In fact this is the origin of that bizaare stat.. this is just from Wikipedia, which is quoting an FAO report, but it makes considerably more sense then the original quote.
"Seventy percent of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture."

In other words, 70 per cent of the stuff already cleared..

Yes, that's what 'former forests' means, Mark.

I am not sure about this argument. Firstly emissions from livestock are not as high from grass fed as grain-fed. With growing populations many cattle raisers are intensive feeding via grain lots to meet demand.

The major problem as far as CO2 goes is landclearing to make room for livestock but you would have that problem if we were all vegetarian and had to clear land for greater vegetable, pulse, nut and grain production. The faster our populations grow compared to available arable land, the more landclearing is required unless we all resort to Soylent Green which is too anti-human for my liking.

Why are we looking at this problem from the wrong end. The populist and entrenched attitudes are around growth and consumerism no matter the long term effects. Why not push for raising the living standards (education, health, share of economic wealth etal) of the Third World and bring some economicy equity to bear and the issue of greenhouse gas emmissions.

The article seems to have got the facts wrong. Coal burning power stations produce half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Transport (cars trucks etc) is the next biggest source. Cutting back on eating meat (or re-using a plastic bag) to save the world from climate change is like saving money by putting your 5 cent coins in a jar and burning your $50 notes.
Every little bit helps, but if we are not concentrating on the big stuff then it is all a waste of time.

Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 27 January 2011 8:42:11 AM

I agree 100%

Timely article, Monika, and judging by some of the responses here a much needed perspective.

My reading leads me to have no doubt whatever that the world would be a better place for many reasons if we in developed countries at least reduced our consumption of meat. According to the ACF, having one meat-free meal a week will decrease a person's greenhouse emissions by 300kg and reduce water use by 10,000L over the course of a year.

Having said that, unfortunately I'm a person who needs to eat meat for health reasons. My blood sugar levels fluctuate, causing multiple negative consequences, and the protein and saturated fat provided by meat is instrumental in keeping them on an even keel. This has created somewhat of an ethical dilemma, though I do buy organic and grass fed wherever possible.

Yabby

"Interestingly, most beef, lamb etc produced in Australia, is not
done by industrial farming, but by natural grazing."

Some current stats would be good, Yabby. Shouldn't be difficult for someone close to the source as you are. My feeling is you're presenting a somewhat romanticized picture here, which, if not already a thing of the past, is certainly under threat as struggling farmers are bought out by largescale agricultural interests.

"Now lets say everyone stopped eating meat, what would be the effect?
Those grasses would grow like steam with no grazing, creating huge
fuel loads. Next they dry out, lightning invariably strikes
eventually."

This assumes that the land would be left as pasture which is highly unlikely. It would more likely be planted out to crops or reforested or put to some particular use. Or if it was retained as pasture, it might be stocked with less intensive numbers, which from the point of view of erosion and water pollution could only be an improvement.