Thread: Eating meat contributes to global warming

Shun meat, says UN climate chief

Okay, it’s not really eating meat itself but rather the meat-production process that is contributing to global warming. But, still.

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

Shun meat, says UN climate chief

Okay, it’s not really eating meat itself but rather the meat-production process that is contributing to global warming. But, still.

This fact has been known for decades!

You can also feed more people on a field of corn than a field of cattle.

But of course now we have the problem of land being taken over by bio-fuel.

One solution often seems to create another problem.

Actually, it's the methane produced by cattle that's a problem- methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

I don't eat meat, so I guess I'm not part of that problem

Originally Posted by DTV

Actually, it's the methane produced by cattle that's a problem- methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

It's also much shorter-lived in the atmosphere, decomposing to CO2 and water in a few years, while CO2 stays put for centuries. I believe (haven't checked recently) that despite cow burps atmospheric methane is staying more or less constant.

However, reducing meat consumption is an all around good idea, for several reasons.

sorry for questioning your theory professor but do cows burps really produce methane? - i assume it is farting that does it, stomack would be too early. just by following the chain do we people fart more when we eat wedges or meat??? i think we do more from wedges so that the end result might be about the same.

It's sort of a double edged sword really, since you've got animals being put in that increase greenhouse gas levels by however much (I don't know the exact figures. It's positive though, which is what matters) and trees being cut down to make space for them.

Originally Posted by hairmore

sorry for questioning your theory professor but do cows burps really produce methane? - i assume it is farting that does it, stomack would be too early. just by following the chain do we people fart more when we eat wedges or meat??? i think we do more from wedges so that the end result might be about the same.

Why assume anything when there is the internet? Laziness I suppose. Comparisons with humans are not very helpful. Our digestive sysstems are quite different and we are not as well-endowed in the stomach department as cows are. Twenty seconds of googling found this:

Approximately
132 to 264 gallons of ruminal gas produced
by fermentation are belched each day. The
eructation of gases via belching is important
in bloat prevention but is also the way CH4
is emitted into the atmosphere.

I believe (and hope) this refers to cows, not humans.

http://www.das.psu.edu/research-exte...onanddairy.pdf

Originally Posted by hairmore

sorry for questioning your theory professor but do cows burps really produce methane? - i assume it is farting that does it, stomack would be too early.

Cows have four stomachs, and I'm guessing methane is produced early on in digestion, so it is easier for it to escape by the mouth than the behind.

There is also methane escaping from feces, and from decaying remains, and from humans that eat the meat, and carbon dioxide they exhale, and from vehicles transporting food, etc. for them.

It's a long list of contributions...

.....Coming to you from a vegetarian

Vegetarianism is not a clean cut solution either, given market forces that cause forests to be cut down to make room for crop land to grow bananas or whatnot that are shipped thousands of miles so that we do not eat that locally grown steak.

Originally Posted by free radical

Vegetarianism is not a clean cut solution either, given market forces that cause forests to be cut down to make room for crop land to grow bananas or whatnot that are shipped thousands of miles so that we do not eat that locally grown steak.

But instead of eating that locally-grown steak, why not eat that locally-grown corn?

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Why assume anything when there is the internet? Laziness I suppose. Comparisons with humans are not very helpful. Our digestive sysstems are quite different and we are not as well-endowed in the stomach department as cows are. Twenty seconds of googling found this:

my appologies you were right and it did not take long to google it out.

Normally a cow's stomach is pretty inefficient -- 80 percent of food ingested comes out as waste or methane. The average cow produces between 300 and 500 liters of methane a day, most of it through belching. "There is a common misperception about how methane gets into the atmosphere," Michael Abberton, a scientist at the Aberystwsth's Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, said Monday. "It is actually through belching rather than the other end."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...493611,00.html

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I don't eat meat, so I guess I'm not part of that problem

REPLY: I also do not eat meat. I can not justify my taking part in the misery it causes other creatures simply so that I may enjoy tastier meals. Pleased to meet you, ...Dr.Syntax

People should lessen their meat consumption to prevent global warming

Given the actual world population, if we all change our habits, there could probably not be enough land to produce enough food for all of us. Starvation and famine would become our deepest concern, which nowdays already is in many parts of the world, not Global Warming.

Isn't this opinion in direct contradiction to the OP? Less land is required for a vegetarian lifestyle than a domesticated meat-based lifestyle.

One source claims that 300 sq metres (0.07 acres) per person is sufficient, on a potato-based diet. 700 sq metres may be more reasonable, if the diet is to be somewhat more varied ( but still vegetarian).

http://ivem.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ivempubs...lItemRecord=ON

Another source claims that there is approximately 1 acre arable land per person, on the planet. There would seem to be enough arable land per person to sustain the current world population, at present.

http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

Growing one's own food has political implications as well, as a massive such shift would have implications for a large segment of the economy. It may also promote more biodiversity in agriculture, something that has been on the decline.

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

Shun meat, says UN climate chief

Okay, it’s not really eating meat itself but rather the meat-production process that is contributing to global warming. But, still.

The 18% figure is probably wrong.

One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitlohner's criticism.

"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said.

In the US, cow and pig manufacture accounts for an estimated 3% of carbon emissions, if you believe the revised estimate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

Shun meat, says UN climate chief

Okay, it’s not really eating meat itself but rather the meat-production process that is contributing to global warming. But, still.

The 18% figure is probably wrong.

One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitlohner's criticism.

"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said.

In the US, cow and pig manufacture accounts for an estimated 3% of carbon emissions, if you believe the revised estimate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm