one is responsible for creating them. Ridiculous. If a woman uses your sperm for in vitro impregnation, you are responsible for creating that child.

If you don't do it and somebody else does it anyway, then you can say, "Hey, I didn't do it." But once you've done it, trying to say, "I didn't really do it because it's just like I didn't do it but somebody else did," is a rationalization, and not a very good one.

[Delvo]

If the number of children remains the same, it doesn't much matter how much forethought was put into the process.But that "if" doesn't apply because forethought would reduce the number of them that are produced.

[Ronald Brak]

The market is completely saturated with sperm. So much so that any female who makes the effort to ask can get sperm for free from someone. In fact, women can even recieve money in return for taking sperm off men's hands. So while if all men withheld their sperm there would be a reduction in births, in the margin, the market is so saturated with sperm that one man holding back will have no practical effect.

[Neverfly]

Ok.

I understand the analogy and all that but uhhh...

Can we switch back to cows instead of tadpoles?:neutral:

[ravens_cry]

Why not go with the suggestion of Bender Bending Rodríguez,
"Kill all Humans."?

[Frog march]

If you hang with vegetarians, be sure to sit upwind!


I'm a vegetarian, and I admit that I do fart, sometimes.

It's a terrible admission, I know,:sad:, we veggies really look up to meat eaters in this respect, all that meat and no farting.

[ravens_cry]

Something I rather object to, is how some vegetarians, call anyone who eats meat AT ALL, carnivores. I am not a carnivore, bugglesworth, I am an OMNIVORE! In fact I am a dedicated omnivore personally. I think that the developed nations DO eat too much meat, eating no meat at all is also not the most balanced way either. Sure, you can take supplements, but thats cheating, food should come from food. I have looked at the numbers, the amount of broccoli a vegan has to eat to get enough calcium is, eyebrow raising.

[Frog march]

even as a veggie, I find the "carnivore" comments annoying too, ravens cry.

[Kaptain K]

I too am an omnivore! I have an omnivore's digestive system. Do a little comparative anatomy and you'll find that a pure plant eater has a much more complex digestive system than ours and that a pure meat eater has one that is much simpler than ours!

[mugaliens]

I can't believe I somehow missed this thread...

If you want an efficient method, give people financial incentives to reduce their footprint by taxing environmental damage, then get out of the way and let them figure out the best way to do it. Use the money raised to repair the damage, or to reduce other taxes. Adjust the tax up or down to control the level of the reduction you want.

If you want to make sure the costs are enormous and the benefits tiny (or possibly negative), have the central planners at this board decide how to do it.

Without actually getting into a political discussion, my disclaimer is that I will be following through on many other posts on this thread with bona-fide, non-political contributions.

Nevertheless, since you posted this a few days ago, I've read it many times, and can't help but asking, "are you a Democrat?"

Just curiosity, not politiciosity (there's a new word for you, probably not even in the dictionary!).

I am an inquiring mind. I want to know.

[mugaliens]

Mass global suicide.

Of course the "natural" way to do this would be for humankind to throw off the yoke of industrialization, return to an agrarian economy, bury the billions that would have died in the process, and get on with a healthier, greener life!

Not so cheery, huh?

Well, then, I guess well have to figure out another way than simply "going green."

[mugaliens]

The two simplest significant cuts you can make are car use and eating meat. Become a vegetarian cyclist and your carbon footprint will be slashed dramatically.

As an avid cyclist (I've been cycling to work off and on (winter months suck) for nearly three years), I can assure others that it's a wonderfully environmentally friendly program! <spoken with smile plastered on face and a desire to crank NickelBack the next time I step into my gas-hungry truck>

Reduce our carbon footprint. Huh. Will someone PLEASE calculate the carbon footprint of the human race, excluding sheep, cattle, and other animals off which we live who fart and compare it, in percentage terms, to termites and even bacteria, both of which contribute far more greenhouse gases, in terms of their effectiveness in the global warming process than we puny humans have ever contributed???

[ravens_cry]

As an avid cyclist (I've been cycling to work off and on (winter months suck) for nearly three years), I can assure others that it's a wonderfully environmentally friendly program! <spoken with smile plastered on face and a desire to crank NickelBack the next time I step into my gas-hungry truck>

Reduce our carbon footprint. Huh. Will someone PLEASE calculate the carbon footprint of the human race, excluding sheep, cattle, and other animals off which we live who fart and compare it, in percentage terms, to termites and even bacteria, both of which contribute far more greenhouse gases, in terms of their effectiveness in the global warming process than we puny humans have ever contributed???
That is rather not the point. The thing is not strictly just the amount, but rather the source.The carbon in the carbon dioxide we are adding comes from ancient sources that have been out of the carbon loop a LONG TIME. These are fossil fuels, and we are adding them to the atmosphere at a much greater rate then they originally accumulated. They are, to all practical purposes, NEW carbon source to our ecosystem. So your statement could be said to be misleading.

[SeanF]

But that "if" doesn't apply because forethought would reduce the number of them that are produced.
I knew what he meant. But what he said (that children produced with forethought do not contribute as much to population growth as those produced without) was false and even what he meant (that if fewer people had kids there'd be less population growth) was axiomatic.

His original statement - that he's not contributing to the population as much as another father because the mother could've used a different father - is also false.

The market is completely saturated with sperm.
All together now: Ewwww. ;)

Why is the market saturated? Because of people like Lonewulf.

So while if all men withheld their sperm there would be a reduction in births, in the margin, the market is so saturated with sperm that one man holding back will have no practical effect.
And, really, is the same not true for one man buying the occasional steak?

As I said, if Lonewulf can deny responsibility, then every sperm donor can. But that would mean all those in vitro babies were born without any men being responsible for creating them.

This idea that, "Because so many other people do it it doesn't matter whether I do it or not," is pretty much at the root of environmental issues, because it's true of just about everybody in every issue. Whether a single individual drives to work or bikes isn't going to make any difference - but if a lot of people do it, it will. And the only way for a lot of people to do it is for a lot of single individuals to do it.

[Ronald Brak]

And, really, is the same not true for one man buying the occasional steak?

No, it's not the same. Buying a steak directly contributes to cows being butchered, but the marginal situation with sperm isn't the same. Think of it this way, eating steak out of a restaurant dumpster doesn't affect the amount of cows being killed because eating that is not going to contribute to increased beef production. Marginal sperm is in a similar economic position. For all intents and purposes you can imagine it coming from a dumpster.

But you are certainly correct that a lot of environmental problems stem from the tragedy of the commons.

[SeanF]

No, it's not the same. Buying a steak directly contributes to cows being butchered, but the marginal situation with sperm isn't the same. Think of it this way, eating steak out of a restaurant dumpster doesn't affect the amount of cows being killed because eating that is not going to contribute to increased beef production. Marginal sperm is in a similar economic position. For all intents and purposes you can imagine it coming from a dumpster.
Isn't the only difference between buying the steak from the grocery store and taking it from the dumpster after it's been tossed (at least, the only difference in regards to the amount of cows being killed) that by buying it, I help to keep the slaughterhouses in business?

And doesn't every sperm donor help to keep the in vitro fertilization industry in business? Perhaps not as much, but once you get to the point where a single participant doesn't make a difference, it doesn't make a difference. :)

BTW, Lonewulf, I wanted to apologize for the tone of some of my posts, especially the last one. I do think your attitude towards the situation is wrong, but I'm not really taking it as seriously as it might appear I am. :)

[Ronald Brak]

Isn't the only difference between buying the steak from the grocery store and taking it from the dumpster after it's been tossed (at least, the only difference in regards to the amount of cows being killed) that by buying it, I help to keep the slaughterhouses in business?

Yes. Of course one could argue that eating steak out of a dumpster will give a person a taste for beef that will make them go out and buy some when they have the money, but one could also argue that eating dumpster steak would put one off beef.

And doesn't every sperm donor help to keep the in vitro fertilization industry in business? Perhaps not as much, but once you get to the point where a single participant doesn't make a difference, it doesn't make a difference.

Okay, here we are confusing the in vitro fertilization industry with the cost of sperm. A fertillity clinic isn't in the business of selling sperm. Or rather, not just sperm. They are selling a reproductive service which includes reassurance, respecability, a pleasent shopping experience, an impression of quality and so on. Just sperm itself can be aquired by a woman for free in any town or city worldwide.