Reply With Quote
Doesn't a vegetarian diet make you release more methane?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6891362.ece
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
This new religion is all about controlling the way you live. Where you live, what you drive, what you eat.
People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quan ies of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s at udes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and at udes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Doesn't a vegetarian diet make you release more methane?
So.“I am 61 now and at udes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible."
Eating meat = DWI.
Got it.
There's lots of stuff to dislike about industrial scale meat production without reference to AGW. The impact on human health is one.
water + pesticides + synthetic fertilizer (polluted runoff)
=>
corn and other seeds (cows eat leaves, not seeds)
=>
growth hormones + antibiotics
=>
meat (and meat excrement runoff)
... has been known to be an extremely inefficient, stupid, counter-productive Total Life Cycle for a pound of unhealthy beef.
But dumbed-down people refuse to think past their own mouths, so the insanity continues.
I guess I could change from pepperoni pizzas to veggie pizzas.
irrigation + pesticides + synthetic fertilizer = Green Revolution
= saving one billion people
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_R...n#Technologies
Yes, enviro-wackos criticized the use of pesticides.
Enviro-wacknuts also made sure that DDT was banned. Malaria kills 880,000 people each year, mostly children. Good thing evil overlord Bush signed the President’s Malaria Initiative in 2005.
Decline in Proportion of Blood Smears Positive for Malaria, Muleba District Hospital, Tanzania, 2006-2008
Jesus... you are one deranged individual, you know that?
Well, God Bless America.
I remember ZPG commercials, It seems passing out condoms to the third world would be a far simpler solution, but that's just the white imperalist in me talking.Another solution which has proven to be far more effective is the education of women in the third world, although it will be an uphill battle in places where women are still chattel.
It's funny that in the begining of the enviromental movement, human population growth was seen as the decisive factor, and technological answers were seen as human hubris,an unwillingness to find balance with the enviroment. Now however it's turned 180 degrees, population has become ignored and instead draconian control over the people is in vouge.Which leads me to believe the enviromental movement has been co opted.
^ZPG? Zero population growth?
before your time Darrin.
Obama took your suggestion, apparently.
Well that's a surprise. It reminds me of the people that tried to argue global warming doesn't exist or is a natural phenomenon out of our hands.Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
and water vapor is 50 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas... where is all the uprage for classifying water as a pollutant?
Their logic is inconsistent at best and doesn't make sense at worst.
lip service. he is part of the ilk that seeks to put control over the people, under the guise of enviromenatalisim. He refuses to deal with say america's unsustainable population growth.
I was unaware this was a problem. Got any sources on that?
Hulk need protein.
Hulk smash NWO-enviro-pussy.
Can you expand on this please? I have never heard it before.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
