Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Meat Is a Global Warming Issue

By Dan Brook, E Magazine. Posted August 24, 2006.


Put that hamburger down! Our carnivorous habits are partially responsible for the dire threat of global warming.
Advertisement

There are many human activities that contribute to global warming. Among the biggest contributors are electrical generation, the use of passenger and other vehicles, over-consumption, international shipping, deforestation, smoking and militarism. (The U.S. military, for example, is the world's biggest consumer of oil and the world's biggest polluter.)

What many people do not know, however, is that the production of meat also significantly increases global warming. Cow farms produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane per year, the two major greenhouse gases that together account for more than 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions, substantially contributing to "global scorching."

According to the United Nations Environment Program's Unit on Climate Change, "There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock." The 2004 State of the World is more specific regarding the link between animals raised for meat and global warming: "Belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world's annual production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas."

The July 2005 issue of Physics World states: "The animals we eat emit 21 percent of all the CO2 that can be attributed to human activity." Eating meat directly contributes to this environmentally irresponsible industry and the dire threat of global warming.

Additionally, rainforests are being cut down at an extremely rapid rate to both pasture cows and grow soybeans to feed cows. The clear-cutting of trees in the rainforest -- an incredibly bio-diverse area with 90 percent of all species on Earth -- not only creates more greenhouse gases through the process of destruction, but also reduces the amazing benefits that those trees provide. Rainforests have been called the "lungs of the Earth," because they filter our air by absorbing CO2, while emitting life-supporting oxygen.

"In a nutshell," according to the Center for International Forestry Research, "cattle ranchers are making mincemeat out of Brazil's Amazon rainforests."

Of course, the U.S. should join the other 163 countries in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, we should sharply reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and shift towards renewable sources of energy. Of course, we need to stop destroying the rainforests. Of course, we need to stop the war in Iraq and drastically reduce the U.S. military budget (presently at half of the entire world's total military spending), which would increase, not decrease, national and global security. But as we're struggling and waiting for these and other structural changes, we need to make personal changes.

Geophysicists Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin from the University of Chicago concluded that changing one's eating habits from the Standard American Diet (SAD) to a vegetarian diet does more to fight global warming than switching from a gas-guzzling SUV to a fuel-efficient hybrid car. Of course, you can do both. Where the environment is concerned, eating meat is like driving a huge SUV. According to Eshel, eating a vegetarian diet is like driving a mid-sized car or a reasonable sedan, and eating a vegan diet (no dairy, no eggs) is like riding a bicycle or walking. Shifting away from SUVs and SUV-style diets, to much more energy-efficient alternatives, is key to fighting the warming trend.


Digg!

Dan Brook is an instructor of sociology at San Jose State University and author of "Modern Revolution" (University Press of America, 2005).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Killing animals, the planet and lots of people.
Posted by: USUK on Aug 24, 2006 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, saving the planet is one of the main reasons to be veggie. Some other reasons are:
Feeding all the people of the world.
Personal health and longevity.
It's better for the animals you didn't kill.

Would anyone in their right mind kill and eat mammals?
Would anyone in their right mind kill and eat babies?

USUK because your two countries are parasites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Real costs. Posted by: ABetterFuture
cold turkey
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 24, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we don't have to quit cold turkey (all at once); we can gradually reduce the worst of it (beef & hogs) finally to nothing, then do the same with chickens/other birds then move on to cow's/other milk. End war would be another big chunk as would end big cars and end long jet flights. Better to end the worst of consumption than to wreck the planet in the end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cold turkey Posted by: quissy
Misinformation...again
Posted by: Molly W on Aug 24, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it is true that huge confined animal feeding operations and all the rest of the industrial agriculture system are polluting the planet and ruining our health. But that's about the only fact Mr Brook got right. He fails to even mention that people can eat meat raised sustainably and ethically. In fact, a diet containing sustainably raised animal products (organic, pastured, locally-marketed) is MORE environmentally conscious than either vegetarian or vegan diets. Most vegs eat tofu, soymilk, olive and other seed oils. Soy products are industrially monocropped (even if they are organic) and processed, as well as these oils. Then they are shipped long distances, even overseas in the case of olive oil.

I work with small scale farmers as manager of a farmers' market. One of our vendors has very small herds of beef and dairy cattle, as well as chickens. All their animals are pastured. They raise about everything they eat, all their protein and fat come from the farm. The animals provide fertilizer for the garden. Actually, there is less loss of life on a pastured meat farm than on a farm growing soybeans for soymilk--on a pasture, one steer (and maybe some bugs) sacrifices its life to sustain others, while in a soybean or canola field growing beans/seeds to make tofu or oil for a vegan, huge amounts of wildlife habitat are lost, not even to mention the birds, mice, voles, etc that are killed when huge tractors go through the field.

I used to be vegan because I believed misinformation like that spouted by Brook. I know now that my diet is much more sustainable and humane than when I was dependent on soy and other processed veg foods. Ethical meat eating is at the forefront of the food and agriculture revolution in America, so I was surprised to see this one-sided, biased article from Alternet. Brook's theory is about 30 years outdated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: woogawooga
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: Catwoman
» Another aspect Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Another aspect Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: woogawooga
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: Molly W
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: festernaecus
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: toddaa
» Throw-away Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: aebartle
» Soybeans Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: It'sTheFood
» RE: Misinformation...again Posted by: It'sTheFood
» Our bodies, ourselves Posted by: YogiBear
» Answer to your questions Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» What a flawed argument Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: What a flawed argument Posted by: festernaecus
» I respect your honesty Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: I respect your honesty Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I respect your honesty Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: What a flawed argument Posted by: aebartle
» RE: What a flawed argument Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Dick's boy Posted by: wereallfukked
» RE: Dick's boy Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» P.S. Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Perpetual problem here... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Hemp, demand hemp Posted by: aonghus36
The problem is not meat
Posted by: Rbuck on Aug 24, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is not meat but it is the paradigm that we chose to produce it within. Ever since Henry Ford the production line mentality has been applied to all sorts of activities so that now we have a health care industry, a music industry, an entertainment industry etc. None of these need be thought of as such and the food industry is a very bad idea. What we need is local foods produced sustainably. Perhaps waistlines would decrease and health woud be better among us all if we produced at least part of what we ate and supported those around us who who do produce food instead of relying on "local" foods from three states or more away.

It behoves the progressives to be more discerning and accurate at naming a problem to be fixed. There is no simple answer, there is no simple problem, but there are things we each can do to relieve the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem is not meat Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: The problem is not meat Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: The problem is not meat Posted by: Catwoman
» Perhaps it's evolutionary Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Perhaps it's evolutionary Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Perhaps it's evolutionary Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The problem is not meat Posted by: marklar
Its political and personal
Posted by: brad on Aug 24, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the statements for local meat are true however others like; "a diet containing sustainably raised animal products (organic, pastured, locally-marketed) is MORE environmentally conscious than either vegetarian or vegan diets", is pure hyperbole. You fail to include the acres needed to raise all of that steak for the 6.5 billion people on the planet and while a field of open raised grass fed beef is maybe slightly better than a field of grain or beans, it is still nowhere near the wildlife habitat of preserved unfarmed land. You state; "there is less loss of life on a pastured meat farm than on a farm growing soybeans for soymilk" but fail to mention that you could feed about two people per acre of meat farm and about 200-1000 per acre of soy. The fact is that a vegitarian diet will use about ten times less land than a meat based diet (and about 100 times less enegry and 1000 times less water), land that can be used for native habitat or forests to quell global warming.

Now conversely I am not one of those who aspires to turn a political issue, what we accept as farming, distributing and treating practices is a political issue, into a personal choice/free market issue. It is not simply about my personal choices, it is about how we as a collective society want to live. By simply advocating personal consumer choice changes one actually strengthens the argument of free market ideologues who want to leave society up to "markets". A twofold stratigie is needed, one that involves personal choices and political action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animals are good...
Posted by: Liger on Aug 24, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If God didn't want us to eat animals then he wouldn't have made them out of meat! Duh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep! God wants us to kill! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Aren't people also made out of meat? Posted by: MatthewSavage
Meat Is a Global Warming Issue - water is being used for meat
Posted by: Aimee on Aug 24, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about our precious WATER that is being used to raise animals for human consumption? The animals are drinking it as well as polluting it - our precious water supply. Also when rain forests are being destroyed it changes our global weather patterns.

We are killing ourselves. STOP eating meat. Cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys. DEAD MEAT is not good for humans or for our home: Earth.

Peace, and Good Luck,
Aimee
Vegetarian for over 30 years.
www.dataoptions.com

PS: for those who do not believe there is a global climate change problem - well, good luck to you. Those who do not pay attention will wonder what happened when it is too late. Actually, it is already too late. Good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Meat Is a Global Warming Issue Posted by: YogiBear
What a piece of garbage
Posted by: Ricki on Aug 24, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has no acknowledgement of the nuances of the issue. I am sick and tired of those who seek to force a vegetarian agenda on everyone. It is not a healthier more environmentally sound way to eat. It is riduculous to lump pasture raised meats together with factory farmed meats. Pasture raised meats are healthy and humane. Factory farmed meats are grain intensive and unhealthy and inhumane. Pasture raised meats use no grain and therefore very little petroleum products. Soybeans, the mainstay of vegetarian diets, use lots of petroleum products to plow and cultivate. All the other grains that vegetarians eat require plowing and cultivation which uses lots of fossil fuel, something these propagandists seem to forget. Grains and soybeans travel very far from where they were grown to get to the vegetarian's plate. Overall, which contributes to global warming more? Notice that the article does not say how much fossil fuel it takes to plow and cultivate a field of soybeans, grains, etc. and to process them and to get them in a finished state to market. It does not list the other imputs like irrigation and fertilizer (which will either be petroleum based or from our demonized animal's manure - and where are you going to get the manure if no one raises animals anymore???) or the fuel needed to plant a cover crop in the fallow time. The SMARTEST way to eat with the least impact is to raise all of your own food. How many of these vegetarian pushers do that? How many have ever visited a farm raising pasture raised animals before they started moralizing? How many have even ever visited a farm so they know what the hell they are talking about? Want to eat healthy and better for the earth? If you can't raise your own, buy local from a farm using horse or ox power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: Catwoman
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: therabshakeh
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: Ulfhethner
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: bodhisattva
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: Jarmadi
» RE: What a piece of garbage Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» You were more polite.... Posted by: sirossisofliver
Great article!
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Aug 24, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is right on! There was a time when we could all eat meat, but now that the world is severely overpopulated (environmental problem #1), and not many seem concerned enough about that problem to confront it, we need to change our wasteful eating habits.
Any form of flesh, especially cow flesh, is very inefficient from an energy point of view. It takes several pounds of plant protein to produce a pound of animal protein. Therefore, the meat-based diet consumes many times the soil, water and energy resources as is necessary, all for personal pleasure, as meat is not necessary for human survival. From an environmental point of view, meat consumption is not ethical. If anything else, frequent flesh consumption is unethical. If everybody would at least quit making dead animals the base of their diet, and greatly decrease their consumption, the world would become a better place. Vegetarianism, preferably veganism (no animal products whatsoever) is the solution to many of our environmental ills, however since most meat eaters don't care enough to, or can't seem to overcome their addiction, they should at least not purchase corporately-raised meat. Our government subsidizes the monocropping of water and chemical-intensive corn of which 80% is fed to cows, and that is very wrong. In fact, in states like Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming, the water wars have already begun. If people were to quit supporting the meat industry (and therefore the monocrop-corn industry), our limited water, land and air resources upon which future generations will depend would be in much better shape. And I include air because an incredible amount of fossil fuels are consumed, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide, in the use of tractors, the production of chemical fertilizers, and the pumping of irrigation water, all part of the production of animals for consumption. In addition, the methane produced by corporately-raised cows is extremely high because they are fed a diet to which cows did not evolve. It is not natural for cows to consume massive amounts of corn grain; they normally consume grasses. Corn produces a lot of flatulence in cows, and methane (flatulence) is, like carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas.
We should all be working towards vegetarian diets. Increased personal and environmental health and less cruelty towards our fellow creatures is a good thing. If people truly care about the future of this planet and its inhabitants, they should refuse to support the cruel, unhealthy, environmentally-unsound corporate meat industries by becoming vegetarians, or minimally, only consuming organic and/or range-raised meat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great article! Posted by: Aimee
» Overpopulated? Posted by: edith
» Saddle Up! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Do vegans have kids? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Overpopulated? Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Overpopulated? Posted by: Ulfhethner
The American Way
Posted by: historystudent on Aug 24, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the issue is less about meat/no meat than moderation in our meat eating and making choices to buy local, sustainably raised meat AND vegetables. I've read a number of articles by farmers and scientists describing the ways in which sustainably raised animals actually help the earth, but clearly we can't sustainably raise the sheer volume of meat products Americans currently consume. We need to reduce our meat intake AND make better choices about the origins and farming methods of our fruits and vegetables. Get online and look up a local CSA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The everybody move to the country to save it argument
Posted by: brad on Aug 24, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all a little background on who I am. I have been a vegetarian for appox. 12 years, I have worked on organic ranches and I also owned an organic vegetable farm for five years. Overall, I have worked on farms for 20 plus years, I am now a Phd student studying the effects of our diets on the ecosystem, so I know a little about what I am talking about.

As a vegetarian, vegan for about 8 years, my diet is not made up of alot of soy. I know this is what many meat eaters think, but it is just untrue. When I owned my farm, my wife and I grew about 90% of what we ate, with the remaining 10% split between other local foods and nonlocal oils and such. The same inability to look at local sustainable choices you site in this column you yourself fail to apply to vegetarians. My farm was surrounded by organic grass fed ranches and the argument that there was more biodiversity on their pastures than my fields is simply not true. The organic wheat that grew adjacent to my farm had more wildlife than any pasture, while producing about ten times the food output.

A big problem in all of these anti-veg arguments is that they base their analysis on the false notion that there is enough room for everyone to eat meat three times a day, on the fact that grass fed beef uses more land than factory farming which uses way more land than grains or veggies. It is based on the fallacy that we can all move to the country and raise our own food, or that we can convert all of our protein needs to pastured meat. It simply cannot be done, we cannot feed all of the people in the city with pastured meat, we would need to convert the whole planet to pasture. I am sorry but I do think the world needs wilderness and forests.

Now if we converted the pastures and factory farms to produce high protein grains and vegiges we would have far more farm land than we need, it would create the ability to have more local producers and could reestablish alot of wilderness and forest to combate global warming and reduce species loss.

All of this overlooks the social and political aspects of the issue and attempts to reduce it to an individual choice/market based decision. The whole debate should have been made simpler years ago by phasing out chemical and heavy fossil fuel dependent farming years ago. Instead we get market based decisions that tie our hands and limit our options.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» To MatthewSavage Posted by: WitchyNy
» I really enjoyed your post Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Quality of Life is the Point
Posted by: enriquethepenguin on Aug 24, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know the world is warming, we're causing it, bad things will happen during our lifetime, and worse things will happen during our children's lifetimes. We all know that fossil fuel consumption as related to energy production, transportation, and militarism are the primary culprits. Any optimism for the future is unwarranted; our species' ship is sinking. Greed, through unfettered capitalism, has consolidated power, and that consolidated power is the only mechanism that could possible right this sinking ship. And they won't. Hence, we are doomed. There is no if, only when.

As such, our short lives have come at a fortunate time as we are just starting our decent. Our only recourse is to enjoy life as best we can now; quality of life is all we have left. And, for me and my family, that means enjoying a new york strip and drinking a good pinot while watching the twilight of our species' existence.

The ship is sinking. You can toil and suffer and eat your lima beans while it goes down. I choose to dig into a bacon-wrapped filet mignon and at least enjoy the ride while I can.

I may sound defeatist and cynical, but I'm not. I'm a realist. It's just that all the evidence points to defeat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quality of Life is the Point Posted by: misterpunch
» your missing the point Posted by: starchild
» RE: Quality of Life is the Point Posted by: sirossisofliver
Eco-Eating : Eating as if the Earth Matters
Posted by: CyberBrook on Aug 24, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please take a look at Eco-Eating : Eating as if the Earth Matters at www.brook.com/veg for much much detailed information with plenty of links.

Also see www.eatkind.net/inconvenient.htm for another take on another inconvenient truth.

This EarthSave Report is also worthwhile:
www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

(please share this info with others)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What A Load Of Crap!!!
Posted by: sirossisofliver on Aug 24, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What bloody difference does it make to 'Mother Earth' if we cut down the Amazon Rainforests to grow Soybeans to feed the cattle....or to grow Soybeans to make TOFU!!!??

Geeez! Anyone up for a 'double-trouble' with cheese'?

Sir Ossis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What A Load Of Crap!!! Posted by: richardschwartz
» It's really quite simple Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Meat is Murder: The Smiths album title
Posted by: marklar on Aug 24, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Factory farmed meat like veal, chicken and whatever else they grow for mass consumption is the grossist stuff a person could ever eat. If you ever get a chance to tour a chicken factory do it. You'll never touch factory raised chicken again. Think chicken fecal matter the next time you look at Perdue. It's yellowish in color and permeates all factory farmed chicken. No escaping it. I suppose it's the same for all factory farmed meat products.
With that said, why don't we eat people yet? I admit there are issues some people would have with it but if we treated the ordeal as a great delicacy and marketed it right I think it would be a hit. There are plenty to go around and the way global warming is squeezing us together it could serve an urgent need to find a place for overpopulation. It would offer a whole new twist to eating out, or, having Mexican, or Chinese. It would satisfy the urge for Americans to dominate humanity even further, and we could probably put a huge dent in the illegal immigration issue and that would make Lou Dobbs very happy. We could even offer regional specialties like, for New England we could offer Blue Blood specials with clam chowder and a good wine and charge a hefty price per plate. Or, in Hawaii we could dine on orginal native dishes with pineapple and sweet sauces served over rice and little umbrella drinks.
The thing about meat is no matter where it comes from, unless you kill it yourself, you have no idea what it is, what's in it, or where it came from. Yumm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

richardschwartz
Posted by: richardschwartz on Aug 24, 2006 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America (JVNA), I want to salute Dan Brook for his excellent, very timely article. At a time when the world is threatened as never before by global warming and many other environmental threats, the fact that we are not only trying to feed about 6.5 billion people but also over 50 billion farmed animals (and that this number is projected to double in 20 years) is scandalous. A shift toward vegetarianism is not only an important individual choice today but it is also a societal imperative, necessary to move our imperiled planet to a sustainable path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is vegetarian the answer for everyone?
Posted by: geogirl on Aug 24, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm vegetarian (not Vegan) and I would like to think that it is a viable alternative for everyone but I'm seeing that it isn't. I've worked in a school system for decades. Allergies to peanut/legumes used to be uncommon when I began working but are now uncomfortably common- children who have severe anaphalactic reactions if a peanut product is even in the same room with them. Wheat/gluten allergies used to be uncommon- I see more children unable to eat wheat every year. What is truly disturbing to me is that we used to put allergic children on soy diets. I now have multiple cases of children and adults allergic to soy proteins and soy-containing products and am seeing more of them every schoolyear. Many children have allergies to all these families of products.
I have two questions- 1) what is causing the rise of allergies? Is in environmental degradation? Is it genetic modification of soybean plants (90% of US soybean crops are genetically modified species)?
2) What is the alternative for this growing segment of our population? Vegetarianism isn't a healthy alternative for them when so many of the staples of that diet are unavailable to them (not to mention berries, milk, other legumes, grasses, and grains). Until we figure out how to deal with allergies, a vegetarian world is impossible. After all, I've never seen anyone allergic to meat in my schools.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't feel threatened...
Posted by: Ricki on Aug 24, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I am just sick and tired of vegetarians moralizing and making meat eaters who opt out of the factory system to be environment destroyers. You all remind me of the Christian fundies who preach to everybody else that their way is the only way and that everyone else is morally bankrupt. I am all for live and let live, I was a vegetarian for several years, but there are other ways to live a sustainable lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't feel threatened... Posted by: sweetlou
Specific question- [cig smoking]- forgive me if it came up in comments
Posted by: quickfuse on Aug 24, 2006 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this article lists one of the main causes of "global warming" to be "smoking"... listed right between deforestation and military (two that make perfect sense)...

Does anyone have any citations for that claim? I mean, this question has nothing to do with how big of a problem smoking is for society at large, the health of individuals that choose to partake... but, I have never actually seen any serious scientific studies or (even chemical research pointing to smoking as a cause) that have shown humans smoking anything to be a serious issue, *specifically in terms of affecting our atmosphere at ozone layer heights*.
it honestly seems quite ridiculous... im not going to argue about the effects of the various noxious and otherwise harmful chemicals released by massive-output institutions and industries causing certain layers of atmosphere to deteriorate; i have heard good arguments about many of these indivudual processes and how they affect the atmosphere from... yep, 3 college-level earth sci/meteorolgy professors (2 of which personnally argued that "global warming" is *not* a direct result of most of the processes we/the media tend to blame, but still considered it an important issue to debate). i feel that many of the biggest issues that may be causing some sort of "greenhouse effect" are ones that we should be cycling out and re-thinking for a million other reasons anyway, many of which are included in the other "causes" listed by the author... so, im all for working on safer, more effective, and more environmentally sound (from all angles), methods of altering our production, distrobution, and regulation of these industries... but, im really not commenting to argue anything like that. its just the smoking thing that irked me (and i am not a cig. smoker)

so, im just curious; does anyone else find the thought of the tobacco smokers of the world being at all to blame for ozone layer depletion and related global environmental issues, to just be, well, kind of ridiculous..?
or even better, anyone have some actual statistics or scientific evidence that show cig. smoke's effect on the atmosphere and the ozone layer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sick of narrow-minded...
Posted by: mtngoat on Aug 24, 2006 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and short-sighted preachy vegetarians! I have been veg for close to 15 years now, but a really consciensious diet involves so much more than not eating meat. When our produce travels an average of 1500 miles (see Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan for more info on this and other facinating food industry issues), you cannot claim to be a truely earth-conscious consumer without eating locally produced foods. As important as the environmental issues are with factory-farmed (and yes i do make a distinction from ethically and conscientiously raised meats even if i choose not to eat any), the environmental cost of demanding asparagus in august is just as devastating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sick of narrow-minded... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: sick of narrow-minded... Posted by: YogiBear
Fossil Fuels = Global Warming
Posted by: esunz on Aug 24, 2006 4:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to belabor a point that a few others above have made, but it seems to me that cows and pigs themselves are carbon neutral. The methane and CO2 they produce is derived from plant matter that extracted carbon from the atmosphere as it grew. It's the techniques used to produce this feed (synthetic fertilizer, diesel-based planting and harvesting) and to distribute the food energy they represent to consumers, that produces greenhouse gas. As noted above, most people also rely on the petroleum based food distribution system for vegetables (which are also mostly grown using synthetic fertilizer and diesel engines) esp. non-local, out of season. Bottom line - to curb global warming eat veggies which are organic, local, and in season and meat which is local and pastured. Acknowledged, "local" can be a relative term for some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No impoliteness? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
This is why HEMP is the answer to ERADICATING dependence on petroleum
Posted by: NDnative on Aug 24, 2006 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now when the fuck will Alternet start posting articles supporting the legalization of hemp? I'd like this site but they seem to be stuck in the framed trap ! All their talk about global warming is nothing but BIG GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT talk without discussing the need to legalize hemp and get the US the fuck off its dependence on foreign oil !!!

Sorry I'm an angry disaffected voter hating both sellout parties!

P.S.: In North Dakota, even conservatives joined the liberals to make legal the cultivation of hemp and Governor John Hoeven signed the bill into law with strong approval. Alternet should either bring in articles supporting the need to legalize hemp or SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ideology vs. realistic world views
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 24, 2006 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, consider the Sudanese goat farmer who raises his goats on grass, drinks their milk, and occassionally slaughters one for food. This farmer also uses goat dung to fertilize his small garden plot where he grows vegetables. Take this up to a local organic dairy farm next to an organic farm and you have a pretty sustainable system.

That's how a lot of this world exists - and I think it's a good sight better then sitting around eating organic bananas flown in from Ecuador, organic pineapples flown in from Hawaii, and sipping coffe and chocolate mochas from Africa or South America - all while loudly proclaiming one's moral superiority to the disgusting flesh-eaters....if you know what I mean.

Hypocrisy on the left is just as ugly as hypocrisy on the right, though the righties do tend to murder and torture more than the lefties do, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge being rather large exceptions to this.

If you want to go after a source of global warming, don't attack those who include flesh in their diet - go after the corporate agribusiness system (Cargill, ADM) who are deforesting the Amazon to clear land for growing soy crops for export to Europe and Japan (since American soy is genetically modified, the Euro-Asians don't want it, not that I blame them). Cargill's and ADM's ventures into biodiesel don't exactly fill me with joy, either. Reducing CO2 emissions is not a factor, it's all about the profit - regardless of all the greenwashing propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doesn't make sense
Posted by: acidrain69 on Aug 24, 2006 8:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, follow the chain:

Animals for slaughter mostly eat plants (grass, grains, etc). Plants convert CO2 to energy via photosynthesis. It requires vastly more plants to feed animals for slaughter than it would to feed a vegetarian world, THEREFORE, there are more plants around to feed all these animals, therefore there should be more CO2 filtering via photosynthesis. The methane is a different issue, and hopefully some of the limited bio-fuel systems around the world could be expanded to actually create energy from all that methane/waste.

But anyway, does anyone have any good links/resources for someone looking to eat less meat? I don't want to go full on vegan, but I'd like to drastically cut down on flesh eating, mainly for health reasons (I'm tired of being overweight). Please don't flame me with your politics, just give some helpful advice. I'm looking for easy recipes for people trying to put off meat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doesn't make sense Posted by: CyberBrook
» RE: Doesn't make sense Posted by: kwest10
HORSE PUCKY!!
Posted by: SamFox on Aug 24, 2006 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will eat meat if I choose. What a bunch of mindless Reefer Madness propaganda. Lets see-we have Global Warming Madness, Peak Oil Madness--what will the fear tactic scare mongering big bro propaganda throw at us next? How many salivate over every mis-information morsel thrown on the ground at their feet. It's really sad.

This stuff is getting so out of hand. Please people, reasearch both sides of issues before cowering in fear to big bro & it's hand wringing propaganda BS machine.

Sticks & stones...here they come!

Getting weary in the nose bleed section!

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 -