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.

Face It, We All Aren't Going to Become Vegetarians

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted April 18, 2008.


It's better for the planet to avoid eating meat, but the reality is we have to make it more sustainable for people who don't want to be vegetarians.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Never mind the economic crisis. Focus for a moment on a more urgent threat: the great food recession that is sweeping the world faster than the credit crunch.

You have probably seen the figures by now: The price of rice has risen by three-quarters in the past year, that of wheat by 130 percent. There are food crises in 37 countries. One hundred million people, according to the World Bank, could be pushed into deeper poverty by the high prices. But I'll bet you have missed the most telling statistic. At 2.1 billion tons, last year's global grain harvest broke all records. It beat the previous year's by almost 5 percent. The crisis, in other words, has begun before world food supplies are hit by climate change. If hunger can strike now, what will happen if harvests decline?

There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13 billion tons likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01 billion, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), will feed people.

I am sorely tempted to write another column about biofuels. From this morning all sellers of transport fuel in the United Kingdom will be obliged to mix it with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year."

Last year global stockpiles of cereals declined by around 53 million tons; this gives you a rough idea of the size of the hunger gap. The production of biofuels this year will consume almost 100 million tons, which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis. In the Guardian yesterday, British Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly promised that "if we need to adjust policy in the light of new evidence, we will." What new evidence does she require? In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.

But I have been saying this for four years, and I am boring myself. Of course we must demand that our governments scrap the rules that turn grain into the fastest food of all. But there is a bigger reason for global hunger, which is attracting less attention only because it has been there for longer. While 100 million tons of food will be diverted this year to feed cars, 760 million tons will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals. This could cover the global food deficit 14 times. If you care about hunger, eat less meat.

While meat consumption is booming in Asia and Latin America, in the United Kingdom it has scarcely changed since the government started gathering data in 1974. At just over 1 kilogram per person per week, it's still about 40 percent above the global average, though less than half the amount consumed in the United States. We eat less beef and more chicken than we did 30 years ago, which means a smaller total impact. Beef cattle eat about 8 kilograms of grain or meal for every kilogram of flesh they produce; a kilogram of chicken needs just 2 kilograms of feed. Even so, our consumption rate is plainly unsustainable.

In his magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie has updated the figures produced 30 years ago in Kenneth Mellanby's book Can Britain Feed Itself? Fairlie found that a vegan diet grown by means of conventional agriculture would require only 3 million hectares of arable land (around half the current total). Even if the United Kingdom reduced its consumption of meat by half, a mixed farming system would need 4.4 million hectares of arable fields and 6.4 million hectares of pasture. A vegan Britain could make a massive contribution to global food stocks.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: meat, food crisis, hunger, global warming, climate change, vegetarianism, vegetarian

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
You're boring me too, George
Posted by: g50 on Apr 18, 2008 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it funny how his name is so similar to "moonbat"? Anyway, biofuels are a great way to run our machines given the decline in oil ya'll are no doubt yapping about (not that its false...) And they're pretty good for farmers who I hope we should all agree are good. Biofuels research will also make a lot of the biomass waste, as well as nonfood like switchgrass, workable over time. Probably not that much time but if you shut the whole enterprise down it will happen probably never.

Crime against humanity - my buttcheeks.

Nah but seriously, sure, make choices yourself. I don't think that the dispossessed eat less because we eat lots. I am pretty sure that these kinds of things are endemic and ancient, and that over the centuries, however long it takes, most starvation will be eliminated except by choice. You just gotta have faith in the system, which is the one thing lacking among the left crowd, what with its excessive shock at each "crime against humanity" that overlooks how long it takes to really change things. I mean, lifespans were like 40 years for most people for like what, 8,000 years? 15,000? 150,000? It's a marathon not a sprint.

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

» meat is also a crime... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: meat is also a crime... Posted by: franny59
» The vegan netwar continues Posted by: pangolin
» Centuries? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Centuries? Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Centuries? Posted by: g50
» life spans Posted by: e rice
» RE: life spans Posted by: g50
» RE: life spans Posted by: e rice
» RE: You're boring me too, George Posted by: Richard House
» upHurled Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: You're boring me too, George Posted by: levinson.eric
» CHOOSING to starve ????? Posted by: Tomover
» 2 things Posted by: pfeifer999
Wake up george...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Apr 18, 2008 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the average human doesn't give a fuck about the rest of humanity.

Count all the wars, everyday petty bickering, selfish greed, among people you know.

No one gives a shit enough to reduce their standard of living to help others, most people would kill another fellow citizen before they'd give up their HDTV's and Xbox 360's.

Am I entertained, is my stomach full?? Then who gives a fuck, I work xx number of hours a day, even if I do care, wtf can I do about it trapped in fucked up economic system and people who feel they aren't responsible for anyone but themselves?

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

» RE: Wake up george... Posted by: Squarehead
» between europe and china Posted by: e rice
» Sadly . . . Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Sadly . . . Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Wake up george... Posted by: upHurled
» Of course they don't. Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Of course they don't. Posted by: pfeifer999
» Smartcookie and CathyC.... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Smartcookie and CathyC.... Posted by: Smartcookie
» agreed Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Smartcookie and CathyC.... Posted by: Squarehead
Good Points
Posted by: Bill Cook on Apr 18, 2008 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ate a vegetarian diet for two-and-a-half years and developed serious health problems. This body, at least, needs some meat; but not as much as a value meal lifestyle had conditioned me to expect.

For me, the key to eating for health has been learning to cook. Particularly, making my own salad dressing and soup stock. I cook with meat, but it's only one part of a larger ensemble. Creating great-tasting food from scratch helps me to hold my own against the oppressive availability of thrill and crash convenience food products.

Another way to accomplish less meat eating is to include salads and vegetable sides with meals.

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

» RE: Good Points Posted by: Squarehead
» Ah, French cuisine! Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Good Points Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Good Points Posted by: wireup
» RE: Good Points Posted by: ladylawrence
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 18, 2008 2:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's better for the planet to have a lot fewer people.


Direct Democracy

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

» RE: Fool Posted by: eiu101
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: Persephone8
» Answer..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Answer.....Neanderthals suck? Posted by: nightgaunt
» oh yes, yes we do Posted by: pfeifer999
Why vegans were right all along, by George Monbiot:
Posted by: brucegfriedrich on Apr 18, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I prefer this essay by Monbiot:
Why vegans were right all along

Why vegans were right all along

Famine can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy

The Guardian

The Christians stole the winter solstice from the pagans, and capitalism stole it from the Christians. But one feature of the celebrations has remained unchanged: the consumption of vast quantities of meat. The practice used to make sense. Livestock slaughtered in the autumn, before the grass ran out, would be about to decay, and fat-starved people would have to survive a further three months. Today we face the opposite problem: we spend the next three months trying to work it off.
Our seasonal excesses would be perfectly sustainable, if we weren't doing the same thing every other week of the year. But, because of the rich world's disproportionate purchasing power, many of us can feast every day. And this would also be fine, if we did not live in a finite world.

By comparison to most of the animals we eat, turkeys are relatively efficient converters: they produce about three times as much meat per pound of grain as feedlot cattle. But there are still plenty of reasons to feel uncomfortable about eating them. Most are reared in darkness, so tightly packed that they can scarcely move. Their beaks are removed with a hot knife to prevent them from hurting each other. As Christmas approaches, they become so heavy that their hips buckle. When you see the inside of a turkey broilerhouse, you begin to entertain grave doubts about European civilisation.

This is one of the reasons why many people have returned to eating red meat at Christmas. Beef cattle appear to be happier animals. But the improvement in animal welfare is offset by the loss in human welfare. The world produces enough food for its people and its livestock, though (largely because they are so poor) some 800 million are malnourished. But as the population rises, structural global famine will be avoided only if the rich start to eat less meat. The number of farm animals on earth has risen fivefold since 1950: humans are now outnumbered three to one. Livestock already consume half the world's grain, and their numbers are still growing almost exponentially.

This is why biotechnology - whose promoters claim that it will feed the world - has been deployed to produce not food but feed: it allows farmers to switch from grains which keep people alive to the production of more lucrative crops for livestock. Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both.

The impending crisis will be accelerated by the depletion of both phosphate fertiliser and the water used to grow crops. Every kilogram of beef we consume, according to research by the agronomists David Pimental and Robert Goodland, requires around 100,000 litres of water. Aquifers are beginning the run dry all over the world, largely because of abstraction by farmers.

... (edited for length; click on link for full article)

As a meat-eater, I've long found it convenient to categorise veganism as a response to animal suffering or a health fad. But, faced with these figures, it now seems plain that it's the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue. We stuff ourselves, and the poor get stuffed.

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

How much?
Posted by: Urstrly on Apr 18, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been wondering what the price of a Big Mac might be if we factored in the costs to the environment of raising cattle. Truly, the elimination of "fast" food would be a giant step toward solving some huge problems. It's terrible for our health, and it diverts grain from the truly hungry. I'll never go vegan, but a few meatless days a week are not a big sacrifice.

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

» RE: How much? Posted by: leoforward
» RE: How much? Posted by: e rice
» RE: How much? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
a little goes a long way
Posted by: richholland on Apr 18, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
travelling in Eastasia you will notice that meat mostly is used in the rice dishes or in the sauce.

If 50% of the European and Americans would eat vegetarian one day a week. how much would this save?

Donot despair, soon thousands of hungry people will enter Europe and the USA.
The Capitalists will not stop them, since they work for food only.

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

Don't get it!
Posted by: Windwhistler on Apr 18, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been a vegetarian for 40 years, other than I sometimes eat a bit of fish, I am very close to being a vegan. I have not been in a hospital nor had any sickness of significance other than an occasional cold or upset stomach in these 40 years. My weight and blood pressure are normal.

Yes, I have carefully eaten a balanced diet, no processed food and have exercised almost daily. I take one general type vitamin pill a day.

This lifestyle sure the hell beats going to doctors and downing tons of medicine.

Also check out the latest anthropology. Early man was vegetarian. He only ate meat when he could steal kill from a lion. It gave him extra energy when he succeeded but it was not a regular thing.

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

» RE: Don't get it! Posted by: kelethian
» RE: Don't get it! Posted by: fringedweller
» RE: Don't get it! Posted by: lilcheese71
Why vegan diets dont work.
Posted by: kelethian on Apr 18, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can tell you the simple biochemical reason why George and others have all these problems, even if they are getting all essential amino acids.

Too much potassium and magnesium, little if any sodium and calcium. This causes the mental irregularities, hypovolemia, and cardiac insufficiency that George has observed. Several other things are missing as well, like iron and zinc.

Im sure vegans think theyre the helathiest people in the world - right until the moment their heart stops.

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

» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: Persephone8
» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: leoforward
» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: threecolors
» RE: Why vegan diets dont work. Posted by: bornxeyed
The elephant in the room...
Posted by: Farasien on Apr 18, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is overpopulation. Unfortunately, the issue has, as usual, been ignored and pushed to the absolute fringes of political thought. Malthus predicted in his often-maligned paper that eventually, given that Earth is a finite environment, we would reach its biological carrying capacity. Once that happens in any given limited environment, an inevitable decline or series of decline events takes place to return to a balanced population load. That is, if we're talking about non-intelligent life. Humans, on the other hand, haven't taken our sheer numbers into consideration when talking about these sorts of problems. If we did a little more thinking and a little less breeding we might find the issues we keep screaming incessantly about, veganism included, might just go to solving themselves. I find it rahter interesting that people constantly talk about oil consumption, global warming, deforestation, limited resource depletion, erosion of respect or worth of life, financial collapse, etc. when the BASE PROBLEM is the sheer number of new assholes being born into the world every single day. Its doubly amusing when I read/hear these arguments by the new incarnation of the yuppie scumbag, the environmentally-conscious hipster parents of the new generation. There is nothing more hilariously ironic (and disgusting) than seeing some 30-something parent spout on about how environmentally friendly they are while trying to corral or even talk up their 4 brats (and another on the way! Yay?). You cannot be both an environmentalist AND and non-ZPG parent, period. They cancel each other out. If you have a family larger than ZPG, you cancel out everything you could possibly do to mitigate the problems your progeny will ultimately cause. Until we all come to understand and truly accept that the base issue isn't how much oil there is in the world, but how many new SOBs we keep shotgunning into it every single year that things even have the slightest hope of changing. Its because of this issue, and this issue alone that we, as a species, are about to enter the post-apocalyptic nightmare described in horrifying detail by the various works of distopian sci-fi writers.

But nevermind that... Didn't something happen on Idol last night, or did some irrelevant sports event happen or something? Ohmigod, like, did you, like, um, see ABC's 'presedential debate' last night? OMGWTFROTFLMAO...

Your TV is calling...

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

» Overpopulation? Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Overpopulation? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Overpopulation? Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Overpopulation? Posted by: leafsong1
» common knowledge Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: common knowledge Posted by: leafsong1
» science or polemics Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: science or polemics Posted by: leafsong1
» Yep, thought so. Polemics. Posted by: pfeifer999
» Polemics Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Overpopulation? Posted by: Farasien
» farisian, lighten the hell up Posted by: pfeifer999
» sniffle, sniffle Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: sniffle, sniffle Posted by: bornxeyed
» OK bornxeyed.... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Overpopulation? Posted by: Farasien
» OK Farisian..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» Curious... Posted by: eiu101
» RE: Curious... Posted by: leafsong1
» leafsong1 do us a favor Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Don't worry Posted by: eiu101
» pseudoveggie? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: are you in favor of kissing my ass? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» dang..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: dang..... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Pardon me..... Posted by: mjabele
» excellent point Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Pardon me..... Posted by: leafsong1
» really great point... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: The elephant in the room... Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: The elephant in the room... Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: The elephant in the room... Posted by: leoforward
» when you were 6 Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: The elephant in the room... Posted by: leoforward
» Malthus was wrong Posted by: suprmark
Help, please
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 18, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi,

I'm relatively new to the public policy debate over food and agriculture. I'd like to get smart on it in a hurry, but by reading objective, non-political, non-polemical material, either online, or if I need to buy it, in academic books.

The article cited a magazine called "The Land" from the UK. Is that a good source for me to latch onto, or is its content really driven by its own conclusions? The author of the article didn't have enough space to break down the statistical conclusions that "The Land" came to, ie about the total number of arable acres required to sustain a mixed farming versus a vegan model. Is that level of detail generally included in the magazine?

Can anyone suggest some non-polemical, scientific sources for me?

Thanks

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

» Check out GoVeg.com/eco Posted by: brucegfriedrich
» thanks! Posted by: pfeifer999
The good of the planet is not the only reason we should not eat meat.
Posted by: Bayardtom on Apr 18, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case you have not read the books by John Robbins, do yourself and the planet a favor and read - Diet for a New America, The Food Revolution, May All be Fed, and Reclaiming Our Health.
We could solve so many problems of the world by becoming vegan vegetarians. First, and probably the most important, the whole world could be fed by feeding people the enormous amounts of grain and beans that go into producing a few pounds of beef.
Then there's that pesky piece of information that eating animal products is killing us all. Meat and dairy products are the cause of most of the diseases that kill us - heart, stroke, diabetes, cancer etc. The facts are out there if you want to avail yourself of them.
It's tough reading but every person on the planet should be required to read Robbins' first book, Diet for a New America.
It would help in this education of the population if people like you would stop writing articles like this one and educate yourself to the truth about the subject.It would change your life for the better. Give it a chance, okay?

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

» a question for you, mjbele Posted by: e rice
» no Posted by: e rice
» sorry, you're right... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» blood types and diet Posted by: e rice
healthy vegans
Posted by: grmartin on Apr 18, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a very healthy 58 year old vegan, and I do not look pale and icky. Vegans may find it hard - as do meat eaters - eating the right combination of foods for balanced nutrition. For instance, no milk products make it tough to get enough calcium. So I take a calcium suppliment. A healthy vegan also has to exercise, be socially happy, try to avoid stress, pollution, etc., the things everyone needs, to be healthy. Just avoiding animal products alone isn't going to make it.

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

» RE: healthy vegans Posted by: the man with a dog
» RE: healthy vegans Posted by: grmartin
» healthy vegans who know nothing Posted by: bornxeyed
» shocking waste of resources Posted by: frantaylor
Best Vegan Info on the Web, fully sourced:
Posted by: brucegfriedrich on Apr 18, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best resource for vegan info:
GoVeg.com

Best resource for veg meal plans, recipes, etc.:
VegCooking.com

Amazing video:
meat.org

Veg. and the environment, specifically:
GoVeg.com/eco

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

what about 100% grass-fed beef?
Posted by: susanh8209 on Apr 18, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been vegetarian but I am currently eating grassfed beef for both environmental and health reasons. From an environmental standpoint, 100% grassfed beef uses no grain that could be eaten by people. Also, grass-covered land builds the soil and makes it healthier for a wide variety of animal life. Cows are made to eat grass; that's why they're called ruminants because they have four stomachs. From a health standpoint, 100% grassfed beef has a different fatty acid profile than grain-fed beef. Grain-fed beef is high in stearic acid, which is highly saturated and more likely to be stored in humans as excess fat. Grass-fed beef is higher in oleic acid (i.e., the monosaturated fat in olive oil) plus it contains conjugated linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid, that fights cancer. Dr. Mercola and the Weston A. Price Foundation have been writing about the benefits of 100% grassfed beef for years. It costs a little more but it tastes way better and it's worth it for the peace of mind. I'd much rather eat a cow that had lived its life outside chomping on grass than its unhappy feedlot relatives.

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

» wow Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: wow Posted by: dudelette
» RE: wow Posted by: e rice
» RE: wow Posted by: CassielFell
» Some Possible Sources... Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: wow Posted by: susanh8209
» THANK YOU Posted by: pfeifer999
You're doing it wrong!
Posted by: ebishirl on Apr 18, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note to Monbiot and anyone else who claims the lack of meat makes you weak, gray and sickly: You're doing it wrong. Many people around the world have thrived on vegetarian and near-vegetarian diets for millenia, and their food choices were undoubtedly far more limited than ours (at least in the developed world) today.

Also, while I'm usually a great fan of Monbiot's, it bothers me that he seems to make little distinction between vegetarianism and veganism. Vegetarians typically eat eggs, cheese and other dairy products, while vegans don't. I'll agree that veganism is more challenging a diet than vegetarianism (I'm a vegetarian who occasionally eats fish), but either choice is kinder to the environment than the standard U.S. steak-and-hamburger one.

Finally, I agree with one of the previous comments above: in much of the world, meat is treated more as a seasoning than a dish unto itself. If more meat-eaters could change their approach toward meat in that way, the environment would benefit ... and so would their health. To learn more, I recommend checking out the Center for Science in the Public Interest's "Six Arguments for a Greener Diet."

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

R & D is critical
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Apr 18, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This first phase of food based fuel is like a pilot study. It effects a "few" people (speaking in terms of global percentages) negatively. However for it to work on the large scale "they" need to use the parts of the plant we dont eat. Like the stalks of corn. The race is on. Whoever makes this work first will be sitting with all the meat they want.
By the way food animals do a good job of eating things we dont. Then we eat them. It is efficient. Next time the author is in the USA he should drive through the west; WY, MT, etc. Cows! Also take a look around the equator. Cows! In mountains...Cows or sheep! Large parts of South America....Cows or sheep! Any place with lots of hills or mountains = cows and sheep. Norhtern areas with less growing days = cows and sheep. We used lots of grain to fatten them up. We dont need too. Lean animals==hard to chew. Still make tasty soup. The planet is covered in unharvestable grass lands. Cows/sheep and their products will almost always be worth more than gas.
Its the people who live in regions without agriculture that are fucked. Food/land to fuel = less to export. Water to make all of those plants. Now thats where the real trouble starts. The native plants are always the best at managing there water. It will be interesting when people start ripping up farms to plant prairies. Throw a few cows on it and harvest the rest for fuel and you dont even need to irrigate.

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

» Dream on, Sunshine Posted by: leafsong1
do what our great-great-grandparents did
Posted by: e rice on Apr 18, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
raise your own pigs--they're omnivores, so you won't waste the dinner scraps. they can survive in small spaces, and they're self-replicating.

get a sheep--not only will it do the work of a lawn mower, it will provide good fertilizer and meat for at least a month.

raise chickens--you get eggs, manure for the garden, and they are so stupid and bad-tempered you won't have any qualms about twisting their necks.

keep a dovecote--pigeons provided food for many people in the past (the new yorkers should get behind that idea!).

if people in the cities can grow cooperative vegetable gardens, they can grow livestock. i wonder how many of the supposed sanitation laws against livestock in the city in the late 19th c. were just for the rich meat suppliers. after all, if you can supply yourself, you're 'stealing' money from a robber baron.

for the squeamish, the slaughtering and butchering could be done by a traveling professional.

any of this would also reduce the overcomsumption of meat--when you've put months of work into something, you don't waste it.

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

Well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 18, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem isn't eating meat. The problem is industrialized society and in this instance, the factory farming of animals. ANIMALS aren't bad for the planet. Raising them in polluting, overpopulating feedlots is.

Its not the meat. Its the technology.

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

» You mean the cow... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I agree with you, Joshua Posted by: Cathyc
No mention of hunting and fishing in here?
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Apr 18, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes some good points in here but fails to mention the sustainability (and, in many cases, necessity) of harvesting local fish and game.

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