Environmentalists say eating red meat contributes to global warming. Should we eat less red meat??

Question

Environmentalists now say that eating red meat causes more carbon emissions because the meat has to be transported from other areas, so we should eat less red meat. No matter what we do, the environmentalists are right around the corner, telling us another scare story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080505/sc_livescience/howtofightglobalwarmingatdinner

Answer 1

Isn't almost all food transported from other areas?  Maybe we should stop eating!  Maybe we should all ride bikes or horses to work!  (can you imagine people in business suits riding a bike?)  Maybe we should stop using electricity and give up our computers, TVs, kitchen equipment and indoor plumbing!  Maybe we should start living in caves again with smoky fires and animal skins!  Wait---wouldn't PETA protest that one?  How far are we willing to go to try to stop global warming which might even be a natural phenomenon anyway that we can't stop?  Well, whatever the case may be, my doctor says I need to eat more red meat, not less, because of an iron deficiency.  So, I'm not giving it up.  I like red meat!  :-)

Answer 2

figure it out

2 acres supports one cow that feeds a handful of people

2 acres can supply enough vegetables to feed an entire village

it is raising the meat that results into a lot of deforestation.

and subsequent desertification because of over grazing

we should have a change of diet

there are other ways to get protein

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

the Mexicans habit of eating mostly meat and tortillas is destroying their country apart from the corporate ethanol business

relevant links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWNLvgU4...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 3

Oh, yes, the "environmentalists" speak again. They had their weekly meeting and discussed in what way they could scare people yet again. Why present facts and let people make decisions based on them when we can just live in ignorant bliss? Now, let's beat up some doctors for telling us that being fat is unhealthy.

Answer 4

Wait a second... Gengi told me that it is impossible for plants to give off more CO2 than they take in from the atmosphere...  He called me an idiot and told me to ....  Do the math....  How can meat, that eats those plants be such a huge CO2 producer????  I mean, they do eat plants and water, which has no CO2, unless it is dirty...  So, what is the reality here?  Can alarmists make up their mind?  I mean you got CO2 absorbing plants that, when fermented, produces CO2, then it burns and produces CO2...  

Oh, I get it, Gengi forgot about the SOIL HAVING CARBON....  And she called me an idiot.... LMAO

Answer 5

"Environmentalists say" eh? i learned at school, 30 years ago, that it takes 10 times the land to rear a cow as it would to eat plants instead.

do get your facts right, nothing to do with transport, that is a separate matter.

Answer 6

Just because Yahoo news is just now REPORTING it, does not mean that the piece of information just got plucked from the aether. When you write "Environmentalists now say" you miss the point that this has been pretty common knowledge for decades amongst those who are conscious enough to be interested. Not to mention, you got the point of this particular article wrong. The article is about how ALL food is transported and causes pollution, but beyond that red meat is even more harmful and that the production is worse than the transportation.

Read it again, slowly, and try to read the details. Read what the article actually says rather than just a few key words and then filling in the rest with your stereotypes and preconceived notions.

Answer 7

Cindy W, I would have to say Gengi told you wrong.

The reason the CO2 output from cattle can greatly exceed the total from the carbon in the plants they eat has to do with the fact that the grain, silage, or whatever you feed them requires gasoline, diesel or whatever to till, plant, irrigate, cultivate and harvest.  This is all CO2 emission over and above whatever carbon the cattle food contains.  

Then factor in that a cow is going to consume many times (like 1000 times) the nutritional value it will provide when it is slaughtered.  If cows ate only their nutritional equivalent in plants and the plants required no assistance from the farmer involving an internal combustion engine, then you would have a "break even" situation.

The "water footprint" is also about 1000 times the nutritional equivalent in plants.

As the article mentions, transportation has been found to be a minor issue by comparison.

edit

Yes Heretic, you have me there.  Free range is free range.  But tell me, have you ever met a farmer really into his cows who didn't cheat (just a little bit?).  Also, if they are raising them for market, do they get fattened up before slaughter?  I'm just asking, I don't know.  I don't know what you mean by the manna thing.  It's a nonsequitor.

Answer 8

The problem is overpopulation and the stress it puts on having more food available to everyone, Quite frankly it doesn't matter how much food a cow eats, because eventually the amount of crops created will be far less than the amount of people eating. And that is what the real problem is: overpopulation and the stress it puts on the environment, the fact that there is no balance to keep up with the living demands of millions is the real problem.

Answer 9

If you've never lived on a farm, then you can't relate. The average bovine takes 2 acres on a rotating bases. Plus an additional acre for hay/silage. You have one breeder that's inseminated every year. Once the calf is weaned you eat it. You continue to milk the breeder always having milk,butter,cheese,...etc.It will support a family of seven along with a chicken for Sunday's supper. (Bob) has the right concept, it's the super conglomerates that are causing the problems, not the disappearing local farms.

Edit; (little robbergirl), a cow will eat; corn stalks, watermelon rinds, poison ivy...etc. The point is, you make it versatile, clear the land and recycle the plant waste. "Most people just wouldn't survive."

Edit; (Tuba), not exactly true...maybe for the large corporations, but this doesn't apply to field,Johnson, or crabgrass. Most farmers shy away from alfalfa because it contains mold spores which can kill the livestock. Unless it's kept dry, if you plant corn...etc as a supplemental crop, feed the cattle the drops/stalks. They don't mind one iota.By the same token how do you get your food? Does it magically appear as manna from heaven?

Answer 10

do they whine so much about the emissions caused from in porting their nasty tofu, or their wheat germ?   i bet not!

If we can only come up with a way to link radical environmentalism with gw, we would fix them good.

Answer 11

Actually the problem is emissions from feedlots and factory farms.

But eat what you like.  We don't have to stop doing things we like to fix global warming.  Here's the plan:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.h...

Answer 12

If you eat meat your intestines will be full of the rotting remains of dead animals. Do you really want that?

Answer 13

Yeah, and for years the environmentalist told us not to use paper at the grocery store. Now their upset that plastic isnt biodegradable.

We have catylitic converters on the cars in order to stop pollution, now cars are a main source of greenhouse emmissions.

Sooo, if we all stop eating meat, and switch to what? Plants? Then the complaint will be that we are destroying the plants that help balance the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...

The list for these people with no lives except telling others how to live theirs will never end.

Eat what you want and be happy, because they never will be.

Plus if we did everything they wanted, their egos would deflate since they will no longer be able to act superior to the rest of us backward, uneducated, heartless shlups.

Answer 14

yep, we should.

almost every nutritionist will tell you that for most of us, eating less red meat is more healthy.

in addition, a cow, for example, eats 7 times the grain you'd have to in order to produce an equal amount of food.

in other words, if you became a vegetarian, the food you saved would be able to feed 7 more people.