Stop eating meat to help climate change : UN

[Rog]

People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN's top climate scientist.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief

[ashy]

You're subscribed to the BBC news feed too aren't you? I read your post from the rss of this forum, though "hmm" then found the exact story in my reader!

I've often wondered about vegetarianism. I'm not a vegetarian, but I can't find any real reasons not to be. I just like meat. I can't justify it, and I know that there'd be all kinds of benefits not to eat meat (this is another in a long list) but I just can't bring myself to do it!

[August]

Heh!

Ashy, I've got the exact same problem myself. It's like I can't understand my own way of thinking. What I need meat for? It's impossible to say. But I like it, uh.

[arno]

Pretty well known that eating meat isn't too good for the environment. Not sure quite what can be done to stop people eating so much meat though.

[Rog]

Originally Posted by ashy

You're subscribed to the BBC news feed too aren't you? I read your post from the rss of this forum, though "hmm" then found the exact story in my reader!

That's right. Often got some decent eco stories on there

[ashy]

Originally Posted by August

Heh!

Ashy, I've got the exact same problem myself. It's like I can't understand my own way of thinking. What I need meat for? It's impossible to say. But I like it, uh.

It's quite ridiculous, isn't it? If I can't get over eating meat, how can I claim to others that we should be taking all reasonable steps?

I don't need to eat meat. I don't need animals to die for me to live. I know I'd probably be healthier if I didn't eat meat, and it would be better for the environment and all, but it's just so natural for me to eat meat!

It's really bugging me as well! It doesn't really bode well...

Meh, burgers tonight

Originally Posted by Rog

That's right. Often got some decent eco stories on there

It's pretty good. I've grown to love my feed reader. I'm waiting to get my site to such a state that I can justify blogging on it - I'd love to discuss these articles in more detail sometimes rather than going "huh, that's interesting". I'm never really sure what's relevant to post on here, either

[JustTheFacts]

Hello People. Humans are omnivores. We have pointed canines. We do not have massive grinding teeth and huge jaw muscles. Nor do we have multiple stomachs for processing vegetation. I am going to stay a card carrying member of PETA - People for Eating Tasty Animals.

[Robert Northup]

To produce our warm-blooded livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.) we dedicate enormous amounts of cropland to grow animal feed. To maintain warm body temperature, the vast majority of the calories taken in by our livestock do not go toward growth, but just respiration (and CO2 release). Cold-blooded livestock (aquaculture of fish, shrimp, oysters, etc.) are about five times as efficient at turning feed into meat. In other words, the same area of cropland dedicated to growing animal feed can produce five times as much meat if we feed to to cold-blooded livestock rather than our warm-blooded favorites. There are also some compelling health-related arguments for increasing our consumption of cold-blooded meat to replace warm-blooded meat in our diet.

[addict]

Climate change, if there is such a thing will only be tackled by a reduction in peoples on this blue planet, the powers that be suggest this and they suggest that, they tax this and tax that. If the Government want to reduce the co2 then they can start by reducing the population of Britain to sustainable levels. You can not reduce co2 level by increasing taxes, and at the same time increasing the population. the greater the population the higher the Co2.

[August]

While I might agree with you, in theory, that a reduction of the world population would be the perfect solution to a lot of problems, I can inform you that the population explosion is a natural phenomenon that is going to continue to take place until it is becoming "normal" for all human females, regardless of cultural background, to give birth to no more than one or two children each. The UN (and the US Census Bureau) seems to be hopeful that this is going to be the case sometime around 2050: that the world population will start stabilizing by then, at which point the world population will have reached 9+ billion people: a 40 percent increase as compared to the 6.7 billion people who are around today. 2.5 - 3 billion people will be added to the world population in the next fifty years. Which will be the equivalent of adding one China, one India, and then some.

An aggressive and effective family planning program would not reduce the world's population. It would only work in the direction of stabilizing it more quickly.

The idea of depopulation might be a good one, but it is not realistic! It is mathematically impossible. Not until the enormous number of children of today have become old women and men will the world population even start to stabilize! Population reduction is a dream that cannot come true. That's the reality of population dynamics.

All we really can do is try to make sure that the planet can support life and livelihood for 9 billion people or more. And I think it might be fair to say it would be much easier if we were all vegetarians.