Increasing numbers of young people are choosing to become vegetarians because they think its the right thing to do by the planet.How clear is this claim ? Before we get lost in yet another impossibly big subject, I'd like just to focus on ONE issue ONLY ;
Whether we as humans are are ecologically wrong to eat meat; whether our eating meat ( say at 1kg per week) will harm the atmosphere and the ecology of the earth - big enough question, I think you will agree .

That we don't always look after animals well is accepted; Not the issue here. Similiarly the claim that animals don't need to eat animals is for most scientists - a nonissue ) I will post my thoughts later.
Please Help ( I believe questions are best discussed by having affirmative and non affirmative positions), If you think Co2 control is critical to the above question please preface your comments with "CO2 yes" If you are NOT convinced the issue revolves around C02, please begin with "CO2 no" . Ihope we go somewher towards answering the question .

There's NO WAY you could feed the population of the planet on organic vege's alone.

...and you'll have to pry my cold dead fingers from my bacon. I GUARANTEE I'll take plenty of ya's with me.

It's the biggest joke in the world, we'd need another planet just to grow enough veggies to feed everyone, the laws of Thermodynamics shows so. But I have no problem with people turning to a veggie diet, a good steak is getting hard to find these days :)

Anyway, AGW due to CO2 and COWS is the biggest CROCKABALONE ever perpetrated on mankind; any involved in it should face trial for fraud and be sentenced to life serving Big Bubba plenty of their own raw meat!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/#more-12294

Watch as this scam is debunked more and more everyday. Unfortunately our own press and media seem to have their heads firmly planted up Mr lipsticks (aka KRUD THE DUD) tight ass. It would seem that the price of a banana at Coles compared to an independent is more important than the royal screwing we're all going to get from this moron!

Just for one minute use your brain and think how on earth would the whole planet turning to a vegan diet slow CO2 production? Where would all the food come from with no CO2 in the atmosphere? Where would all the carbon producing fertilizer come from to sustain everyone? How will we transport the massive amounts of veggies required to sustain a persons life every single day. It's all about calories, veggies just don't add up, just like wind will never replace coal, we need raw horsepower to survive and veggies just like wind will never do!

Hanrahan
Short answer no! they won't save the world.

The problem isn't that we humans are omnivores or vegetarians the issue is how much we consume. This is a finite world and environment it will never survive with excessive consumption by too many people regardless of what they eat.
Consider the environmental damage of un natural cultivation techniques.

Too much is too much (full stop).

Co2No . Before the media run away with yet another simplicity from Stern on this subject, several realities.
-Using the efficiency of water use to judge the "validity" of a ecological process (As Stern has done) is a good example of what's known in science circles as "misplaced concreteness". Seems to me he was educated at "the School of Mere Description" - he gets "the facts" right , but doesn't quite know how to put more than a few of them together at once. We are dealing with a very complex story.

Yes we use a lot of water to live . But all that water is in transit back past us again like Co2 and oxygen . You have to look at the whole picture before you can act wisely in relation to it. Thankfully we are not stopping the flows,.... much .
Melbourne people have been busily planting lawn seed over the last few months because they have had over 50 tonnes of water (50000kilograms ) fall on their quatre acre blocks during the spring . Soon much of that water will be back in the air again , whether you or I think it's a good thing or not . Are we going to stop our citizens from mowing their lawns and enjoying the flowers ? Have our new mentors found a way to limit the soils natural wastefulness? As usual, the dark greens can only see one part of the story , and are uneccesarily worried about it . As a practical ecologist, I wish the dark greens would study the water and carbon cycle properly, and stop worrying our kids with their simplicities .
More next post

OOOOOOOOH, sorry. Mistook your post for a discussion starter. The pulpit's down the road.

You're just cutting and pasting this rubbish from somewhere, aren't ya?.

No they won't save the planet. What could save the planet is a population cap but all the experts made sure there's legislation against common sense. So the answer to your question from me is nothing will save the planet unless people get educated to think & not to be consumers only. From my personal observations I found the greater majority of vegetarians to be from another planet anyway.

This one is commonly discussed in the press these days, by
people who throw all kinds of farming into one heap and don't
think things through.

Lets say no sheep or cows grazed all that grass, what would
happen?

Its not hard to figure out really, we see it around us often
enough. All that growth would accumulate, there would be huge
loads of dead grass, along comes a lightning strike and the
whole lot goes up in flames. Only if this was everywhere,
the fires that followed would make the Victorian fires look
like a Sunday school picnic!

All those mouths chomping dead grass and turning it into
delicious lamb roasts etc, not only are of huge benefit
as fire break creators, those chops and roast taste pretty
good too :)

If it could actually be proven beyond doubt that farming beef is contributing to ecological damage in a major way then I guess being a vegetarian would help.

BUT don't forget there are other forms of meat in fish, chicken, game birds, deer, sheep, rabbits (there aplenty, shellfish etc. I am not sure if sheep are the same in terms of impacts ie. methane production and soil impaction etc.

The thing is humans need to eat something and vegies, grain, pulses, fruit and nuts still take up space and cause some ecological degradation particularly if not farmed organically (or close to), particularly in a mono-culture set up.

Yabby,
Sorry old mate, that's a load of self interested justification.

The concern I have about your stance is that you are comparing extremes.
Hanrahan is doing much the same.

I don't know about your specifics so I can only generalize.

The problem in my mind is the EXCESS and inappropriate practices.
The whole system as it is practiced encourages the same. In many ways we are over exploiting our resources to make money now. It means that in the future in some places the law of diminishing returns will apply.

There are options like no till farming that is now subject to carbon trading in in the states.

We need a new monetary system one that doesn't depend on the unsustainable magic pudding scenario in a finite world. We are currently consuming our economic future in a monetary sense.
Sooner or later the system is doomed to collapse under its own weight of debt (future demands).

*Sorry old mate, that's a load of self interested justification.*

Examinator, once again you drift off in all sorts of directions,
ignoring what I actually wrote. You sound like an ADHD case :)

Now what part of my argument do you deny?

If no cows, sheep etc ate that grass, it would not grow, ready
to burn in a big way?

Do you know what happens each year up in the NW station country,
after alot of rain and long grass everywhere?

Do you even know that alot of the Australian outback is unsuitable
for cropping?

If you are going to have a go at my point, show me where it is wrong,
not waft off on the clouds, as you normally do.

This thread is proof that meat is required for brain development.

Maybe we could eat the vegetarians. (tastes like chicken?)

Yes bloody meat. I too am a meat eater, but suspect that manflesh is more like pork than chicken Shadow, an Islamic justification for not eating it interestingly, and I note the recent push for transplanting pig organs.

..

Co-incedentally CNN recently published a view from the Green forums that a vege driving a HUMV is contributing less to GW than a meat eater driving a hybrid.

..

Still, I am not familiar enough with the science but wonder if you farm your cows in a sufficiently forested area whether the local sync effect is sufficient to consume and turn into O2 all the excess methane farting and belching?

Yabby,

You are still arguing by extremes. I didn't say eliminate farming of animals ! The fire argument is dependent on where it is as to the lasting damage or benefit.

I simply suggested that evidence suggests we should do it in MODERATION and use techniques more appropriate to the land.

The ramifications aren't lost on me just that our economics encourages short term maximization if continued it is and will lead to the law of diminishing returns. (specifically in marginal land).

I alluded to the adverse changes happening as a result of broad acre tilling ,topsoil loss, productivity reduction requiring increasingly expensive artificial solutions, CSIRO suggestion of micro climate changes, (soil moisture), erosion etc and desertification salt.In grazing the destruction of land by ground compaction from hoof damage, spread of weeds in dung, by too much dung (pads), sheep eating down to the roots etc.

To suggest that farming grazing stops would be inane again I hate extreme/absolutes in any argument as it is artificial and not representative.
I did say I was talking in generalities.
Your arguments are often put up by farmers in marginal land etc.
I was referring to your defense being an industry one I did say "Not knowing your specifics...."
Sorry I thought the intent was clear.

Off topic: Try this I think you'll find it interesting (at least I did.)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029125536.htm just released to-day on brain stuff.
This is one of 6 sites I read regularly.

SM

Nah more like Tofu (toad Food) Turkey! :-)

There's a bit of chicken, & egg here.

The only place a grazing cow gets any carbon from is grass.

The grass got it from the air.

That carbon was always going to be returned to the air, by a cow, a fire, or perhaps a termite, but it was going back somehow.

Not that it's needed, but to make the greenies happy, they should look at cows as a carbon sink. I can't remember the figures at the moment, but we have millions, [or is it billions] of tons of carbon on the hoof. Our cows keep it out of the air much longer than most of the other return mechanisms, like fire or termites.

So plesase keep off the grass folks, we need it for the cows.

*You are still arguing by extremes. I didn't say eliminate farming of animals*

Examinator, the question of vegetarianism is in fact, one of
extremes, for it implies farming animals or not. That is the basics
of it.

You can then go on and argue about sustainable farming practises,
stocking rates, etc, which is another whole long question.

So my point remains. If everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow,
due to their dream of saving the planet, they would be very wrong,
for the net outcome would be huge fires like we have never seen
before, a point which they would have hardly considered.

Interesting article on topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&em

Oh yabby I do feel for you. Hang on in there. You are blessed with much patience.

Composing vegetable matter is the problem, a mown field of grass will create the same amount of methane gas as a herd of belching cows on the same field of grass. Have you ever walked in a field of rotting cabbages? Have you ever eaten a meal of cabbage and not passed gas?

These science specialists are vegetarians who promote their own speciality without a wholistic approach to balance. These researchers have found that cows belch and release gass from grass; therefore conclude cows are bad. I wonder if they have not monotered their own gass discharge after eating vegetables? Methane gas does not require cows to extract it from vegetable matter, ever heard of compost? Mushroom [fungi] growing gasses from composting will smell for miles

Methane is odourless, philo.

And I'm not so sure that all the bege objections are due to grass eating animals either, as far I'm aware they mostly object to grain-fed animals. These are being fed feedstock that requires a reasonable degree of energy input to grow, harvest, transport and often process (eg steam-flaking), not to metion the energy costs of growing, transporting, butchering and packaging the meat itself. And it's not just cows either, when do you reckon you last had non-grainfed pork?

I am fairly sure that it's this sort thing that is the subject of concern, rather than them farting in a field.

Methane is produced by ruminant animals (cattle and sheep to a lesser extent) using bacteria in an anaerobic environment to break down the cellulose. This also occurs in swamps etc where oxygen is restricted, but not in fields.

This also does not apply in the same way to chickens or pigs.

Methane has a much worse effect on the climate than CO2, but does eventually break down to CO2 and water. So a fixed number of animals producing methane will reach an equilibrium level where the methane produced = the methane that decomposes. This is different to the CO2 which steadily builds.

As far as human health is concerned the variety of non meat products required to provide the equivalent nutrients are expensive and generally only affordable by rich western economies. Even then, the growth of children on a purely vegetarian diet has shown to be slowed, even though it mostly catches up later.

On the positive side, to meet the dietry requirements, only small amounts of meat a couple of times a week are required, (200g is more than sufficient).

The amount of meat consumed in the western diet is one of the prime causes of heart disease and obesity, so if the thread was should reduce our consumption of meat to help reduce climate change, I would partially agree, however, pure vegetarianism is unlikely to save people or the climate.

Hi Hanrahan,

"Increasing numbers of young people are choosing to become vegetarians because they think its the right thing to do by the planet.How clear is this claim ?"

It probably won't make a significant difference to global warming and may even be impossible for everyone to use that approach. But the apparent corollary of all those young people are getting the rough end of the pineapple by doing it for nothing may not eventuate. Rather than being mislead a not insignicant proportion of them are masking eating disorders anyway so it doesn't make a difference for them. Previously they would have said they were doing it to be kind to animals. Now they are saying it is for the planet. In reality it is easier to refuse food with the claim that you are a vegetarian. With a normal diet more explanation would be required.

http://www.healthyplace.com/eating-disorders/main/vegetarian-or-anorexic/menu-id-957/

Dear examinator,

There is a saying that money makes the world go around. The left wing socialists want their share without having to do the work so they have come up with an idea to save the planet. Create a new tax and make all who live in the first world pay. Sadly the planet has a saviour and he says it is not what you eat that corupts you but what comes out of your mouth. The tongue is the rudder that guides the ship on lifes voyage. If you continue to squeze the farmers the people who want population control will get their wish as if you don't eat you don't go to the toilet and if you don't go to the toilet and if you don't go to the toilet you die.
So the answer is very simple if you do what is right it works.

Yabby,
There is little doubt that that wild fires are indeed a prospect.
However as an argument to maintain some practices or support a fatally flawed economics system it's weak. The premise for constant growth economics is part of the reason we are in the mess we are.

It gives impetus 'forcing' some to get involved in short term profit now practices that have long term deficits.

The CSIRO research into burning in *some areas* actually having a carbon retention net gain. Many big NT/WA cattle stations have cows in scrub land etc.

If you are talking about savanna then the question is:

"Is the land less likely to be damaged topsoil erosion etc. by seasonal burns than, clear down to the root cleared ground grazing etc."

Clearly specifics need to be be considered.

Evidence seems to suggest, that we aren't recovering the real cost of agriculture (including environmental costs?). Therefore Australia as a country is eating into its environmental/resource capital above and beyond sustainable levels.

What I'm suggesting is a much larger world perspective (the question) that by competing in similar cash crop markets is sending prices down (gluts).

The consequences of cash cropping in the 3rd world has created fire as a problem i.e. meat in the Amazon basin and palm oil in Indonesia. Most of which are owned by corporations or the rich. Clearly what was once ecological sound subsistence farming is now, due to international economics cash cropping. Sadly this is proven not to have much impact on the very poor coffee, sugar are clear examples.

This is particularly tragic when considering most of the world meat consumption is in fact over consumption by the west. Statistics show that 20% of the world is using 60- 80% of the worlds resources.

I am suggesting that in order to 'save the world' we need a better economics structure rather than become vegos. The problem is far deeper that the topic posed.

Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction movie depicting a dystopian future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.
Might prove not to be science fiction after all the way we're heading.

*The problem is far deeper that the topic posed.*

Sheesh Examinator, you will never get it. Just about every problem
is far deeper then 350 words. Sometime you'll need to learn
to focus on the big picture and discuss the little pictures later.

If you've ever been involved in large fires, you'll know that the
larger the firefront, the harder it is to stop it, as it can take
everything in its path, houses, people, you name it. If you think
that this is better then a few cows and sheep grazing, think again.

StG, great link, so thanks.

Examinator, have you noticed that the CSIRO carbon retention burn system only workes if done by aboriginal folk, on their land. The plan is they can claim carbon credits for it, but the stations can't. Great science there mate.

Then we come to top soil protection, by planting trees. Once you have the trees we can all starve to death. The bl@@dy trees don't supply any food. What's the point of protecting the top soil, if that protection prevents it being productive.

I am a believer in a reasonable tree cover on grazing lands. They can act as a nutrient pump, if kept to controlled density. Their roots can suck up nutrients that the grass can't get to. Their dropped leaves then return them to the upper soil. They can also help protect from hot dry winds, & frosts.

I bought a naked turf farm, & planted thousands, with the objective of keeping perhaps 30% of them. Many of my neighbours planted quite a lot.

We have ripped most of them out now. The writing is on the wall, that the damn fool greenies will get control of the trees on private land, so I won't have any that I'm not sure I'll want in 20 years.

We saw that green bull sh1t can kill in Vic, we won't let it won't happen here.

Great to hear the wide range of views; thanks to those with specific comments on specific industries., locations and methods .
The relevant link to sounder practice by StG and shadowminister lowers the hype over methane - which is clearly being used in the wannabes debate to bolster up the GG pressure.
Sure its a huge topic, but I, as a long time sustainability advisor can't take Wong seriously when her staff run off to try and find some sequestering sites when we know them already - the dearth of knowledge about the general context of individual sustainability questions is frightening.
Pleased to see so many contributors reminding anyone watching that sustainability is often an open question, at least, provided you respect each biosystem and soil involved .
Its not all doom and gloom mate, even for old Hanarahan. As the Pork pie American pointed out in the NYTimes article, extensive grazing can improve soils and has done so in most southern Victorian areas at the very least .
Are any of you concerned about our children and how they are so easily influenced by simple arguments? - arguments that deny them the pleasure of feeling good about how they live and use resources.

Hasbeen,

If you read the data FROM the CSIRO you will find they are also using the test for other areas too.
Pity about the trees clearly you have read the wrong literature then mixed it with your brand of fear of every party except the conservative.

I'd quote case from Adelaide hills (area of the big fire). Old time farmer had acreage wanted to develop (BS about sons coming home). One an accountant the other a lawyer, because it was in a catchment area the plan was denied (one structure per title and limited clearing). He tried to sue, lost. He would have sold his land for $700k at the time. Within 12 months he was killed in a car accident. The accountant son took the house pulled it down spent $300k building a mansion.

Sold it for $3.7 million, reasons....It couldn't be built out, rural enough for another lawyer to run horses in and around the trees.

NB he made 5 times the money because he had imagination.
The point....selected clearing of yours might have made it more salable to similar or rural environmental developer. One developer I know loves acreage with trees, he says it adds $100k to the houses.
If there is resident wild life, he's deliriously happy more $ again.
his words " there is a bloody big and growing market for cashed up wanna be greenies". He says his AVERAGE price per house and land is between 25-40% more than comparable nearby estates.

Examinator, do you just invent this stuff? Haven't you seen councils prosecuting people who remove dangerous, rotten trees? A man recently killed by a tree he didn't remove, after the council refused permission to so.

Our ratbag town planners [those twits again] are trying to get a bylaw to allow them to declare areas private open space. You will own it, pay rates on it, but will not be able to even clear fire brakes on it. One south east council have passed such a law, although it may have trouble standing.

One of these days we will have to ship these twits up to the rubber vine areas of the NT, with a machete each, so they can actually do something useful.

They now want to control the orientation & window sighting of all houses, to reduce power consumption, & save the world. Talk about Waho birds, & where they disappear.

Of course you know all this, but you agree with this state control of private property.

Your example is of no interest to me. I want to live on, & use my property. I have no desire to make money out of it. It's taken almost most of 18 years to get it to what I want.

It sounds the seed has all ready been laid, for that 3.7 mill mansion to be burned down in the next fire, with clearing restrictions. State control anyone?