There is no elephant in the room. Methane counts for 0.3% of greenhouse gas effect while water vapour counts for 95%. If you want to do something useful, campaign for the draining of the oceans.

"However, research shows that vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters and have a reduced risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, coronary heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer."

What research?

CSIRO say we need meat in our diet .. are they wrong?

(Personally I'm not sure I could finish an elephant, I'd need help from some mates. Evidently they taste great, if you had to eat one that is for say, scientific research reasons, or similar./sarc)

Sorry, this just appears to be a convenient way to tell other people what to do using AGW as a reason .. so much finger wagging is justified by the AGW belief, is it any wonder some people are skeptical?

There is no metric here, just .. stop doing this and it will help, it might, it might not .. who knows?

As the EQ says, the GHG contributed by feed animals is negligible, but of course that person is just getting in the way of good a good opportunity to sneer at other people and tell them what to do!

I must admit, I find the claims extraordinary. I have serious doubts as to its veracity.

Methane whilst having a strong green house effect, also oxidises over time, and so is only temporary.

Unfortunately the use of measures of savings in terms of plane trips, household appliance usage and the like might make forgoing meat feel virtuous but it does not give much of an insight into its proportionate contribution to reducing emissions. And unless one can be confident that a complete life cycle assessment has been made, even the savings as they are represented here would have to be viewed sceptically. However, there is a much bigger problem. Our material prosperity is a direct function of the nation's energy consumption, as a glance at energy/GDP statistics will soon show. We can reduce energy consumption significantly only by becoming significantly poorer. That's a proposition that the electorate is unlikely to accept. If we really want to reduce carbon emissions, of far more and immediate value would be a rapid switch to lower-carbon energy sources such as natural gas and nuclear power.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I must admit that I spent a few minutes scanning this article for irony. My anti-anti-pop stand is fairly hard core and I'm probably easy prey to a send up - but no - this article is serious.

OK. First of all Monica, if you touch one bristle on my little porcine friends, I'll have you on toast. Leave the pigs and sheep alone. That's my breakfast you're talking about!

Damn, not only do the anti-pops want to get rid of me, my friends, neighbours and their kids for 20 generations, they now want to 'off' our little piggy friends. I'm putting my trotter down. Enuff is enuff!