Second hand meat eating affects my life/health now according to UN

:)

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
· Climate expert urges radical shift in diet
· Industry unfairly targeted - farmers

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

Soon, everything will be shown to have an impact and the law books will grow in size (but then, making new laws impacts the environment as well....Hmmmmm)

But I'll just sit back for the eventual shitstorm that this thread will generate.

:popcorn:

As opposed to the feed for cows, which consume at least 10 times the calories (and thus produce 10 times the methane) before they end up on your plate.

In the industrial system, the rule of thumb is that 10 calories of oil (fertilizer, pesticide, processing, transport) produce 1 calorie of grain-based food for humans; or 10 calories of grain go into a calorie of meat for humans, meaning meat is 10 times worse in energy consumption and pollutant emissions.

do not eat meat everyday. throw in the fact that those who used to afford to eat meat everyday are probably cutting back because of the high cost.

there is research being done to cut the amount of methane that cows emit.

it's not difficult.

It's about time someone controlled my every little behavior and took personal choice away from me and everyone else so that we can save the planet!!!

"Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said."

And no where does Pachauri, the scientist mentioned in the OP talk about legislation either. It's actually a balanced article, overall, presenting legitimate counterpoints, like a vegetarian that eats a lot of dairy wouldn't reduce emissions very much. Especially for so short a piece.

I'm not someone who just posts off at the mouth without reading what I'm writing about. I read Professor Watson's comments and agree with him completely. However, considering Dr. Pachauri's statements in not only this article but others dealing with the behavioral changes that he believes are needed to halt global warming, it's clear that he favors a regulatory approach. Needless to say, I disagree with that approach completely. After 9/11 and the Patriot Act alot of us liberals were quoting Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Seven years later I still believe those words deeply. I don't care what politician is trying to take away our rights, be it Bush and Gore or McCain and Obama.

I'm trying to find where in this article he talks about legislation. The most strongly worded thing I could find was the opening line.

"People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer."

People should also exercise three times a week and floss everyday, I don't see dentists and doctors making these claims getting the power to come into your home and slapping you on a treadmill.

If he's stated he favors regulation from another source more clearly, I'm all ears.



I'm inferring you believe a possibility exists of a world government telling people how to micromanage lives. That's not a good thing, to be sure, and guarding against this is wise. However, there are certain realities, realities that the human species is going to come up against in a quick and sharp way, and cooridinated world wide efforts of some kind are going to be needed, because what happens in the ice caps, or the Amazon, or China, is affecting everyone.

Either we will manage the problem (immediate reduction of gases, shifts to alternate energy sectors, lowered consumption, lowering worldwide population, and yes, eating less meat, among other factors), or we let the problem ride until the problem will manage us (culling of masses of poor, resource wars between who's left for what's left, a planet noticeably less rich in flora and fauna, etc.). Neither way is going to be without difficulties and hiccups, but the second way is terminal.

therefore people will want a law to punish you/prevent you from doing it.

For example, people have changed their driving habits, and car purchasing choices, and not a law was passed. The mass of them didn't do it to be 'green' or because they care deeply about the state of the planet, they did it because they're going broke. Of course, this won't work for everything.

But like I say, I would still keep an eye on the suckers - don't trust most of em as far as I can throw 'em :)

At one point here in Columbus they went from 'you can have a garage sale' to 'you need a permit or else' because some people had too many sales. No bothering with education, just straight to law.

There are thieves/tyrants in every place of power.

the fact that they prefer to stick w. the tried and true avenue of "education" (also known as propaganda) says to me that they know as clearly as anyone that they are promoting a religious and cultural belief -- this spokesperson is a vegetarian for reasons of cultural background and religion, now grasping at scientific props for belief in that diet

if you actually go outdoors, you see the difference, the soy field is agricultural desert, it is possible for some other habitat and other lifeforms to exist in areas alongside grazing cattle, sure, it's degraded but not to the extent that the soy and rice fields are degraded

if you believe something would save the world, you don't leave it to "choice," you fight for what is right

they leave it to "choice" because in their hearts they know exactly what they are doing -- promoting their own diet based not on science but on religion

a vegetarian diet is in no way guaranteed to save the world, basic grain crops are destructive to the habitat and diversity of species beyond belief, it's just stunning

the UN needs to give us credit for having actually seen crops growing and cows grazing

The electricity you consume is hurting others. You go first.

Forcing young children, particularly boys, to rely on soy products for protein is definitely harming others. This results in delayed puberty; whereas in girls, puberty comes years early.

Forcing me to live on vegetables which give me painful gas harms me. My choices would be pretty limited if I had to live on only plant products.

Forcing my mom, who has fructose malabsorption, to eat a veggie diet, harms her.

Forcing my SIL, who is diabetic, to eat a veggie diet is wrong.

Forcing pregnant/nursing women to try to get all their food energy from plant sources is wrong.

Increasing farming of land rather than having cattle graze on it causes its own set of problems - pollution, run off, increased pesticide/herbicide use.

You just can't by fiat put everyone on the diet you prefer.

we have and feel better for it
welcome to DU
If you are being sarcastic it helps to add the :sarcasm: thingy from the smilies list. :bounce:

most of the people who it's targeted to aren't going to do it for reasons of altruism, they will do it, if they do it at all, for reasons of economy. Meat should be one of the most expensive foods to create, but for reasons I won't go into here, you can get a hamburger for 99 cents. As land and water become more scarce worldwide, even the cheap meat phenomenon will end soon.

For those wondering what else to eat, beans are an excellent way to make a meal that's both cheap, filling and usually good for you. BTW, if you cook your own beans (kidney, pinto, for example) instead of getting them from a can, they wind up being far less 'musical' if you cook to tender. I find a big difference and don't eat beans from a can any longer as they are rarely cooked through enough, creating more of the potential for digestive gases to come into play. An exception being vegetarian baked beans, a wonderful, cheap, tasty, quick healthy meal. Plop them from the can onto brown bread and enjoy.

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Planet-Frances-Moore-Lappe/dp/0345373669

It's not just the emissions; if we didn't feed all our grain to animals for slaughter, no one would go hungry. We should all be vegetarians; there's no nutritional need to consume meat; we only do it for pleasure.

The major theme of the book, that eating lower on the food chain (more often anyway) has both personal and collective benefits, still stands. However, it did come out a long time ago, and some of the arguments are outdated. Even the article in the OP mentioned a point so I'll just quote it:

"Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing."

Add to that not all land is suitable for farming, but is for raising certain kinds of livestock.

As to nutrients, some nutrients are harder to get on a vegetarian diet, and B-12 is theoretically impossible on a vegan diet. Iron, for example is found in it's most bioavailable form in red meat. Iron is often found in lower than suggested levels in menstruating vegetarian women. Of course, other nutrients are easier to get.

Personally, I suggest eating some high quality meat amongst mostly plants to cover your bases.

Not quite even then, but close. That group is people with diabetes. The most effective treatment for diabetes is a near-zero-carbohydrate diet. It's quite hard to create a diet without both animal/bird/fish flesh and carbohydrates. Only a few foods remain: soy products, eggs, and some vegetables. A little cheese can be squeezed in, some alcohol, and that's pretty much it.

Diabetes is a serious problem, and it's growing by leaps and bounds because of its vicious-circle relationship with excess body fat.

if eating was only about nutrition and sustenance, i'm sure that we could develop some type of gelatinous paste that would provide the entire spectrum of human nutritional needs, be able to be stored indefinitely, easily mass-produced and shipped to even the most remote areas. yum-yum.
after all- eating isn't supposed to be about having a pleasurable experience, is it..? :eyes:

And using grains we could be giving people for them? There are people starving in this world every single day who would be thankful for a nutritional gelatinous paste if it would save them and their children from dying.

and the little fellas get to moving around too much...makes the veal chop a little less succulent.

"There are people starving in this world every single day who would be thankful for a nutritional gelatinous paste if it would save them and their children from dying."

if they're REALLY concerned about the survival of their children, maybe they should think about moving to where the food is...btw- seeing as you're so concerned about the plight of the world's poor- i assume that you've divested yourself of all of your non-essential items, and used the proceeds of the sale of those items, along with the cash in your bank account(s) to help them, your fellow man, in their plight & hour of need?

if not, don't lecture me about my menu...:shrug:

Going veggie isn't going to solve that problem, because as much as some wish it, the planet will never be 100% vegetarian.

A 15% cut in our "defense" budget could feed the world. Yet few clamor for such a change.

but sponsoring campaigns. This is a good thing.

Educate people, and those who don't change will eventually be forced to. Remember how seat belts, smoking, et al all started with 'educating' people? Now seat belt use is a primary offense (and they promised here in Ohio when that passed that it would only be a secondary offense...).

I am for campaigns and educating people - but it does not mean I won't keep one eye on those who make the laws.

I think that we could solve quite a few problems on this planet if we stopped killing and exploiting animals. Factory farming is killing this planet.:mad:

:hi: :toast:

:hi:
I have been vegan for several years now and I am very healthy. My doctor says that I have the body of someone 15 years younger and it is all from eating right and exercising. You don't need meat in your diet.
Most animals don't need it either. All my animals with the exception of the cats are vegan. They need the taurine from meat and I feel horrible every time I buy food for them. Unfortunately one of my guys did not do well on Vegecat at all so it is still meat for them right now.:cry:

sometimes more than one day, but mostly because we can't afford otherwise.

Although I have to admit that sometimes there is chicken or fish in the salad.

The planet cannot support the number of human on it now. Suggested reductions in everyone's diet is the opening act of ecological collapse of the planet. Next will be mandatory reductions in diet. Then rationed diets.

If they want to make a difference, start making birth control free, abortions available on-demand and free world-wide. Start punishing people with more than 2 children. That will do more than any meat re-education efforts.

Then castrate the fathers! And which doctors would you force to give FREE abortions?

Not a world I want to live in.

:eyes:

NT!

I could use some more oxygen and elbow room. The planet is too overpopulated with humans. We are at the top of the food chain. There aren't supposed to be more of us than there are of the food we need to eat to survive.

of the previous poster, who did not "do well" on Vegecat or whatever.

The cat did not do well because cats are carnivores. They are demonstrably designed to hunt and eat meat.

Humans are demonstrably designed as omnivores. Some adults claim do well on a vegan diet, but we are not designed to do so. My good friend was a sincere vegan for many years, until she decided to have children. What a disaster. She started eating chicken and fish. She was nursing after pregnancy, etc. She really needed some meat.

We can not wish away our omnivore nature.

Also, I believe the planet at present is producing enough food. However, where people are starving, there is normally a whole lot of corruption going on. Consider areas where there is drought, for instance, but the UN sends in a bunch of food. Yet the thug dictator intercepts it for his military, and to use as people control.

Everyone always has a friend or relative or someone who had a disasterous experience as a veg. But those stories are like the stories of the friend or relative that miraculously survived a road accident "because" they weren't wearing their seat belt. And they're closely related to the people who say "it's cool this year so there's no global overheating".

The truth is that those few people survive IN SPITE OF not wearing their seat belt, and people get sick on veggie diets because they fail to adjust their diet to their circumstances.

Cats are obligative carnivores. Humans aren't.

It also lack any semblance of justice - why should, say a Ghanaian and a Canadian who consumes 20 times as much as the Ghanaian make the same sacrifices? (God knows the people of Ghana live on little enough already) Without addressing disproportionate Western consumption, any proposal that harps on the "over-population" theme is doomed.

The true solution which you Malthusians hate to hear about is a more just global order which allows humanity to tackle these problems head on. Economic (global capitalism) and political (obscurantism / imperialism) forces, more than natural ones, are responsible for the present condition.

If population control isn't addressed, then eventually that Ghanaian will have even less, and the first world countries will be reduced to the Ghanaian level.

The fish stocks are already near collapse.
The amount of land available to farm is at it's maximum.
The temporary increase in food production due to factory farming is ending (not counting all the other problems that has created).
The petroleum based fertilizers and transport system of our agricultural system is getting more expensive each year.

The planet is already above the "red line" trying to support the numbers today. The system WILL collapse. It's not if, it's when.

Anything that doesn't address the underlying problem, is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

When you focus exclusively on the rapaciousness of the west, you ignore some real basics.

the methane...

And lighting that gas causes carbon emissions.

:rofl:

I couldn't get past that line...I was sitting here going WTF?

but it will DEFINITELY effect the number of social events you get invited to.

Hell, I'd eat cloned/vat-grown meat. More veggies and fruits, too - as soon as they're not a buck a piece.

But I'm going to have to gently remind you that humanity is not and will not ever be completely vegetarian.

I'd say that's fine for you and your family, but I'm not OK with you killing the rest of us along with yourselves. Sorry, but beef eating is every bit as selfish and even more destructive than smoking (a favorite hobby of yours, I know). This isn't Libertarian underground. We SHOULD want what's best for each other and our planet. Isn't HAVING a future worth the small sacrifice?

"This isn't Libertarian underground"

The OP is not a Democrat because he eats beef?

"This isn't Libertarian underground"

The OP is not a Democrat because he eats beef?

And I don't trust some studies and scientists anymore than I do preachers.


I don't like governmental control on a macro level as I believe in the freedom to have personal choice - those against choice I tend to associate with the rw (ala abortion, et al).

Nothing wrong with educating people though.

...for human population growth to be curbed and reversed. The planet was not designed to hold this many of us and certainly not at the level at which we consume resources.

You're right the planet can't hold this many of us. Either we reduce voluntarily, or involuntarily. Unfortunately, involuntarily means a great number of us will starve to death.

Get those meat prices down! I'm on a tight budget!


:hide:

http://spot.acorn.net/fruitarian
\the most reforesting and nonviolent diet

(Come on. You knew someone was going to say it!:-))

We will be the first nation ever invaded on the pretext of environmental safety.

I can tell by how many cars sit in lots with engines running and AC on as they wait for their partner to come out of the health food store. We live 7000 feet up here people; if you need AC in Flagstaff, you are hopeless.

I can tell by how much junk mail I receive DAILY; shiny, ink laden thick papers that I immediately throw away.

Plastic bags, oil leaks, thousands and thousands of new cars on international roads every day. It is hopeless unless we assert change from a law and order standpoint.

First off, it would be wildly unpopular. Think about the dislike for the 55mph speed limit multiplied by 100. Never happen politically, so legislation is a dead end.

However, economic carrots/sticks work and work fast. Look how fast people dumped their SUV's for fuel efficient cars when gas prices went up. That was a bigger impact than any federal mandate on fuel economy.

For meat, you could do away with factory farms and go to grass fed beef. It would raise the price of beef AND make it more ecologically friendly.