What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Meat and global warming - (2 Viewers)

KarmaPolice said:
Cant you say that about anything we try to do to eliminate our footprint in small increments?  How much is my cloth bag at the grocery store doing vs not eating meat today?  Trying to unplug some stuff at home?  I mean why do any of it? 
Click to expand...
I think there are certain activities that directly consume resources and give off co2, and certain activities that don’t.

Using better light bulbs directly lowers your power bill.  Driving less uses less gas, as does a car with better gas mileage.

Skipping meat for one meal doesn’t help in any way.  It’s not going to affect the number of cattle in the world at all.

This idea that every little bit helps doesn’t seem entirely accurate, because some things honestly don’t help at all.

If I actually gave up meat for an entire year (or for that matter died), I don’t think there is any way to prove that the loss of my consumption would have any effect on the global cattle population, but if I can be shown to be wrong, I’d love to see it.

 
shader said:
I think there are certain activities that directly consume resources and give off co2, and certain activities that don’t.

Using better light bulbs directly lowers your power bill.  Driving less uses less gas, as does a car with better gas mileage.

Skipping meat for one meal doesn’t help in any way.  It’s not going to affect the number of cattle in the world at all.

This idea that every little bit helps doesn’t seem entirely accurate, because some things honestly don’t help at all.

If I actually gave up meat for an entire year (or for that matter died), I don’t think there is any way to prove that the loss of my consumption would have any effect on the global cattle population, but if I can be shown to be wrong, I’d love to see it.
Click to expand...
As with all climate change solutions, many people over a long period time making changes will make the difference. If half the population ate 75% less meat, it's going to make way more impact than those same people switching light bulbs, even if it's not immediately measurable to you personally like reading a hydro bill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
I think there are certain activities that directly consume resources and give off co2, and certain activities that don’t.

Using better light bulbs directly lowers your power bill.  Driving less uses less gas, as does a car with better gas mileage.

Skipping meat for one meal doesn’t help in any way.  It’s not going to affect the number of cattle in the world at all.

This idea that every little bit helps doesn’t seem entirely accurate, because some things honestly don’t help at all.

If I actually gave up meat for an entire year (or for that matter died), I don’t think there is any way to prove that the loss of my consumption would have any effect on the global cattle population, but if I can be shown to be wrong, I’d love to see it.
Click to expand...
That's really not true at all.  There were a record low number of cattle slaughtered each of the last 5 years.   

This is mostly driven by macro economic stuff and Trump's tarrifs but people's demand play a massive role.   Americans have been eating more chicken than beef for awhile and as of 2012 eat more chicken than all red meat put together.  

Supply and demand

 
Terminalxylem said:
I've read the biggest things an individual can do to lessen their environmental impact - not just climate change:

1. Don't have kids, have less kids

2. Live without a car, or drive a lot less using an efficient vehicle

3. Don't eat meat - beef is the worst for both the environment and health

4. Avoid long flights, or don't fly at all

Not having kids is always #1, while the others vary in how much of an impact they are reported to have. This is a good summary article.
Click to expand...
I’d seriously love to see how they get those numbers for diet.  To me, it seems very possible the meatless diet makes zero impact as your lack of meat is so minimal that it wouldn’t impact supply and demand at all, thus having no impact.
 

The difference in those activities seems clear.  In 3, you stop doing things that harm the environment.  In the dietary one, you’re simply not buying something produced in a way that supposedly hurts the environment.  

 
Northern Voice said:
As with all climate change solutions, many people over a long period time making changes will make the difference. If half the population ate 75% less meat, it's going to make way more impact than those same people switching light bulbs, even if it's not immediately measurable to you personally like reading a hydro bill.
Click to expand...
Cfc in hair spray stopped.  People I guess thought that wouldn't make a big impact.   The ozone hole is basically closed in large part due to individual changes.   

 
shader said:
I’d seriously love to see how they get those numbers for diet.  To me, it seems very possible the meatless diet makes zero impact as your lack of meat is so minimal that it wouldn’t impact supply and demand at all, thus having no impact.
 

The difference in those activities seems clear.  In 3, you stop doing things that harm the environment.  In the dietary one, you’re simply not buying something produced in a way that supposedly hurts the environment.  
Click to expand...
It's a collective thing, of course.  

 
culdeus said:
That's really not true at all.  There were a record low number of cattle slaughtered each of the last 5 years.   

This is mostly driven by macro economic stuff and Trump's tarrifs but people's demand play a massive role.   Americans have been eating more chicken than beef for awhile and as of 2012 eat more chicken than all red meat put together.  

Supply and demand
Click to expand...
I think you might be misunderstanding the OP's point.  As I'm interpreting it, he's wondering about the difference between the action that results in a tiny effect when he as an individual does it (and those tiny effects build as more and more people do it) and the one that results in no effect when he as an individual does it but depends on other people to take part in it as well (even if the combined effect may be greater than the other action's combined effect).

 
culdeus said:
That's really not true at all.  There were a record low number of cattle slaughtered each of the last 5 years.   

This is mostly driven by macro economic stuff and Trump's tarrifs but people's demand play a massive role.   Americans have been eating more chicken than beef for awhile and as of 2012 eat more chicken than all red meat put together.  

Supply and demand
Click to expand...
As a youngster I worked at McDonalds.  For us to change our standing order of meat, it would require a significant change of burgers consumed, much more significant than one human could affect.

I guess that’s my point.  I totally agree that MANY humans can cause a change, so perhaps some top down activities could help (taxes, incentives to cattle herders to lower cattle), but is one person directly going to cause an impact? 
 

IMO, the impact is different than the savings from lighting or power usage or gas usage.  One is a straight forward calculation, the other is not.

For instance, if a person isn’t eating beef, what are they eating instead? And what is the impact of THAT food? Are they eating avocados from across the world in winter? Or locally raised chickens?  Our diets are quite complicated and I just personally don’t think it’s quite so easy as “forego beef, save the planet”.

 
shader said:
For instance, if a person isn’t eating beef, what are they eating instead? And what is the impact of THAT food? Are they eating avocados from across the world in winter? Or locally raised chickens?  Our diets are quite complicated and I just personally don’t think it’s quite so easy as “forego beef, save the planet”.
Click to expand...
If you assume people are still going to eat protein, plant based proteins (I'm talking beans, lentils, chickpeas, etc... not beyond burgers) are absolute night and day in terms of environmental impact, land use, water use, greenhouse gases compared to cattle. 

 
shader said:
As a youngster I worked at McDonalds.  For us to change our standing order of meat, it would require a significant change of burgers consumed, much more significant than one human could affect.

I guess that’s my point.  I totally agree that MANY humans can cause a change, so perhaps some top down activities could help (taxes, incentives to cattle herders to lower cattle), but is one person directly going to cause an impact? 
 

IMO, the impact is different than the savings from lighting or power usage or gas usage.  One is a straight forward calculation, the other is not.

For instance, if a person isn’t eating beef, what are they eating instead? And what is the impact of THAT food? Are they eating avocados from across the world in winter? Or locally raised chickens?  Our diets are quite complicated and I just personally don’t think it’s quite so easy as “forego beef, save the planet”.
Click to expand...
If you have made the decision that something must suffer for your dinner then chickens are about as good a choice as you can make.  

 
according to this, saving around 6 kW-hr of electricity is roughly equivalent to removing one serving of beef in terms of CO2 emissions.

 
Buttonhook said:
+ the added benefit of replacing methane-producing cows with oxygen-producing crops 

+ the sustainability of agriculture fields vs. cow pastures
Click to expand...
This is part of my problem with the whole cows are bad part. Most people look at it as we can take x acres of grazing lands and turn it into x acres of farm land.

Florida has plenty of cattle. Most people think Florida citrus but half of all agricultural land in Florids is cattle. The cattle grazing lands I have seen has plenty of grass, small rolling hills and a water hole and it creek for the cattle. Usually a few small trees too.

So you're still getting the oxygen benefit of the grass. Converting those acres to farmland has these potential  problems-

- do you need to flatten the terrain to accommodate tractors

- do you need to install irrigation systems for the crops and what effect does that have on the Florida aquifer?

- just because you can grow grass doesnt mean the soil is primed for crops. What about the increased fertilizer and its potential runoff? Algae bloom in Florida rivers is already a huge problem.

- are there increased emissions from tractors that are now needed to harvest and plant?

- what about the people? Are they just going to become soybean farmers after spending their whole life with livestock?

Maybe things are different in say Texas or the plains but from what I have seen locally this would not be an easy swap not one without other consequences. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JaxBill said:
This is part of my problem with the whole cows are bad part. Most people look at it as we can take x acres of grazing lands and turn it into x acres of farm land.

Florida has plenty of cattle. Most people think Florida citrus but half of all agricultural land in Florids is cattle. The cattle grazing lands I have seen has plenty of grass, small rolling hills and a water hole and it creek for the cattle. Usually a few small trees too.

So you're still getting the oxygen benefit of the grass. Converting those acres to farmland has these potential  problems-

- do you need to flatten the terrain to accommodate tractors

- do you need to install irrigation systems for the crops and what effect does that have on the Florida aquifer?

- just because you can grow grass doesnt mean the soil is primed for crops. What about the increased fertilizer and its potential runoff? Algae bloom in Florida rivers is already a huge problem.

- are there increased emissions from tractors that are now needed to harvest and plant?

- what about the people? Are they just going to become soybean farmers after spending their whole life with livestock?

Maybe things are different in say Texas or the plains but from what I have seen locally this would not be an easy swap not one without other consequences. 
Click to expand...
This is why I said numbers on paper don't always tell the whole story.

 
JaxBill said:
This is part of my problem with the whole cows are bad part. Most people look at it as we can take x acres of grazing lands and turn it into x acres of farm land.
Click to expand...
With a more plant based diet, we would need less agricultural land.  That might suck for the landowner but not for the environment.

 
JaxBill said:
This is part of my problem with the whole cows are bad part. Most people look at it as we can take x acres of grazing lands and turn it into x acres of farm land.

Florida has plenty of cattle. Most people think Florida citrus but half of all agricultural land in Florids is cattle. The cattle grazing lands I have seen has plenty of grass, small rolling hills and a water hole and it creek for the cattle. Usually a few small trees too.

So you're still getting the oxygen benefit of the grass. Converting those acres to farmland has these potential  problems-

- do you need to flatten the terrain to accommodate tractors

- do you need to install irrigation systems for the crops and what effect does that have on the Florida aquifer?

- just because you can grow grass doesnt mean the soil is primed for crops. What about the increased fertilizer and its potential runoff? Algae bloom in Florida rivers is already a huge problem.

- are there increased emissions from tractors that are now needed to harvest and plant?

- what about the people? Are they just going to become soybean farmers after spending their whole life with livestock?

Maybe things are different in say Texas or the plains but from what I have seen locally this would not be an easy swap not one without other consequences. 
Click to expand...
Well for starters, it's not like the cows are just out there grazing and getting all their food that way. 67% of crop production in the United States goes to live stock vs. 27% for human consumption. That is crazy. Think about the transportation of all that. 

The food that goes to livestock worldwide is estimated to have the ability to feed 3.5 Billion people. You can put a massive dent in the global food shortage. 

I think it's widely acknowledged that government help is needed to address specific farmers issues in terms of making that conversion from cattle to cropland and you're seeing that with programs in more progressive countries in Europe and Canada. No I doubt it ever happens in the United States, I don't think the people there have the appetite to cut back on meat to a large extent and certainly the current government isn't going to invest in doing so. 

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be massively beneficial for the environment. 

 
shader said:
I guess that’s my point.  I totally agree that MANY humans can cause a change, so perhaps some top down activities could help (taxes, incentives to cattle herders to lower cattle), but is one person directly going to cause an impact? 
Click to expand...
If you agree that many people can make the impact and you also agree that many more people are eating less meat these days and you acknowledge that cattle farming and production has dropped as a result, I guess I don't understand your argument. You're not just one person, it's already a growing movement that you're joining the collective impact of. 

 
shader said:
As a youngster I worked at McDonalds.  For us to change our standing order of meat, it would require a significant change of burgers consumed, much more significant than one human could affect.

I guess that’s my point.  I totally agree that MANY humans can cause a change, so perhaps some top down activities could help (taxes, incentives to cattle herders to lower cattle), but is one person directly going to cause an impact? 
 

IMO, the impact is different than the savings from lighting or power usage or gas usage.  One is a straight forward calculation, the other is not.

For instance, if a person isn’t eating beef, what are they eating instead? And what is the impact of THAT food? Are they eating avocados from across the world in winter? Or locally raised chickens?  Our diets are quite complicated and I just personally don’t think it’s quite so easy as “forego beef, save the planet”.
Click to expand...
There are answers to that last paragraph out there.  

If you are just arguing that one individual won't make a dent alone, not sure you are going to get much pushback there.  That's not the discussion though- it's more if you do want to do something to change and make an impact, what would be good ways to do that.  

 
JaxBill said:
This is part of my problem with the whole cows are bad part. Most people look at it as we can take x acres of grazing lands and turn it into x acres of farm land.

Florida has plenty of cattle. Most people think Florida citrus but half of all agricultural land in Florids is cattle. The cattle grazing lands I have seen has plenty of grass, small rolling hills and a water hole and it creek for the cattle. Usually a few small trees too.

So you're still getting the oxygen benefit of the grass. Converting those acres to farmland has these potential  problems-

- do you need to flatten the terrain to accommodate tractors

- do you need to install irrigation systems for the crops and what effect does that have on the Florida aquifer?

- just because you can grow grass doesnt mean the soil is primed for crops. What about the increased fertilizer and its potential runoff? Algae bloom in Florida rivers is already a huge problem.

- are there increased emissions from tractors that are now needed to harvest and plant?

- what about the people? Are they just going to become soybean farmers after spending their whole life with livestock?

Maybe things are different in say Texas or the plains but from what I have seen locally this would not be an easy swap not one without other consequences. 
Click to expand...
This is quite misleading also.  It is not a 1:1 tradeoff of farm land to ranch land.  The best conversions are ranch land to timber.  

When you take cattle off property the calories they provide can be maintained with far fewer acres of land.  Most ranch land is ranch land because it's not particularly suitable for crops either.  Crop rotation programs in the part of the US that can support crops have fallen to the wayside due to Trump tarrifs, primarily.  Those would be far more successful if those were consumed domestically rather than sitting up, and would potentially reduce some of the negative effects you mention by reducing the need to monoculture the midwest.

The major issue you highlight is the one of employment.  The jobs cattle and fossil fuel industry provide are a big part of the economy.  Hopefully with birth control and population reduction programs worldwide and poor fertility nationally we can reduce this burden somewhat.  It's not going to be an easy transition on that side at all.  

Disaster recovery jobs will probably be a much stronger component of the economy going forward, so re-training to some extent will help those.

 
Northern Voice said:
If you assume people are still going to eat protein, plant based proteins (I'm talking beans, lentils, chickpeas, etc... not beyond burgers) are absolute night and day in terms of environmental impact, land use, water use, greenhouse gases compared to cattle. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

What is needed is some transparency. We have all this data but it is hard to come by and is certainly not available at the point of sale. There is traceability for foodstuffs already down to the package. Why not tack this type of information on to that with a quick QR scan or some such

 
Can someone explain to me how Cows are such a huge source of global warming if the number of cattle since the 1990's has dropped by more than 100 million head? Methane has risen dramatically over that time yet the supposed emitters has dropped. Seems like the math is off here. 

 
TheFanatic said:
Can someone explain to me how Cows are such a huge source of global warming if the number of cattle since the 1990's has dropped by more than 100 million head? Methane has risen dramatically over that time yet the supposed emitters has dropped. Seems like the math is off here. 
Click to expand...
can you cite something here because I’m finding there was a peak of around 130 million in 1972 but that had dropped to 100 million by the 90s.

 
Northern Voice said:
Well for starters, it's not like the cows are just out there grazing and getting all their food that way. 67% of crop production in the United States goes to live stock vs. 27% for human consumption. That is crazy. Think about the transportation of all that. 

The food that goes to livestock worldwide is estimated to have the ability to feed 3.5 Billion people. You can put a massive dent in the global food shortage. 

I think it's widely acknowledged that government help is needed to address specific farmers issues in terms of making that conversion from cattle to cropland and you're seeing that with programs in more progressive countries in Europe and Canada. No I doubt it ever happens in the United States, I don't think the people there have the appetite to cut back on meat to a large extent and certainly the current government isn't going to invest in doing so. 

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be massively beneficial for the environment. 
Click to expand...
This is a bit misleading as the vast majority of the crops that livestock eat are not fit for human consumption. Like 86% of it. 

 
joffer said:
can you cite something here because I’m finding there was a peak of around 130 million in 1972 but that had dropped to 100 million by the 90s.
Click to expand...
Sure. In 1990 the world population was 1,098,269,000. In 2017 it was 998,313,000. Take the numbers here, put them into a graph and put them over the top of a graph of methane numbers year by year and tell me how we can hang this all on cows. Are we feeding them even gassier diets over the last 30 years?

 
TheFanatic said:
Sure. In 1990 the world population was 1,098,269,000. In 2017 it was 998,313,000. Take the numbers here, put them into a graph and put them over the top of a graph of methane numbers year by year and tell me how we can hang this all on cows. Are we feeding them even gassier diets over the last 30 years?
Click to expand...
ah, I was looking at at US not world, my mistake.  Still, 10% doesn’t seem like that big of a drop.  I don’t think anyone is “hanging everything on the cows”.  They are one source of methane, there are lots.  They may not be responsible for an increase, but they may be a potential area for decrease.  Interesting article Here about the recent increases.

 
joffer said:
ah, I was looking at at US not world, my mistake.  Still, 10% doesn’t seem like that big of a drop.  I don’t think anyone is “hanging everything on the cows”.  They are one source of methane, there are lots.  They may not be responsible for an increase, but they may be a potential area for decrease.  Interesting article Here about the recent increases.
Click to expand...
Methane is a small part of the overall environmental picture. I get why people want to focus on it because when you go to the broader picture, there's really not much to debate.

 
joffer said:
ah, I was looking at at US not world, my mistake.  Still, 10% doesn’t seem like that big of a drop.  I don’t think anyone is “hanging everything on the cows”.  They are one source of methane, there are lots.  They may not be responsible for an increase, but they may be a potential area for decrease.  Interesting article Here about the recent increases.
Click to expand...
It's significant in that graph for methane is going up to the right and yet what are told is the chief cause is going down to the right. From 1990 till now, the peak is in 2007 when the number of cows is down ~65million head from 1990. 

And if you don't think people are hanging everything on cows, you need to look a little closer. 

 
TheFanatic said:
It's significant in that graph for methane is going up to the right and yet what are told is the chief cause is going down to the right. From 1990 till now, the peak is in 2007 when the number of cows is down ~65million head from 1990. 

And if you don't think people are hanging everything on cows, you need to look a little closer. 
Click to expand...
again, they don’t have to be the reason for the increase to be a potential area for decrease.  and I agree the rhetoric in the public square is often misguided.  kind of thought in this thread we were trying to discuss facts.

 
joffer said:
again, they don’t have to be the reason for the increase to be a potential area for decrease.  and I agree the rhetoric in the public square is often misguided.  kind of thought in this thread we were trying to discuss facts.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. I'm just trying to back the notion of the original poster who found some doubt in the idea that cow gas is a leading cause of climate change.

I also think it is very, very clever for the plant based movement to try to link to the two to gain more converts. I don't agree with it, but think it is very clever. 

 
TheFanatic said:
This is a bit misleading as the vast majority of the crops that livestock eat are not fit for human consumption. Like 86% of it. 
Click to expand...
That article is global and is talking about by-products and residues. In the United States it's largely specifically grow for livestock. There's an article on it here https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

But even if we want to use the 86% not fit for human consumption number, this just highlights even more how farmers need to be more efficient in their land and water use. Taking an inefficient use of land and doubling down on it by using the production from that land to feed an even more inefficient use of land (cattle farming), I don't see that as a sound argument. 

 
Northern Voice said:
That article is global and is talking about by-products and residues. In the United States it's largely specifically grow for livestock. There's an article on it here https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

But even if we want to use the 86% not fit for human consumption number, this just highlights even more how farmers need to be more efficient in their land and water use. Taking an inefficient use of land and doubling down on it by using the production from that land to feed an even more inefficient use of land (cattle farming), I don't see that as a sound argument. 
Click to expand...
I saw that article earlier. No where in it does it show how much of the worlds crops that are fed to animals are indeed edible for humans.

Farmers are incredibly efficient in raising food, particularly in this country. And all the doom and gloom from those who think we are screwed as a planet because of population growth are way off. 

 
TheFanatic said:
Can someone explain to me how Cows are such a huge source of global warming if the number of cattle since the 1990's has dropped by more than 100 million head? Methane has risen dramatically over that time yet the supposed emitters has dropped. Seems like the math is off here. 
Click to expand...


TheFanatic said:
What stats do you have that show otherwise?
Click to expand...
The US is not the world

Here an academic paper on the growth in livestock and dairy production and where the future might be on current trends

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFanatic said:
I saw that article earlier. No where in it does it show how much of the worlds crops that are fed to animals are indeed edible for humans.

Farmers are incredibly efficient in raising food, particularly in this country. And all the doom and gloom from those who think we are screwed as a planet because of population growth are way off. 
Click to expand...
First bolded is a good question. Perhaps less so than it seems but a good question. Soy is mainly cultivated for animal feed although it clearly is edible to humans. 68 million hectares are planted with soy just between Brazil and the US. That's the equivalent of Texas (or California plus Oregon plus Washington State plus West Virginia).

A better question would be, what could that area produce if not predominated devoted to animal feed.

Totally agree with the second bolded. All trends point to a max of 11 billion people which we should be able to feed with some good planning ( and likely more plant based food)

 
TheFanatic said:
I saw that article earlier. No where in it does it show how much of the worlds crops that are fed to animals are indeed edible for humans.

Farmers are incredibly efficient in raising food, particularly in this country. And all the doom and gloom from those who think we are screwed as a planet because of population growth are way off. 
Click to expand...
Just found this. According to FAO, 26% of the non ice covered landmass is used to raise livestock and another 33% is used for livestock feed production. That seems very high.

In any case, we cannot know whether the land used to raise livestock can be used for other, more efficient, food production (for humans) but it seems likely that the majority of the 33% can.

And yes, I know not all livestock are cows

 
shader said:
As a youngster I worked at McDonalds.  For us to change our standing order of meat, it would require a significant change of burgers consumed, much more significant than one human could affect.

I guess that’s my point.  I totally agree that MANY humans can cause a change, so perhaps some top down activities could help (taxes, incentives to cattle herders to lower cattle), but is one person directly going to cause an impact? 
 

IMO, the impact is different than the savings from lighting or power usage or gas usage.  One is a straight forward calculation, the other is not.

For instance, if a person isn’t eating beef, what are they eating instead? And what is the impact of THAT food? Are they eating avocados from across the world in winter? Or locally raised chickens?  Our diets are quite complicated and I just personally don’t think it’s quite so easy as “forego beef, save the planet”.
Click to expand...
Read the article I linked, and others to understand how the numbers are derived. Nobody has said becoming vegetarian will save the planet.

 
TheFanatic said:
Meat is more nutrient-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm...
Click to expand...
Sigh... again, an article focuses only on greenhouse gases, which is a small part of the issue. And if you look at the graph in it, the second best suggestion they have for limiting those greenhouse gases is "improved food digestibility" which I read as targeting specifically what they eat (and growing/feeding it to them), as does the third (food additives), which undercuts this entire argument, no?

 
Northern Voice said:
Sigh... again, an article focuses only on greenhouse gases, which is a small part of the issue. And if you look at the graph in it, the second best suggestion they have for limiting those greenhouse gases is "improved food digestibility" which I read as targeting specifically what they eat (and growing/feeding it to them), as does the third (food additives), which undercuts this entire argument, no?
Click to expand...
Wait, those green house gases that come from cows that has been growing every year while at the same time the cow population has dropped 10%. The whole thing is ridiculous. It's not the cows. It's the cars and the factories. This whole debate is being pumped up by a vegan agenda and processed food makers who are funding this research. People still think that cows in the US cause about 50% of the greenhouse gases due to some bogus study when in fact the number here in the States is something like 3%. But who cares as long as people go plant based. That's what's important. 

 
TheFanatic said:
Wait, those green house gases that come from cows that has been growing every year while at the same time the cow population has dropped 10%. The whole thing is ridiculous. It's not the cows. It's the cars and the factories. This whole debate is being pumped up by a vegan agenda and processed food makers who are funding this research. People still think that cows in the US cause about 50% of the greenhouse gases due to some bogus study when in fact the number here in the States is something like 3%. But who cares as long as people go plant based. That's what's important. 
Click to expand...
GREENHOUSE GASES AREN'T THE ####### POINT. I've said this 10 times in here by now. The rest of this (50%! vegan agendas!) are red herrings and strawmen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFanatic said:
Wait, those green house gases that come from cows that has been growing every year while at the same time the cow population has dropped 10%. The whole thing is ridiculous. It's not the cows. It's the cars and the factories. This whole debate is being pumped up by a vegan agenda and processed food makers who are funding this research. People still think that cows in the US cause about 50% of the greenhouse gases due to some bogus study when in fact the number here in the States is something like 3%. But who cares as long as people go plant based. That's what's important. 
Click to expand...
Those damn hippies with their multi-billions and political stronghold.  

 
shader said:
I thought the same thing.  Imagine if 10 million heavy beef eaters suddenly stopped eating beef.  What would the impact be?  Immediately, zero impact other than rotting beef or huge sales as grocery stores sell out of their beef.

Id imagine if this trickled down, the farmers would slaughter a few less cows, which would lead to an increase in emissions.

Its difficult to imagine where in the process farmers would actually reduce their herds, but it would take some time. In the meantime, there would be cheap beef for everyone and the beef guys would go crazy with 4.99 T-bones.  
Click to expand...
If ten million heavy beef eaters stopped eating beef the difference would be huge. But just so we can actually talk numbers, how much beef does a heavy beef eater eat? 1/4 a pound a day? 1/2 pound? 1 pound in uncooked weight? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Talk About Alcohol
8 9 10
Replies
463
Views
13K
Ack88
A
GordonGekko
How Much Food Does Your Household Waste On A Regular Basis? (7/30)
Replies
22
Views
691
jhib
jhib
GordonGekko
Food Supply Contamination: How Much Microplastics Are You Eating And Drinking? (15/30)
Replies
2
Views
301
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top