Eating Less Meat May Slow Climate Change

[stephanie]

:cow::cow:

By MARIA CHENG – 2 hours ago

LONDON (AP) — Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.

In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.

"We are at a significant tipping point," said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study.

"If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger," Brewster said.

Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher-quality grains, would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.

"That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option," said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors.

The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day.

With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago.

read the rest at..:cow:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxSQa9KhHaDXNGyeqOyHHbwb1iBQ

[82Marine89]

:cow::cow:


LONDON (AP) — Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.



Wouldn't eating more red meat reduce the number of livestock?

[avatar4321]

Wouldn't eating more red meat reduce the number of livestock?

dont confuse them:)

[truthmatters]

Supply and demand. If the market demands less beef the producers will create smaller herds.

Its capitalism and the free market working. It is also healthier to eat smaller portions and include more fish and fowl in your diet. Eating one vegetarian meal a week can teach your kids how to balance their foods to get all needed nutrition without meat and will make them healthier. It seems pretty smart to me?

[82Marine89]

Supply and demand. If the market demands less beef the producers will create smaller herds.


Genetically engineered dwarf cows? :poke:

[stephanie]

Genetically engineered dwarf cows? :poke:

:coffee:

[truthmatters]

Genetically engineered dwarf cows? :poke:



lol

[Trigg]

Supply and demand. If the market demands less beef the producers will create smaller herds.

Its capitalism and the free market working. It is also healthier to eat smaller portions and include more fish and fowl in your diet. Eating one vegetarian meal a week can teach your kids how to balance their foods to get all needed nutrition without meat and will make them healthier. It seems pretty smart to me?


This ignors the fact that there used to be an enormous buffalo herd........more cows..........fewer buffalo.

I doubt either has anything to do with global warming.

[SpidermanTUba]

This ignors the fact that there used to be an enormous buffalo herd........more cows..........fewer buffalo.

I doubt either has anything to do with global warming.

Based on what evidence?

[darin]

We have lab-created precious stones...why not lab-created tri-tip or standing rib roast? :)

[actsnoblemartin]

too bad al gore lied, when he omitted the truth ... raising livestock according to the united nations and peta, caused more green houses gasses then anything else combined.

[PostmodernProphet]

I doubt this would work, personally I think most methane is produced by men who love beer, not by cattle......

[mrg666]

riddiculous it would take years of eating less for the livestock to be scaled down and then the benefits would be debateble cut the emmisions from factories and cars ban the gas guzzlers or is that to high a stake regarding voters

[SpidermanTUba]

riddiculous it would take years of eating less for the livestock to be scaled down and then the benefits would be debateble cut the emmisions from factories and cars ban the gas guzzlers or is that to high a stake regarding voters

Most voters would rather eat Exxon's line that global warming isn't real, because that way they don't have to worry about change.

Its probably too late, anyway. To reverse anthropogenic global warming, we'd have to eliminate Co2 production within a couple of decades. I don't see that happening. Americans are way too short sighted for that, and what's more, thanks to FOX News and Bush, words don't have any actual meaning to them anymore.

[Abbey Marie]

Since I haven't eaten beef, pork veal, or lamb for 17 years, can I get some carbon credits?

[SpidermanTUba]

Since I haven't eaten beef, pork veal, or lamb for 17 years, can I get some carbon credits?



Carbon credits are a useless nothing bought by the rich to make them feel better. This way they don't have to support radical environmental reform and put their oil company assets at risk.

[Abbey Marie]

Carbon credits are a useless nothing bought by the rich to make them feel better. This way they don't have to support radical environmental reform and put their oil company assets at risk.

:clap:

[SpidermanTUba]

:clap:

And unfortunately, the only people that can fix it - the voters - have been brainwashed by Exxon fronts into believing their isn't a consensus on global warming.

[Trigg]

Based on what evidence?

You want evidence that there used to be an huge buffalo herd????????????

As for my other statement, it's an oppinion. Based on the fact that the world has gone through climate changes in the past. I don't usually site wikipedia as a source but it's an easy one and I have to leave in a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[SpidermanTUba]

You want evidence that there used to be an huge buffalo herd????????????


No, I want evidence that neither cow nor buffalo cause global warming.



As for my other statement, it's an oppinion. Based on the fact that the world has gone through climate changes in the past. I don't usually site wikipedia as a source but it's an easy one and I have to leave in a minute.


How does the fact that the earth has undergone climate change in the past lead you to conclude that the methane that cows and buffalo produce does not trap infrared radiation?

[Trigg]

No, I want evidence that neither cow nor buffalo cause global warming.



How does the fact that the earth has undergone climate change in the past lead you to conclude that the methane that cows and buffalo produce does not trap infrared radiation?

Did I say that, let me check.....................nope. Just as I thought that isn't what I said.

I said I doubt they have anything to do with global warming. Do they produce methane yep, no argument. Getting rid of cows ignores the fact that other animals used to be more numerous (Buffalo) and no one was blaiming them for global warming. Blaiming humans because we eat meat is just assinine.

I happen to think that because the earth has gone through periods of extreme heat/cold/drought before that it will again. Do we contribute to the changes maybe we do, but I don't believe it is significant.

[mrg666]

You want evidence that there used to be an huge buffalo herd????????????

As for my other statement, it's an oppinion. Based on the fact that the world has gone through climate changes in the past. I don't usually site wikipedia as a source but it's an easy one and I have to leave in a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

yes certain studies show that weather conditions as drastic as we are seeing go back a long way ( wiil that be any comfort when the shit hits ? )but statisticly we are throwing out enourmous amounts of emmisions id rather lean on the safe side our generation probably wont feel the biggest brunt of it but our kids and grand kids will be left a nice legacy from us

[SpidermanTUba]

Did I say that, let me check.....................nope. Just as I thought that isn't what I said.

I said I doubt they have anything to do with global warming. Do they produce methane yep, no argument. Getting rid of cows ignores the fact that other animals used to be more numerous (Buffalo) and no one was blaiming them for global warming. Blaiming humans because we eat meat is just assinine.


What you are saying is only true for America. There are 1.3 billion head of cattle in the world, only 100 million in America, and there were 60-100 million head of buffalo before we slaughtered them all. I'm still not seeing how this proves that methane from a cow or buffalo's anus doesn't contribute to global warming.



I happen to think that because the earth has gone through periods of extreme heat/cold/drought before that it will again. [/QUPTE]

And no one would disagree with you on that point, so why do you keep bringing it up?

[QUOTE}Do we contribute to the changes maybe we do, but I don't believe it is significant.

Based on what evidence? What journal, volume, and page number? If not that, then what expertise do you have that qualifies you to comment without reference to any papers?