How can changing your diet to a vegetarian helps to reduce global warming?
Answer:
In these matters I suggest following the money trail.
The same people who are profiting out of causing the problems are profiting from the hysteria
I would have to say that it is cyclic
Follow the money trail
the Mega-Rich are pushing both barrows
Most veggies give you gas so I don't see how this will help reduce global warming.
I guess that rules out the old barbecue spit!
Not that much, different problem than global warming.
There is only so much land that can be used to feed people, or livestock. If you use crops to feed livestock, there is less land available to feed people. The food energy you get from a steak is a lot less per acres of land and gallon of water used then growing a food crop on that land. In other words you don't have to cut down rainforests to create pastureland.
I.e. the more direct the nutrition pathway, the more efficient.
So the root cause of Global Warming in this example is deforestation, not diet. I can get plenty of corn fed beef locally. I do not need to buy South American beef and support continued deforestation. Fortunately, I have a choice.
Take everything Grzbr said, but take into account the fact that it requires the burning of fossil fuels to grow the increased crops needed to feed animals that are raised and butchered in the industrialized, factory farm system. Less people eating meat = less grain needed to feed the meat= less fuel required to grow the grain. Not to mention the other environmental blights caused by factory farming.
Tons of ways... The biggest is that grazing animals have vastly reduced America's forests and forests worldwide. I know we see a lot of attention drawn to the world's wet rainforests, but the dry ones are being reduced at a very significant rate. Some countries have lost 99 percent of their forests. 99 percent!! Overgrazing is one of the biggest causes.
I'm sorry joecool, you still have to feed the people even if you don't feed the cows. The point grizz made is that producing the food to feed the cow is cheaper than feeding the people. You can't simply feed the grain that you would have given to the cow to the people who now need to replace lost protein from giving up beef. Man's diet is much "pickier" and more expensive (Just like it's cheaper to feed a pet than a person, or why you hear stories of poor people eating dogfood.)
Check this although i do not agree totally ,because if we breeed animals from nature for food and manage them we would not harm the Environment or Eco systems
such as deer ,Wild boar pheasants , rabbits ,ducks, turkeys etc.
The Meat Eating Environmentalist - a Contradiction in Terms?
For more informations: www.goveg.com
World Environment Day - 5 June 2007
Press Release - European Vegetarian Union
It takes no more than a moment's thought to realise that in terms of land, water and energy it is far more efficient to live on plant foods than on the dead bodies of animals who themselves had to eat huge quantities of plants to fuel their own growth and activity.
Studies of the health of vegans (no animal products), other vegetarians (milk and eggs only) and meat eaters have also shown beyond doubt that human beings, including children, can be perfectly healthy without animal products.
What is new is the growing recognition that we are pressing the environmental limits of our planet, and the widespread acceptance by authoritative international bodies that a key reason for this is our continuing - on a world scale, still growing - reliance on animals for food.
Global warming is increasingly accepted as the critical challenge for the 21st century and the recent report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), "Livestock's Long Shadow", removes any doubt as to the importance of our food choices to addressing this issue:
- "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every scale from local to global."
- "The livestock sector .. is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport."
- Demand for meat and for livestock feed is driving the destruction of forests with accompanying massive release of carbon dioxide. The methane from ruminant animals is the other major livestock impact on greenhouse gases.
Despite the dramatic evidence of the need for change, most organisations remain convinced that livestock will always be with us. While recognising the damaging impact of livestock on the environment, the FAO expects world consumption of milk and meat to double by 2050. They have seen the problem, and the solution is staring them in the face, yet it seems that the world's leaders just cannot imagine a future without continued dependence on animal products.
However, if we can't both imagine such a future AND take urgent steps to make it a reality we shan't have a future at all. If we make the leap quickly enough we may yet have the luxury of looking back on the blindness of past generations from the standpoint of the only viable future - where a meat-eating environmentalist will seem as absurd a concept as an egalitarian slave owner.
Renato Pichler
President
European Vegetarian Union
www.euroveg.eu
president@euroveg.eu
http://www.euroveg.eu/lang/en/news/press...
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: