With all the recent 350 ppm hoopla, I am astonished at the lack of mention regarding the effects of animal agriculture on, well, everything. The surrounding events hit all the basics — land, water, energy, pollution — yet nothing and no one focused on the biggest contributor to all of these topics.
It was like Al Gore coordinated the event (he who also failed to mention animal-ag in his documentary).
In 2006, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization released a report "Livestock's Long Shadow" stating that animal-ag is the biggest contributor to global greenhouse gasses — 18 percent at that time, but now believed to be at 51 percent (Livestock and Climate Change, by Goodland & Anhang). Furthermore, 80 percent of agricultural land in this country is delegated to raising livestock (Vesterby and Krupa, 2001), not to mention that livestock creep onto designated range-land and decimate public forests as well (http://www.fseee.org/appeals/frog); one-third of all U.S. raw materials are used in the [animal-ag] process: feed, water, fuel (E magazine, "The Case Against Meat," Motavalli). One mid-sized feedlot (dairy or beef) churns out a half-million pounds of manure each day; the methane that cattle and their manure produce has a global-warming effect equal to that of 33 million automobiles (Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Six Arguments for a Greener Diet"); the pollution strength of raw manure is 160 times greater than raw municipal sewage (John Lang, "Manure Proves to Be Massive Environmental Problem," Scripps Howard News Service, 24 April 1998). I'll stop there; I'd need a feature or two just to summarize the basic details.
I know many people eat "free-range" and "pastured" meats, but would it not be greener to re-wild those pastures? Just because the land can't grow crops for us does not mean we need to utilize it to satisfy our palate. We do not need to, nor should we, eat meat anymore. The health implications are for another letter. It's time for us to evolve — for the health of our species, biodiversity and the climate.
— Joseph Jamison
Black Mountain
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Please do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
I am ging to eat an angus burger just in tribute to this idiotic letter. |
 Nov 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM |
|
phew that was close .... I coulda left a letter out of the other word! |
Nov 11, 2009 at 9:15 AM |
|
I would argue the production of corn is nearly as detrimental to the environment as the production of meat. |
Jason Nov 11, 2009 |
|
A quick search on the web will yield a thousand alternatives to a “meat based diet” - Going Vegan is better for human health, better for the planet and certainly better for the animals. |
Bea Elliott Nov 12, 2009 |
|
Maybe we should stop breathing, or at least decide who gets to breathe and who not… that will help our carbon footprint:) |
Nov 13, 2009 |
|
Maybe we should stop breathing, or at least decide who gets to breathe and who not… that will help our carbon footprint:) Pelosi has that covered in her plan to desroy health care in the country. Oh wait, she will let them breath in prison but no carbonated beverages. |
Nov 13, 2009 at 8:54 AM |
|
Do we have health care in this country? I’m con fused on that? |
Nov 15, 2009 |
|
85% of people in this country have health insurance coverage. The real quest is to break down that 15% who do not into understandable numbers. How many do not have coverage by their own choice? How many are young people who have not considered health insurance to be a priority? How many are here illegally and not entitled to U.S. health insurance coverage? |
Nov 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM |
|
Nancy Pelosi has a plan to destroy healthcare. Socialist Democrats are conspiring for a statist regime. travelah the antichrist is undoubtedly a completely delusional, paranoid fanatic of the highest order, but at least it is a never ending source of entertainment. |
Nov 15, 2009 |
|
While vegetarian diets are certainly helpful in reducing carbon emissions, not creating babies is more effective. |
Nov 16, 2009 |
|
travelah, the 85% already pay the costs for the 15%, it’s just hidden. Socialized health care would reduce that cost. On another note: it’s funny how an environmental issue will trigger a discussion on vegetarianism, then on health care. In a system where everything is related, it is easy to hide the cost of one thing somewhere else… |
 Nov 16, 2009 at 6:34 AM |
|
chops .... you are right that we are paying for the other 15%. I would rather continue paying that 15% than see my costs double in order for a statist regime to destroy what is already working. Instead, perhaps the more reasonable approach is to tweak the existing system to ensure that additional coverage without busting what already works. |
Nov 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM |
