Do vegetarians help the environment?!


Question: i eat meat but i have a hybrid car and 50% of the power i use in my house is from solar pannels..why is it most veggies will claim they are saving the environment more when they could get hybrid cars and use solar pannels and achieve more thn they ever could by not eating meat....any thoughts???


Answers: i eat meat but i have a hybrid car and 50% of the power i use in my house is from solar pannels..why is it most veggies will claim they are saving the environment more when they could get hybrid cars and use solar pannels and achieve more thn they ever could by not eating meat....any thoughts???

I don't think vegetarians are doing any better for the environment then you are. Actually I think you are doing more. I don't see how not eating meat could help the environment. But having solar panels and a hybrid IS helping the environment.Good Job!!!

no because when they eat vegitables, they are eating food that has been grown and then when there is no more seeds then how can you grow vegetables.

http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

Just go there and get all the facts. I don't feel the need to copy/paste when I can just give you the link.

ETA
A lot of veggies DO use hybrids and solar panels. Even more of them don't drive at all and all those "hippies" usually have small Subaru or no cars and carpool a lot to go places. Just because they're not eating meat doesn't mean they're not doing other stuff, also.

"Nah nah nah nah nah, I'm greener than you are!"

That's all it is. If everyone would quit minding everyone else's business, that's the most environment-friendly thing there is. You threaten my living environment when you tell me what I can't eat, what I can't drive, how I have to heat my house...

First of all, not everybody can afford those options. Just rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars.

According to a report issued by the United Nations, the livestock industry causes the most pollution and is the most destructive to the environment. The meat industry is also the primary cause of the destruction of rainforests, which are destroyed to provide more land for cattle.

"The report calls the livestock sector a "major player" in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production. The FAO found that the ranching and slaughter of cows and other animals generates an estimated 18 percent of total human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions globally.

Greenhouse gases - such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide - are linked to global warming.

Livestock emit methane and other greenhouse gasses through excrement and belching. The FAO estimates that cow manure and flatulence generate 30 to 40 percent of total methane emissions from human-influenced activities.

As demand for meat grows, the report explains, so does the need for pasture and cropland, making deforestation an additional concern; currently, according to the report, the livestock sector occupies 30 percent of ice-free land on the planet. Extensive grazing also takes a toll on arable land.
The report calls the livestock sector a 'major player' in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production.

The livestock sector also contributes to water depletion; currently, the livestock sector accounts for 8 percent of human water use globally. Animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, as well as chemicals from tanneries and pesticides from feed crops, also contaminate water supplies."

Cutting out meat and animal products is the best thing you can do if you want to help the environment.

It's always a matter of choice by an individual. I suppose it's possible to minimize one's impact on the environment in every way. I don't know of too many people who would be willing to do this. Some people get a bit competitive with such things. I think it's best if people try to make conscious decisions about what they are doing. That is, look at the habits you have and try to reduce your impact as much as possible. Some people will do small things; don't waste water, recycle as much as possible, use public transport more. Others will make bigger changes; installing solar panels, growing food, buying as locally as possible.

I think it would be most helpful if we can recognize each others efforts instead of trying to point out that we think the other efforts are substantial compared to our own.

Well, maybe because meat's carbon footprint is 24 times heavier than choosing a vegetarian option?

A UN study concluded that " the livestock sector [is] a "major player" in affecting climate change through greenhouse-gas production. The FAO found that the ranching and slaughter of cows and other animals generates an estimated 18 percent of total human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions globally." 18% - that's greater than all offices and houses worldwide (8% of global warming contribution) or even all the cars in the WORLD (13-15% global warming contribution).

An ABC news report also showed that a team of geophysicists analyzed that eating meat is equivalent to driving the worst of gas-guzzling SUV's. A quote: "When they looked at only carbon dioxide emissions associated directly with energy consumption, they came up with the vegetarian diet far less damaging to the planet than the others."

Also, why drive a hybrid when you can drive a motorcycle (45-85 mpg on a standard bike, and 100 or more on a good one)? Why not bicycle ride? Why not walk?

As happy as you are to generalize all vegetarians (that we are all gas-guzzling car driving, power-wasting people who are slap happy about the fact that we don't eat meat), I have to say you do not repersent me or speak for me. Your ambiguous generalizations are beginning to offend me because they in no way apply to me. That's all they are - stereotypes. And yet if I were to post the same stuff about meat-eating people you would blow a fuse and rant for 2 - 3 questions worth as always.

As I said, it's beginning to offend me because I can tell you have not done your research and I have (in fact, I am privileged to go to a college with access to some of the greatest research and information collections and archives in the world), and it's really hard to fight with someone that is blatantly opposed to anything I say and who so firmly believes in their position that they are not interested in open debate. It's like fighting religious claims with science - a difficult, uphill battle. Personal conviction like yours is largely unswayed by cold, hard facts.

Any step towards the "greening" of our Earth is a good one. Your hybrid car and solar-panelling are good options for those who are very comfortable with money. But these days, most people live paycheck to paycheck and we can't all afford such "luxuries."

There are many, many studies done that all conclude that supporting a meat, dairy, and processed food diet contribute to environmental degradation.

Water-supplies are rapidly faltering. In the Midwest and South-Central USA, an area that sits on top of the one of the largest underground water-tables and aquifers (Oglala Aquifer) is quickly declining. In Texas, where cattle is the heaviest farm-based business, some well-water supplies have completely dried up leaving towns and their citizens destitute.

Waterways in the heavily agricultural SouthEast USA are so polluted by wastewater and agricultural runoff (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, billions of tons of feces and urine from animal-producing farms) that species are either dying out completely or have been seen to have horrible disfigurements. Frankenfish will soon be served on America's plates, I'm sure.

As for land, nearly 80% of crops are being fed directly to cattle, chickens, pigs, etc. causing massive topsoil loss and helping make farming areas to "desertify."

Polluted air is caused by several factors, including industry, transportation, and industrial factory farming. If you imagine 10 billion animals that are slaughtered for food every year in the USA you can imagine all the exposed pools of waste that dot the landscape. This waste causes so much methane to be emitted into the atmosphere that the United Nations claims that animal agribusiness causes around 18% of all air-pollutants (more than transportation alone). It's not hard to see this either. The heaviest area of California farming, the Central Valley (aka San Joaquin Valley) has the most polluted air out of anywhere else in America even though that part of California has the least amount of people...but they do have the most amount of cattle feedlots.

At this link you can download the United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow":
http://virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_... (this may take a few minutes to upload)

So, in conclusion, while all steps we take toward healthy environmental practices are good ones, if you are truly concerned about the environment, Veganism is the next logical step.

I really believe they are harming the environment with all the hot air they are expending. Less talk out of them and maybe it would improve global warming.





The consumer Foods information on foodaq.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 FoodAQ - Terms of Use - Contact us - Privacy Policy

Food's Q&A Resources