Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

[strongvoicesforward]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycernius:
The environment is suffering whether or not we are omnivores, vegetarian, vegan whatever other foods you wish to consume. Your opening post and this thread is you trying to prove that vegetarianism is good for the environment, but it isn't. You still consume fossil fuels, pollute the air, water, ground and no matter what you preach, ......

To say that vegetarianism isn't good for the environment because fossil fuels and pollution still occurs doesn't hold up. You might as well say that recycling is bad for the environment because pollution still occurs. We could say eating locally grown produce is bad for the environment because it generates pollution and uses resources.

The point being made is that an average vegetarian diet is better for the environment than an average meat eating diet. The issue is how much the environment suffers, not whether or not it does.

Yes, KrazyKat. Sadly though, those points you have highligted are just lost on some people. They seem to reel at the suggestion when I state it. Perhaps they will accept you saying it. Let`s see.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I agree with you[KrazyKat`s most recent post -- scroll up to see] very much here.

But not totally? Which part do you disagree with?

The point i have been trying to make to SVF throughout this entire thread is just that- that becomming a vegetarian does not automtically make you more enviromentally friendly (although i know SVF will probably disagree with me on that to the ends of the earth "sigh").

There is nothing automatic about anything. In general however, a vegetarian diet lifestyle is better for the environment than a flesh eating diet because a flesh eating diet and all its production has shown us through research that it has been damaging the environment.

Can you please show us some research by reputed orgs that implicate the human consumption of crops and their raising directly for our use as having a more negative impact on the environment than meat production? I have asked you that several times now and you have yet to show us anything. I on the other hand have shown you articles referencing research by orgs that have singled out meat production as threatening and damaging the environment in large areas.

Where is your data singling out crop production for human use as being a serious threat to the environment on a much larger scale than meat production? We are waiting.

If you don`t have that, then your argument is just one of "what can be" and that is not the reality in which we are facing. And if you don`t have that research, then the research I have put forth still stands singling out meat as the diet which is threatening and damaging the earth most. You have been weighed down and you have yet to counter that weight with balance.

 

[nurizeko]

Yep. Being omnivorous means we can choose.

Aslong as its the right choice, ey SF?.

Seriously though, why do you continue to beat the same arguments which have been shot down consistently?.

Your going to have to do better then harping about enviromentalistic myth and legend with little basis in reality.

The fact is we eat meat, and vegetarianism is neither wrong or right, its merely a personal choice based on belief.

Not fact, not science, not biological, or real enviromental conditions, its based on the fact you personally dont enjoy the idea of that little piggy fulfilling his bloody death destiny.

I wont kill a mouse just because it escapes me every time, i dont kill bumblebee's and i enjoy growing plants and looking after them and gardennig and stuff, so im not a nature hater, but im not a dreamer either, i eat meat, my species has eaten meat all its existance, its going to continue to eat meat long after you and i have died.

So until such a time as we descover a grey paste that someone fulfills all out nutritional needs and actually tastes good enough to eat day in and day out over and over again, and doesnt kill anything, then were going to eat meat.

I must also point out, why is a pig more worthy of life then a plant?....if were playing the life is precious game, then my cactus ive had since i was 11, and have been growing since then, is just as deserving of life then that chicken which has been alive alot shorter then my cactus, and was born and bred for egg production/meat production.

I just dont get it, you say humans dont have respect for life and stuff, but what respect do you have for it?.....your couldnt give a **** that feilds are sown, rare plants are destroyed, all to save the lives of some pigs on a farm in sussex.

I have respect for life, i just recognise thati need to eat, and the natural order of things has decided i and my species eat meat.

omnivore means we have the choice to east what is avaliable at the time, not choose to become herbivores because the church of PETA says the animals are morew entitled to lfie then an ancient tree.

The problem SVF is that your not consistant with your beliefs, you claim to be an enviromentalist yet you preach to folk to become vegetarians despite the fact everyone here but you knows that a purely vegetarian society just means more wild land cleared for agriculture, and millions of farm animals having to be culled anyway, and not even to be eaten, just to be dumped and left to rot.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Nurizeko,

Most of your post above is off topic. You mostly discussed moral issues/what is natural and health issues in regards to vegetarianism. Other threads are handling those discussions and your points have been addressed on those. I don`t mind addressing them again (since they are easily put to rest) if you can find your way to those threads and post in there.

The very first part of your very last para did however finally touch on the topic of this thread: The environment. Here is what you said:

The problem SVF is that your not consistant with your beliefs, you claim to be an enviromentalist yet you preach to folk to become vegetarians despite the fact everyone here but you knows that a purely vegetarian society just means more wild land cleared for agriculture,...

[That`s it. Out of all that long post above, you only managed to stay on topic of the thread for about 4 or 5 lines.]​

Everyone does? Do they? Look at what the research says. Can you show me some research saying what you have stated in blue above?:

There would be a net decrease of land under cultivation if flesh consumption were given up. Up to 70 to 80% of all cultivated land has their product going to being turned into animal feed. Animals raised for flesh simply cosume more of plant life than we do. Their absence would not cause us to increase our diets to consume that amount -- let alone cultivate more land causing a net increase of land under cultivation.

Go back through the threads and read the reports by orgs and researchers singling out meat production as the threat to the environment and causing damage.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

70?`90% of all hogs in the U.S. are raised in factory farms. Factory farms allow for the cheapest production of pork. The trend toward pork production on factory farms is increasing. The U.S. for example, is an exporter of pork providing other countries with cheap meat. For other countries?f local farmers and businesses to stay competitive in their markets, they in the face of cheap U.S. imports, must adopt practices that will allow them to compete with American meat. The market therefore pushes them to adopt factory farming also.

All is not well on the flesh farm. If the present is any indicator of the damage and threats to the environment, the future does not bode well:

JEFFERSON CITY, MO ?\ The state has again sued pork giant Premium Standard Farms, Kansas City, MO, the country's second largest pork producer, over a series of hog waste spills it says repeatedly violated the state's clean water law.​

This is not the first time they have been sued for violations and contaminating the environment. They have repeatedly been sued in 1996, 1999, and 2000.

...the attorney general's office charges Premium Standard has violated the state's clean water law more than 12 times, allowing pig waste to reach public streams and lakes, ....​

The last time in May of 2002:

... a pipe burst and spilled more than 1,000 gallons of manure and urine into a tributary of Little Medicine Creek.

Company CEO John Meyer said he was disappointed that the state filed the suit for incidents that happened before the company settled with the federal government over yet another set of environmental problems,...

Full story HERE.​

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

But not totally? Which part do you disagree with?

Whatever gave you that impression? I think i made a very clear post there.

There is nothing automatic about anything. In general however, a vegetarian diet lifestyle is better for the environment than a flesh eating diet because a flesh eating diet and all its production has shown us through research that it has been damaging the environment.
Can you please show us some research by reputed orgs that implicate the human consumption of crops and their raising directly for our use as having a more negative impact on the environment than meat production? I have asked you that several times now and you have yet to show us anything. I on the other hand have shown you articles referencing research by orgs that have singled out meat production as threatening and damaging the environment in large areas.
Where is your data singling out crop production for human use as being a serious threat to the environment on a much larger scale than meat production? We are waiting.

Currently some forms of meat production is more damaging to the environment than plant production- but the opposite is also true. You are trying to suggest that all animal farming is more damaging than plant farming- this is simply not true and you have no statistics that say this.
There is no solid evidence that taking animal farming out of the equation will make farming more environmentally as such a thing has never been done, all you are showing is statistics, and even they do not show the whole picture of things, as you should know- there are no statistics or figures that say if we took animal production out of the equation farming would become a lot more environmentally friendly.

For example with wheat, sure it doesn't need a lot of water to survive, but it needs a heck of alot of industry to make it into some sort of edible product. You need machines to plough the soils, pesticides/weed killers to make the plant thrive, fertilisers to make it grow, combine harvesters working around the clock to gather it, machines to dry it out and store it, lorries to transport it to the mills, machines to grind it down into all its purest forms.
And only then, do you end up with flour, which could go into dozens of different processes to make it into something more edible and nutritious like bread or a cake or somthing.
Such a process is very unevironmentally friendly, you cannot argue with that. The process of meat production often is far simpler, and thus less industry intensive.

If you don`t have that, then your argument is just one of "what can be" and that is not the reality in which we are facing. And if you don`t have that research, then the research I have put forth still stands singling out meat as the diet which is threatening and damaging the earth most. You have been weighed down and you have yet to counter that weight with balance.

Your arguement is just "what can be" as you put it, other people have pointed this out to you as well. Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Whatever gave you that impression? I think i made a very clear post there.

So that means you agree with everything krazyKat said in his previous post?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So that means you agree with everything krazyKat said in his previous post?

It means, as i said, that i agree with the things said in his post i quoted.
Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Currently some forms of meat production is more damaging to the environment than plant production- but the opposite is also true.

Tokis, where have I ever said there is ZERO damage to human use of the environment from plant production for human use? Of course there is! I have nothing to cede because I have never said plant production for human use doesn`t cause ANY harm AT ALL.

IN GENERAL though, meat production is more harmful and taxes recourses more than plant production for human consumption. We are not talking in absolutes. We are talking in generalities. There is no Utopian perfect answer to eliminate ALL damage -- for as long as we are here we will leave some print of our activities, nudging out nature as we do so. The point is we should choose that lifestyle which leads to the LEAST of those activities and impacts. Lessening demand for meat by limiting our meat consumption would help us achieve that. The more we lessened the more effective we would be in doing that. Eliminating it, in effect chosing a vegetarian lifestyle, would mean no more environmental damage due to flesh production.

In all probability a world where there is no meat consumption will never come about. But, each person taking themselves out of the equation by chosing a non flesh diet will decrease demand and production for flesh and lessen the taxing of recourses and the damage caused by livestock. It is simple economics of supply and demand and resultant impact.

You keep using the word "some" because it allows you to breath without admitting that the two (i.e. plant production for direct human use vs flesh production) are not equal in their damage and taxing of recourses.

Are you just going to keep straddling the fence and say both are equal when looking at the data you have been shown -- which stands up to ZERO of which you have proffered.

You know, you can still say some meat production is not harmful to the environment but admit: In general overall, meat does tax recourses more and does cause more harm to the environment than meat.

But, I am almost sure you won`t.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It means, as i said, that i agree with the things said in his post i quoted.

Then, this is part of what he said:

KrazyKat:
However, I still think that a typical meat eater's diet has more enviromental impact than a typical vegetarian. But within that broad overview there will be places where omnivourous diets are more eco-friendly that vegetarian ones, depending on the type and production of food in consideration

Thanks for agreeing to that. I won`t quival over the second part where some anomalies may exist that show meat eating may be less taxing on recourses or less environmentally damaging. The important thing is that we have come to a consensus that: a typical meat eater`s diet has more environmental impact than a typical vegetarina.

Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

No, I don`t disagree with that. In small localized areas that may be true. But typically, for the majority of the world and her population because of the increasing world population, pressures on land space, deforestation, economics where consumers want the lowest price in general, etc... environmentally friendly omnivorous diet is very localized and small in area.

It is almost impossible to do that with western nations and many asian nations who have multi-national firms shipping meats to all parts of the world to supermarkets, restaurants, and fast foods. A flesh eater in those societies would never be able to cut out meats that perhaps could have originated in places where large environmental damage was occuring due flesh production.

One may say, that is why one should know a trusted butcher and believe what he tells you where your meat comes from. Well, that is good if you are going to cook in your home all the time. But what about eating at a friend's house or going out to dinner. However, even butchers could be decieved by distributers and labels have been known to be falsified.

In the end, it would usually not be realistic to think that someone living in an urbanized society where multinational agribusinesses and flesh products are well entrenched could be sure where there flesh was coming from every time they purchased or consumed it. The variables are just too large.

Now, if you are a traditional family farm -- then yes. But the majority of people do not live on traditional family farms and the trend is even accelerating further from that living style. The cities will not empty and everyone go back to agrarian societies. If meat demand continues to rise then the environmental impact will become more severe.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Tokis, where have I ever said there is ZERO damage to human use of the environment from plant production for human use? Of course there is! I have nothing to cede because I have never said plant production for human use doesn`t cause ANY harm AT ALL.
IN GENERAL though, meat production is more harmful and taxes recourses more than plant production for human consumption. We are not talking in absolutes. We are talking in generalities. There is no Utopian perfect answer to eliminate ALL damage -- for as long as we are here we will leave some print of our activities, nudging out nature as we do so. The point is we should choose that lifestyle which leads to the LEAST of those activities and impacts. Lessening demand for meat by limiting our meat consumption would help us achieve that. The more we lessened the more effective we would be in doing that. Eliminating it, in effect chosing a vegetarian lifestyle, would mean no more environmental damage due to flesh production.

You talk about a vegetarian lifestyle as if it is the only answer- third time around, Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

Your entire thread is flawed because;
a. Its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.
b. Having a vegetarian diet does not remove you completely from the need for farmed animal products, unless you go vegan- but this thread isn't about vegans anyways, its about vegetarianism.
c. Vegetarian diets can be even worse for the environment than omnivorous ones, so saying vegetarianism is good for the enviroment isn't true.

In all probability a world where there is no meat consumption will never come about. But, each person taking themselves out of the equation by chosing a non flesh diet will decrease demand and production for flesh and lessen the taxing of recourses and the damage caused by livestock. It is simple economics of supply and demand and resultant impact.
You keep using the word "some" because it allows you to breath without admitting that the two (i.e. plant production for direct human use vs flesh production) are not equal in their damage and taxing of recourses.
Are you just going to keep straddling the fence and say both are equal when looking at the data you have been shown -- which stands up to ZERO of which you have proffered.
You know, you can still say some meat production is not harmful to the environment but admit: In general overall, meat does tax recourses more and does cause more harm to the environment than meat.
But, I am almost sure you won`t.

What sort of vegetarianism are we talking about here? Lacto-ovo vegetarianism, ovo-vegetarianism, semi-vegeterainism etc?
The only form of vegetarianism that completely removes itself from animal farming is veganism- and even so that isn't just diet, you aren't even allowed to use animal products in any situation at all.
Perhaps you should title your thread next time "Vegans- good for the environment" lol?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Cargill Park Inc., a pork producing farm of 17,000 hogs in Martinsburg, Missouri has pleaded guily to violating The Clean Water Act and must pay the EPA a $1,000,000 fine.

?gCargill Pork will also pay $51,000 in restitution to the state of Missouri for natural resources damages ...​

and

?g... The defendant admitted illegally discharging hog waste from holding ponds at its facility into the Loutre River, which is a tributary of the Missouri River.?h ...​

and damaging the environment and causing death to aquatic wildlife...

?g... After the release, 53,000 fish were killed along a five-mile stretch of the Loutre River. ...?h​

and

?g... The hog slaughter and processing company admitted to conspiring with its employees to intentionally discharge processing wastes and human wastes from its facility through a drainage pipe into Tyson Marsh that empties into Contentnea Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River. ... ?g​

and

?gThe amount discharged averaged approximately 30,000 gallons per day, said EPA. The discharge of animal processing wastes into surface waters can make them unsafe for drinking and can promote the growth of microorganisms that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans. ?h​

See the full story HERE.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Sigh"...You aren't even going to respond to why your thread is completely flawed?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You talk about a vegetarian lifestyle as if it is the only answer- third time around, Do you disagree that it is posible to have an enviromentally friendly omnivorous diet?

I answered this in the 2nd part of my post #70. I said "no," that I don`t disagree and then went on to add comments to qualify that. Please go back and read it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

"Sigh"...You aren't even going to respond to why your thread is completely flawed?

Geesh, Tokis, give me a break. It`s only been a few minutes since you posted it. Do I do that to you? Hold on. A reply is coming.

I am generally a fast typist, but I may have to go to the bathroom from time to time or may get a phone call. I may be in the middle of writing another post or answer to one as well.

Geeeeesh. What`s your problem that you can`t wait 5 or 10 mins for a reply?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Then, this is part of what he said:
Thanks for agreeing to that. I won`t quival over the second part where some anomalies may exist that show meat eating may be less taxing on recourses or less environmentally damaging. The important thing is that we have come to a consensus that: a typical meat eater`s diet has more environmental impact than a typical vegetarina.
No, I don`t disagree with that. In small localized areas that may be true. But typically, for the majority of the world and her population because of the increasing world population, pressures on land space, deforestation, economics where consumers want the lowest price in general, etc... environmentally friendly omnivorous diet is very localized and small in area.
It is almost impossible to do that with western nations and many asian nations who have multi-national firms shipping meats to all parts of the world to supermarkets, restaurants, and fast foods. A flesh eater in those societies would never be able to cut out meats that perhaps could have originated in places where large environmental damage was occuring due flesh production.
In the end, it would usually not be realistic to think that someone living in an urbanized society where multinational agribusinesses and flesh products are well entrenched could be sure where there flesh was coming from every time they purchased or consumed it. The variables are just too large.
Now, if you are a traditional family farm -- then yes. But the majority of people do not live on traditional family farms and the trend is even accelerating further from that living style. The cities will not empty and everyone go back to agrarian societies. If meat demand continues to rise then the environmental impact will become more severe.

You could have just said "yes" :blush: .
But anyways...I have an environmentally friendly diet and it is, dare i say it, omnivorous. And it is completely affordable (and no, i'm not rich). And i live in an urbanised town. And it is a western country.

You spent all that post trying to make how difficult it was having such a diet...Trust me, it really isn't that difficult even if you do live in an urbanised western country- but realy, you are advising people against somthing that you havn't even tried.

So you agree that its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet. So you don't need to act like a vegan is the only path to save the environment anymore etc. Woo.

One may say, that is why one should know a trusted butcher and believe what he tells you where your meat comes from. Well, that is good if you are going to cook in your home all the time. But what about eating at a friend's house or going out to dinner. However, even butchers could be decieved by distributers and labels have been known to be falsified.

And by the way, it is illegal to sell organic free-range british beef when it isn't just that.
You are making another thin-air point again- the same situation could be applied to a plant situation, example: how do you know that you can trust your green grocer, and that those vegies you are buying aern't actually from some slave labor rainforest deforestation camp where they dowse their veggies is pesticides and use starved animals to toil the soils etc?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Your entire thread is flawed because;

We will agree to disagree on that.

a. Its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.

Never said it wasn`t. Again I explained in post #70 why it can be in some cases. The vegetarian, or better yet, the vegan diet is even better.

b. Having a vegetarian diet does not remove you completely from the need for farmed animal products

Never said it did. I have already told you: generally, it is simply the better of the two for causing less impact on the environment. Go back and look at the water usage for meat/calorie production vs calorie production by crops (research which used data partly financed by the beef industry).

..., unless you go vegan- but this thread isn't about vegans anyways, its about vegetarianism.

Vegan is most definitely the better of the choices. But a vegetarian diet is still better than a flesh diet as for causing less environmental impact.

c. Vegetarian diets can be even worse for the environment than omnivorous ones, so saying vegetarianism is good for the enviroment isn't true.

Where is your data to support that? How many times have I asked you for that? You have yet to give me a report or research from an org of high repute with a statement to support a statement like that above. Please provide one.

You sure do leave a lot of my comments uncommented on. I guess I should hurry up and rush you for your answers like you feel the need to do to me. However, I have been waiting several days for your replies on comments.

If a particular diet in general lends itself to causing less stress on natural recourses and less destruction, it is true. Have you read the hog waste stories above? Lots of farms getting fined for terrible environmental damage. Haven`t seen tomato growers nailed like that.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Where is your data to support that? How many times have I asked you for that? You have yet to give me a report or research from an org of high repute with a statement to support a statement like that above. Please provide one.
You sure do leave a lot of my comments uncommented on. I guess I should hurry up and rush you for your answers like you feel the need to do to me. However, I have been waiting several days for your replies on comments.
If a particular diet in general lends itself to causing less stress on natural recourses and less destruction, it is true. Have you read the hog waste stories above? Lots of farms getting fined for terrible environmental damage. Haven`t seen tomato growers nailed like that.

Well simply put- do you agree that some vegetarian diets are not environmentally friendly?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You could have just said "yes"

I did, but read the qualifications carefully. It was quite qualified.

But anyways...I have an environmentally friendly diet and it is, dare i say it, omnivorous. And it is completely affordable (and no, i'm not rich). And i live in an urbanised town. And it is a western country.
You spent all that post trying to make how difficult it was having such a diet...Trust me, it really isn't that difficult even if you do live in an urbanised western country-

Most people would not be able to account for all the variables, such as eating out at a restaurant, a new one or an old one, a friend`s house, or a relative`s house. It would require a lot of asking and research unless one limited themselves to eating veggies when not eating at home.

...but realy, you are advising people against somthing that you havn't even tried.

Do you think I was born vegetarian?

I am suggesting a "positive" -- that people choose a vegetarian lifestyle because in general that does have the less impact on the environment and recourses (which you agreed to in KrazyKat`s post).

So you agree that its completely posible to have an environmentally-friendly omnivorous diet.

I already answered that and I had never denied that. Everything is possible to an extent, which I qualified above and which you have not replied on.

So you don't need to act like a vegan is the only path to save the environment anymore etc.

Being a vegan or vegetarian is the better way in general with the realities of the world in which we are faced with. Anomalies may exist, however.

And by the way, it is illegal to sell organic free-range british beef when it isn't just that.

Well, Britain is not the whole world. And that is not the only problems when
it comes to flesh production.

You are making another thin-air point again- the same situation could be applied to a plant situation, example: how do you know that you can trust your green grocer, and that those vegies you are buying aern't actually from some slave labor rainforest deforestation camp where they dowse their veggies is pesticides and use starved animals to toil the soils etc?

We don`t know that. But, has that scenario you painted been put to the front as one of the leading causes of taxing the recourses and damaging the environment? Please show me where it is said to be.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Well simply put- do you agree that some vegetarian diets are not environmentally friendly?

Anomalies may exist. In general however, vegetarian diets are more environmentally friendly than flesh eating diets.