Are Vegans better for the environment than meat eaters?

[dust1n]

178 posts and no one can explain how they are measuring anything?

Seems this is nothing more than a rant fest.

19.8 tones of CO product per American, about 4.8 per Chinese person.

Let's assume Americans were do reduce their carbon emissions by 1/4 except me, but they had just one kid.

I used 19.8 tones of CO in my lifetime, another 4.8, in which their kids use 4.8, in which their kid uses 4.8, in which their kid uses 4.8, and their kid uses 4.8.

I've been better for the environment for future humans than those with kids.

I'd say I'd be doing humanity a favor if I wasn't already fairly certain that human existence only has one possible destination.

 

[Chakra]

Yeah, I'm right there with you. Saying that vegetarianism is morally better or is better for the planet than an omnivorous diet is missing quite a few points. When my grandfather would hunt for deer, or have a side of beef from his own cattle he raised on his pasture, suggesting that his means of eating were not as earth-friendly as a vegan patting himself or herself on the back because of a purchase of quinoa from Whole Foods dismisses a LOT of factors. Namely, packaging and shipping and it's horrible environmental impact.

I've also gardened extensively, and composting with animal manure is FAR more productive than with green manure. To be veg while composting, a lot has to be shipped in for the compost to break down into fertilizer. To raise and process animals in an agricultural model (agrarian, not monocultural corporate) keeps resources local and closes the loop of production and decomposition while acknowledging the fact that animals...like us....reproduce.

After adopting meat back into my diet after nearly 10 years of being veg, and after volunteering on a local pastured-animal farm, I feel my dietary choices are far superior now than when I was a veg, given that I'm closely related to my food sources now and am respectful of all the beings that ensured there was a source-to-plate for me.

I do have a suggestion for all meat-eaters, though. At some point in your life, I think it is wise to take part in the slaughter of one of your food sources, if just to understand and face your ethics head-on, but mostly to be more intimate with your food source. I finally did just that, and the reverence I adopted for animals was personally much more than when I shunned meat for the welfare of animals.

I think that's a great idea. People should go to slaughterhouses themselves and witness what happens. I went to a slaughterhouse once, but I wasn't able to be "more intimate with my food source". I realized that I was a fool for eating meat, and that human beings can be disgusting.

So, it could go either way. But all meat-eaters should go to slaughterhouses, else it's just hypocritical IMHO.

 

[Chakra]

"A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy." ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency." UN Food and Agricultural Organization's report "Livestock's Long Shadow"

“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"

There is enough food for everyone (including animals and humans) if we become vegan. Meat eating is destroying the environment.

 

[dust1n]

"Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

A recent study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

The research also makes it clear that potential carbon impacts vary dramatically across countries. The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. - along with all of its descendants - is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh."

Oregon State study says having fewer children is best way to reduce your carbon footprint | OregonLive.com

 

[Chakra]

"Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

A recent study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

The research also makes it clear that potential carbon impacts vary dramatically across countries. The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. - along with all of its descendants - is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh."

Oregon State study says having fewer children is best way to reduce your carbon footprint | OregonLive.com

By being vegan you solve a lot of environmental problems. Just because there is a better way does not release a person from not being a vegan.

 

[dust1n]

By being vegan you solve a lot of environmental problems. Just because there is a better way does not release a person from not being a vegan.

No, I wouldn't. But it would be nice a way to convince myself that I was solving environmental problems by not actually doing anything.

But yea, just because being vegan may help the environment, this doesn't really release a person from not having kids.

 

[Chakra]

No, I wouldn't. But it would be nice a way to convince myself that I was solving environmental problems by not actually doing anything.

But yea, just because being vegan may help the environment, this doesn't really release a person from not having kids.

The methane released by cows is 23 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide, and 72 times more dangerous over a 20 year period. So I'd say by being vegan you are reducing the greenhouse gases released more or just as much than a person who doesn't have kids.

So, I'd say if a family of 4 are all vegan, then they aren't causing so much destruction to the environment. But that's just my poor opinion on this.

 

[dust1n]

The methane released by cows is 23 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide, and 72 times more dangerous over a 20 year period. So I'd say by being vegan you are reducing the greenhouse gases released more or just as much than a person who doesn't have kids.

So, I'd say if a family of 4 are all vegan, then they aren't causing so much destruction to the environment. But that's just my poor opinion on this.

Oh, do cows not release methane when no one eats them?

By the way, methane is the least of concerns. Just because humans don't fart as much methane into the atmosphere doesn't mean their existence and consumption doesn't take its toll as much as it already does.

 

[Chakra]

Oh, do cows not release methane when no one eats them?

Cows are basically force bred in order to meet the demands of meat-eaters. The sheer number of cows is why there is so much methane. Another explanation would be that cows aren't being fed the proper diet.

By the way, methane is the least of concerns.

Methane is 21 times more potent at trapping heat from the Sun than CO2. Methane is definitely one of the leading reasons for climate change.

Just because humans don't fart as much methane into the atmosphere doesn't mean their existence and consumption doesn't take its toll as much as it already does.

No clue on what you're trying to say here.

Check this out. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK - Springer

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By being vegan you solve a lot of environmental problems. Just because there is a better way does not release a person from not being a vegan.

I never knew there was anything binding me to be a vegan. Around here, rabbit stew helps prevent environmental problems. The Amish with their few farm animals, and the free range chickens roaming around really aren't hurting the environment. Many people realistically have not other choice but to include meat in their diet. I would say that yes, I am "released" from being a vegan.
The problem isn't meat consumption, it's meat production and a wasteful demand for it.

 

[dust1n]

Cows are basically force bred in order to meet the demands of meat-eaters. The sheer number of cows is why there is so much methane. Another explanation would be that cows aren't being fed the proper diet.

Number one: Only about 25% of the methane in the atmosphere is produced by biological breakdown of material in animal digestive systems.

Number two: Plants also produce methane. So do wetlands. So does the Earth itself. So does the manure necessary for giving nutrients from plants.

Number three: Vegan wise, we'd have to wait to cows to die off naturally before emissions could be reduced. After that, the indruction of domestic cows into the environment would result in their starvation and being eaten alive by predators.

Number four: Methane is definitely secondary to CO2 by a long-shot, especially in terms of long-term ramifications on the environment, which has far more to be concerned with than how warm stuff is.

Number five: Methane's life in the atmosphere is significantly shorter than CO2, and methane levels in the atmosphere have been consistently going down over the last 30+ years, unlike CO2.

Methane is 21 times more potent at trapping heat from the Sun than CO2. Methane is definitely one of the leading reasons for climate change.

Man, if you are worried about that, you should look into how damaging water vapor is. Unlikely methane, CO2 increases with water vapor in feedback loops.

No clue on what you're trying to say here.

Check this out. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK - Springer

More simply put: according to your study, the levels one saves by being vegan does not match the output of not having a kid.

 

[Chakra]

I never knew there was anything binding me to be a vegan. Around here, rabbit stew helps prevent environmental problems. The Amish with their few farm animals, and the free range chickens roaming around really aren't hurting the environment. Many people realistically have not other choice but to include meat in their diet. I would say that yes, I am "released" from being a vegan.
The problem isn't meat consumption, it's meat production and a wasteful demand for it.

And how many times do I need to say that I don't include people who have an eating disorder or need meat to survive?

 

[Estro Felino]

I never knew there was anything binding me to be a vegan. Around here, rabbit stew helps prevent environmental problems. The Amish with their few farm animals, and the free range chickens roaming around really aren't hurting the environment. Many people realistically have not other choice but to include meat in their diet. I would say that yes, I am "released" from being a vegan.
The problem isn't meat consumption, it's meat production and a wasteful demand for it.

Holy words. They seem not to understand that vegans' activism can be counterproductive, because we will never be taken seriously if we insist on saying that rejecting meat consumption is the only way out.

We all know that the only problem is overpopulation. Traditional husbandry and hunting activities can sufficiently feed everyone, if the world population is low.
Maybe they forget that cultivable fields are limited. and we will be forced to destroy forests (we already are) for creating new fields.

 

[illykitty]

That's not necessarily true. It's very easy to get eggs without having to kill any chickens. It can mean some will die, but if a local farmer or family is producing their own meat there is nothing really bad about what they are doing. Life feeds on life. The living must die so that the living can live.

Sure if you have your own chickens or know someone who has some, but ALL commercial eggs mean male chicks are killed off, most often either gassed or ground up alive. It doesn't matter if they're free-range or organic. Males have no commercial value.

 

[Chakra]

Holy words. They seem not to understand that vegans' activism can be counterproductive, because we will never be taken seriously if we insist on saying that rejecting meat consumption is the only way out.

We all know that the only problem is overpopulation. Traditional husbandry and hunting activities can sufficiently feed everyone, if the world population is low.
Maybe they forget that cultivable fields are limited. and we will be forced to destroy forests (we already are) for creating new fields.

I propose to solve the environmental disaster that's happening, we all stop eating animal products. What is your solution? To make the world go back to a low population?

 

[Estro Felino]

I propose to solve the environmental disaster that's happening, we all stop eating animal products. What is your solution? To make the world go back to a low population?

yes, many anthropologists say that we shouldn't be more than 2-3 billions on Earth. By the way, we should reduce meat consumption too, even if we are less people

 

[Chakra]

yes, many anthropologists say that we shouldn't be more than 2-3 billions on Earth. By the way, we should reduce meat consumption too, even if we are less people

I realize that. How are we going to make the population that size before we destroy the atmosphere and environment?

Meat consumption should be reduced, agreed. I just think we should shun it altogether for the betterment of both humans, animals, and the environment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I propose to solve the environmental disaster that's happening, we all stop eating animal products. What is your solution? To make the world go back to a low population?

If that happens, many communities around here, both those occupied by humans and the natural environments of animals, will suffer. The population of rabbits and deer will explode, and growing a garden will become impossible unless you can afford solid fencing and repellants. It also means the extra rabbits and deer are going to mean more of them will get hit by cars, attacked by dogs, Rivers would become rancid with dead fish as a few species grow too large and make life impossible for many other species.
The better solution for the environment is for people to go back to having local farmers and ourselves produce our food, and relying very little on fast food and restaurants. This includes cattle animals and hunting as a source of food.

 

[Chakra]

If that happens, many communities around here, both those occupied by humans and the natural environments of animals, will suffer. The population of rabbits and deer will explode, and growing a garden will become impossible unless you can afford solid fencing and repellants. It also means the extra rabbits and deer are going to mean more of them will get hit by cars, attacked by dogs, Rivers would become rancid with dead fish as a few species grow too large and make life impossible for many other species.

Then let those people hunt them, if it balances the ecosystem. Eventually we won't have to hunt them since nature will eventually even thins out. You keep forgetting that I don't include people who need to hunt for necessity in my arguments. Half of your posts keep ignoring that.

The better solution for the environment is for people to go back to having local farmers and ourselves produce our food, and relying very little on fast food and restaurants. This includes cattle animals and hunting as a source of food.

Hunting is not the best source of food. Not everyone can hunt. What happens IF your rabbits and deer population isn't exploding? There are things like invasive species, which should be removed from the environment or just put on a minimal number.

As for cattle, that won't work out either. For one pound of beef, you need 2500 gallons of water. The meat and dairy industry alone control 29% of the fresh water on Earth. I mean, it takes 2-5 acres for a cow. This is a complete waste of resources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You keep forgetting that I don't include people who need to hunt for necessity in my arguments. Half of your posts keep ignoring that.

And half of yours keep saying "we all."

As for cattle, that won't work out either. For one pound of beef, you need 2500 gallons of water. The meat and dairy industry alone control 29% of the fresh water on Earth. I mean, it takes 2-5 acres for a cow. This is a complete waste of resources.

Most of us have acknowledged factory farming is terrible. It is very cruel, very destructive, and very wasteful. If we had local farmers and didn't have McDemand we would not have the environmental issues we do.

Hunting is not the best source of food. Not everyone can hunt.

I didn't say it was the best, or that everyone can. I acknowledge it as one of many sources of food.