Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

Tokis-Phoenix said:
... 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 ?gcreate?h it said ?grequires?h

The idea is still clear. Petty point.

?ga. Who the heck are ?gBeckett?h and ?gOltjen?h?

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 ?grequire?h 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?c?h

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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 
bossel said:
Asking for your opinion is going ad hominem?

M-W:
Main Entry: 1ad ho?Emi?Enem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'ha?N-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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 
KrazyKat said:
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?ft, 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?fs 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.


?gAh-hem?h- anyways, lets talk about SVF?fs 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;
?g5.1 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
 
Hmm, this looks like a battle between vegetarians and non-vegetarians :p 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 !
 
Meat production is MORE of a drain on water sources than crop production for human direct use. To say otherwise is just wrong:

?gAnimals 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. ...?h

and

?gAnimals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops.?h
-- Anders Berntell, Executive Director, Stockholm International Water Institute

Here.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.

strongvoicesforward said:
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.

strongvoicesforward said:
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.

strongvoicesforward said:
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?

strongvoicesforward said:
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?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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?


strongvoicesforward said:
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.


strongvoicesforward said:
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.



strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
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?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
KrazyKat said:
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 :cool: .
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" :) .
 

This thread has been viewed 80579 times.

Back
Top