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