Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 128

Thread: Vegetarianism for the Environment

  1. #26
    Resident Realist Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nice gaijin's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-08-05
    Posts
    68


    Country: United States





    To be fair, bossel did suggest an agrarian solution that would address some of the environmental issues of raising livestock for meat. I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system, but he wasn't given much chance to air out his idea before being dismissed for not agreeing with the original post's contention.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    From the first link above:
    That conflict can't be resolved without growing food using a lot less water, Gleick said in an interview. "And that won't be achieved if everyone wants to eat as much meat as North Americans," he added.
    China's rising meat consumption is cause for concern, he says, and the problem is made worse by the fact that China has badly damaged its aquatic ecosystems and polluted its freshwater limiting how much food it can grow.
    Do you actually read the links you provide? This article is clearly hinting at the ill affects to the environment due to meat consumption -- which is what causes the large amounts of land to be cultivated and then in need of irrigation.
    Do you actually read the posts i make? Read through the whole post again and you'll notice i adress those points. I included the links for reference as to what points i was adressing and why i disagreed with them and so forth etc.
    So before you accuse me of not reading my links, why don't you read my posts first?

  3. #28
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    I never said a vegetarian diet doesn`t result in the use of fossil fuels. Vegetarianism is not a perfect choice leading to Utopia as it concerns the environment. It is merely a better choice of the ones that exist -- and in the case of fossil fuels, it most clearly is the one choice in regards to diet that decreases the use of fossil fuels because of less transportation and less intensive farming due to lesser land area that would be used for the growth of plant food.
    My last comment still stands as it is.
    Let us try and clear this up.
    Being a vegetarian means caring about the environment.
    It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops? Tractors used to haul it off the fields, to farms where it is stored, prepared and shipped out on trucks. Farms use great amounts of electricity whether they are used for meat, diary or grain production, which mainly comes from environmentally unfriendly power stations. It is then shipped out to factories, mills, packing plants, in big gas guzzling trucks. The factories have to maintain hygenic conditions via chemicals. Packing plant use wood, paper, plastic packaging, using resources, no matter what is packed into them be it plant, vegetable or mineral. Then there is storage so you can eat your food out of season. Do you know that there are fruits that have been in storage for over a year before they get to the superstore? Back on food production. Crops require pesticides and fertilizer, not known for their environmental benefits. Plus all the fruit and veg which is not native to your country which are shipped by ship or air. More fuel guzzling. So, please tell me in what way in the above is being a vegetarian caring about the environment?

  4. #29
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Do you actually read the posts i make? Read through the whole post again and you'll notice i adress those points. I included the links for reference as to what points i was adressing and why i disagreed with them and so forth etc.
    So before you accuse me of not reading my links, why don't you read my posts first?
    Tokis, I did read your post. You tried to mitigate the waste of meat production by saying we must move away from factory farming. That is irrelevant because meat production still requires more recourses per calorie than plant foods.

    You made some assertions in your first paragraphs as if those points point to the fact that meat does not require more water. You didn`t show us how much that form of meat production by free range taxed water recourses. You just said animals "can survive on dry grass etc..."

    70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so that it can be turned into feed. You said that "most fertilizer" goes into crops meant for human consumption. However, I didn`t see that in the links YOU provided. Are you just guessing at that or is that just your opinion?

    The first equation you created:
    Less factory farming= big decrease in crops used for animals
    You cannot expect the same number of animals in factory farms to be free ranging and still not consuming large quantities of water (not only calculated from what is taken from the plant life). In fact, being confined may allow them to directly consume less due to less affects from water depletion through movement and exertion.

    Factory farming has come about because it is more efficient for the farmer allowing them to make more profit. Besides, you are ignoring the trend in farming. The profit incentive is causing more and more farmers to take up factory farming. That trend will not reverse if it means less profit and people want the cheapest product. Farmers will increase their factory farming in order to stay competitive.

    No animal farming at all= big increase in crop farming= more artificial fertilisers= bad for the environment.
    There would be a net decrease. Your equation is wrong. Can you show me a study that supports that? Your links above even hint at the opposite if you extrapolate the information.

    More fertilisers=more mining, more fossil fuels, more industrial activity= even worse for the environment.
    You are right in that animal waste is needed and used for fertilizer now. However, that doesn`t have to be for the future and a society that decides to move away from flesh consumption but yet still needs to keep its fields fertile. Human waste could be converted for the same purpose. While it may not be as good it most definitely could be used, and science could probably find a way to make it even better with more rendering of some sorts. While land use for crops for humans would decrease, land use for animal crops would decrease and would not do so proportionately. There would be a net loss in land use for crops and that would help alleviate soil erosion and run off.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  5. #30
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    Let us try and clear this up.
    It doesn't in no form whatsoever. What about the huge gas guzzling harvesters used to collect grain crops? Tractors used to haul it off the fields, to farms where it is stored, prepared and shipped out on trucks. Farms use great amounts of electricity whether they are used for meat, diary or grain production, which mainly comes from environmentally unfriendly power stations. It is then shipped out to factories, mills, packing plants, in big gas guzzling trucks. The factories have to maintain hygenic conditions via chemicals. Packing plant use wood, paper, plastic packaging, using resources, no matter what is packed into them be it plant, vegetable or mineral. Then there is storage so you can eat your food out of season. Do you know that there are fruits that have been in storage for over a year before they get to the superstore? Back on food production. Crops require pesticides and fertilizer, not known for their environmental benefits. Plus all the fruit and veg which is not native to your country which are shipped by ship or air. More fuel guzzling. So, please tell me in what way in the above is being a vegetarian caring about the environment?
    Myrcianus,

    You are still not taking into account the value added that comes about from addding another step into calorie production. That is rather than going directly from plant calorie to final consumer, it makes another unnecessary stop to animal. In addition all those things of harvesting plant life is multiplied in field size and time and energy in getting all that to animals. Simply put, a larger space for plant cultivation because animals need large amounts of food, means longer hours of operating machinery over larger areas and requiring more transportation due to larger harvests.

  6. #31
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by nice gaijin
    To be fair, bossel did suggest an agrarian solution that would address some of the environmental issues of raising livestock for meat. I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system, but he wasn't given much chance to air out his idea before being dismissed for not agreeing with the original post's contention.
    I don`t agree with that assessment.

    He suggested an SF scenario -- a very improbable one due to economics, which he even admitted to. The water issue was not resolved. Just a general comment on it. He then began to go off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent on the moral issue, which is not the focus of this thread.

    People are quite welcome in going against my contention that "vegetarianism is best for the environment." Tokis-Phoenix is doing that without going SF, or off on the moral issues, or off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    I agree with the sentiments expressed by many people above that factory farming has a negative affect on the environment. I don't think anyone has tried to challenge this.

    I also agree with tokis that a completely vegan population would be less effecient than one with some free range farming. I think that some land is unsuitable for crops yet suitable for letting animals graze, I'm thinking more about goats and things here, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    While I understand that this thread is specifically about vegetariansim and the environment, I can't help but feel that it is just a part of a larger topic of diet and the environment. Other elements such as locally grown produce and organic farming are important aspects along with eating less factory farmed meat.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Tokis, I did read your post. You tried to mitigate the waste of meat production by saying we must move away from factory farming. That is irrelevant because meat production still requires more recourses per calorie than plant foods.

    You made some assertions in your first paragraphs as if those points point to the fact that meat does not require more water. You didn`t show us how much that form of meat production by free range taxed water recourses. You just said animals "can survive on dry grass etc..."

    70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so that it can be turned into feed. You said that "most fertilizer" goes into crops meant for human consumption. However, I didn`t see that in the links YOU provided. Are you just guessing at that or is that just your opinion?
    Firstly, I never said animals can “survive on dry grass etc”, if you really did read my post then please quote my statements accurately.
    Secondly, it was not 70 to 80% of all cropland is harvested so it can be turned into feed, I remember it accurately more as a round 70%, so lets not exaggerate statistics.
    Thirdly, I have experience with farming, both crops and a variety of animals, and to be honest, I am in doubt of some of the statistics in these pro-vegan links.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    You cannot expect the same number of animals in factory farms to be free ranging and still not consuming large quantities of water (not only calculated from what is taken from the plant life). In fact, being confined may allow them to directly consume less due to less affects from water depletion through movement and exertion.
    That is just an assumption- stress makes animals sweat, particularly if they are obese, which many factory farmed animals are. A large amount of water also goes into keeping their crampt conditions sanitised- the dry artificial feeds needed to feed them also often need to be saturated with water to make them edible.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Factory farming has come about because it is more efficient for the farmer allowing them to make more profit. Besides, you are ignoring the trend in farming. The profit incentive is causing more and more farmers to take up factory farming. That trend will not reverse if it means less profit and people want the cheapest product. Farmers will increase their factory farming in order to stay competitive.
    Er-herm, but it was me who explained to you the trends in farming in another thread- so please do not accuse me of ignoring these facts. I have a solution to this anyway which I will explain later.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    There would be a net decrease. Your equation is wrong. Can you show me a study that supports that? Your links above even hint at the opposite if you extrapolate the information.
    Wheat farming for example is terribly inefficient. Millions of tons of it are wasted due to quality issues- for example, if suddenly you get a problem with wild oats in your fields, you have no way to remove them without weed killers. Wild oats decrease the value of wheat. Wheat that is not pure enough gets wasted.
    There are hundreds of things that can lower the quality of wheat apart from weeds, things like mites, rodent droppings, damp, fungus etc. If your wheat gets spoiled then that’s a couple of hundred tonnes of wheat down the drain (often more though).

    Crop farming only would be bad for the economy because of the loss of animal products- to be honest, I cannot think of any uses for wheat other than for it to be eaten, but I can think of at least 10 things cows are useful for other than being eaten. You stop animal farming, then all the other non-edible animal products go with it. Bad news for the economy, which would mean more industry to make up for the losses.

    Anyhoo, you seem to believe that more water goes into producing beef than wheat yes because of the statics on the vegansociety website yes? Let me go into some things about those “statistics”, it says;

    “According to Beckett and Oltjen, the kilogram of beef requires 3,700 litres of water and the kilogram of wheat requires 120 litres of water”

    a. Who the heck are “Beckett” and “Oltjen”?
    b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
    c. What does “require” mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etc…

    Please answer these questions for me, since you seem to be relying on them heavily, I find these “statistics” very questionable without any evidence to back up who exactly they were done by, how exactly the experiments were gone about and what part of C. are they about.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    You are right in that animal waste is needed and used for fertilizer now. However, that doesn`t have to be for the future and a society that decides to move away from flesh consumption but yet still needs to keep its fields fertile. Human waste could be converted for the same purpose. While it may not be as good it most definitely could be used, and science could probably find a way to make it even better with more rendering of some sorts. While land use for crops for humans would decrease, land use for animal crops would decrease and would not do so proportionately. There would be a net loss in land use for crops and that would help alleviate soil erosion and run off.
    It shows how much you know about real farming experience- human waste has a hige amount of issues attached to it which is the reason why it is not favoured by farmers- firstly, its not very good for growing crops on. Its often way too acidic.
    Plus a lot of crap gets mixed with human waste like bleach/toilet disinfectant, meaning you cannot dump the raw stuff on fields without killing off every bit of life. This means it has to be refined, making it less environmentally friendly (more industry, more pollution).
    Thirdly, people don’t like farmers who dump human waste on fields. If you thought pig poop smells bad, you shouldn’t check out the human stuff- many villages down here are trying to take legal action against farmers who put human muck on fields because of the god awful smell it creates for weeks on end (no one wants to buy a house for example right next to a sewer, the same thing goes for people not wanting to buy houses next to fields which human sewage is dumped on).
    You are also still not addressing the points I made on the loss of biodiversity I made and crop farming- you cannot deny these facts.


    On the subject of the issues of profitability on factory farming keeping it alive, I did say I had a solution to that, which I will address now.
    One of the main factors why factory farming is so profitable is because the government pays farmers money based on how much food they produce- more food production, more money. This is a major lifeline for GM and factory farming.
    I say, lets do another option. Instead of paying farmers to produce loads of food for the country or for export or economy etc, lets pay farmers for how well they look after their animals or how environmentally friendly they go about crop farming etc. This would kill out a lot of factory farms and farms that aren’t very environmentally in one swipe, and help encourage good farming practices.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by nice gaijin
    I'm not sure to what extent it would be a self-sustaining system
    Only partially, since food has to be produced & for that you have to put more in than what comes out, but the need for resources (esp. water) would dramatically decrease.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    He suggested an SF scenario
    ... which is pretty much always the case if you talk about the possible future.

    -- a very improbable one due to economics,
    Ah, but didn't you say something like "economy shouldn't play a role in this thread". Then you cannot really dismiss it for that reason. But then again, you don't keep to your own rules, anyway. Well...

    He then began to go off on a reductionist ad hominem tangent on the moral issue, which is not the focus of this thread.
    Asking for your opinion is going ad hominem?

    M-W:
    Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
    Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    Which feelings did I appeal to or in how far did I attack your character?

  10. #35
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Also, on the subject of wheat versus beef water requirements, I found those statistics very misleading.
    Do you mean in the links YOU provided? Why provide them if you find the information in them misleading?

    All those statistics show is the water present in the plant/animal product at its finished state/final product. It does not take into account the serious problems with evaporation on fields or the polluted water run-off from them.
    That still won`t change the fact that more water goes into meat production because larger areas for crops are needed for supplying feed to livestock. That would mean more evaporation and more water run off.

    The other thing you need to take into consideration, is do you eat wheat dry? No, you have to mix it with water and other products to make it edible. While a piece of beef can happily fry or roast or whatever in its own water-rich juices, cereal products need to be cooked in some liquid product like water to make them edible- otherwise you’d just be eating flour, literally. And unless you make that into a soup or something, the water you boil it in goes down the drain unlike the juices from the beef which you consume.
    According to the link site YOU provided, and the conservative estimate studies partly financed by the California Beef Council, it takes 3,700 liters of water to create 1kg of beef. As for wheat it takes 120 liters of water to make one kg of wheat. Now, if one needs to take one more liter to add to your 1kg of flour in order to eat it so it isn`t dry, then it would be 121 liters of water for that one kg consumption of wheat -- still far shorter than the 3,700 liters needed to create one kg of beef.

  11. #36
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system. There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down. Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of c.ountries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population. Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks. Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.

  12. #37
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    SVF, to say that if everyone ate plants, the environment would benefit, is very delusional IMO.
    You have attempted to define me as if I think it is a reality that the world would ever get to a place where everyone ate plants. Where have I ever said that? I live in reality, and I doubt that flesh consumption would ever disappear just as I doubt murder or rape, or crime in general would ever disappear.

    I will say that the environment would benefit if as many people as possible could make the switch to a vegetarian diet.

    I will continue to list the recourse drain and damages that meat production is wreaking on the environment.
    [/QUOTE]

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Do you mean in the links YOU provided? Why provide them if you find the information in them misleading?
    Did I ever say you provided those links? There’s no need to state the obvious here.
    And yes, I am questioning the statistics/figures in the links because you have used those very same stats/figures many a time and I’m sure you have also used those links in the past too- so if you do not like my links, can you provide any other internet sources which also have those exact stats.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    According to the link site YOU provided, and the conservative estimate studies partly financed by the California Beef Council, it takes 3,700 liters of water to create 1kg of beef. As for wheat it takes 120 liters of water to make one kg of wheat. Now, if one needs to take one more liter to add to your 1kg of flour in order to eat it so it isn`t dry, then it would be 121 liters of water for that one kg consumption of wheat -- still far shorter than the 3,700 liters needed to create one kg of beef.
    It never said “create” it said “requires”- please answer these previous questions I asked on this part of the statistics debate before you continue to quote/use these statistics etc, particually C.;

    “a. Who the heck are “Beckett” and “Oltjen”?
    b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
    c. What does “require” mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etc…”

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    You have attempted to define me as if I think it is a reality that the world would ever get to a place where everyone ate plants. Where have I ever said that? I live in reality, and I doubt that flesh consumption would ever disappear just as I doubt murder or rape, or crime in general would ever disappear.

    I will say that the environment would benefit if as many people as possible could make the switch to a vegetarian diet.

    I will continue to list the recourse drain and damages that meat production is wreaking on the environment.
    Erm, I don’t think I am unjustified in assuming you believe that all animal farming is wrong and immoral and the world would be a better place without it, and that if you had your way you would stop animal farming etc- because you have debated that point of view in many threads with me.
    You can do what you want, but it appears there are numerous people that disagree with the water part of vegetarianism being environmentally, and that growing crops is certainly bad for biodiversity.

    Oh- and another thing. You apparently have pet dogs. May I ask where the animal products you are feeding them come from or what brand food you are feeding them?

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system. There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down. Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of c.ountries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population. Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks. Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.

    I agree, i would also have to say that a nutritious vegan diet without pill supliments is pretty much imposible without imported foods.

  15. #40
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    You keep on about water usage in meat production and how it is used more. The point is water is a recycleable resource, ...
    Of course water is a recyclable resource in the long run. I mean eventually I would imagine that things do get replenished -- most probably once the heavy burden of population pressures are released, either through the decline of the human species or just a decline in population. However, to talk about water as a recycleable resource as if our use of it does not matter because it is just there in one way or another is wrong -- and I doubt if you will find many articles that say the problems of water shortages are not looming around the corner. Can you?


    so how much is used for one or the other is not really applicable for a drain on the environment, especailly in the western world. Any waste of either crop or meat production is treated and returns back to the water cycle, which is a closed system.
    I don`t think all run off is treated. Where is there a statement that all run off with pesticides is treated? Do you have that? Where is there a statement that says all fecal waste from factory farm does not spill over into local streams? Aren`t you aware of those kinds of disasters? Keep visiting the thread because I will be posting those disasterous episodes quite soon enough. And once I do, where does that leave your statement above?

    There is of course one of the most water intensive crop production for vegetarians and that is rice. We see those paddy fields full of water, but rice is a grass and doesn't need to be grown in water logged feilds. It is done so mainly to keep weeds down.
    I have no problem with them being converted to non wet fields. And, I am not aware of any place that says "water intensive crop production" is for vegetarians. Haven`t seen that before. Please direct me to that. The productoin of plant food can always be improved. Won`t deny that. Got to embrace as much efficiency as possible.

    Backto production of various meat products. Most meat produced in a lot of countries is from that country, with the occassional import. Well for the UK at least. Beef, Pork, Chicken etc are produced locally and and bee done to feed a population.
    As for U.K. pork -- here are some numbers from the industry just 3 yrs ago:

    1. 85% of bacon in Britain is imported

    2. 70% of these pigs came from countries that do not meet the minimum raising standards in Britain.

    Read it yourself HERE.

    Whether meat is imported or exported, its production has a net adverse affect on the world environment.

    Vegetables and fruits on the other hand are not only grown locally, but a huge amount is imported. How else do you manage to eat out of season food, or even foods that cannot be grown in your country due to climate or possible pest risks.
    Of course there is value added to those products. But, it still does not rival the production of meat and its damages and drain on recourses. I have yet to see a large number, if any, report on the recourse consumption and environment damaging effects of raising strawberries and blueberries. Can you direct me to some?

    Soya, something vegetarians must eat to get their proteins comes mainly from China, the US, Argentina and Brazil, all exported vai planes and ships to the rest of the world. Not really very environmentally friendly.
    Well, any use of fossil fuels for transportation/value added is not a "plus" in the column for good things about anything. However, DO YOU HAVE a comparative study that shows a net total drain on recourses and damages to the environment giving more responsibility to the growth of plant food for humans against the total impact of plant food grown for meat? I still have yet to see a damning report on crop consumption for human use that exonerates the negative effects of meat production by showing that the former is more damaging. Where are your numbers?

  16. #41
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    ... if you do not like my links, can you provide any other internet sources which also have those exact stats.
    On the contrary. I do like your links because they support MY position.

    Btw, no, I have not used those particular links you posted. But like I said, since they do support my position, I don`t mind using them. I was not protesting their use. I liked them. I am just credulous that you put them up for -- and I just wonder for what purpose since they do not support your position.

    It never said “create” it said “requires”
    The idea is still clear. Petty point.

    “a. Who the heck are “Beckett” and “Oltjen”?
    Mr. Beckett's intro can be seen here.

    Mr. Oltjen`s educational/professional bio can be seen here.

    b. What experiments were performed to come to those result conclusions?
    c. What does “require” mean exactly? The amount of water fed to the cow and wheat to keep it alive? The total amount of water in the finished product? The amount of water consumed by the cow and wheat? Etc…”
    Why don`t you contact them and ask yourself? As the link you provided stated, there study was sponsored in part by California`s Beef Council. Maybe the beef industry refuted their own hired researchers. Check and find out. Until you find a refutation of their work, it stands as is.

    ... it appears there are numerous people that disagree with the water part of vegetarianism being environmentally, and that growing crops is certainly bad for biodiversity.
    Sure, growing crops is bad for biodiversity. I am not arguing that. The point of contention is that with meat production that damage to biodiversity is multiplied. Vegetarianism is not the road to Utopia -- it is merely the better of the two choices when it comes to the environment.

    Oh- and another thing. You apparently have pet dogs. May I ask where the animal products you are feeding them come from or what brand food you are feeding them?
    They eat veggie dog food and road kill which we go out every morning to claim.

    But, let`s say they do eat dog food of meat products; it still does not change the truth that a vegetarian diet for human consumption is best for the environment.

  17. #42
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    But we can easily us domestic meat and still get by. Vegetarians might find their needs limited if they had to do the same.

  18. #43
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    I agree, i would also have to say that a nutritious vegan diet without pill supliments is pretty much imposible without imported foods.
    So what?

    We are living in a modern society where supplements exist for our convenience and benefit if we do so choose a diet without flesh.

    Small trade off to take a B12 or iron supplement for a healthier environment.

  19. #44
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    But we can easily us domestic meat and still get by.
    If it is so easy, then why don`t you?

    There is nothing easy about economics and choices based on apathy, convenience or selfishness. It is rather complex.

    Vegetarians might find their needs limited if they had to do the same.
    Well, if society and civilization collapses, then I am sure a survival mentality will set in. But we are not in that situation now. We need not act like we are by choosing choices based on that mentality. The environment suffers from that if that is what you are basing continued flesh eating on when we are a society/civilization that are at the point where the choice to eat vegetarian can be followed with no problem.

  20. #45
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Asking for your opinion is going ad hominem?

    M-W:
    Main Entry: 1ad ho・mi・nem
    Pronunciation: (')ad-'ha¨-m&-"nem, -n&m
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
    1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
    2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    Which feelings did I appeal to or in how far did I attack your character?
    Fair enough on this bossel. I mispoke in the usage of the term. You did not attack my character. Sorry for the micharacature of your comment.

    I am not above to admitting a mistake. I am not perfect. I have made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future. Accept my apologies, please. -- Thanks.

  21. #46
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    The environment suffers from that if that is what you are basing continued flesh eating on when we are a society/civilization that are at the point where the choice to eat vegetarian can be followed with no problem.
    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, and you do in the same way as a committed christian, the basic premise of this thread is not as solid as you are trying to make out it is. Humans, as a species seek to use whatever is available to them. It doesn't depend on whether we are or are not vegetarians, we will still rape and pillage the earth to further our own survival and that is our nature, to survive. Even you would eat meat, kill, become selfish if you were in a survival situation. You can deny it all you want, but it is our nature as an animal because that is what we are when you stripe away all our technology

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    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.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyKat
    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.
    To say that vegetarianism is good for the environment and having an omnivorous diet isn’t, is a very broad/vague statement to make.

    One thing that has been a centre of discussion of this vegetarianism environment debate is the water consumption for beef and wheat and the amount of crops that go towards keeping animals worldwide.

    Wheat is not a very water-demanding plant at all, and you cannot sum up all cows as essentially the same thing;
    a. A dairy cow consumes far more water than a non-dairy cow.
    b. A free range cow does not need to consume any crops at all apart from hay, which is just dried grass and essentially not a crop product anyway.
    c. Cows support the environment when they are in the right climate- keeping fields full of grasses and plants, bugs and insects, so your cattle can graze there is far more environmentally friendly than ploughing the entire thing up and growing a single crop plant on it.


    FACT: To produce one gallon of milk, a dairy cow must drink four gallons of water. It takes eight gallons of water to grow a tomato;

    http://www.crcwater.org/wateruse.html

    Growing tomato’s consumes far more water than raising non-dairy cattle- so saying vegetarianism is good for the environment in a water consumption sense is not always true just as much as saying the opposite is.
    More water is needed to grow fruits and vegetables than what is needed to grow cereal crops, but most of the crops consumed by animals are cereals. The vast bulk of crops needed for animals goes towards factory farms, and poultry & pigs consumes the bulk of animal cereals.

    If you are concerned about water consumption, here are 34 or so ways to help you save thousands of gallons;

    http://www.monolake.org/socalwater/wctips.htm

    Unless you turn into a complete vegan, you will continue to use animal products.


    “Ah-hem”- anyways, lets talk about SVF’s theory- there is actually a term given to this idea called the 'total vegetarian' solution. In theory, this sounds like a good idea. But the 'total vegetarian' solution also ignores the fact that a great deal of land, while of no use for crop-growing, can support grazing animals, especially upland sheep and goats and cattle on semi-arid land. So although it takes more water to raise a cow, most of that water is obtained from grass and that obtains its water from rain.
    Here is a good site for some real solutions facing the water issue;


    http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.water.html

    The site talks about the facts, popular solutions and real solutions to our issues. Here is what It talks about on real solutions;
    “5.1 DIY rainwater collection
    Rainwater harvesting, say water scientists, backed by the UN Environment Programme, is the real alternative to huge dams. It involves direct collection of water on roofs and spare land. They calculate that millions of villages can meet their needs cheaply this way, and that cities could get a third of their water by collecting rain. [Fred Pearce, New Scientist; ibid]
    5.2 Make agricultural water use more efficient
    Various techniques are being explored. Some farmers are turning to 'surge-flow' irrigation to replace traditional flooding and channelling irrigation. This method involves a gated system with micro-processor controls. In Texas, it has led to a reduction in water-pumping of between 38 and 56 per cent. Another method being promoted is night-time irrigation which reduces evaporation, improving efficiency by two to three times. Low-pressure sprinklers can improve efficiency by 60 - 70 per cent compared with high-pressure sprinklers. Watering via the Low-Energy Precision Application (tubes extending down from the sprinklers right on to the crop) can push efficiency up almost to 100 per cent. There is even a more sophisticated system which delivers the water in drops. All of these methods grow the crops with less waste of water, but the greater the efficiency achieved, the more costly the system is to install, and the more energy it uses. So the farmer has a large loan to pay back and there is an added pollution burden from the energy used. [Pimentel et al. ibid]
    5.3 Plant more trees
    Shelter belts can reduce evaporation and transpiration from the field crops, and crops can be interplanted with such trees as Eucalyptus which bring water up to the surface, thus increasing water availability for the crop, without irrigation.
    5.4 Stop rapid water runoff
    When cropped soil is exposed, rainfall washes considerable amounts away. Water runoff and subsequent soil loss can be reduced by using ground cover. For instance if red clover is grown with silage corn, runoff can be reduced by 45 - 87 per cent. It results in more water being held back in the ground and available for plant take-up, and the reduction in soil-loss avoids plant stress.
    5.5 End irrigation subsidies
    Globally, there are a number of trends pushing the 'need' for more irrigation ever upwards: rising human population, the heavy water-requirements of high-yield 'green revolution' crops, increased affluence, and climate change. In many countries there are large state subsidies for irrigation: in 1997, according to Pimentel, Mexican farmers paid only 11 per cent of the real cost of irrigation water; farmers in Pakistan only 13 per and in California only 2 per cent. He estimated that every hectare of irrigated land in the American West received a subsidy of almost $1000 a year for irrigation, when the government costs of building dams, laying pipes, and providing power to move the water, are included. Such massive undercharging means that farmers may be careless of the need to use water efficiently, and often results in the irrigation of crops of low value. Pimentel's message is that subsidies must end.
    5.6 Integrated water resource management
    IWRM plans are what all countries have agreed to prepare by 2005; the agreement was made at the Johannesburgh World Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992. A survey of 96 developing countries undertaken by the Global Water Partnership in 2004 showed that only 12% will meet the targets set out at the summit, with the rest needing some support or substantial support to achieve the targets. There are some encouraging signs of governments beginning proper planning, such as South Africa's National Water Act, and the European Union's Water Framework Directive, which link meeting human needs to conservation and ecosystem health, but overall UNEP (the United Nations Evironment Programme) feels 'serious concern' for lack of progress [Our Planet, Vol 14, No 4, UNEP]
    5.7 Halt population growth
    Although the growth of the human population is cited as one of the major factors in the march towards a worldwide water crisis, nowhere is there a renewed call for an all-out effort to make reproductive choice available to everyone. Endless ingenuity goes into the measures invented to make water usage more efficient: from low-flush toilets, and eco-saver washing-machines, to drip-feed irrigation and feebates for low-water-use planning ("feebates" is an American term, meaning a system which penalises or rewards heavy or meagre use of a commodity, incorporating a fee-neutral balance point). But the unhappy lot of millions of women, bearing children year after year with little or no effective choice in the matter, and contributing by default to the growth of populations often in the most water-scarce countries - goes unregretted by policymakers. Also unregretted, apparently, are the activities of those political and 'moral' leaders in the USA who reneged on promises given at the Cairo Conference on Population in 1994 to provide millions of dollars for international family planning and reproductive health services - services needed by women, and needed for the survival of all. Gains are being made in cutting birth rates in many countries, but all too often an ingrained pro-natalist attitude prompts influential commentators and policymakers to fail to see the benefits of such a demographic trend.

    http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.water.html

  24. #49
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Hmm, this looks like a battle between vegetarians and non-vegetarians Both defending their own believes. In the end being a vegetarian has zero advantages, nature still is screwed.

    You don't like religion, yet you're even worse than a preacher !
    小豆研ぐか、人取ってくおか、ショキショキ〜♪
    Azuki togu ka, hito totte kuo ka, shoki shoki〜♪

  25. #50
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Your diet's impact on the environment
    By KrazyKat in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22-09-19, 11:47
  2. What are you doing to help the environment?
    By CC1 in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-02-15, 17:14
  3. How aware are you of the State of the Environment?
    By CC1 in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-09-13, 00:04
  4. Slovenia's President, Dr. Janez Drnovsek, speaks about vegetarianism
    By strongvoicesforward in forum EU politics & government
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-06, 04:52
  5. Famous Vegetarians on Vegetarianism
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Opinions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 17-04-06, 05:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •