Are Meat Eaters Who Oppose Global Warming Just Hypocrites?

Question

It is a fact that the world's cattle produces 18% of the carbon emissions which are introduced into the atmosphere.

This is a much higher contributor to global warming than planes, cars and all other forms of transport put together.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html

However, while politicians are keen to highlight the damage which planes and light bulbs make with regard to global warming they are loathe to highlight the main contributor towards this environmental degradation, ie. the meat trade.

Is it therefore true that meat eaters who are keen to do something positive with regard to global warming are in fact just hypocrites?

Answer 1

So by not eating them and letting them live we are saving the environment? I believe this species has flourished on its own before humans started harvesting their meat.

Answer 2

No, that article is spinning numbers big time. People can use that type of argument to say driving Hummer have less impact on environment than driving Prius. I've seen such a thing. The article defies common sense.

This is like people who keep saying Earth produce way more carbon than human. Of course it does. But it is human contribution that is causing acceleration.

The article unfairly credit dairy industry for carbon emissions. If it isn't dairy industry. Whatever industry that replace it will also produce large quantities of carbons into air. This is no magic. This is about how much we consume and not about what we consume. Doesn't matter if it is carrot or steak.

There's reason why that meeting held by climate scientists didn't point to this 'dairy industry problem.' Real scientists know this argument is very stupid.

Answer 3

Canadian scientists have come up with a new feed that lessons the amount of methane released into the atmosphere! Meat eaters aren't going away so we must find a new way to deal with the problem! Every little thing helps in the long run so calling people names solves nothing! I don't believe we are hypocrites man has eaten meat forever just like the air we breath so being that is a fact we are looking at new ways of doing things! So Chill!! I don't know any meat eaters that oppose global warming and they will not stop when there are ways to fix the problem !! You need to get your facts straight about this ,science is the way to go politicians are in fact working hard with the scientific community to fight this battle!!

Answer 4

Believing the good ol beeb again eh? They're not biased at all you know? Never believe the 'facts' about emissions or global warming, because there are way too many variables involved to make any definite factual statements/figures. I read cattle contribute 40% not 18% - who the hell REALLY knows? It's all way too complicated for any so-called experts to agree how to work out the calculations - THAT'S the only real fact!

It's very old news about livestock burps/farts that's been known by people campaigning against deforectation for years - the worst thing about it all is that we deforest to create grazing for the cattle, so give ourselves a double whammy in destroying CO2 storage while pumping out methane as a 'replacement' - where's the logic? Ask Gore.

Answer 5

So true. It is funny to read some of the answers. People saying that cattle would be here anyway, so it doesn't count. They obviously don't know the difference between cattle surviving in the wild and those bred and protected for slaughter. The numbers of cattle raised for meat foods and milk would never exist in the wild where predators would take them down. BTW, since I'm not a global warming zealot, I do enjoy my meat.

For those of you who don't keep up on this stuff...we're talking about methane production from the cattle, i.e, cow farts...not their transportation. Strange, but true.

Answer 6

i hit upon this complete argument line very doubtful. human beings say the emissions from livestock is a lot yet, each and every attempt to harness this capability has never come close to to attaining their aims and hence why maximum structures are changing to decision products e.g. waste nutrition. sure, Cows produce emissions yet, then so do people and there are a number of greater people in the united kingdom. I additionally discover it wonderful that those are the only animals we cite as being a difficulty. We evaluate them too ourselves a lots smaller animal and picture that we are someway much less polluting. Then we could look at rice. Rice is a heavy methane polluter with over 635 million plenty being produced consistent with year feeding quite some the international. Now they don't say cut back down on rice do they, so why meat? "The FAO discern of 18% consists of greenhouse gases released in each and everything of the beef production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm autos, and the front and rear end emissions of livestock and sheep." the priority that's that the record would not state how the information has been accrued. i hit upon it fairly perplexing to have self assurance that they are in a position to wisely say how lots fertiliser is used for arable or meat production, how lots emissions made out of farm autos is unquestionably for meat production. the two fertiliser and automobile use are enormous contributors yet, are greater heavily used for arable production. something tells me they have basically piled each and every person of those totals at the same time and have basically contain their idiotic answer of end ingesting meat.

Answer 7

Jungle...LOL

Unfortunately I've got to address this question! What are you talking about!!! Are you referring to the transportation and shipping of meat, the meat processing plants, what? Even if the WORLD stopped Eating meat(which isn't going to happen anytime soon!) commerce is still going to occur and businesses will still be shipping and manufacturing other products!

P.S. Those vegetables don't magically appear in the store; they gotta be shipped too unless everyone starts growing their own food! Thus there would be little decline in emissions because the instead of shipping beef they would be sending produce! The only decline would be the loss of meat manufacturing plants!

Answer 8

Kill the cows now! The veggies want it!!

The greenhouse gas cows expel is methane, not carbon dioxide, just like you and me really.

Cattle in their various forms domesticated and wild are a natural inhabitant of planet earth which has coped perfectly well with their presence for however many tens/hundreds of thousands of years they've been around. Yes one could argue that there are more of them than ever before but then the human population is as great as it has ever been, time for a cull of the non believers I think.

What has really screwed things up are humans with our cars, power stations and industries belching out billions of tons of carbon dioxide unnaturally for the past century or more.

Answer 9

Has anyone actually proved that Global Warming is man made and not a naturally occuring phenomena in the Earth`s long and varied history.

Answer 10

Look, - We're ALL Hypocrites...- You can't LIVE in the US & have the Standard of Living we do, and NOT be hypocritical. -So get off the "backs" of your "pet" targets- because you're going to be JUST as "guilty" as THEY are- in some other way. When you give up your car(s), live in a "green" house, grow your OWN food, and walk or bike to work every day- THEN you can come to me & complain about which hypocrites are WORSE. Otherwise- I'm not impressed.

Answer 11

Sheesh! You Food Fascists are just a waste of site space. And the political types are just as bad. You are the first no -goer of this type on this site for some time. Take heart, however, at least you fall into both of these categories so you are likely to get plenty of answers. I hope you enjoy them.