I heard eating meat contributes to global warming, how?

Question

Everyone says eating meet contributes to global warming. How exactly?

Answer 1

First of all, cows belch out methane, a greenhouse gas--lots and lots of methane.

Second, because of the fertilizer used to grow the plants fed to animals who eventually become meat--and it takes between 5 and 15 pounds of plant matter to create one pound of animal food--it takes roughly 10 times the fossil fuels to produce a calorie of meat than it does to produce a calorie of plant food.  Soy is even more efficient than other plant foods.

Rainforests, which are considered the planet's "lungs" are often burned and clear-cut to produce grazing land for cattle--and land used to raise cattle feeds fewer people than land used to grow crops to feed humans.  Fewer trees means more carbon dioxide--another greenhouse gas--in the atmosphere.

Check out Bite Global Warming for more information.

Answer 2

The brain requires more energy then any other organ. Those early hominids were separated by two distinct classes. The veggie eaters died out. So in essence eat more veggies and become (what)? Another misnomer is that relating skeptics to neatherdals as a insult is really a compliment. Being that they had the only known brain capacity to modern man. It's not eating meat, it's the conglomerations and their processing methods that's the problem.

Answer 3

The idea is that the methane in the cow's flatulence is a greenhouse gas. (The ozone layer is not affected)

Answer 4

Yes, you heard correctly, eating meat DOES contribute to global warming. Bear with me because this might look lengthy but it'll answer your question in detail and will clear up exactly HOW this happens.

The greatest offender is beef, followed by fishing (overfishing is horrible to the environment in general), pork and chicken.

Beef by it's very nature guarantees massive consumption of resources, and since most of the cattle in America is fed an unnatural diet (rather than grass they are fed corn, soy and grain - which is cheaper) they produce especially toxic waste and emit even more gas than normal.

Since the animals we raise for consumption eat a plant-based diet, we funnel an endless supply of grain, soybeans, corn and water towards animal agriculture. When you total up how much an animal eats and drinks before it's ready for slaughter and divide it up by how many pounds of meat it actually yields, you get the following results:

- 12-16 pounds of grain, soy, corn and other plants per pound of meat

- 2,000-3,5000 gallons of water per pound of meat

The reason it's so wasteful is because you're not only feeding the animal to make it gain body weight; you're also feeding it to sustain the body weight it already has. Most of what the animal eats is just to sustain itself. It's like throwing plants and water down the drain. In the end, you have far less calories of meat. It's a HUGE waste.

Think about how many pesticides, how much gasoline, how much water is needed to grow all those plants that animals consume. To transport it around, process it, harvest it. In fact, 80% of the world's plant crop is raised and then fed to ANIMALS raised for consumption. While parts of the world are starving, the Western diet (which over-relies on meat for protein) funnels all available resources towards it.

Then think about the waste animal agriculture creates on top of it - the transport, the processing, the sheer amount of resources required to even turn thousands of animal corpses in a slaughterhouse into neatly packaged hamburger patties and hot dogs.

And then the waste - animals produce a LOT of waste, especially herbivores. They go to the bathroom a lot, let's just say. Animal waste is one of the leading causes of pollutants that seep back into our soil.

Slaughterhouses dump fetid leftovers, rotting or otherwise unusable meat (meat with tumors or meat that can be "trimmed" clean IS used and IS sold on the market, don't be fooled - do you really think a dead body will be fresh and colorful from the day it dies until 2 weeks later when it finally ends up in a store?). Factory farms seep animal waste and sewage into streams, rivers, lakes, soil.

Their waste is toxic, to say the least, because of the genetically modified, unhealthy diets animals are fed. The beef industry is well known for using growth hormones to make their cows grow bigger faster. Chickens are fed arsenic to prevent large-scale worm infestations since they are crammed beak to rear end in "free range" factory farms, or caged one on atop of another. Cows, pigs and chickens are frequently re-fed one another's waste to "save" money and to clear up the otherwise tricky task of getting rid of tons and tons of f***s.

In fact, studies have shown that driving a hybrid, having solar panels on your house AND buying carbon offsets would STILL not make up for how much of our precious planet we destroy just by choosing to eat meat.

There have been wide-spread, well documented and well researched articles released recently about the impact of animal agriculture on the environment. Not only did the United Nations (with an international selection of scientists, biologists, researchers, etc) report on it, but there are USDA reports about it and news reports from just about every major news source - FOX news, the most obviously conservative news station ever, with the madman Rupert Murdock as it's owner (and propaganda pusher) barely counts as credible, even among conservatives.

A UN study concluded that " the livestock sector [is] a "major player" in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production. The FAO found that the ranching and slaughter of cows and other animals generates an estimated 18 percent of total human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions globally." 18% - that's greater than all offices and houses worldwide (8% of global warming contribution) or even all the cars in the WORLD (13-15% global warming contribution).

An ABC news report also showed that a team of geophysicists analyzed that eating meat is equivalent to driving the worst of gas-guzzling SUV's. A quote: "When they looked at only carbon dioxide emissions associated directly with energy consumption, they came up with the vegetarian diet far less damaging to the planet than the others."

Answer 5

Just another lie...

Answer 6

By keeping our computer opened to ask these questions, we contribute to global warming!

Answer 7

Basically meat requires more water, land, grain, transportation, and energy storage than plant based foods by long shot. I'm sure you want proof so I'm going to give you some source and quotes.

"According to the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock contribute more to global warming than transport, producing 18% of all global greenhouse gas emissions."

"Eshel and Martin collected that data from a wide range of sources, and they examined the amount of fossil-fuel energy -- and thus the level of production of greenhouse gases -- required for five different diets. The vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy efficient, followed by poultry, and what they call the "mean American diet," which consists of a little bit of everything.

There was a surprising tie for last place. In terms of energy required for harvesting and processing, fish and red meat ended up in a "virtual tie," but that's just in terms of energy consumed. When you toss in all those other factors, such as bovine flatulence and gas released by manure, red meat comes in dead last."

Keep in mind that methane has over 20 times the heat trapping properties as CO2

"The seafood portion of American diets is heavily skewed toward what is called charismatic predator fish," Eshel said, which are harder to catch. "Sword, shark and tuna and so on require long-distance ocean journeys, and those efforts are not efficient. They require a lot of labor and a lot of fossil fuel."

Basically much of our fish is caught by trawlers that are several football fields long with nets that span for miles going from the surface to the bottom. This is extremely damaging to the ocean killing many species that are not even wanted. 19 of the 25 most major fisheries are now either depleted or on the verge of out right collapse.

"The United States, Eshel says, accounts for about 28 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.

"The U.S. has five sectors of the economy that are large emitters," he said. "Those are transportation, industrial, commercial, residential and agriculture."

Energy used in agriculture has grown substantially in recent years, he says, and now stands at around 18 percent or 19 percent of the nation's energy use.

The researchers say their findings show that at least 6 percent of that use comes from the production of foods that are not energy efficient, like cattle and the food to feed them. Considering that the "mean American diet is responsible for an additional ton-and-a-half of greenhouse gas emissions a year from each of us," the savings could be substantial.

"It's a huge deal," Eshel said.

So do these two vegetarians want us to give up our hamburgers and tuna and eat cauliflower?

"I hate to sound preachy," Eshel said, but it wouldn't hurt to give a little.

"I say eat whatever works for you, but just keep in mind that the less animal-based food you eat, and the more you replace those calories with plant-based food, the better off you are, in terms of your health as well as your contributions to the health of the planet."

Basically if we all care enough to give a little by either eating less meat or not at all it could make a significant difference. But the real question is not whether a vegetarian diet can help reduce environmental degradation but just how much do you care.

Answer 8

There's a nice website regarding what foods contribute more to global warming. You can check that out for more information:

http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/

I got to know about this website at my office cafeteria.

Meats and dairy products are especially high in carbon because the livestock naturally emit greenhouse gases such as methane whic is more potent than CO2. Also the energy required to produce feed, grow the livestock to maturity is higher than growing plants. Transportation is another major factor.

Hope this helps.

Answer 9

If you take carbon as a pollutant everything contributes to global warming.

The raise the cow he burps and passes gas

They need to transport the meat to store hydrocarbons released.

You walk to the store and breath you exhale co2.

You drive to the store hydrocarbon  and breathe co2

Store using energy to keep meat clod   If in the US 80 non nuclear well either natural gas , or coal to run power the plant.   Come home boil water release more carbons.

Answer 10

It is not energy efficient to eat meat. One field can provide around 30 people with crops, but if you feed these crops to animals and then the humans eat the animals, it can only provide food for about 3 people.

This is because energy is wasted at each level in a food chain. The animal 'wastes' energy moving around, carrying out respiration, maintaing body temperature and other things. So.. less energy is passed on from the food they eat to the meat eaten by us. Also, not all parts of an animal are edible- so not all the energy can be obtained. Therefore, more energy is needed to feed meat-eaters than vegetarians, and more energy is needed to feed vegetarians than vegans. SO.. more CO2 is used is rearing animals for meat rather than growing crops straight for human consumption.

Added to this, the bacteria in the stomachs of ruminants (like cows) produce methane which is one of the main greenhouse gases.

Interesting question!

Answer 11

Seems whatever we do, eating, sleeping, running, having kids, raising a family, etc, causes global warming.  So are we supposed to stop doing everything?  This global warming c**p is getting ridiculous!

Answer 12

I'm sure you've been told that the amount of ozone-killing substances is greater from a herd of cows than a freeway full of SUV's. Also, the growing, processing and delivering of grain (that could be used to feed people) to feed cattle, and corn for other species uses an enormous amount of fossil fuels to process and transport. THEN we have to transport the living meat to the slaughterhouse, kill it, and transport it to the local mega-butchers who use Styrofoam to package it. All in all, a very un-green and inefficient way to deliver food.

Answer 13

just a guess, it is not very 'energy efficient'. Plants absorb sun and produce fruits and vegetables, animals then eat this stored energy, burn some moving around and lose much in the many conversions from sunlight to fruit to cow and so on. It is the most energy inefficient to eat preadators because it is one step further on the food chain, one more loss of energy. More waste. There are very few natural predators who will go out of thier way to eat other predators.

In the end it equals more work for us, more c**p to clean up, more machines to drive around and use fuel et al.

Answer 14

Pffft, hippies with an agenda. If the hippes made all the animals in the world dissapear, I'd eat them.

Answer 15

That's not true. If you eat enough sheep and cows, you'll decrease their methane gas emissions! Oh- maybe eating meat makes man emit more... uh.... personal emissions (to say it politely).

Answer 16

Everyone? Who is everyone? If everyone says this everyone is dumb. The fact is that the more meat people eat there are less livestock to produce methane gas. Less methane gas means less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Thus less global warming. EAT MORE MEAT!!!!!!!

Answer 17

I want to know this. I may be more inclined to be a vegetarian again.

Answer 18

2 ways. the processing, harvesting, shipping (etc) of food can be a hefty weight on the environment from the burning of fuels putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

or from the build up of gas that comes with digesting food, expelled as wind (farting). It contains methane gas which also play with the tender balance of the earth's temperature. In New Zealand they had a tax system for farmers called 'the f**t tax'. Because of the huge number of cattle grazing all day, and thus farting, it was increasing the countries contribution to global warming, going against the kioto agreement that they had signed. It also, on paper, tainted the 'clean, green' image they promote.

food + digesting => gas released = methane = global warming

Answer 19

Great Answer Love of Truth

A study was written up by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations called "Livestock's Long Shadow"  and their findings from global warming to land degradation to water pollution can be seen here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a07...

Click on the individual sections that you want to view.

Answer 20

Something like 14% of the greenhouse gases is attributed to methane gas from factory farmed animals. eg. their farts...

Think of thousands and thousands of stressed animals being fed a diet that is definitely not made for happy digestion (i mean their digestion)...

The result is not happy digestion of them, by us, if you think about what you're chomping on...

If you're still thinking of going vegan or vegetarian, take a peak at this video for the final push...

Answer 21

because then they need more cows. and cows' flatulence deteriorates the ozone layer.