Now that we know eating meat contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere than cars?

Question

are the Global Warming doom and gloom preachers going to become vegetarians? It's only fair right? If I have to give up my vehicle and lose my job to protect the climate, Al Gore should stop eating meat right?

Answer 1

It's a good point that you make but allow me to clarify a couple of points.

The total contribution made to global warming from all livestock and all related practices combined is equivalent to the contribution made by cars, each being responsible for about 5% of the total global warming contribution.

The effect that eating meat has isn't so much related to the amount of carbon dioxide produced as a consequence but from two other greenhouse gases - methane and nitrous oxide. Sometimes people talk about carbon equivalances and this can cause confusion.

Both methane and nitrous oxide are much more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, whilst the meat industry produces a much smaller *volume* of greenhouse gases than cars do the overall contribution is about the same.

Hope that makes sense. Thought it worth pointing out as it's important to be accurate in the global warming debate.

Another important thing that we need to take into account is the additional burden created through cars and the livestock industry. There has always been livestock, for thousands of years they've been reared for food, leather and suede and in some places are even used as currency and in religious practices. Throughout all this time the associated greenhouse gas emissions have fallen within the capabilities of the planet's natural recycling mechanisms. It's through the use of cars and the many other products and services that produce greenhouse gases that we've now severely overloaded these natural cycles.

A question posted on here a few weeks back drew a credible response from a knowledgeable person who established that the number of beasts is the same now as it was prior to industrialisation. Back then millions of beasts were roaming free with few in captivity, nowadays it's the other way around but the same overall total.

Reducing the head will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the impact and perhaps this is something that we should be looking at. At present a lot of attention is being focused on reducing car useage but an equivalent reduction in head of cattle numbers would have the same effect.

I am what you term one of the 'global warming doom and gloom preachers' but I also beleive each person has a right to live their lives as they see fit. I don't condone people for driving SUV's or eating meat as that's they're choice. In return I don't expect to be condoned for doing what I do. One of my main lines of work is involved at looking at ways of addressing global warming without affecting people's lifestyles. It would please me no end to find a solution that allowed everyone to continue just as they are now.

Answer 2

Actually, it's mostly N2o and CH4 that are released by the meat production. The numbers are roughly equal regarding the effect of cars and meat production (slightly more for meat production counting soil, livestock, and manure). I certainly see your point. It is certainly a way to reduce GHG emissions and enable more food resources.
On the other hand, I don't think there is a difference between the "Global Warming doom and gloom preachers", and what you want to title yourself as. If you give up your car the equal response from them should be to lose their car too.
On the positive side, there are new markets forming as a result of environmentalism. New technologies, and possibilities give jobs. The change is that oil companies won't be able to take all the money while leaving the rest of us with the bill. We are still stuck with the bill but it will be considerably less if we act now.

Answer 3

Not really, because meat and its nutrients are part of our daily diet intake. Eating meat would only be a small contributor to Global warming unlike other major ones.
So just like we need our cars to get around we need meat to be nutritionally balanced. The world was aware of Global warming and its contributors way before its gotten this bad so I think if you can contribute in a good way and in just a small way then at least its something.

Why complain now when its become such a huge issue, its those who have ignored it who should be making a huge difference and encouraging others. Instead its others who are concerned with sustainable development.

So dont complain just contribute and know you are trying to make a difference.

Answer 4

Eating meat contributes more co2 to the atmosphere than cars than become a vegetarian than loosing our earth environment.Some of them don't care of the environment or global warming as long they enjoy leaving this short life.This people don't care how our future generation going to live.PLANT MORE TRESS AND RECYCLE.Tress produce O2 during the day.More tress means a nice place to live.

Answer 5

Al Gore would lose some weight if he stopped eating meat.

Answer 6

Al Gore has absolutely no intention of practising what he preaches. He's only peddling global warming for political gain and to increase the profits of his carbon trading company.

Answer 7

Al Gore will be given a free pass much the same as cult followers allow all kinds of liberties of their leader, like surrendering their wealth and teenage daughters...

Answer 8

The sequesterd CO2 in grass is released when it is broken down by cows or bacteria - or burned. I will continue to eat meat thankyou

Answer 9

Al Gore needs to check himself and his family. He's a fat pig, his son's a drug addict and speeding 100 miles an hour. How is that helping the environment?

Answer 10

I dispute that we KNOW that. Some people may theorize that, but I for one do not consider it a known and agreed upon fact.