Save the planet: Stop eating meat

The UN says so, and so do a growing list of school boards. Meet the new eco enemy.

by Katie Engelhart and Nicholas Köhler on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:00am - 88 Comments
Save the planet | Stop eating meat

Photograph by Mike Kemp/Getty Images

One drizzly Thursday last May, the townsfolk of Ghent, a Flemish burg of some 250,000 souls famous for its stoverij—a stew of beef braised in beer—gathered outside a centuries-old slaughterhouse in the town’s historic core to sample soy fritters, pick up a map of local vegetarian eateries, and to watch as a boy in a banana costume did valiant battle against another dressed as a beefsteak. This was Ghent’s inaugural Donderdag Veggiedag—Thursday Veggieday, literally—a weekly holiday from the evils of beef, fish, pork and poultry introduced last year by city council, which declared that the moratorium on animal protein would be “good for the climate, your health and your taste buds.” Said a representative of the Ethical Vegetarian Alternative, Belgium’s largest vegetarian organization and a partner in the city initiative: “If everyone in Flanders does not eat meat one day a week, we will save as much CO2 in a year as taking half a million cars off the road.”

Though meatlessness in Ghent each Thursday is encouraged rather than required, the policy has made vegetarianism pervasive: 95 per cent of the city’s children at 35 local schools, as well as the city’s elected councillors and civil servants, now submit to the Veggiedag menu each week. One poster promoting the policy depicts a polar bear adrift on a shrunken hunk of ice declaring with relief: “Oef! It’s Thursday.”

Donderdag Veggiedag was a global first, putting medieval Ghent on the cutting edge of efforts to combat climate change by changing the way people eat. But elsewhere, too, the moderate meat movement is gaining ground. A Meatless Mondays organization founded in the U.S. has now opened branches in Holland, Finland, Canada, Taiwan and Australia. Following Ghent’s lead, cities like São Paulo and Tel Aviv have created city-wide schemes. Last year, Baltimore became the first city in North America to mandate Meatless Mondays in its school cafeterias, for environmental as well as health reasons. A similar proposal has just been made for New York City schools.

Meanwhile, meatless manifestos are topping bestseller lists, from food phenom Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, with its subtle suggestion, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,” to American novelist Jonathan Safran Foer’s painfully graphic anti-meat treatise, Eating Animals. Dwelling on all the nasty details of the livestock industry, Safran Foer reminds us that even meat from humanely raised cattle “came from an animal who, at best—and it’s precious few who get away with this—was burned, mutilated and killed for the sake of a few minutes of human pleasure.”

Star power, too, is focusing more attention on the cause. In December, former Beatle and long-time animal rights crusader Sir Paul McCartney appeared before the European Parliament in Brussels to back his Meat Free Monday campaign, which seeks to cut CO2 emissions by encouraging people to go meatless once a week. An impressive score of celebrity endorsements followed, from such luminaries as singer Chris Martin, actor Alec Baldwin, ’60s-era model Twiggy, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore and, most recently, American Idol judge Simon Cowell. Gwyneth Paltrow issued a meatless edition of GOOP, her Internet newsletter, featuring a column by McCartney.

For centuries, people have debated the ethics of killing for food (one clearly carnivorous Stoic philosopher, Chrysippus, wrote in the third century BCE that the purpose of an animal’s soul was simply to keep the meat fresh). New is the focus on the environmental consequences of meat—one rooted in science. Meatless proponents often refer to a 2009 study by researchers at the University of Chicago that suggests the vegan diet is a more effective way of curbing climate change than driving a hybrid car. Or, for that matter, a 2008 Carnegie Mellon report that suggests that eschewing meat beats eating local. And they’re quick to draw comparisons with more conventional ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions—things like public transit or switching off the lights. One oft repeated number is Carnegie Mellon researcher Christopher Weber’s calculation that forgoing red meat for veggies just a day a week would save 1,860 km of driving a year (assuming the car did 10.6 km per litre of gas).

The numbers are compelling. According to one exhaustive report, “Livestock’s long shadow,” released in 2006 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock accounts for 18 per cent of worldwide greenhouse gases, more than those emitted by all forms of transportation combined, and is a leading cause of deforestation and water pollution. Other estimates put the percentage of greenhouse gases leaked into the atmosphere during the raising of animals for food even higher. Last October, Robert Goodland, formerly the World Bank’s lead environmental adviser, and Jeff Anhang, a World Bank researcher, attributed a staggering 51 per cent of world emissions to livestock production.

It’s not just CO2 that’s at issue. Thanks to our appetite for bacon, vast lakes of manure dot the North American heartland, steaming nitrous oxide into the air, while the antibiotics fed to our sick, grain-fed cattle ooze into our waterways. Such vistas have led to plaintive requests like that of Rajendra Pachauri, the now-embattled head of the UN’s panel on climate change: “Please eat less meat.” Pachauri’s Nobel Prize-winning group has come under fire for a series of errors in its widely read 2007 report—including the faulty claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035—but its meatless message continues to strike a chord.

Bookmark and Share
  • Darden Cavalcade

    I love McCartney's music. I'm less enthusiastic about his carbon reduction recommendations…or his carbon footprint when he travels around the world in limos and private jets.

    • David

      Or, the fact that travellers can buy "indulgences" or carbon credits – the wealthy can afford this – just look at the number of "luxury" airlines coming on stream!

      If you look at our dentition (teeth) and G-I tract (Gut), we can see that we are omnivores, not vegetarians – like black bears, raccoons, and most primates.

      Good comment!

  • Poker Face

    All this talk about beef makes me want some for lunch.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I don't know whether Climate Change is happening, and I certainly don't know whether it's man-made, but I am consistently struck by how much like a religion – minus all the rational underpinnings – it is. And not just a religion, but the worst kind of religion in which followers proceed blindly with little understanding of why they must do whatever it is that they must do, or how such things are known if indeed they are known.

    It has its high-priests at Climate Research Centres around the world, and its Pope in the form of Al Gore. It castigates skeptics as morally bankrupt people who lack the character to believe. It has its indulgences, bought and sold, in the form of "carbon offsets". It preaches guilt not merely for deeds done, but for being human – for every human draws breath and consumes energy, thus participating in the original sin of their "carbon footprint". It has its heretics and its pious believers. It tries to control nations and industries, forcing them to acquiesce to its ritualistic practices or face penalties. It preaches self-denial with respect to comforts and consumption, not for building strength of character or to make amends for misdeeds, but for the sake of an inanimate planet. Where other religions preach that sex must be accompanied by acceptance of the purpose of sex, this religion preaches that sex must be accompanied by contraception. Now it preaches meatlessness – not as the temporary abstinence used by other religions (particularly this week) to focus the mind on things that stand above humanity – as a permanent state of affairs to preserve things that stand well below humanity.

    It's striking to a more traditional religious person. Most striking of all is that it has all the outer character (and flaws) without the kernel that makes sense of the whole rigmarole. That is the hallmark of a swindle.

    • boredatlunch

      i thought your post a bit of a stretch with the whole green movement as a religion thing but you missed one point.
      The real difference is traditional churches tend to be tax exempt, this one may get the ability to tax.

      • http://www.thepolitic.com Mark Peters

        Tax exemption only applies if churches maintain charitable status, as far as I know. Many are moving away from the charitable designation because the gains (tax exemption) are sometimes not worth the restrictions.

    • JoeC

      "I don't know whether Climate Change is happening"

      That one is obvious: it is. Anyone who really denies it… well I'll keep this nice. The real debate is over global warming. They are not synonymous.

      "I am consistently struck by how much like a religion – minus all the rational underpinnings – it is."

      First of all, the parallels to religion you're drawing are so loose that they could be drawn to almost anything – political affiliation, favourite bands, etc. Secondly, to argue that climate science in general is LESS rational than any of the theistic religions does a disservice to both religion and science, IMO.

      Are you aware that Catholics participate in the (apparently) bizarre practice of abstaining from meat for one (ONE!) day a week?

      I would suggest a lot more reading and thought on science and religion before making such broad, sweeping judgements. There's a whole discipline – religious studies – that has some fantastic literature on these sorts of matters.

    • Oliver

      You know you might want to read the artcile rather than write non sense after reading a title.

      As far as I'm concerned I think such a movement is a good idea: I love meat, I'm never going to quit it, but the arguments presented here do make a compelling case for reducing meat consumption.

    • Luc

      If you think that you're standing on "an inanimate planet" then you need to step away from the computer and go take a walk around outside. God's creation is exceedingly, vividly, compellingly alive if you can just go out of your mind (and back to your senses).

    • Just A Man

      When the CEO's of large oil companies go on CBC and admit to climate change being caused by humans you might want to do a little more research for yourself on that topic before shrugging off the idea. If you watch something bad happen and stand by idly you are just as much to blame as the bad person committing the crime…

    • Buzz

      "I am consistently struck by how much like a religion – minus all the rational underpinnings – it is."

      Minus all the rational underpinnings? That is truly hilarious!!!!

  • John D

    This is bound to get people all uppity and into a pro/anti-vegetarian brouhaha, but we could all do a lot of good simply by reducing the amount of meat we eat.

    • Mike T.

      Absolutely. I really like a good steak and I will never give it up. But it's so ridiculously inefficient to produce resources-wise that I try to limit my consumption. And despite what the sub-headline says, the idea isn't new.

    • JoeC

      A very reasonable statement. It's really not too audacious a thing to suggest.

    • richard

      Congratulations on being the first commenter to have demonstrated you actually read this article.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Anyone who really denies it… " is a heretic. Yes, I know.

    "Are you aware that Catholics participate in the (apparently) bizarre practice of abstaining from meat for one (ONE!) day a week? "
    Actually yes, I'm kind of aware of that practice. Weird huh? Ever ask a Catholic what that's all about? If you talk to one who actually does it, you'll get a hell of a more coherent answer than you will if you ask a climate-change-vegan.

    "Secondly, to argue that climate science in general is LESS rational than any of the theistic religions does a disservice to both religion and science….I would suggest a lot more reading and thought on science and religion before making such broad, sweeping judgements. There's a whole discipline – religious studies – that has some fantastic literature on these sorts of matters."

    I'm impressed that you were able to make those two statements, one right after the other, with a straight face. Ever read Fides et Ratio or the Summa Theologica? Compare and contrast to the IPCC report.

  • Chris

    Meat eaters and their rehashed comments are so lazy and predictable.

    http://www.goveg.com

    • wayne moores

      "Global Warming Loons"….oops I mean "Climate Change Loons", since there has been no warming since about '95 are sooo lazy and predictable. Cheers.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/theintellectual theintellectual

        though i am a skeptic myself, i must say you cannot judge temperature trends based on a 15 year period. geologically, 15 years means nothing.

  • MeatLovinSpencBC

    Thank you for suggesting what I should have for supper tonight. The pork chops look great. Think I'll make several pounds of BBQ chops tonight, just to pi$$ all you stupid greenies off out there. What utter Bull Sh!t

  • Robb

    There's room for all Gods creatures…..right next to the mashed potatoes!!

    • http://www.thepolitic.com Mark Peters

      Amen.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

      With a tonne of gravy, and if I am lucky-Yorkshire pudding. I am bbqing steak tonight.

  • http://www.thepolitic.com Mark Peters

    The foundation this latest absurd edict from the enviro-fascist nutcakes is CO2 and the "greenhouse effect." This despite scientific work proving the greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.

    The media has to get the word out about the baseless conjecture of the "greenhouse effect." The sooner we stop believing the lie, the sooner we can tune out the environmentalists who seek nothing except to control our lives, even down to what we eat.

    • Oliver

      I'm still left in awe of statements like these. And why is the greenhouse effect "physically impossible"?

    • JoeC

      If the "greenhouse effect [was] a physical impossibility", we'd all be dead. Or never would have been alive, more accurately. Look up what greenhouse effect actually means.

      If you're attempting to refer to the theory that average global temperature doesn't change, then you might not be completely wrong. However, that does not mean that altering our atmosphere has no effects. In fact, the legitimate scientists who take issue with the global warming data (and likely rightly so, IMO) and support the idea of a system that maintains equilibrium are quick to point out that changes in the earth's atmospheric content WILL result in climate change.

      In short, the earth's climate will change, perhaps dramatically, as it maintains an average global temperature. Remember, that's average GLOBAL temperature. It may well heat up dramatically in some area, result in vast changes in cloud cover, rainfall patterns, wind directions, etc., all of which may result in a variety of disturbances to human (not to mention animal, plant, etc.) habitats, political/social situations, food supply, etc.

      Honest scientists say that we just don't know. Anyone on either side who claims absolute knowledge is kidding themselves and others. What we do know is that climates change. Our IS changing. Arctic ice IS melting at an astonishing rate (perhaps due to changing wind patterns), sea levels ARE rising, etc. To continue to plough ahead like nothing is happening is just foolish.

      The way that you meat eaters react to someone suggesting that it might be a good idea to REDUCE the amount of meat that you eat, even just one day a week, never ceases to amaze me.

    • Jay

      Try taking chemistry, at a university level. Then talk.

      Focus on molecular bonding with respect to bond length, twisting, etc and how to measure them.

      Can you list the three top greenhouse gases and why they specifically make the list?

      I tutor as well, want some help?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

    Survival of the fittest. Line up the stereotypical diet freaks of the day and see who lives longer. ( LIVES- healthily, happy and able.)
    Anyone who locks themselves into a narrow diet will either need supplements or risk ailments for negligence.
    Climate change is happening but not likely by the pretences that are spouted so holier than thou about. a couple billion year old planet can not be judged on a couple centuries of loose data.

  • Bruce

    The UN has clearly outlived it's usefulness, it's high time that it was placed on a zero calorie diet.

    Glo-Bull Warning is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/theintellectual theintellectual

      DOWN WITH THE U.N.! the most useless organization ever created!

      • ignorance

        Wow can you guys get any more ignorant?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/theintellectual theintellectual

    us "meat eaters" get defensive because this vegan movement is getting more on the offensive every day. and the IPCC did not admit their errors in a timely fashion. they only said it several months and hundred thousand dollar grants after they found out.

  • JoeC

    "Survival of the fittest."

    What's that even meant to mean? It doesn't mean what I think you think it does.

    "Anyone who locks themselves into a narrow diet will either need supplements or risk ailments for negligence. "

    We all "lock [ourselves] into a narrow diet". Do you honestly consider every food item available at your grocery store? Do you go to the same place most of the time, or do you shop at different stores with cuisine from different countries regularly? I know that I don't.

    I'm a vegetarian, but I make sure to vary my diet with lots of different protein sources, as well as a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. I guarantee you that the average meat eater doesn't eat nearly as healthy or varied a diet as I do. I bet I'm also a hell of a lot healthier than they are, too. I have yet to see any evidence to support the idea that eliminating meat from one's diet causes any health problems (as long as it is replaced by good protein alternatives – there are plenty of them). There is, however, plenty of evidence that some kind of meat (i.e. smoked/cured meats) are terrible for your health.

    As well, most people don't consider that the diets of others who vary from the cultural norm only seem strange because they vary from the cultural norm. If we lived in a society with a vastly different diet, your current diet would likely appear bizarre and limited (i.e. "WTF is wrong with all these people who don't eat bull's testicles and monkey brains? What a narrow diet!").

    "Climate change is happening but not likely by the pretences that are spouted so holier than thou about."

    The truth is that climate change is poorly understood. Anyone who claims that they know for certain why or why it is not happening is fooling themselves and/or others. However, that's not an excuse to behave irresponsibly. We know that pollution and other human activities- CO2, mercury, deforestation, runoff, etc. – cause damage to us. Why we need any argument beyond the shortened lifespans and worse quality of life that result from pollution is beyond me.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

      Your plate is yours but please stop whining that I choose to have a piece of meat on mine. Fresh garden vegs and fruits in the summer and fall. Stocked vegs and preserves in the winter and spring. I work physically demanding hours that require fitness. I don't need a gym to burn the waistline. There's an outdoors for fitness.
      It's eating responsibly and not wastefully that needs promoted. There's a lot of vegetable waste that goes ignored on the way to your fridge as well.

  • Shikarpuri

    And I thought climate change denying religious fundo nutcases were a US specialty.
    Or are these Americans (courtesy of the global web)

    • Johh

      Climate change,that`s what you call it now?What happened to the term 'global warming'?Oh I know,it only took you thrity seconds to shoot yourself with your own logic,telling us that global warming is caused by everything and cauises everything,traffic accidents included.What bunch of hogwash.Are you nut jobs using wooden carts instead of driving yet,like you tell us to do?Have you completely switched off your electricity yet?Have you stopped using airplanes,you know,the ones you fly in and tell us to stop using?It isn`t just americans that oppose this,if you get out more and talk to people you would realise that most people don`t even support you to begin with,but wait,who cares what people think when they do not agree with you,let`s do it anyway.

    • wayne moores

      No, we are just rational, sceptical people who refuse to "drink the kool aid". Screw you and your eco nut fascist bunch. People are tuning you all out now and the more you name call the less credibility you have. One word: Climate gate. Have a nice day.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jjohnson293 jjohnson293

    Being a meat lover myself, frankly, I could live without meat for a day. More then a day, then it becomes a different story. Any who, I believe it would come across as a healthy challenge for many. From that, it could trigger a nation wide or even global wide health swing to a more balanced diet for everyone to follow.
    The bigger picture, though, for everyone, is that it would be a major environmental asset. I mean, the proof is all their, our own worldwide consumption of meat is increasing drastically as the numbers indicate. This simple but effective strategy could be just what we need to balance those environmental issues we're dealing with these days. As I'm talking in hopefulness in regards to this issue, it could as a matter of fact be a solution. A productive, progressive and constructive idea it would be to introduce some regulation on this effect.
    Also, I don't know if many people know about this, but their is an old catholic tradition out there which already supports abstaining the consumption of meat for a day. And that day is Friday. As it being Holy Week this week, some catholics abstain from eating meat on Good Friday to pay respect to the Jesus Christ. Some even don't eat meat every Friday all year. But that's one tradition some follow, just to make clear. Taking this in consideration, it happens to back those "Meatless Mondays" in Baltimore and those other "no meat" pitches out there. Pretty cool if you ask me. Maybe it's that simple; go through those old tradition of ours, and put them to good use in today's society. It just might work out.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WesternInterest WesternInterest

      But they eat fish instead. Wasn't eating fish condemned in this article too?

  • JimD

    "Safran Foer reminds us that even meat from humanely raised cattle “came from an animal who, at best—and it’s precious few who get away with this—was burned, mutilated and killed for the sake of a few minutes of human pleasure.”

    This is the kind of thing that really gets my ire up, because its complete BS, Where is he getting this from? There are lots of scare stories like this dreamt up to scare people into being a vegan, but eating meat does not even require any degree of animal abuse at all.

    I think its important that animals destined for the plate are treated humanely, which is why I buy mine from local producers that I know. The animals they raise ar given lots of room to move, sunlight and a relatively stress free life. They are not burned or mutilated.

    • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

      I'm actually reading Sfran Foer's book atm. He has lots of evidence and anecdotes as well as a reputation as a responsible writer and researcher. And while the bit that they've quoted makes it sound like the book is a full on vegetarian manifesto, it's more of an exploration of where food comes from and a condemnation of factory farming. I think they've sort of misrepresented his message in this article, actually.

      • JimD

        For the record, I am totally opposed to factory farming and do my very best not to buy products of it. I grew up on a hobby farm when at various times we raised chickens for eggs, pigs, and beef cattle. All were free range and lived a pretty good life until the day they were killed.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

          Did you brand and geld your cattle? I believe that's what's being spoken of in Foer's book.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

            Most are tagged. Funny most killing for food ideologues aren't decrying trimming dogs tails or cats claws to make them "better" pets. As a whole our ideas of what is right or wrong become warped by our own agendas, not our ethics.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            That's such a stupid argument that I wish people would stop using. Trying to portray it as if a person isn't doing something about every single situation that's remotely related to what they're talking about, they're obviously not that serious. The fact is that people have a limited amount of time and energy, and obviously can't concentrate on every single instance of the world not being perfect.

            It's like saying "Funny how people who seem to care so much about right or wrong on a website aren't decrying the genocide going on in Darfur" or "aren't decrying the killing of gays in Uganda" or "aren't fighting against the death squads in Columbia" or "aren't decrying footbinding in China" or "aren't decrying Catholic pedophilia" or "aren't…"

            You want to be responsible for everything in the world, you go ahead. But stop making false equivalencies to imply that because someone isn't going after absolutely everything they must be a hypocrite. It's a red herring argument, and not a good one.

          • JimD

            Very few cattle these daya are branded, as most are confined to pastures, paddocks or barns and can't be confused for someone else's out on the open range. And really, if we can't brand a cow or put an ear tag on it, what next? An argument that electric fences aren't humane? Occasional pain is not abuse.

  • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

    I'm a vegetarian and think everyone should be. But, I also realize that that's an unrealistic idea of many people; however, it's not unrealistic for people to think about the food they eat—where it comes from, how it got to your grocery store and whether or not you trust and support the companies that put it there. Once people realize the realities of the food industry, it becomes harder to defend continuing a way of life (i.e. eating factory farmed meat) just because it's what you've always done. So, while I do think we should all be vegetarians, I think it's better to start with a more humble approach like: we should all think about what we eat and remember that as consumers, spending our money is like sending a message.

    • Johh

      Spending our money is sending message and the message clearly says most if not all of us,love meat.Just because I eat a steak,does not mean,i need to care where it came from,how it was slaughtered,blah,blah,blah.You don`t wnat to eat meat?Good for you,just don`t expect us to put up with being told what to eat.Us meat lovers could make you eat meat against your will,but we do not, out of respect,because we respect your choice,so don`t stick your nose into what people eat and start telling us what we shoudln`t be eating because we never tell you what to eat.By the way,please tell your friends not blow up ranches and meat plants,please.

      • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

        I don't believe I said anything that amounts to "stop eating meat". I do think that vegetarianism is the rational choice, but that's just me. I won't force logic on anyone. (Although this article does have a rather polemic headline, as most articles do).

        You should always think about what you eat. And what you say. And what you do. And what you post in comment discussions. You may not NEED to know where your steak came from but if there's nothing wrong with eating meat, than why would finding out bother you. Especially if it affects your health and the health of the environment. Any decision as important as what you eat really should be a rational, informed choice, shouldn't it?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

      It might be noted that the calories from meat would need to be replaced by increasing cereal crop production of soy beans and other related crops to offset the loss of protein. Not all of the world's crop farmers care what it takes if the moneys good it's slash and burn the forests.
      Might be hard to support cheap produce as well.

      • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

        But we already grow boat loads of things we cold eat, we just feed them to animals instead of ourselves. Not to mention that we don't need nearly as much protein as we're generally taught that we are. It's also a bit of a myth that there are 'farmers' who are making these decisions about what/how to grow food. It's all giant corporations.

        Of course, nothing is going to be perfect and there will always be concerns but we can certainly do better than the current state of the food industry.

  • Oliver

    I second that "Genealogies of Religion" is a great read. Not quite as eye opening as Genealogies of Morals by Nieztche though!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    I assume Katie and Nicholas are junior reporters and perhaps should be cut some slack. But Nicholas, you recently wrote an article that clearly identified a bogus use of statistics wrt comparing carbon footprints of steaks and cars. The link is even provided under related articles.

    (Wheres the beef?; http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/30/wheres-the-bee…

    Then you and Katie mindlessly report the same bogus numbers and their kin in your article. I understand that you were cherry-picking the most audacious numbers around, but using your positions as contributors to Macleans to promote numbers that you know are wrong is a distinct failing in ethics.

    In one article, you have done a disservice to the meat industry by propagating lies, you have done a disservice to the anti-meat movement by overcooking their legitimate concerns and you have done a disservice to Macleans… one of the few places I tend to trust to accurately report facts.

  • Rob H

    Oh dear, junior reporters Katie and Nicholas screw up. As they used to say in the newsroom, "Get if first, but first get it right".

    It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling. The latest reversal of scientific “consensus” is on livestock and the meat trade as a major cause of global warming – one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to eco-vegetarian cranks.

    Now a scientific report delivered to the American Chemical Society says it is nonsense. The Washington Times has called it “Cowgate”.A 2010 report to the American Chemical Society by Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, has denounced such scare-mongering as “scientifically inaccurate”. He reveals that the UN report lumped together digestive emissions from livestock, gases produced by growing animal feed and meat and milk processing, to get the highest possible result, whereas the traffic comparison only covered fossil fuel emissions from cars. The true ratio, he concludes, is just 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in America are attributable to rearing of cattle and pigs, compared with 26 per cent from transport.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      The environmental impact of livestock production is not limited to GHG production. Nutrient runoff, ground-water pollution, and habitat destruction are other factors to consider. No one is credibly suggesting the banning on meat production. I think people are generally advocating moderation in meat consumption, and choosing more feed-conversion efficient species (most anything but cow) .

  • No one

    Two points to ponder:
    1) To claim grazing animals produce too much gas and waste fails to account for the bison (close cousins to the domestic cow) that roamed in millions upon the land that the cattle now occupy in equal numbers. And if animals with four stomchs produce so much waste, why worry about endagered wildebeast and elk populations?
    2) There are no reliable sources of Vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html. Supplements are recommended, an arificial solution in a supposedly natural diet. Vitamin B12 deficiency produces devastating physical and psychological symptoms, such as anemia & dementia. At the beginning of the 20th century, those who could not afford to buy quality foods suffered diseases due to vitamin B deficiency and were labelled as burdens upon society (google history of Pellegra & Beriberi). If meat is taxed as a luxury item, will the poor again be sidlined? Perhaps access to meat as part of a balanced diet should be placed on the UN Human Rights Code.

  • Al Stevenson

    Anyone who believes that stopping eating meat and going vegan or vegetarian should read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. They might change teir minds.

  • Dave Colwell

    NO!!!

    Just stop oil and gas exploration. The present quest for stopping the global warming trend, is the biggest scam of all time. Until we stop finding and processing oil, gas and coal , nothing will happen regarding our " world-wide CARBON FOOT-PRINT"

    Some countries ARE and WILL be burning the the stuff and will produce greenhouse gases. Just wait until the Arctic supply kicks in; we can then look forward to not only an escalation but also a nasty Internal conflict and all it may imply!

    Friend of Lovelock…..He is, seemingly, the only one who has got it right. Gaia will just shrug her shoulders after we are gone and carry on regardless.

  • http://vivisectionresearch.ca Anne Birthistle

    "It is kindness I want,
    not animal sacrifices."
    Jesus Christ

    "An act of cruelty toward an animal is as bad
    as an act of cruelty toward a human being."
    Mohammed

    "We are destroying the seeds of compassion."
    Buddha

    Animals die under hugely stressful conditions, however well they were raised (=organically,too):
    the stress hormones heightened by the unendurable days of transport and the slaughterhouse
    experience are in that meat you eat: is it any wonder that human health continues to decline via heart attack, stroke
    and cancer?

    • Yum! Steak!

      Unendurable days of transport? Hugely stressful conditions? When was the last time you were at my house, researching our system? I'm going to say "never".
      Perhaps you could be educated by making the effort to substantiate your claims with a visit to every producer in the country, before painting us a picture with a broad brush and a narrow mind.

    • Thinking Man

      "It is kindness I want,
      not animal sacrifices."
      Jesus Christ

      That is taken so out of context it is abhorrent (Look that word up in the dictionary kiddies) Despite that – Hows the B12 deficiency been treating you?

  • http://1f.my1.ru raliya1

From Macleans