• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vegetarianism fights Global Warming

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Point being, look at the chart- similar ones can be seen from many sources, it's not just the Ordovician ice age (speculations of hypothetical missing supporting evidence not withstanding) if there were an obvious observed, measured (i.e scientific) causal correlation where CO2 directly, significantly. influenced global temps- fine- that's empirical evidence, but this simply is not the case is it?

The only clear scientific causal correlation we have ever observed is where on smaller timescales- fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 LAG temperature fluctuations by around 900 years. warmer temps = more CO2. This does not require any imaginary missing evidence, or hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops and indirect causes/effect- it is an utterly unambiguous observation. One that in itself, is a pretty good indication that the opposite cannot happen to any significant degree, otherwise we already have a runaway feedback loop without a single SUV involved.

So CO2 during the Ordovician ice age was a whopping 1000% higher than today, while the sun was a mere 4% dimmer...

And yet a massively higher level of CO2 was utterly overrun by a fairly small relative decrease in sunlight.?. almost as if CO2 is not really a primary driver of climate.

we are talking a little over 1 extra added molecule CO2 in 10000 of air- as a result of revolutionizing agricultural, industrial productivity, vastly increasing the standards of living for humanity worldwide

there is no scientific mechanism by which this can have any direct significant effect on climate- a slight greening of vegetation perhaps.
Do you deny that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Choosing to eat a vegan diet is the most effective thing that any of us can personally do to reduce the environmental destruction wrought by the raising, using and slaughtering of animals for human consumption.
That still won't address the issue of the inefficiencies of how plants are grown and harvested. It won't address the water wasted in food processing plants.
What "inefficiencies" in the growing and harvesting of plant foods are you referring to? Provide those figures.

It won't address the carbon emissions from heavy equipment and transportation.
What is your proposal for growing enough crops to feed the 7 billion people of the world without "heavy equipment and transportation"?

It's not a misrepresentation, but rather something not mentioned. Chickens, for example, become so abnormally and unnaturally large from how they are raised that their bones can't even support them. It's not just a problem for the chickens, but a problem because of the excess going into making them bigger as well as the extra needed to sustain them since they are so much larger. The more something weighs, the more calories it burns, which means the more food it needs to maintain that weight.
So you would agree that people who want to eat animals should eat insects that they can catch. I would agree with that.

And modern farming, be it livestock or plants, is about making things bigger to make more money. And as long as profit is driving agriculture, we are going to have problems.
Growing bigger plants is causing problems?

Which plants are too big?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Do you deny that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

no, and that's where those oft quoted '97% of scientists agree...' polls come from, that of course CO2 technically traps some heat in the atmos- but 1 or 2 extra molecules in 10000 of air is nowhere near enough to make a significant difference. And if we were ever to add enough to make a difference, the effects would be largely the exact opposite of the Hollywood movie scare stories- more subdued boring weather

The main heat trapping/ GH gas, by a long long way, is H20, water vapor
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But it's not H2O levels that have spiked since the industrial revolution. Global temperature increase doesn't mirror H2O levels.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Do you deny that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
no, and that's where those oft quoted '97% of scientists agree...' polls come from, that of course CO2 technically traps some heat in the atmos- but 1 or 2 extra molecules in 10000 of air is nowhere near enough to make a significant difference. And if we were ever to add enough to make a difference, the effects would be largely the exact opposite of the Hollywood movie scare stories- more subdued boring weather

The main heat trapping/ GH gas, by a long long way, is H20, water vapor
Even disregarding the GHG emissions contributed to the atmosphere by the raising, using, slaughtering, packaging and transporting billions of animals each year for human consumption, there are still plenty of urgent environmental and health reasons to discontinue the practice.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Even disregarding the GHG emissions contributed to the atmosphere by the raising, using, slaughtering, packaging and transporting billions of animals each year for human consumption, there are still plenty of urgent environmental and health reasons to discontinue the practice.

I disagree there also, but..

There we have it, the same exact rationale behind every single global warming believer I have ever talked to;

It doesn't matter if it's a bogus theory, if it helps further my particular cause(s) (vegetarianism, socialism, electric cars, alternative energy etc etc) it's justified to scare people with, because they are great ideas anyway

why scrutinize the 'problem' if you like the 'solutions' right?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I disagree there also
Here is the evidence noted in #74 and #75 (with the claims about climate removed):

Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population. Other approaches such as food waste reduction and precision agriculture and/or other technological advances have to be simultaneously pursued; however, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable. For millennia, meatless diets have been advocated on the basis of values, and large segments of the world population have thrived on plant-based diets. “Going back” to plant-based diets worldwide seems to be a reasonable alternative for a sustainable future. Policies in favor of the global adoption of plant-based diets will simultaneously optimize the food supply, health, environmental, and social justice outcomes for the world's population. Implementing such nutrition policy is perhaps one of the most rational and moral paths for a sustainable future of the human race and other living creatures of the biosphere that we share.

[. . .]

Raising animals for human food is an intrinsically inefficient process. As we move up in the trophic chain there is a progressive loss of energy. Grass-fed livestock subsists, but this is not the main source of meat for human consumption in developed nations. Modern husbandry (animal farms) is based on intensive feeding of grain crops to animals (5). This grain could be a source of food for humans. The same standards apply to the production of other animal products such as eggs and dairy. Several authors have computed the efficiency ratios of animal compared with plant foods for human consumption. The amount of grain needed to produce the same amount of meat varies from a ratio of 2.3 for chicken to 13 for beef (Table 1). Pimentel and Pimentel (8) established that, on average, 11 times greater fossil energy is required to produce animal protein than plant protein for human consumption. However, the energy-to-protein efficiency ratio varies greatly by type of meat. More specifically, it is only 4 times greater for chicken protein compared with grain protein but 40 times greater for beef protein compared with grain protein. We have previously reported that the ratio for water used in the production of soy protein compared with the same quantity of animal protein is from 4 to 26 and showed that the ratio between soy protein and the different types of animal proteins varies from 6 to 20 for fossil fuel usage (9). The land required to raise the feed to produce animal protein is 6–17 times greater than for soy protein (9).Thus, the conversion of plant foods to foods of animal origin is an intrinsically inefficient process (~10:1).

[. . .]

The ratio of energy inputs to protein delivery is also qualitatively different for animal compared with plant foods. As the concentration of protein increases in plant foods, so does the efficiency. It does not change or may even decrease in animal protein sources (Figure 3) (10). High-protein plant foods such as soy beans and other legumes have greater protein delivery energy efficiency than cereals, which have a lower protein concentration. Therefore, less energy is needed to produce the same amount of protein from soy than from corn. However, very similar amounts of energy are used to produce equivalent amounts of protein from different sources of animal protein. In animal foods, the degree of protein concentration seems to decrease the efficiency ratio of energy inputs compared with protein outputs.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN Food and Agricultural Organization

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation . . . air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.

[. . . ]

Growing populations and incomes, along with changing food preferences, are rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, while globalization is boosting trade in livestock inputs and products. Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and that of milk to grow from 580 to 1 043 million tonnes.

[. . . ]

Land degradation

The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring -- 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas.

[. . .]

Water

The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.

The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.

[. . . ]

Biodiversity

We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline.

Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change,overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species. In addition, resource conflicts with pastoralists threaten species of wild predators and also protected areas close to pastures. Meanwhile in developed regions, especially Europe, pastures had become a location of diverse long-established types of ecosystem, many of which are now threatened by pasture abandonment.

Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) – ranged across all biomes and all biogeographical realms, reported livestock as one of the current threats. Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf


Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption:

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] The projected land base required by 2050 to support livestock production in several megadiverse countries exceeds 30–50% of their current agricultural areas. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Be sure to let us know if you have can show any of those findings to be erroneous.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Be sure to let us know if you have can show any of those findings to be erroneous.

I can address more specific points here later, but the overall theory has been around a long time,

Malthus wrote very similar dire predictions 200 years ago, that the environment could not sustain growth in population and consumption.

Yet population and consumption grew far beyond his wildest dreams without his predictions materializing- i.e. they were proven erroneous.


But guess what his 'solutions' to the 'problem' were? exact same as the UN's of course, raising taxes/cost of food

which casued starving and riots among the poor while governments raked in more free money, nothing much changes
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I can address more specific points here later, but the overall theory has been around a long time,

Malthus wrote very similar dire predictions 200 years ago, that the environment could not sustain growth in population and consumption.

Yet population and consumption grew far beyond his wildest dreams without his predictions materializing- i.e. they were proven erroneous.
Obviously the fact that someone made an erroneous prediction 200 years ago does not mean than any of the above noted facts of the environmental destruction due to livestock are wrong.

BTW, what exactly was the prediction Malthus made that was proven to be erroneous? Quote his prediction.


But guess what his 'solutions' to the 'problem' were? exact same as the UN's of course, raising taxes/cost of food

which casued starving and riots among the poor while governments raked in more free money, nothing much changes
Many millions more humans can be fed from the crops currently grown to feed livestock.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Because of the huge inefficiencies in the production of meat compared to grains and vegetables, Global warming is accelerated by the massive use and abuse of farm animals, not to mention the incredible amount of water needed to produce meat compared to grains and vegetables.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...meat-and-climate-change/ar-BBs1Yx5?li=BBnbfcL

I was a vegetarian for 7 years, so I deeply appreciate the aesthetic reasons for not eating meat.
But if all carnivores were removed from the global ecosystem
then the herbivores would multiply beyond the capacity of their food sources.
The result would be environmental degradation, wildernesses or total desertification.

Unless some of the herbivores decided to start eating one another before that point.
So it would only be possible to stop the killing with stagnant population growth.
So birth-control would need to be universal for people and animals.

The same reason that carnivores exist, is the same reason that wars exist:
Not a high enough consciousness for voluntary birth control.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Totally wrong, You obviously haven't been reading this thread about the sustainability of plant based food compared to the unsustainability of meat based diet.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I was a vegetarian for 7 years, so I deeply appreciate the aesthetic reasons for not eating meat.
But if all carnivores were removed from the global ecosystem
then the herbivores would multiply beyond the capacity of their food sources.
No one suggested here that all carnivores be removed from the world.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I'm principally concerned with people, a species that has no biological need for meat whatsoever.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
You really think Jesus is coming back to condone the slaughter and eating of animals. I don't think so.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Somehow I find it hard to believe that your brain is any healthier than mine, nowhere man. That study is bogus meat industry propaganda.
 
Top