Source: news.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090216/sc_afp/uscanadascienceclimatewarmingfoodfarm
Camille Labchuk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090216/sc_afp/uscanadascienceclimatewarmingfoodfarm
Don't call yourself an environmentalist if you still eat meat!
"Don't call yourself a human if you're a rabbit"
Ok, with all due respect, I knaw down on hunted meat or post-grass-grazing bison every once and a while....
From an environmental stand-point, it all depends on how the animal is raised (best if wild), and what your consumption levels are (i.e. if everyone even cut out meat one day a week, we'd be a whole lot more in tune with the process of sustainability).
An average American (eating commercial meat!) going vegetarian = same impact on climate change in one year as switching from a regular car to a hybrid!!!
From an environmental stand-point, it all depends on how the animal is raised (best if wild), and what your consumption levels are (i.e. if everyone even cut out meat one day a week, we'd be a whole lot more in tune with the process of sustainability).
An average American (eating commercial meat!) going vegetarian = same impact on climate change in one year as switching from a regular car to a hybrid!!!
I agree with C, Camille. The energy and resource balances are far lower if someone were to go pluck a deer out of the woods than procuring food from even a environmentally conscience farm. The biggest reasons are wild game grow themselves, require no inputs from us humans, and disturb very little to no soil.
We eat too much meat in the West and depend far too much on concentrated groups of ruminant animals for our meat which causes too much methane. If we were to consume meat that was grown on the frames of non ruminant animals we would be much more sustainable. A field of grass is planted once, and if taken care of, doesn’t have to be plowed for decades, where as most of our annual vegetable fields need intensive tillage every year, and disturbed soil equals soil loss, even in ‘organic’ farming.
Perhaps your statement should be “Don’t call yourself an environmentalist if you regularly eat at a fast food restaurant!”
We eat too much meat in the West and depend far too much on concentrated groups of ruminant animals for our meat which causes too much methane. If we were to consume meat that was grown on the frames of non ruminant animals we would be much more sustainable. A field of grass is planted once, and if taken care of, doesn’t have to be plowed for decades, where as most of our annual vegetable fields need intensive tillage every year, and disturbed soil equals soil loss, even in ‘organic’ farming.
Perhaps your statement should be “Don’t call yourself an environmentalist if you regularly eat at a fast food restaurant!”
If humans began to exclusively consume wild animals instead of animals confined to factory farms, we'd very rapidly decimate wildlife even further. Animal populations everywhere are already in decline.
Obviously, eating certain types of animals causes a greater impact than eating certain others, but humanity's meat habit is one we can no longer afford. The climate costs are too great. No one needs meat. It's destroying our climate, our health and the environment so we should eat plants instead.
Obviously, eating certain types of animals causes a greater impact than eating certain others, but humanity's meat habit is one we can no longer afford. The climate costs are too great. No one needs meat. It's destroying our climate, our health and the environment so we should eat plants instead.
On the other hand bovine excrement is one of the only substances that will restore the beneficial bacteria (humus) to soil that we have managed to sterilize (kill) through extensive usage of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers! A case can be presented that seriously large herds of cows are needed to save the soil in North America's agricultural areas!?
If we simply controlled our numbers a bit better, we could eat all the lovely animals we liked.
I wasn't suggesting we eat exclusively wild animals Camille, just using that as an example and as stated before, we do eat too much meat per capita. It's not this simple fact ruminant animals are destroying our climate, it's we HUMANS on the overall growing too many of the wrong types of animals, not to mention the other taxing of resources we do. Almost 6.5 billiion humans, ikes! Right now I wish seals tasted better cause there is no shortage of them!
If we are going to survive Camille we need to quite disturbing the soil as much, it's one of those invisible detriments, urban agriculture and skyscrapers devoted to food production are going to be key factors in sustainable food production. Maybe we need to engineer ourselves to be capable of digesting grass, lol.
And for the record, I'm a big fan of veggies!
If we are going to survive Camille we need to quite disturbing the soil as much, it's one of those invisible detriments, urban agriculture and skyscrapers devoted to food production are going to be key factors in sustainable food production. Maybe we need to engineer ourselves to be capable of digesting grass, lol.
And for the record, I'm a big fan of veggies!
Thank you for the comment E, and yes bovine excrement is a good source of organic matter, however it's addition alone is not nearly enough, we need to be putting almost all of our organic matter back into the land, like horse manure,composted food scraps, etc. We still produce most of our food on a linear nutrient path, meaning we mine out macro nutrients from the ground, grow food with it, we eat the food, then poop it out and it is then those nutrients are flushed away forever into our rivers or landfills in most places.
Your logic is right about cow poop, but recycled cow poop nutrients eventually leave the farm as meat or milk only to be supplanted with mined macro nutrients. I wish I could post a diagram on this, lol. Our farm does well as we have been importing large quantities of horse manure laden sawdust plus a low concentration water based nutrient source for almost a decade now and the positive effects on our soil is quite impressive.
Your logic is right about cow poop, but recycled cow poop nutrients eventually leave the farm as meat or milk only to be supplanted with mined macro nutrients. I wish I could post a diagram on this, lol. Our farm does well as we have been importing large quantities of horse manure laden sawdust plus a low concentration water based nutrient source for almost a decade now and the positive effects on our soil is quite impressive.
"Don't call your self an environmentalist if you still eat meet!" Now there's a comment to alienate people?!?
Once we can replicate the stuff...like on star Trek.. or just in a lab.. I would totally switch. But until then lets educate the people about alternative protein products instead.. diplomatically
Please check out this link from the University of Maryland http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098
Once we can replicate the stuff...like on star Trek.. or just in a lab.. I would totally switch. But until then lets educate the people about alternative protein products instead.. diplomatically
Please check out this link from the University of Maryland http://www.newsdesk.umd.ed
"no one needs meat" - are you suggesting that no one in the world needs meat and that it is morally wrong to do so? I think you would have a very difficult time justifying that to many cultures and peoples, including the indigenous people in Canada.
i understand that eating meat contributes to increased carbon emissions. but so do the planes that take you around the country or the boats that take you to see seals in the ocean. perhaps more pertinently, so does the food you eat that doesn't come from nearby, including spices, fruits and vegetables etc. But emissions alone cannot be an argument for banning something. it has to be accompanied by more substantial benefits to the individual as well as for societies/communities, especially if you want it to become a social norm. this just doesn't do that.
i understand that eating meat contributes to increased carbon emissions. but so do the planes that take you around the country or the boats that take you to see seals in the ocean. perhaps more pertinently, so does the food you eat that doesn't come from nearby, including spices, fruits and vegetables etc. But emissions alone cannot be an argument for banning something. it has to be accompanied by more substantial benefits to the individual as well as for societies/communities, especially if you want it to become a social norm. this just doesn't do that.
also you may disagree with it, but the science is still not saying that people should have no meat in their diet. some says maybe, some says you should actually have a bit of meat in your diet - even for carbon emission purposes.
we all have our morals and values, but we also learn that many of them are relative, not universal. sometimes we have to get off our moral high/green horses and understand that our convictions are not shared with everyone else - and that that is not a bad thing, or is it against us as individuals - it is simply diversity in beliefs, values and principles.
your goal seems honourable, i have no doubt. but i think you should lead by example.
we all have our morals and values, but we also learn that many of them are relative, not universal. sometimes we have to get off our moral high/green horses and understand that our convictions are not shared with everyone else - and that that is not a bad thing, or is it against us as individuals - it is simply diversity in beliefs, values and principles.
your goal seems honourable, i have no doubt. but i think you should lead by example.
mmmm burgers...
Great article!
"don't call yourself because you will get a busy signal"
Camille, do you really need to divide your followers? that seems to have been somewhat of a hardcore labeling.
You are right of course, Camille. Environmentalist and meat eater is obviously a contradiction in terms. Perhaps if governments stopped subsidising animal rearing and murder, and your friends had to pay the real cost for the dead animals they call food, they would have second thoughts. Methane, water usage, hormones, antibiotics, manure-pits, etc mean nothing to your friends. Anything to justify current way of life! And god-forbid, you bring up conscience and compassion. they'd block you!
Great debate! Some comments are off the cuff. . and moving on. . We all still love you Camille!!
I think the problem here is that people do not want to admit that their own behaviors could be so harmful to the environment. I am certainly not saying that my actions are perfect to any extent, but it is all about doing the best you can and admitting your mistakes so you can improve. I personally think that it is better to cut out meat altogether (if you have the choice - I wouldn't suggest the same thing to someone who is starving) but if people cannot imagine themselves doing that but are willing to cut out meat a few times a week, we're all better off. It is better that people are open to the idea of eating less meat/vegetarianism rather than feel that all vegetarians/vegans are judgmental and unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. It may be better to live off of plant-based foods completely, but eating less meat is better than people eating meat at every meal. We all just gotta try our best! Now go eat a bean burger! :)
"Don't call yourself an environmentalist if you still eat meat!"
I've thought a lot about you saying this, probably more than necessary.
I have a lot more I could say about this, I will leave it by saying that I think such a standard would disqualify a lot of people who have done a lot of tangible good for the environment.
I've thought a lot about you saying this, probably more than necessary.
I have a lot more I could say about this, I will leave it by saying that I think such a standard would disqualify a lot of people who have done a lot of tangible good for the environment.
It's funny that the comments on this link revolve around my comment, rather than the substance of the article. If I had said "Don't call yourself an environmentalist if you still drive a Hummer", no one would have thought twice. Eating meat is the environmental equivalent of driving a hummer and going veg saves more emissions than switching to a hybrid. People are threatened when habits that are familiar and generally accepted are called into question. I believe speaking the truth is more important than offending others.
Given that consuming animal protein creates 18% of planetary emissions, wastes resources, pollutes water, directly causes a host of diseases (cancers, heart disease, diabetes to name a few) and causes unspeakable suffering for billions of animals, it's hard to justify on any basis. Makes more sense not to and that's all there really is to it.
Given that consuming animal protein creates 18% of planetary emissions, wastes resources, pollutes water, directly causes a host of diseases (cancers, heart disease, diabetes to name a few) and causes unspeakable suffering for billions of animals, it's hard to justify on any basis. Makes more sense not to and that's all there really is to it.
Heh, that's why I thought twice about saying anything at all, I figured it was just a throw-away line that you didn't deserve to be taken to task on.
True that Camille, the intent of your message was lost focusing on your comment. I personally don't make a point of frequenting fast food restaurants because of the high ecological foot prints involved. And it would be wonderful if more people didn't as well, but it comes down to educating people and then having them make a choice. I know where my food comes from, and most of it is local, and it does not derive from factory farms, and yes more people need to eat more veggies. See, we need more farmers, that's what it really boils down to in my opinion, these large scale concentrated farms are a product of our collective lack of respect for where our food comes from and the perceived need to have 'cheap food' at any cost, the problem is more of the process than the product, most veggies are produced in large scale models too. We need a major reconnect. For those of us who are much more aware about food systems we need to reach out and educate in a constructive manner.
And what if the Hummer had an electric motor that derives its energy from wind and solar, then that Hummer is not what we consider a Hummer to be in today's society. Just about everything is relative.
or the Hummer is made of cardboard, like the Trabant (was my first car), and goes on vegetable oil, like Frank's car...
No comments:
Post a Comment