Does not eating meat reduce pollution?!

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes.

http://greenlivingworks.com/save-energy-…

Edit: Some people say that animals are killed for a vegetarian/vegan diet which is true but the number is small. A meat diet kills more animals than any other diet, thats why going vegetarian or vegan is a good thing.

Meat eaters that feel guilty about eating meat usually bring up the "a vegetarian/vegan diet kills animals too" rubbish to make themsleves feel better about eating meat.

http://www.animalvisuals.org/data/1mc/

http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html

I eat wild game, pollution is not a factor with the meat I consume.

ALL types of farming produces pollution. Even vegetable and fruit farming causes pollution, from fertilizers, pesticides, and large scale shipping. Many vegans like to point towards the meat industry as the only pollution problem while ignoring the pollution problem they support.

No. In fact, if everyone went vegetarian, we'd probably have more pollution. Right now virtually all the land suitable for farming is in production, so the increase in demand for veggies and grains would require cutting down forests and plowing up highly erodable land. Neither of those are a good environmental option.

"At the present growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population will double to more than half a billion people within the next 60 years. It is estimated that approximately one acre of land is lost due to urbanization and highway construction alone for every person added to the U.S. population.
This means that only 0.6 acres of farmland would be available to grow food for each American in 2050, as opposed to the 1.8 acres per capita available today. At least 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current American dietary standards. Food prices are projected to increase 3 to 5-fold within this period.
If present population growth, domestic food consumption and topsoil loss trends continue, the U.S. will most likely cease to be a food exporter by approximately 2025 because food grown in the U.S. will be needed for domestic purposes.
Since food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually, the loss of this income source would result in an even greater increase in America's trade deficit.
Considering that America is the world's largest food exporter, the future survival of millions of people around the world may also come into question if food exports from the U.S. were to cease."

http://dieoff.org/page40.htm

Plus we can raise meat about anywhere in the country. Fruits and veggies are trucked thousands of miles to get to your supermarket. Do you really think they're growing all those tomatoes in the Chicago supermarket in January locally?

The UN put out a report a few years ago claiming cattle feedlots were a major cause of greenhouse gases. Since then, they have admitted their study was flawed and have said they will put out a "corrected" study soon. If they actually do, you can bet it won't get the same publicity as the original meat bashing study.

"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…

You need to understand that the nutrients in plants that humans need are not the same as the same nutrients in meat. For example, the non-heme iron in plants is not nearly as well absorbed and used by your body as the heme iron in meat. So, if you give up meat, you will need to eat considerably MORE of the high iron veggies than you do now. Same with protein. Meat contains complete protein; veggies don't. You need to eat a wide variety and a lot of veggies to get the amino acids that make up complete protein. Where will they come from? How far will they have to be transported?

Soy has become a big part of the veg*n diet. It's one of the most environmentally destructive crops. Another is organic cotton.

Remember, too, that animals die in the fields during planting, cultivation and harvesting of veggies/grains.

"Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest, etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines. So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan."

Actual numbers of animals killed at the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/9…

Planting, cultivating, harvesting veggies/grains requires huge polluting tactors, etc. Transporting it to where you live is usually done by truck. And that's going to happen; we need veggies/grains. On the other hand if we allow cattle to grow on pasture, there's no tractors involved. They graze among other animals. No animals killed in the big farming equipment. If they're grazing on grass, they're not eating corn so all the corn grown can go to humans. Yes, there are costs in killing and transporting meat, but in most parts of the country, we can "grow" cows year around on grass. That's certainly not true of veggies/grains.

may or may not be...

Technically, no. Eating meat reduces the cow population whose methane clouds are destroying the ozone layer. The only way not eating meat would reduce pollution would be if EVERYONE EVERYWHERE decided to stop eating meat and the producer of beef stopped raising cattle for such purposes. Seeing as how that's never gonna happen....