Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:47:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > I found a few cool pieces of information that seemed relevant to grazing,
> > beef cattle, etc. These facts also point out the environmental benefits of
I think there are some points worth making here.
> > - About 85% of topsoil erosion is directly attributable to raising
> > animals for food.
Well...I would say that it is due to poor agrarian practices. It is
certainly true that most of the US is used to grow feed crops for chicken,
pigs and cows, but that in and of itself, isn't what leads to topsoil
erosion. Factory farms doing ever last thing that they can to make a buck
and letting their top soil dry out, blow away, and drain into the Gulf of
Mexico because it is cheaper in the short term than maintaing humusy layers
with the growth of occasional weeds is the problem. They should either be
forced or incented properly to steward the land appropriately.
> > - Raising animals for food consumes more than half of ALL water
> > used for ALL purposes in the United States.
I'm not sure I see how this is a problem...I just think the meat producers
should pay for the water purification...it's not like it goes away.
> > - Raising animals for food causes more water pollution in the
> > United States than ANY other industry, because animals raised
> > for food produce 20 TIMES the excrement of the ENTIRE human
> > population--230,000 pounds every second!
Only because the waste isn't used properly. Pig and chicken waste
especially. If the beasts weren't fed all kinds of noxious products, it
would be safe to apply to croplands. If it were applied to croplands it
wouldn't be poisoning the water and would be helping to prevent soil
erosion. It would be enrichening the crop land for future generations
instead of depleting it.
> > - Raising animals for food consumes one-third of ALL raw
> > materials, including fossil fuels, used for ALL purposes in
> > the United States.
OK. It should all be paid for instead of subsidized.
> > - Of all agricultural land in the United States, 87% is used
> > to raise animals for food. The average pure vegetarian
> > requires less than 6% of the land required to feed the average
> > carnivore.
Yup. And you'll see the price of meats causing more and more people to eat
less and less of it as our nation gets crowded...just like you see in other
more crowded parts of the world. For now, we're pretending that making meat
makes sense. Eventually, doing so would break the back of America. Long
before it gets to that point, the people will refuse for it to continue.
> > - Methane is one of the four greenhouse gasses that contribute
> > to global warming. The world's 1.3 billions cows produce
> > one-fifth of all methane emitted into the atmosphere.
I remain unconvinced on this one. I mean, your stat might be true, but I
bet we're only 200% over the natural bioload for that land anyway. In
nature, what uses methane?
> Thanks for those (pretty scary) factoids! They argue that the true cost of
> meat is a LOT higher than we are actually paying because the producers are
> - using subsidised grazing
> - using subsidized feed
> - not paying for the pollution they cause (water, air, etc.)
Not only subsidization, but the silly economic incentives that we have built
have discouraged small farms which are universally friendlier to the economy
and more _truely_ profitable! Instead we have made megafarms seem to be
more profitable with are nightmares both for the ecology and local economies
in much of the nation. I urge everyone who can, to buy produce (whether it
is meat or plant matter) directly from small farms instead of the grocery store.
> - and worst... not paying the ecosystem destruction costs of third world
> clearcut grazing
How much beef comes from Brazil into the US? I thought we were exporting beef.
> Are you personally vegetarian Dan? I've tried it but I can't stick, I just
> love a good juicy steak... How did you cut over?
You didn't ask me, but just in case extra opinions are helpful data points.
Once I realized that for lots of reasons (some of which you disagree with)
eating meat was immoral, it was easy. I don't knowingly commit immoral
acts, and when I backslide I try to make ammends. And since I'm not big on
self delucsion, what other course of action was open to me?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) It's only marginally helpful (although I thank you for the datapoint) because I don't feel eating meat (of animals bred to be stupid meat animals) morally wrong in and of itself, and I don't find doing things that are self destructive (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) <snip> Thanks for those (pretty scary) factoids! They argue that the true cost of meat is a LOT higher than we are actually paying because the producers are - using subsidised grazing - using subsidized feed - not paying for the pollution they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
