Vegetarianism for the Environment

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Meat production is MORE of a drain on water sources than crop production for human direct use. To say otherwise is just wrong:

“Animals need much more water than grain to produce the same amount of food ... ,
Scientists say the world will have to change its consumption patterns to have any realistic hope of feeding itself. ...”
and
“Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops.” -- Anders Berntell, Executive Director, Stockholm International Water Institute
Here.

Yes but people cannot survive on grain only, the news article only shows a very small part of the big picture- fruit and vegetable crops take up far more water than grain/cereal crops, particually plants like tomatoes. You also ignore the fact that not all animals need crops to survive, like grazing animals like cows and sheap. Grazing animals often take up land that is not suitable for crops too, as only the best and most fertile land is used for crops- so they don't affect the water resources taken up by crops.
So basically, giving up eating chicken would save on crop resources, but giving up free range beef raised in the right climate would not affect it all (i say the "right climate" as growing anything, animal or plant/otherwise in the wrong climate often ends up consuming far more water than what would normally be required).
Yes animals that are fed on grain or graze the land do require more water to survive on average, but then again grazing animals get almost all of their water needs from the grasses they eat which survives on rainwater anyway, which would take up water regardless.
There's a difference to using rain water and using water thats been gathered by people.

[strongvoicesforward]

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reporting on environmental degradation stated:

"Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere," said Henning Steinfeld, Chief of the FAO Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch.

Here.

It specificlly singles out meat production as being one of the major causes to damage of bio-diversity and to deforestation. The report does offer solutions for better farming techniques, but those would only work if those techniques were adopted. There is not guarantee that those countries will be able to implement those recommendations.

What is certain is that meat production is one of the major sources fueling environmental damage in South and Central America. Lessening demand for meat would lessen production and lessen taxing the environment by livestock use/growth.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reporting on environmental degradation stated:

"Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere," said Henning Steinfeld, Chief of the FAO Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch.
Here.

It specificlly singles out meat production as being one of the major causes to damage of bio-diversity and to deforestation. The report does offer solutions for better farming techniques, but those would only work if those techniques were adopted. There is not guarantee that those countries will be able to implement those recommendations.
What is certain is that meat production is one of the major sources fueling environmental damage in South and Central America. Lessening demand for meat would lessen production and lessen taxing the environment by livestock use/growth.

Very simple solution to that- don't buy beef that comes from central and south american rainforests. Just by meat that comes from places like britin where we don't cut down forests for agriculture like people in central and south america do. You don't need to become a vegetarian. And with the rainforest thing, that site still doesn't deny that rainforest is also cut down for crops too.

[strongvoicesforward]

Yes animals that are fed on grain or graze the land do require more water to survive on average,...

Thanks for finally admitting that. Perhaps you did already. IF so, sorry for mentioning it.

... but then again grazing animals get almost all of their water needs from the grasses they eat which survives on rainwater anyway, which would take up water regardless.

And producing meat by grazing animals causes environmental harm in other ways. See my most recent post above on the threats to South and Central America.

Grazing animals on lands that aren`t suitable for growing crops can also exasperate a climate that is rather dry causing even further soil erosion.

Sheep and goat grazing notoriously turns tracts of land into areas susceptible to soil erosion for they often eat all the way down into the root.

Grazing large herds of animals in pastures with streams can often deteriorate the water as they past waste into the stream or as their wastes leak down into the water table.

...There's a difference to using rain water and using water thats been gathered by people.

Not always so. Waste run off and leaching into the water table can cause harm to underwater table levels and find their way into streams.

As mentioned before, the trend is toward factory farming and that isn`t being discouraged by governments. Tax and corporate incentives are accelerating that and pasturing animals due to the pressures for urbanization on land by population is becoming less and less.

Factory farming has seen lagoon wastes of fecal material spilling into waterways that have fed cities and towns their water causing alarm to residents and harm to aquatic life -- not to mention threatening the water supply of the communities.

[strongvoicesforward]

Very simple solution to that- don't buy beef that comes from central and south american rainforests. Just by meat that comes from places like britin...

Not so simple. Labeling is sometimes deceptive. Meat demand is driving that and imports. If a country`s population, or many country`s populations exert self control and don`t buy meat from those places but purchase alll their meat from say, Britain, after a while those South and C. American beef producers will drastically drop their prices as they seek to dump their inventory. The price will drop so low as to make the Britain prices seem too high and the lower prices too low and a good bargain to refuse. The see-saw will come back down.

...where we don't cut down forests for agriculture like people in central and south america do.

You mean not anymore. You guys finished lopping away most of your "old growth forests" many many years ago. Right?

You don't need to become a vegetarian.

Taking yourself out of the equation by choosing the least damaging choice is the best way to help the environment.

And with the rainforest thing, that site still doesn't deny that rainforest is also cut down for crops too.

The report goes out of its way to specifically single out meat production as one of the major causes. I guess they had a good reason not to mention tomatos or anything else specifically. Do you think they were just being derelict and unprofessional. I would bet that more than just one person worked on the report and since it was done by the UN, in all probability they had a staff of well respected persons in that field who contributed to it.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thanks for finally admitting that. Perhaps you did already. IF so, sorry for mentioning it.

That isn't the whole picture of what i said though, so please quote the statement.

And producing meat by grazing animals causes environmental harm in other ways. See my most recent post above on the threats to South and Central America.

So do crops. I don't support cutting down rainforests for crops just as much as i don't with animals- but that situation can hardly be compared to the world situation we are facing on the whole.
As i said before, you need to raise animals and plants in the right enviroment for them to work well. Riasing anything on de-forested land is not a good idea- you cannot say crops do not apply to this as well.

Grazing animals on lands that aren`t suitable for growing crops can also exasperate a climate that is rather dry causing even further soil erosion.
Sheep and goat grazing notoriously turns tracts of land into areas susceptible to soil erosion for they often eat all the way down into the root.
Grazing large herds of animals in pastures with streams can often deteriorate the water as they past waste into the stream or as their wastes leak down into the water table.

Same goes for crops- are trying to prove here that these situations only apply to animals? Not so. There's a little thing called "good farming management"- this applys to all farming. Growing crops does not mean they can be farmed badly just like animals.

Not always so. Waste run off and leaching into the water table can cause harm to underwater table levels and find their way into streams.

Same goes for crops- except i think that chemical fertilisers are probably more damaging to water streams and stuff than animal waste. When was the last time you heard of a cow being dowsed in fertiliser?

As mentioned before, the trend is toward factory farming and that isn`t being discouraged by governments. Tax and corporate incentives are accelerating that and pasturing animals due to the pressures for urbanization on land by population is becoming less and less.
Factory farming has seen lagoon wastes of fecal material spilling into waterways that have fed cities and towns their water causing alarm to residents and harm to aquatic life -- not to mention threatening the water supply of the communities.

Are you trying to imply that i support factory farming? I never have. I think the world would be a better place without it. There's no point in pointing out things that we both agree on- you don't need to eat factory farmed foods to be an omnivore, so i don't see what point you are trying to make that hasn't been raised already etc?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Not so simple. Labeling is sometimes deceptive. Meat demand is driving that and imports. If a country`s population, or many country`s populations exert self control and don`t buy meat from those places but purchase alll their meat from say, Britain, after a while those South and C. American beef producers will drastically drop their prices as they seek to dump their inventory. The price will drop so low as to make the Britain prices seem too high and the lower prices too low and a good bargain to refuse. The see-saw will come back down.

The same can be applied to crops as well. Are you trying to imply that vegetarians are free from this/don't face this very situation as well?

You mean not anymore. You guys finished lopping away most of your "old growth forests" many many years ago. Right?

What point are you trying to make here? The fact of the matter is we don't deforest our land for cattle, so buying british beef does not mean you will be supporting the deforestation industry.

Taking yourself out of the equation by choosing the least damaging choice is the best way to help the environment.

By being a vegetarian though you are not taking yourself out of the equation environmentally- you can still damage the enviroment just as much as any omnivore. Better than to take yourself out of the equation so to speak, would be better to financially support a better cause than none at all.

The report goes out of its way to specifically single out meat production as one of the major causes. I guess they had a good reason not to mention tomatos or anything else specifically. Do you think they were just being derelict and unprofessional. I would bet that more than just one person worked on the report and since it was done by the UN, in all probability they had a staff of well respected persons in that field who contributed to it.

Of course cattle ranching is one of the main causes of deforestation. Its an article about it as well. But crop farming is also a major cause of deforestation across the world. Just by becomming a vegetarian does not prevent you from buying crops that support deforestation. They are as bad as each other- are you trying to indicate that one form of deforestation is somehow better than the other? You are not taking yourself out of the equation as you put it just by becomming a vegetarian.

[strongvoicesforward]

I have already shown you statements by well respected orgs singling out meat production as one of the major causes of environmental damage. Can you show me a similar document by a well respected org stating that plant food production for human use causes the same amount of environmental damage or more?

Where is there a statement saying that "tomatos, wheat, or corn" are threatening the world`s sensitive rainforests, using so much water sources that we are going to have to change our eating habbits because of that" ?

Where is a study or research paper by a world reknown reputable org on that, or a report on that that says crop production for human use is threatening our environment in similar ways or on the same alarming level as meat production?

I`ve shown you mine (and I have more), now where are yours?

[KrazyKat]

To say that vegetarianism is good for the environment and having an omnivorous diet isn�ft, is a very broad/vague statement to make.

Well that isn't quite the point I was trying to make. In the first place I would rather use the words better and worse than good or bad in this situation.

Additionally when I was saying an average meat eating diet, I was referring really to factory farmed meat as this consists of most meat. I should really have been clearer there. To be honest I have never read about the enviromental impact of free range meat before your posts here, its very interesting. It seems clear from what you are posting that different methods of meat production have different enviromental impacts, some less than equivalent productions for a vegetarian diet.

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.

Thats why I feel that this whole topic is flawed in arguing 'go vegetarian for the environment' when the real issue is simply 'how can I change my diet to make it more environmentaly friendly'. Certainly for many people this will probably involve eating less meat and/or more environmnentaly porduced meat but that will only be one aspect, and not in all cases.

I hope some of that made a little sense.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Well that isn't quite the point I was trying to make. In the first place I would rather use the words better and worse than good or bad in this situation.
Additionally when I was saying an average meat eating diet, I was referring really to factory farmed meat as this consists of most meat. I should really have been clearer there. To be honest I have never read about the enviromental impact of free range meat before your posts here, its very interesting. It seems clear from what you are posting that different methods of meat production have different enviromental impacts, some less than equivalent productions for a vegetarian diet.
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.
Thats why I feel that this whole topic is flawed in arguing 'go vegetarian for the environment' when the real issue is simply 'how can I change my diet to make it more environmentaly friendly'. Certainly for many people this will probably involve eating less meat and/or more environmnentaly porduced meat but that will only be one aspect, and not in all cases.
I hope some of that made a little sense.

I agree with you very much here .
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"). An omnivorous and vegetarian diets can both be enviromentally friendly as each other if you go about them correctly- simply blindly swaping one for the other does not get you in the environmenal clear though so to speak.
I support both vegetarians and people who lead omnivorous diets depending on how they go about them and i believe both can be enviromentally friendly as each other when gone about correctly and it is also completely posible too as well "nods" :) .

[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?