Are global warming proponents who continue to eat meat being hypocritical?

Question

The United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Many people depending on where they live need to drive cars, but they don't have to eat meat.

Answer 1

This is a quandry for the weenies who worship animals above all else. The fact is that we would propably have fewer animals overall if they were not being raised for food. However, if they wish to not eat meat, as a Conservative, I respect their choice. The problem with most Liberals is that they feel a need to push their beliefs on just about everything and everyone. This is not Liberalism, it is more akin to Fascism.
As for the UN, it is composed of people who support dictatorships, slavery, genocide, antisemitism, female genital mutilation, and restriction of human rights. They are a corrupt lot, and we all must consider that fact.

Answer 2

No it is not. Meat is a natural part of the human diet and is a good source of certain nutrients.

The issue at hand is not eating meat, it is NOT pushing for change in HOW that meat eventually reaches your plate. Raising the animals in and of itself is not the source of the greenhouse gases - it is the creation of the feed for these animals, the machinery that is operated to kill the animals, process and package the meat and then ship it to the stores.

If we can reduce emissions in EACH stage, then we would be better off - just like you can make a CAR more efficient by applying new technology.

Those who eat meat, are global warming proponents AND DO NOT support measures to increase efficiency ARE hypocrites.

Answer 3

do not get me incorrect, i imagine AGW is organic religious bullshit AND the replace of brand call from the definable 'global Warming' to the massive umbrella 'climate replace' became an particularly impressive little bit of masturbatory pseudo technology yet... to be honest, Warmons do advise 'detrimental' climate replace. E.g. fewer or more suitable ordinary hurricanes do no in good structure the Apocalyptic variety. they don't look to be only searching for flooding & drought, they prefer the worst in recorded historic previous. So even as their modern-day call replace became in truth pushed by technique of a decade without Warming, This decade will, by technique of Warmon protocol, be defined because the 'maximum acceptable on record'. Now that 'record' is largely 100 and sixty years. And it a rather reliable wager the Medieval & Roman sessions were hotter nonetheless the Warmon issue is 'maximum acceptable' So yeah they are being weasels... yet those weasels are looking for 'replace' it truly is undesirable. Islands flooding & lifeless polar bears - no longer huge new croplands accessible in Siberia.

Answer 4

sure it's hypocritical. But a single volcanic eruption emits like 200 times the greenhouse gases that anything we make does.

Answer 5

Someone who says that global warming is accelerated due to human activity is only stating a scientific opinion. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

Answer 6

The greenhouse gases that are the biggest danger is coming from the UN and other environmentalist groups.

Answer 7

Global warming is just something to try to make gullible people feel guilty so the liberals can pass laws that tax them and control them more.

Answer 8

I'm a vegetarian who's working on becoming a vegan. And yes, I know that global warming is NOT a hoax!

Answer 9

Where does PETA stand on this one?

Shouldn't we be killing all animals to make the world a safer place?

.

Answer 10

Nope. Human beings are omnivorous.