PETA to Al Gore - meat eaters cannot be environmentalists

[ahurtt]

But we're doing them a favor by eating all those methane producing cows!

 

[ayabe]

This is just another example of how PETA is a ridiculous organization that without a doubt hates America.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
If we stop eating cows, what happens to the cows? Should we let them go? That would be udder chaos. We should eat them to protect humanity.

Well consider now we know what happens when sheep get mad, they made it a movie called "Black Sheep" (on apple movie trailer site now)

 

[theeedude]

It's nice to see rightwingers join PETA in their misguided bashing of Al Gore.

 

[SolMiester]

LOL, in NZ not long ago, we had the stupid government trying to raise a tax against the omissions from the cows...link here.

Too funny

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's nice to see rightwingers join PETA in their misguided bashing of Al Gore.

I'm an old school republican, no shame in that, but I'm also one of the biggest environmentalists you'll ever meet. My wife also runs a no kill animal rescue and we've housed and placed a few 100 animals over the last few years .

PETA's a buncha nutjobs. I'm not bashing Gore for eating beef, god knows I love a steak too, but if we act as though cattle has no adverse affect on our environment we are deluding ourselves.

 

[TehMac]

How is eating a thing extremely different from us, its not even human, cruel? I mean its dead? Fvcks sakes some people are retarded. And I mean every word of that.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: sdifox
Will cook up a big ass steak, document my enjoyment of the steak on MiniDV, dump it on youtube then email PETA the link to the video.

Big ass steak, dump and youtube in the same sentence.


**shudders**

well, if you put it that way, I guess I'll wait til core dump and film that too.

 

[Bitek]

I think part of their arguement is that cattle release methane, which is a far more potent GW gas than CO2 is. So essentially if you are converting CO2 -> CH4, then net effect is +GW.

The question is on the amounts. How much more potent is CH4 than CO2, (can't recall, something like 4x or 10X or something signifigant) and how much CO2 is going into producing one CH4? Somehow I think the PETA has not worked this equation out fully, and just reacting to "methane is teh 3vil." PETA can eat penis.

 

[BladeVenom]

If cows are bad for the environment, then the only sensible thing to do is to kill them and eat them before they can do any more harm. Vegetarians who would let them all live and produce more even more greenhouse gases. I'm eating two steaks tomorrow to save the planet.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: senseamp
Animals are carbon neutral. All of their CO2 comes from grass which then recaptures that CO2 as it grows. Next strawman arguement, please.

and is released upon consumption.

Grass captures CO2, but its released back into the system at consumption. Plus you have to add in all the CO2 produced during processing and delivery of animal products. It all adds up.

Huh? It's a full circle. All the CO2 released comes from the grass, and the same amount of grass grows at the pasture the next year. It's a full cycle. Even if CO2 passes from grass to cow to human, ultimately it completely recaptured. Processing and delivery do use fossil fuels, but by no means would that portion be the largest contributer to green house gas emissions in the world, and by no means unique to meat. Farming, processing and delivery of vegetables also uses fossil fuels.

I seem to remember reading an article about cattle producing an ungodly amount of ammonia. Ammonia contributes to acid rain and global warming doesn't it?

This is an honest question, not flame bait. Any ideas?

Dont forget methane.

Which part of this exceptionally simple concept don't you people understand? Cows eat grass and plants. Anything that comes out of a cow comes out of that. For these things to get into the grass, it comes from the soil and atmosphere. Full cycle. This isn't church - there are no magical invisible faeries that go around putting carbon in cows.

 

[fallensight]

Ron White "i'm eating the cows, but I'm only one man"

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: senseamp
Animals are carbon neutral. All of their CO2 comes from grass which then recaptures that CO2 as it grows. Next strawman arguement, please.

and is released upon consumption.

Grass captures CO2, but its released back into the system at consumption. Plus you have to add in all the CO2 produced during processing and delivery of animal products. It all adds up.

Huh? It's a full circle. All the CO2 released comes from the grass, and the same amount of grass grows at the pasture the next year. It's a full cycle. Even if CO2 passes from grass to cow to human, ultimately it completely recaptured. Processing and delivery do use fossil fuels, but by no means would that portion be the largest contributer to green house gas emissions in the world, and by no means unique to meat. Farming, processing and delivery of vegetables also uses fossil fuels.

I seem to remember reading an article about cattle producing an ungodly amount of ammonia. Ammonia contributes to acid rain and global warming doesn't it?

This is an honest question, not flame bait. Any ideas?

Dont forget methane.

Which part of this exceptionally simple concept don't you people understand? Cows eat grass and plants. Anything that comes out of a cow comes out of that. For these things to get into the grass, it comes from the soil and atmosphere. Full cycle. This isn't church - there are no magical invisible faeries that go around putting carbon in cows.

I'm not religious so your bigoted little snipes about church don't fly with me. Cattle production is destructive to the environment, period. Please do some research . I grew up in a rural area and I've seen firsthand how cattle can literally kill a lake and turn land barren. It's not just CO2.

I could care less about Gore. He's become irrelevant and now he's looking for a way to become relevant again.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: TehMac
How is eating a thing extremely different from us, its not even human, cruel? I mean its dead? Fvcks sakes some people are retarded. And I mean every word of that.

I eat meat, but I don't think it's crazy to think that killing animals is cruel. Animals appear to suffer. They obviously don't enjoy being hurt and it isn't necessary for our survival to eat them.

Species is somewhat of an arbitrary term and it's necessary to say WHY you believe one species deserves some right to something over another. If your justification for eating a cow is that they're dumb, well there are many mentally disabled people (or babies) that have less brain function than a typical cow. But, in most cases, we don't keep them in terribly cramped conditions and feed them food they have not evolved to properly digest because it's cheaper.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
If we stop eating cows, what happens to the cows? Should we let them go? That would be udder chaos. We should eat them to protect humanity.

Does this mean that since Al Gore is a meat eater and has never mentioned this terrible cow problem then An Inconvenient Truth was in fact udder nonsense ? :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Animals are carbon neutral. All of their CO2 comes from grass which then recaptures that CO2 as it grows. Next strawman arguement, please.

Not really true. Cattle are fattened on corn that was grown with fertilizer made from natural gas. Of course, I eat mostly wild game, but hopefully all you reich beefeaters will feel guilty when you eat your next prime rib.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Fern
Since plants use up CO2, wouldn't being vegitarian actually be worse? I mean typically you're killing the plants for vegitables?

Good point...

 

[fskimospy]

Actually its methane that cattle make a lot of... and yeah it is a greenhouse gas. So, PETA does have a point like that. Methane isn't part of the carbon cycle.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Fern
Since plants use up CO2, wouldn't being vegitarian actually be worse? I mean typically you're killing the plants for vegitables?

Good point...

I really don't understand what goes through the heads of people like you two. Sure, maybe you didn't find biology all that exciting and never paid attention in science class, and that's understandable. But how is it that you can be so completely devoid of any semblance of critical thought?

See if you can follow me:
1. As I mentioned above, there are no magical faeries that make energy and matter out of nothing.
2. animals primarily eat plants (or other animals that eat plants).
3. when you eat meat, you are indirectly consuming the plants the animal consumed.
4. the process of converting what you eat into mass is inefficient.
5. Taking 3 and 4 together, each pound of meat requires about 10lbs of plant matter.
6. Therefore, being vegetarian is not worse.

Kids usually learn this when they are taught about the food chain, so I'm curious why you people missed this obvious part? Perhaps you confused the simpsons food chain with the real one?

 

[GrantMeThePower]

One of the big problems with this argument from peta (including the 'faux-fried chicken) is that so many vegitarians and vegans consume a ton of soybeans. That soybean production has to come from somewhere, right? (soybeans make tofu)

Well the amazon forest is being deforested at a ridiculous rate and will at some point become unable to sustain itself because the less trees there are the less rain there will be (read up on it, i'm not going to find the links for you). And most of the deforestation is being done to have room to farm...yup-soybeans.

The forest being gone is *not* a good thing for co2 levels.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
One of the big problems with this argument from peta (including the 'faux-fried chicken) is that so many vegitarians and vegans consume a ton of soybeans. That soybean production has to come from somewhere, right? (soybeans make tofu)

Well the amazon forest is being deforested at a ridiculous rate and will at some point become unable to sustain itself because the less trees there are the less rain there will be (read up on it, i'm not going to find the links for you). And most of the deforestation is being done to have room to farm...yup-soybeans.

The forest being gone is *not* a good thing for co2 levels.

First of all, PETA is based in the U.S., which is the worlds largest producer of soybeans. If you've ever been through the midwest you probably already know this. So, vegetarians/vegans in the U.S. are largely consuming American grown soybeans and are not contributing to deforestation in the amazon by eating soy-based products.

Second, the Amazon is being deforested for numerous purposes, soybean cultivation and cattle grazing being two important ones. But, as sources of protein, soybeans are far more environmentally friendly. Getting the same amount of protein from cattle as you would from soybeans would require 6-17 time as much land, 4.4-26 times as much water, and 6-20 times as much fossil fuel.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/664S (See table 1 of this paper for numbers I've given)

 

[GrantMeThePower]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
One of the big problems with this argument from peta (including the 'faux-fried chicken) is that so many vegitarians and vegans consume a ton of soybeans. That soybean production has to come from somewhere, right? (soybeans make tofu)

Well the amazon forest is being deforested at a ridiculous rate and will at some point become unable to sustain itself because the less trees there are the less rain there will be (read up on it, i'm not going to find the links for you). And most of the deforestation is being done to have room to farm...yup-soybeans.

The forest being gone is *not* a good thing for co2 levels.

First of all, PETA is based in the U.S., which is the worlds largest producer of soybeans. If you've ever been through the midwest you probably already know this. So, vegetarians/vegans in the U.S. are largely consuming American grown soybeans and are not contributing to deforestation in the amazon by eating soy-based products.

Second, the Amazon is being deforested for numerous purposes, soybean cultivation and cattle grazing being two important ones. But, as sources of protein, soybeans are far more environmentally friendly. Getting the same amount of protein from cattle as you would from soybeans would require 6-17 time as much land, 4.4-26 times as much water, and 6-20 times as much fossil fuel.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/664S (See table 1 of this paper for numbers I've given)

Where are all the soybeans from the amazon area being consumed?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Where are all the soybeans from the amazon area being consumed?

Somewhere else. But, as I pointed out, soybean as a protein is far more ecologically efficient than cattle and if people were substituting beef for soybean as a protein source it's very likely that deforestation in the amazon would be much more prevalent.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Yep Im a member

Hey!

I agree with you about something.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: senseamp
Animals are carbon neutral. All of their CO2 comes from grass which then recaptures that CO2 as it grows. Next strawman arguement, please.

and is released upon consumption.

Grass captures CO2, but its released back into the system at consumption. Plus you have to add in all the CO2 produced during processing and delivery of animal products. It all adds up.

Huh? It's a full circle. All the CO2 released comes from the grass, and the same amount of grass grows at the pasture the next year. It's a full cycle. Even if CO2 passes from grass to cow to human, ultimately it completely recaptured. Processing and delivery do use fossil fuels, but by no means would that portion be the largest contributer to green house gas emissions in the world, and by no means unique to meat. Farming, processing and delivery of vegetables also uses fossil fuels.

I seem to remember reading an article about cattle producing an ungodly amount of ammonia. Ammonia contributes to acid rain and global warming doesn't it?

This is an honest question, not flame bait. Any ideas?

Dont forget methane.

Which part of this exceptionally simple concept don't you people understand? Cows eat grass and plants. Anything that comes out of a cow comes out of that. For these things to get into the grass, it comes from the soil and atmosphere. Full cycle. This isn't church - there are no magical invisible faeries that go around putting carbon in cows.

You are wrong on this. As much as you would like to believe that the cow you are eating in that McD's burger lived a long full life and grazed in an open field which is constantly being regrown with wonderful, green grass, you are wrong. The animals never see the light of day. They are force fed unnaturally large amounts of food, much of which is protein "waste" from cattle that have already been slaughtered.