why vegans think that eating meat pollutes the earth more than all methods of traveling?!

Because other vegans and web sites told them so. There are many people (scientists) that say otherwise, along with web sites that also say this isn't true. And no I'm not going to list sources, If you want to read about it look it up yourself.

On the contrary, one of the biggest reasosn I'm vegan because I am concerned about the environment. This has nothing to do with peta (I really don't care for peta).

According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation,[http://www.brook.com/veg/] air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change,[http://www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming… the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "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."] In 2006 FAO estimated that meat industry contributes 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gases. This figure was revised in 2009 by two World Bank scientists and estimated at 51% minimum. [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6297]
In a world of diminishing safe water supplies it is worth bearing in mind that animals fed on grain need much more water than grain crops.[http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug… In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur… The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the direct harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for human consumption. A person existing chiefly on animal protein requires 10 times more land to provide adequate food than someone living on vegetable sources of protein.

In addition:

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
Producing beef for the table has a surprising environmental cost: it releases prodigious amounts of heat-trapping greenhouse gases: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…

Meat: Making Global Warming Worse : http://www.time.com/time/health/article/…

And 10 more studies: http://www.greenmuze.com/nurture/meat/91…

Because many of them are brainwashed and will believe anything that the "almighty" organizations like PETA say, even their half-truths, exaggerations, and blatant lies. Transportation accounts for at least half of the world's pollution, with agriculture contributing only a small percentage of it--and much of THAT pollution is caused by pesticides and soil erosion for plants.

PETA isn't the only thing that says that. It looks like you've been feeding in to meat industry propoganda. I don't even like PETA. I follow other sources. 90% of meat is produced in factory farms witch are the leading cause of global warming and produce green house gases. They also take agriculteral land and food grown in America to feed the animals. Rather than judging us on something you haven't even read about or researched you could actulley educate your self and look at YouTube videos NOT from PETA but from other sources. You could look at factory farming on wikipedia. Do you really think kfc or mcdonslds gets their meat from family farms? They don't. I've been to farms and i know some farms treat their animals very well but just because those ones fo doesn't meen they all do. It looks like a nother person has been brain washed by the meat industry.

Vegetarian

Tell me, how can you make gross generalizations like that? Something like that is beyond my realm of comprehension.

All methods of traveling? Walking doesn't pollute the earth. Bicycles don't' pollute the earth. Animal transportation doesn't pollute the earth.... I miss living in the city and not being able to walk and take public transportation. While we now "only" live six miles from town, we do think about whether or not the trip is worth it. When my pastor husband is in town for work, he'll stop at the grocery
tore since he already there.

Also, I do not care for PETA. They are too brash, too much like the hellfire and damnation preachers that are more about show, and less about winning "converts" (for lack of better word). I DO care about the environment. That's one of the reasons why I'm vegan. I do everything I can to care for the earth with which God has blessed us.

I could go into more arguments, but there have been many good ones made that it's almost not worth elaborating. However, I do know a family who raises cows. Their cows are truly free range and organic. (Not the gray areas to meet government standards, either.) They raise their cows that way for similar reason as to why I'm vegan. They also buy cheese, eggs and other meat from other local farmers with similar values to sell in their store in our small town. My husband buys from them for our three-year-old daughter and himself. They care about the environment. My husband buys from them because they are more earth friendly. Also, he's gotten spoiled and doesn't even like most of the stuff from the grocery store. (This family is one of four distributors [under the name Ohio Proud] to the Ohio Whole Foods stores.)

Yeah. I don't care about environment. That's why the shirt I'm wearing came from a thrash pile. The desk I'm using is a trash rescue. The outfit I had planned on wearing yesterday came from a trash pile. (The shirt was a little too low cut, as I was not wearing a padded bra to pull it up. So, I changed into a blouse I got second hand and free from my sister-in-law.) One of my favorite things to do is to go "treasure hunting" the weekend the university students move out. Most of our furniture is second hand. (Including the dining room table and buffet set, two dressers, a kitchen table and a couple of living room chairs that I bought from my grandparents' estate. My father and his brothers could have gotten a bit more for the dressers and the dining room set, but I got a lower price because my father knew what I could pay and because they wanted to see it stay in the family.)

However, this is just me.

They're simply not an honest bunch. You see that several posters are still promoting the UN report even AFTER THE UN HAS ADMITTED IT IS FLAWED!

From the link:

"The UN has admitted a report linking livestock to global warming exaggerated the impact of eating meat on climate change."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ…

The FAO link provide by clarke
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006…
inside that webpage the link "download full report" is not working.
The full report can be access here
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a07…

other article that encourage people to eat more vegetable
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006…
and
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news…

just so you know, that statistic was found by the United Nations, not PETA.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006…

Daisy: many people may not know that the report has been retracted (i didn't) after all the actual page with the report on it doesn't mention a retraction. i consider it dishonest of you to play on that to make veg*ns seem dishonest.

here's one example:
copy paste from: http://www.vegsource.com/articles/piment…
Not surprisingly, the beef industry promotes a study that determined, using highly suspect calculations, that only 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef.

i hope i don't need to explain to you how much straining that does to the environment.... so i won't blab any further. all you need too understand is that ONE example.

it's little things that in big amounts can make a big difference, but not all vegans are the same n.n

Greg I'm really glad you asked. When you read the UNFAO report "Livestock's Long Shadow" then you will know that we are not talking about overall pollution, but greenhouse gas emissions which are referred to as having more significant climate forcings from agriculture than transport. I think this may have also been addressed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report but I haven't read it so I don't know.

The facts are the majority of the livestock farmed around the world are ruminants. These are animals which ferment their food in multi-chambered stomachs. The fermenting process is achieved by the action of symbiotic bacteria in the gut which break down the indigestible cellulose in a process called enteric fermentation. The byproduct of this process is methane (CH4), which is released by the bacteria then burped up by the animals. Methane is a terrible greenhouse gas as it reflects about 23 times more heat than CO2. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for around 200 years but after about ten years in the troposphere methane is broken down into formaldehyde. However some of this will eventually become CO2, so the contribution of methane to global warming is extreme.

But the story doesn't end there. Livestock and meats also need to be transported so there are emissions from the transport involved. Plus their feed needs to be transported so there are emissions here as well. When you ad it all up, it outweighs all the emissions from transport. Look at this from an assessment of Australian emissions:

"methane from livestock [is] contributing about the same [level of climate forcing] as the whole transport sector." - Ugalde et al., (2008). POLICY OPTIONS TO MANAGE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR: AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture Volume 48 Number 1 & 2. pp. vii-xii

So this is just methane, ignoring the other emissions involved in livestock production and distribution. And you need also to consider third world countries where transport is not as widespread as developed countries, their ruminant contribution may be outweighing their transport emissions!

Anyway as usual don't take my word for it, follow the links, read the reports and see for yourself. Unless people want to try and argue that not only the United Nations, but the world's top ecologists and atmospheric chemists are all in the business of producing "vegan propaganda"; they are going to have to accept that the science indicates that livestock production is responsible for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

EDIT: The Telegraph is not a scientific source. It is a conservative newspaper owned by two guys who also own transport companies and frequently publishes anti-climate science material which is utter rubbish. Show me a scientific source that refutes any or all of the material I have referenced and I'll happily change my mind.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a07…
http://www.epa.gov/outreach/
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/pe…
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_fi…

to make them feel better about eating dirt.... p.e.t.a People. Eating. Tasty. Animals.
in my experience ( i know personally alot of vegans ) its a self worth thing its so when they get up in the morning they feel that they have done something . the thing is that the animal industry is based off profits the more animals they kill the more money they make so even if we stop eating them god i hope that don't happen !!!! they will find other reasons to kill and use them such as running our cars off of animal fat which can be done... then what are the tree huggers going to do ? preach for us to go back to oil.... I'm all about the environment .... food for thought at what point does the balance between population and resources falter. or has it already