What's new
By:
Filters

Eating meat is worse for the environment than oil

steak-buyers-guide-508x340.jpg


Put me down in the "I'm okay with that" category.
 
Gameface said:
steak-buyers-guide-508x340.jpg


Put me down in the "I'm okay with that" category.
Click to expand...

I'm no activist. I just find it interesting that we focus so much on oil and gas while forgetting about agriculture. I wonder if it's because oil and gas is more lucrative target? Or is it difficult to change people's behaviors?
 
Interesting article here
https://m.democracynow.org/stories/15127

I'll try to post in some quotes, but in part it criticizes new water regulations imposed in California on various sectors OTHER than agriculture, which uses 80% of the state's water resources, much of it to grow alfalfa, a very water-intensive crop, which is mostly exported to China to support its cattle industry.
 
moevillini said:
Interesting article here
https://m.democracynow.org/stories/15127

I'll try to post in some quotes, but in part it criticizes new water regulations imposed in California on various sectors OTHER than agriculture, which uses 80% of the state's water resources, much of it to grow alfalfa, a very water-intensive crop, which is mostly exported to China to support its cattle industry.
Click to expand...

It's remarkable isn't it? Cutting beef out of your diet alone is equal to switching to a fully electric vehicle. That blew my mind. Yet, no one talks about it.
 
Carbon13 said:
It's remarkable isn't it? Cutting beef out of your diet alone is equal to switching to a fully electric vehicle. That blew my mind. Yet, no one talks about it.
Click to expand...

to some degree though, I think it's a false dichotomy since most of that water is used to support production of plant crops to feed the livestock - and if we weren't eating meat, our own consumption of plant products would increase - so we'd still use the water to grow the crops


Plus really, isn't water pretty much a renewable resource? Maybe that's part of the reason the alarm bells aren't going off.
 
moevillini said:
to some degree though, I think it's a false dichotomy since most of that water is used to support production of plant crops to feed the livestock - and if we weren't eating meat, our own consumption of plant products would increase - so we'd still use the water to grow the crops


Plus really, isn't water pretty much a renewable resource? Maybe that's part of the reason the alarm bells aren't going off.
Click to expand...

it's not what the water is used for, it's who owns it.

Think of water politics as interests seeking to increase what you pay for food and water.

Think of medical care politics as interests seeking to increase what you pay for medical care.

Think of energy politics as interests seeking to increase what you pay for energy.

etc etc etc

The more power you give govt, the more effective lobbyists for the interests can be in achieving increased revenues from you.
 
moevillini said:
to some degree though, I think it's a false dichotomy since most of that water is used to support production of plant crops to feed the livestock - and if we weren't eating meat, our own consumption of plant products would increase - so we'd still use the water to grow the crops


Plus really, isn't water pretty much a renewable resource? Maybe that's part of the reason the alarm bells aren't going off.
Click to expand...

If there were no cattle, hence no cattle industry and no beef or pork or chicken, etc., plants would still grow. We do increase net biomass perhaps, but it all is entrained in the carbon cycle. It comes out of the atmosphere as CO2, and it converted to reduced carbon compounds. It will rot if nothing eats it, and turn to coal,oil, or gas before, one day, oxidizing to CO2 once again. The water's gonna go round and round, too. . . . .

Without cows, we'd have more other animals eating stuff and pooping somewhere. Totalitarian govts want total control of land and water, as well as labor.
 
moevillini said:
to some degree though, I think it's a false dichotomy since most of that water is used to support production of plant crops to feed the livestock - and if we weren't eating meat, our own consumption of plant products would increase - so we'd still use the water to grow the crops


Plus really, isn't water pretty much a renewable resource? Maybe that's part of the reason the alarm bells aren't going off.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources to make.

Freshwater to a degree is renewable but not in the way most think. Much of the water we get today comes from underground aquifers. while shallower ones can recharge, we are generally depleting them faster than they are able to. This could be a real issue in the future and already is in parts of California.

In the end, cows are worse for the environment than oil. Who knew?! I could care less really. I'll probably continue to eat meat but I just wonder why this isn't talked about more? Seems like we tar and feather the oil industry but never target agriculture or fishing which is out of whack.
 
Carbon13 said:
Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources to make.

Freshwater to a degree is renewable but not in the way most think. Much of the water we get today comes from underground aquifers. while shallower ones can recharge, we are generally depleting them faster than they are able to. This could be a real issue in the future and already is in parts of California.

In the end, cows are worse for the environment than oil. Who knew?! I could care less really. I'll probably continue to eat meat but I just wonder why this isn't talked about more? Seems like we tar and feather the oil industry but never target agriculture or fishing which is out of whack.
Click to expand...
A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce.
u sure?

so a cow depending on weight age and sex drinks 3-30 gallons a day.
i dont know how many hamburgers a cow make.
but lets say a single cow makes 100 hamburger! i am pretty sure it is more than that!

so 660000 GALLONS of water makes 100 hamburgers. so the cow drinks 30 gallosn per day for 22000 days.

that is a 61 year old cow bro! that is some nasty burger.

PLEASE take ur bunk statistic and shove it where the sun dont shine
 
Carbon13 said:
Don't mean to be a crazy alarmist, but the amount of water used to support crops is far less than the water to used to support meat. A gallon of milk requires 1000 gallons of water to produce. A single hamburger requires 6,600 gallons of water to produce. A single cow eats 150 pounds of plants a day. Basically, meat needs a ****load more resources ...
Click to expand...

my point is that the water that is used to produce that gallon of milk is water that primarily goes to grow alfalfa to feed the cows - so when you get right down to it, it's supporting plant crop production first and those plant crops then go to support livestock

To me, it's a rather different issue to discuss the difference in resources used to produce a balanced 2500 calorie per day (human) diet that's completely plant based vs. a balanced 2500 calorie per day diet that includes meat.

Looking at it as a one-sided issue leads to a greater potential for an alarmist viewpoint, which is what these documentary producers appear to have done.
 
moevillini said:
my point is that the water that is used to produce that gallon of milk is water that primarily goes to grow alfalfa to feed the cows - so when you get right down to it, it's supporting plant crop production first and those plant crops then go to support livestock

To me, it's a rather different issue to discuss the difference in resources used to produce a balanced 2500 calorie per day (human) diet that's completely plant based vs. a balanced 2500 calorie per day diet that includes meat.

Looking at it as a one-sided issue leads to a greater potential for an alarmist viewpoint, which is what these documentary producers appear to have done.
Click to expand...

What im trying to say is, it requires several thousands of calories of alfalfa to produce a pound of meat. Which is itself worth only a few hundred calories. But i catch your drift mo. Im no meat hater, i just think its interesting that agriculture is so overlooked when we discuss environmental issues.
 
This is one reason I support the development of vat-grown meat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top