hamburgers cause global warming

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Random Variable

Random Variable

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
10,420
2
0
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296646,00.html

 
leftyman

leftyman

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,073
3
81
but then we would eat all the grains to replace the steak in our diets..and end up with emission problems.
 
GrantMeThePower

GrantMeThePower

Platinum Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,923
2
0
Originally posted by: leftyman
but then we would eat all the grains to replace the steak in our diets..and end up with emission problems.
Click to expand...

huh?

The downside, enviornmentally, about switching to a less meat intensive diet, is two fold.

1. The pesticides and chemicals used in most production of grains and beans is very harmful
2. The land can not support the same crops year in and year out.

The "clear cutting" issue is moot, however, as it is done for either livestock or plants.
 
BeauJangles

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
hahahah did anyone see the episode of South Park about spontaneous combustion? It was caused by people holding in their farts, but then when everyone started farting freely, that caused global warming.
 
Jeff7

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't eat a lot of red meat but this just sounds ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Cows are pretty gassy, and it really is an inefficient use of land to first grow grains, which are then fed to cattle. A large portion of this food is converted into manure, for relatively little meat production.

It's similar to the reason why electric heat is so inefficient - first you burn fossil fuel at a power plant, electricity is produced, then it's sent great distances, and finally converted into heat. This incurs efficiency losses at every step. It's more efficient to burn fuel in your own home, that way the heat is immediately delivered to where it is needed.

Similarly, eating meat requires that grain be grown, fed to an animal, where a majority of it is simply turned into manure - not much is left behind in the animal, in the form of edible meat. Then the meat is delivered to a person, who converts it in to, well, manure as well.
The alternative is to grow grain, and deliver it to people. Then you have only one food -> manure process.
Overall, a vegetarian diet does make for more efficient use of farmland, in terms of calories delivered to people per square foot of land. Problem is, eating meat in times long past was a lifesaver, a quick way of getting lots of calories and protein. Now we tend to get too many calories, but the taste for meat remains, a vestige of evolution.
 
T

TXHokie

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 1999
2,558
176
106
I was gonna have a salad tonight but thanks to this article, tonight I'm gonna grill some steak.
 
G

GoatMonkey

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,253
0
0
If we don't eat them, they will still be alive and farting. I'm eating meat to save the planet!
 
M

Mr Incognito

Golden Member
Feb 20, 2007
1,035
0
0
Damn, I knew burgers were too good to be true.

EDIT: Actually read the OP, they can kiss my ass about eating less meat.
 
M

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
Soooo ah, how do they explain the part about there being less livestock now then there used to be.....

Oh wait human flatulence maybe.

Oh noes humans cause global warming we must kill them all off.
 
C

Crucial

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
5,026
0
71
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't eat a lot of red meat but this just sounds ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Cows are pretty gassy, and it really is an inefficient use of land to first grow grains, which are then fed to cattle. A large portion of this food is converted into manure, for relatively little meat production.

It's similar to the reason why electric heat is so inefficient - first you burn fossil fuel at a power plant, electricity is produced, then it's sent great distances, and finally converted into heat. This incurs efficiency losses at every step. It's more efficient to burn fuel in your own home, that way the heat is immediately delivered to where it is needed.

Similarly, eating meat requires that grain be grown, fed to an animal, where a majority of it is simply turned into manure - not much is left behind in the animal, in the form of edible meat. Then the meat is delivered to a person, who converts it in to, well, manure as well.
The alternative is to grow grain, and deliver it to people. Then you have only one food -> manure process.
Overall, a vegetarian diet does make for more efficient use of farmland, in terms of calories delivered to people per square foot of land. Problem is, eating meat in times long past was a lifesaver, a quick way of getting lots of calories and protein. Now we tend to get too many calories, but the taste for meat remains, a vestige of evolution.
Click to expand...

Manure is returned to the land as fertilizer thus completing the circle. I don't see the problem here.
 
M

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Originally posted by: leftyman
but then we would eat all the grains to replace the steak in our diets..and end up with emission problems.
Click to expand...

huh?

The downside, enviornmentally, about switching to a less meat intensive diet, is two fold.

1. The pesticides and chemicals used in most production of grains and beans is very harmful
2. The land can not support the same crops year in and year out.

The "clear cutting" issue is moot, however, as it is done for either livestock or plants.
Click to expand...

Over half of all grain production is used for feeding animals for meat. Meat that provides only a relatively small fraction of human nutrition. Estimates vary, but middle-of-the-road estimates are that feeding a human with meat requires 5 times as much grain as feeding a human with grain.

If meat consumption was reduced, there would be a massive drop in demand for grains, allowing land to be used for other crops, with concomitant reduction in the need for pesticides and/or fertilizers. Indeed, it is the very growing of crops to feed animals that encourages the monoculture that you criticize.

The problem with raising animals for red meat, is that predominantly, the choice is ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.). Due to their biology, ruminants produce very large quantities of methane from their gut - e.g. a typical cow produces about 600 litres (400 g) of methane per day. This has the same greenhouse gas potential as about 25 kg of CO2, or the emissions of a 20 mile commute in a hummer.

In fact, livestock are the single biggest human-caused methane polluter - larger than the natural gas and energy industry.
 
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Mark R
In fact, livestock are the single biggest human-caused methane polluter - larger than the natural gas and energy industry.
Click to expand...

Nope. The overwhelmingly majority is caused by wildlife.

OH NOES! Kill all the wildlife!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom