Environmental & Health Consequences of Carnivorous Diets

[m0rl0ck]

The environmental impact is also crystal clear -- and similarly appalling. "Livestock's Long Shadow," a 2006 report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organzation (FAO), found that livestock is a major player in climate change, accounting for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents), or more than the entire global transportation system.

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... f_our_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whole karma and interdependence thing can take you to some unexpected places You eat meat and the entire planet suffers, is that crazy or what?

[Wizard in the Forest]

It's completely exaggerated, and overlooks the actual problem we have with arable land which is the whole reason we use animals in the first place. Most of the land in the planet is not usable for farming. There's not enough equal distribution of vegetables to feed the human population and this isn't even considering how it would exhaust land resources for good it becomes completely fallow. Perhaps you're overlooking how the market is catering to vegetarians in wealthier nations and how they actually hog the majority of the world's edible vegetation to the detriment of the whole planet. We're talking about food distribution here. If distribution were fair, we could feed the whole world.

[Wizard in the Forest]

From "Hungry Planet: What the World Eats", there's a collection of portraits of the typical week’s groceries of 30 families in 24 countries. Below are some of the portraits, as well as where each family is from and their weekly food budget in US dollars.

Bargteheide, Germany: $500.07



North Carolina, United States: $341.98



Sicily, Italy: $260.11



Cuernavaca, Mexico: $189.09



Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland: $151.27



Cairo, Egypt: $68.53



Tingo, Ecuador: $31.55



Shingkhey Village, Bhutan: $5.03



Breidjing Camp, Chad: $1.23


Now imagine having to feed a whole family of almost 13 people with that amount we saw with that small amount in Bhutan, and a mother in Chad having to keep her family of 6 kids alive on that amount for a whole week. Whereas that German family spends 500 some dollars on a huge pile of groceries to feed a family of four. Who are we kidding here?

[Kim OHara]

It's completely exaggerated, and overlooks the actual problem we have with arable land which is the whole reason we use animals in the first place. Most of the land in the planet is not usable for farming. ...

Hi, WitF,
Your 'Hungry Planet' sequence is really important but is more a matter of inequality than meat vs veg diet.
Meanwhile, your earlier post, which I have quoted, does address the OP but is a bit misleading. You are quite right, there are large areas of land which will support grazing animals but not crops because they are too dry or too infertile or both. That land should indeed, in terms of maximising global food production, be used for grazing animals. But quite a lot of land which is productive enough for cropping is used for grazing animals, and it could feed many more people if it was turned over to crops. Even more inefficiently - immorally, even - some cattle are fed on grain, so we lose productivity of the land twice over.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but the OP does have a good argument too.

Kim

[Hanzze]

Dear Wizard in the Forest,

[PeterB]

It's completely exaggerated, and overlooks the actual problem we have with arable land which is the whole reason we use animals in the first place. Most of the land in the planet is not usable for farming. There's not enough equal distribution of vegetables to feed the human population and this isn't even considering how it would exhaust land resources for good it becomes completely fallow. Perhaps you're overlooking how the market is catering to vegetarians in wealthier nations and how they actually hog the majority of the world's edible vegetation to the detriment of the whole planet. We're talking about food distribution here. If distribution were fair, we could feed the whole world.

Good post WITF.

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[m0rl0ck]

Im not in this arguement, im just citing a source. To me tho it looks like outraged meat eaters out to justify their diets vs good science and compassion for the planet and living beings. But i could be wrong, you all just carry on the arguement without me, i just wanted to bring that article to everyones attention.

[PeterB]

There has never been a consensus on the issue of meat eating on this forum or any other Buddhist forum. Simply because most people do not regard it as of the essence. I dont see that as changing.

[m0rl0ck]

There has never been a consensus on the issue of meat eating on this forum or any other Buddhist forum. Simply because most people do not regard it as of the essence. I dont see that as changing.

Its not about buddhism, its about whether or not one makes a conscious decision to allow others to suffer to support ones personal appetites. The science of the issue seems pretty clear.

[Annapurna]

The environmental impact is also crystal clear -- and similarly appalling. "Livestock's Long Shadow," a 2006 report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organzation (FAO), found that livestock is a major player in climate change, accounting for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents), or more than the entire global transportation system.

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... f_our_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whole karma and interdependence thing can take you to some unexpected places You eat meat and the entire planet suffers, is that crazy or what?

Hello, Morlock,

when I first started thinking about eating less meat, (from daily to just LESS), I came across a study which showed that right now we are using a lot of fertile land to grow food for animals on.

If we had less animals to feed, a lot of land would be available to grow food for humans on.


Metta

[PeterB]

There has never been a consensus on the issue of meat eating on this forum or any other Buddhist forum. Simply because most people do not regard it as of the essence. I dont see that as changing.

Its not about buddhism, its about whether or not one makes a conscious decision to allow others to suffer to support ones personal appetites. The science of the issue seems pretty clear.

I will not bother to address the strawmen and false and partial logic contained in your post. But you are correct in one regard. It is NOT about Buddhism.

[m0rl0ck]

I will not bother to address the strawmen and false and partial logic contained in your post. But you are correct in one regard. It is NOT about Buddhism.

Whew! What a relief. For a moment i thot i was going to have to argue that respect for the well being and hapiness of ones fellow humans didnt have to be based on some religion.

[Wizard in the Forest]

Hey Kim,

Just thought I'd clear some things up a bit!

You are quite right, there are large areas of land which will support grazing animals but not crops because they are too dry or too infertile or both. That land should indeed, in terms of maximising global food production, be used for grazing animals.

See the problem is that is the majority of all land on Earth. Arable land is only less than 15% of all the landmass on the planet.

But quite a lot of land which is productive enough for cropping is used for grazing animals, and it could feed many more people if it was turned over to crops.

Without a doubt, and such practices are insanely egregious, and certainly is, as you say, immoral. However it isn't because of meat eaters, it is because of land owners. The land owners feel entitled to do whatever they want with their own property at the expense of others. Personally I think that's not warranted. There is however, factory farms which I think are most egregious in their treatment of the animals so keeping the animals on Arable land is more compassionate than not. If you're talking about feeding the animals, then what do you expect? You want to starve the cattle? that's also not compassionate at all.

Even more inefficiently - immorally, even - some cattle are fed on grain, so we lose productivity of the land twice over.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but the OP does have a good argument too.

Hardly, because it isn't addressing the problem at all. The problem is distribution, and land ownership.

[Kim OHara]

If you're talking about feeding the animals, then what do you expect? You want to starve the cattle? that's also not compassionate at all.

Hi, WitF,
Just quickly -
No, I don't want to starve the cattle. What I'm suggesting is that the best course is ultimately to have fewer cattle (and sheep and goats) and to have nearly all of them grazing on land which can't support more intensive agriculture. That will mean less meat production overall, more food production overall, and less cruelty to animals.

If you're talking about feeding the animals, then what do you expect? You want to starve the cattle? that's also not compassionate at all.
The problem is distribution, and land ownership.

That is one of the major problems, indeed - or a dozen of them - but that is 'how we should get there' - politics and public policy implementation - not 'what we should aim for.'

Kim