"The Carnivore's Dilema"

[kali]

What we are dealing with here, is a recurrent theme among the omnivorous population:

Justification for meat eating.

Which comes in the form of....
-Semi-Vegetarians
-Free range
-'Meatless Mondays'
-etc....

thats not exactly an activists wet dream i know, but ill go with it cuz its better than the omnivorous, caged/battery hens & the monday - friday meat centric world we have now.

[queenarmadillo]

I actually think it is a very sensible and well argued article. The only bit I would take exception to is the idea that vegetarians need soy for protein.
In all other respects, he is completely correct.
It is absolutely ridiculous for vegetarians eating coffee from africa and rice from india and bananas from the carribean to try to take the moral high ground on environmental eating.
The four points which I thought he was arguing were that:
1) It is better from an environmental perspective to be eating locally sourced animal products than plant items flown half way accross the world;
2) that whilst we always blame Mcdonalds for deforestation, there has in fact been a lot to clear land for arable farming too which rarely seems to be mentioned when people are explaining how eating meat is bad for the environment;
3) that free range animal farming on an appropriate area of land is much better for the land and the ecosystem than crop farming; and
4) that cattle can be raised in ways that are much less harmful to the environment than those ways in most common use at present.

I cant see anything wrong with any of these points.

The tone of the article seems anti-vegetarian, but I suspect that is to do with his irritation with the hypocricy and mis-education of the (usually veg*n) environmentalists who argue that vegetarianism is the only way to live an environmentally friendly life rather than as an attack against people's choice to be vegetarian per se.

[Sevenseas]

It is absolutely ridiculous for vegetarians eating coffee from africa and rice from india and bananas from the carribean to try to take the moral high ground on environmental eating.

[..] plant items flown half way accross the world; [..]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/08...n-my-mind.html

[MrFalafel]

I actually think it is a very sensible and well argued article. The only bit I would take exception to is the idea that vegetarians need soy for protein.
In all other respects, he is completely correct.
It is absolutely ridiculous for vegetarians eating coffee from africa and rice from india and bananas from the carribean to try to take the moral high ground on environmental eating.
The four points which I thought he was arguing were that:
1) It is better from an environmental perspective to be eating locally sourced animal products than plant items flown half way accross the world;
2) that whilst we always blame Mcdonalds for deforestation, there has in fact been a lot to clear land for arable farming too which rarely seems to be mentioned when people are explaining how eating meat is bad for the environment;
3) that free range animal farming on an appropriate area of land is much better for the land and the ecosystem than crop farming; and
4) that cattle can be raised in ways that are much less harmful to the environment than those ways in most common use at present.

I cant see anything wrong with any of these points.

The tone of the article seems anti-vegetarian, but I suspect that is to do with his irritation with the hypocricy and mis-education of the (usually veg*n) environmentalists who argue that vegetarianism is the only way to live an environmentally friendly life rather than as an attack against people's choice to be vegetarian per se.

You're drinking the Kool-aid now, too, sadly.

The deforestation is to grow soy to feed cows which are then eaten. Waste much? There would be plenty of locally grown soy to feed humans but its all been eaten by cows which are then slaughtered.

What is the carbon footprint of a pound of coffee flow in from brazil vs the carbon footprint of a pound of grass fed beef that has been raised, slaughtered, packaged, transported and stored in your local supermarket?

How much arable land is used for crop farming with the crops actually going into cows and other animals for food instead of going directly into humans? What a huge waste.

Sorry but this meat propaganda has holes you can drive a truck through.

Some more points to ponder:

Public Lands and Displacement of Wildlife

Even where plentiful grasslands already exist, the cows will displace other animals and cause wildlife deaths. Wolves are killed to protect grazing livestock. Wild horses are rounded up and sometimes killed because they compete with livestock for grass on public lands. The fences put up by cattle ranchers on public lands restrict the movement of wildlife, making it difficult for them to find food and water. Where cattle congregate at riverbanks, their waste pollutes the water and threatens the fish.

While ranchers pay for the right to graze their cattle on public lands, the amounts paid do not cover all of the costs. All American taxpayers subsidize cattle being raised on public lands, as well as factory farmed animal products.

We don’t need more cows grazing on public lands; we need fewer cows.

Grass-Fed is Still Crop-Fed

Grass-fed cattle must eat crops when grass is unavailable in the winter or during droughts. The crops will consist of hay and grasses, but will still take land away from the production of crops that could be fed to people directly.

[tifftaffy]

Grass fed beef have a bigger carbon footprint than grain fed. That sinks the whole environmental benefits of grass fed.

I'd hate to read into this post that you're advocating FOR grain fed beef? If you are, do you know what feeding corn does to a cow?.... perhaps you should watch King Corn. They show what happens when you feed a cow the "better carbon-footprint" (grain) diet.

[Yamato]

I'd hate to read into this post that you're advocating FOR grain fed beef? If you are, do you know what feeding corn does to a cow?.... perhaps you should watch King Corn. They show what happens when you feed a cow the "better carbon-footprint" (grain) diet.

Not to worry. What I am pointing out is there is no such thing as environmental meat. I read so many posts on other boards (mostly organic discussions) that say "if cows just ate grass than meat could be sustainable". Any way you cut it (not meat, the argument for environmental meat), you can't be a environmentalist and a omnivore.

[Toast]

Any way you cut it (not meat, the argument for environmental meat), you can't be a environmentalist and a omnivore.

[tifftaffy]

Any way you cut it (not meat, the argument for environmental meat), you can't be a environmentalist and a omnivore.

I totally agree with you there... just another reason not to eat meat at all