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.