Comments Schrmin has made

This argument appears to me just another attempt to rationalize and justify meat-eating when it's clearly one of the most environmentally destructive practices humans engage in.  Moral animal welfare issues aside (and the issue of violently slaughtering billions of animals not out of necessity but just because we like the taste is itself a strong argument against meat eating for any compassionate individual), what the article fails to mention are the numerous additional eco-damaging side effects of livestock rearing that go far beyond the contribution to climate change including:

* in the US alone, 100's of millions of acres of (mostly public-owned) rangeland degraded due to grazing (erosion, soil compaction, reduced water infiltration, denuding of vegetation and replacement with invasives, etc - btw, cattle and bison grazing differ tremendously including vegetation preferred, distances traveled, time spent grazing, elevations and slopes grazed, efficiency of forage use, grass height remaining above soil, etc., and so the two cannot be equated in any realistic sense),

* the deleterious effects on native wildlife (grazing is said to be one of the single largest contributers to biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction, reduction of food, water, and cover - not to mention the purposeful eradication of wildlife considered to be "pests") -- the UNFAO report states "in 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, livestock are identified as 'a current threat', while 23 of Conservation International's 35 'global hotspots for biodiversity' - characterized by serious levels of habitat loss - are affected by livestock production," 

* destruction and pollution of streams and associated riparian areas - cattle trample stream edges and alter stream shape, destroy riparian vegetation, pollute the water, stir up sediments, etc., all of which negatively affects the aquatic life and the organisms that rely on it,

* deforestation, which, contrary to the authors suggestion, would undoubtedly continue since most is the result of grazing and not feed production.  The UNFAO report itself states "expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction, and erosion attributable to livestock activity."

* etc,

The UNFAO report states that the livestock sector is one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems at EVERY scale from local to global. The findings of the report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of (not only) climate change, (but also) land degradation, air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

So for the sake of the planet, not to mention for health and for the animals, be veg...it's simple.

An easy and cheap way to dramatically reduce the amount of water used at your kitchen and bathroom sinks is to replace the faucet aerators with low flow versions.  Typical aerators use approximately 2.5 gallons per minute, but I found that 0.5 gpm aerators work great...even in the kitchen (and that's 1/5th the water usage...or 1/10th the amount of Umbra's example!)  Universal-fit low flow aerators cost only a few dollars (and make great eco gifts for family and friends).  You can find them at some hardware stores, or you can buy them online:

http://www.nrgsavers.com/prodwater.htm

http://usalandlord.stores.yahoo.net/05gpmprcospn.html

http://www.conservationmart.com/p-293-whedon-05-gpm-ultra-saveraerator-ua1c.aspx

There're much worse things happening on our planet

than some people eating meat?  That's debatable (and even if there are it doesn't mean we should dismiss the issue).

According to the U.N. FAO report titled Livestock's Long Shadow, "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," and "the livestock sector is...responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport," (and this doesn't even touch on forest destruction, land degradation, manure, methane, water use, etc, nor on the seafood industry decimating the world's oceans).

According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.

Grist has touched on the meat topic before:

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/
http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/30/5/index.html

Here are some other resources:
http://www.earthsave.org
http://www.themeatrix.com
http://www.factoryfarmmap.org
http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID= ...

"nothing would benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert EinsteinOn Cheap-chicken ad from KFC hides true cost of food; here's a tastier, low-cost alternative posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

In an attempt to clarify a few points about vegism

(yes, once again)

The argument that veg-ism is ok for some people, but that it's an individual's "right" to eat meat is, in my opinion as a vegan, not only tired, but about as defensible an argument as "I accept your choice to try and reduce your negative impact on the planet by driving a hybrid, but you should respect my choice to drive a 9-mpg SUV because I like the way it looks."  Or I'd go so far as to say it's analogous to arguing that "I respect your pacifism, but you should respect my choice to brutally beat someone I disagree with."  Or maybe even "although you believe in equality for all people, you should respect my right to own slaves because they make my life easier" (crude examples, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point).  I think most would agree that some arguments are indefensible, and for many veg-ns, animal exploitation falls into that category (whether for food, clothing, experimentation, etc).

The way I myself and I think many other veg-ns see it, the cruelty and violence perpetrated against animals is as immoral and unjustifiable as violence against humans, so I can't accept the argument that it should be an individual's choice to eat meat (and please spare me your accusations that veg-ns care more for animals than people, that is not what I am saying.  Or that human rights trump animal rights...that anthropocentric viewpoint is why we are where we are today).  Of course meat eating is a contentious issue...people defend their dietary choices vehemently...and so personally I tend to try and lead by example rather than give unsolicited opinion, but when asked or confronted, I try to explain the veg viewpoint, at least as I understand it.

And the reasoning , I believe, that people like myself who are vegan tend to promote that type of lifestyle to others has nothing to do with feeling superior or passing judgment, but instead, at least speaking for myself, has everything to do with having reached the epiphany-type realization after looking at the issue from many different angles that the animal agriculture industry is massively environmentally destructive, horribly cruel and inhumane, extremely unhealthy for humanity, and exceedingly costly to society...and that veg-ism addresses all of these problems....and that those who still eat a typical animal product-centered diet have likely not really been informed of these issues, much less looked at them in-depth, and upon doing so will likely (hopefully) come to the same conclusions.  And stating that vegans avoid animal products because they "don't like the taste of meat," for example, just highlights this.  So don't deride us for attempting to inform others of what we believe is possibly the most important decision an individual can make for themselves, the animal world, and the planet.

And as pointed out above, I think it's exactly right that "social dietary changes take generations to change, unless catastrophic changes intervene," because animal agriculture is the catastrophe, and veg-ns are trying to bring about that necessary change...that's the whole point.

So please, before spouting knee-jerk responses to people promoting veg-ism, take a moment or two to actually look into the subject if you haven't...maybe you'll be glad you did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWNLvgU4MI
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/nutshell.htm  
http://www.goveg.com/  
http://www.ivu.org/  
http://www.brook.com/veg/  
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/business/media/29adco.h ...

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals"
   - Mahatma Gandhi

"Nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet."
  - Albert Einstein

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
   - Leo TolstoyOn Smaller breasts are better, and other advice for holiday-bird quandaries posted 1 year ago 28 Responses

That's not an Auflauf....

What's pictured, and the accompanying recipe, are crepes...in Austria we call them "Palatschinken."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatschinken  

The term "Auflauf" generally refers to a variety of meals that are made in casseroles and baked in the oven...like "Reisauflauf," which is a sweet dessert-style dish made with rice...it has an appearance and consistency somewhat similar to a cobbler, I suppose, for lack of a better example.  Here's a picture http://www.koch-idee.at/163_1-Rezeptfotos/Foto-Reisauflau ...  

There is, however, an Austrian dessert called "Palatschinken-Auflauf," where crepes similar to those pictured above are then placed in a casserole-type pan, ingredients like milk and eggs are added, and then it's baked in the oven.

Anyhow, just FYI for those interested.On Simple cooking can produce delicious results -- like old-fashioned Austrian pancakes posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Meat consumption overlooked once again

Well, I suppose I'll be the one to point out that the statement "get out of your car. That's the greenest thing you can do" isn't necessarily correct.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport," not to mention that it is also "a major source of soil and water degradation," both of which are also serious environmental problems but in discussion are overshadowed by climate change.  Not to mention that the meat industry contributes to incalculable cruelty, etc.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/30/5/index.html

And yes, we've likely all heard the standard arguments in response to this topic which have been extensively covered, even here on Grist, if you're interested:

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/

"Nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet."
-    Albert Einstein
On Smart-growth advocates offer tips for changing your neck of the woods posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Very overwhelming story...what do we do to fix it?

True, the scale of this problem, as with many other environmental problems, is monumental and overwhelming.  But there are definitely solutions, many of which are simple personal actions.  For example:

• Eat a plant-based diet (vegetarian/vegan) or close to it - the impacts of raising animals for food, many of which were pointed out in the article, are the biggest contributor to this (and most other) environmental problems (not to mention terrible for your health, and cruel and inhumane for billions of animals).  The majority of grain/soy/corn (80-90%) grown is fed to livestock...which translates into that much more fertilizers/pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, manure, methane, fossil fuel use, water use, land grazing, forest depletion, etc.  Animal production consumes an amount of water roughly equivalent to all other uses of water in the United States combined.   And seafood production also takes an enormous toll on aquatic ecosystems.  Even Einstein said "nothing would benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." See: www.earthsave.org , http://www.themeatrix.com , http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/ ,  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series ... (Altered Oceans)

• Buy organic products - organic agriculture is grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge (or genetically modified organisms and ionizing radiation).  Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations.

• Reduce your consumption.  Most consumer products require water use at some point in their manufacture, and in turn contribute to water pollution. So reduce, then ru-use, then recycle.

• Limit the amount of PPCP's (Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products) you consume/use, and replace those that you currently use with natural/organic products.  [A PPCP is "any product used by individuals for personal health or cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock. PPCPs comprise a diverse collection of THOUSANDS of chemical substances, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, veterinary drugs, fragrances, and cosmetics." Most of the drugs people take, and the cosmetics/perfumes/deodorants/etc they use, end up in rivers/lakes and our water supplies.  See http://www.campusecology.wsu.edu/page_055.htm for more info.

• Replace your conventional toxic cleaning products (laundry and dishwashing detergents/soaps/shampoos/bathroom cleaners/furniture polish/etc) with natural/organic products.  The cost of commercial, chemical-based products can be not only long term-health problems for the family, but also environmental pollution caused by their manufacture, use, and disposal. See http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1484 for more info... and also type "natural cleaning products" into your browser search engine

• Avoid chemical intensive lawn care (and instead plant water tolerant/native plants instead of the standard suburban lawn...a major drain on water supplies).  Toxic lawn chemicals pose hazards to human health, wildlife, and drinking water sources. See http://beyondpesticides.org/pesticidefreelawns/index.htm and http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/toxics1.cfm

• Avoid plastic (bottles/bags/Styrofoam/toys/etc)!  Not only is it toxic to your health, it's polluting our waterways.  The rivers and oceans are choked with plastic trash/debris.  Use natural products like glass/ceramic/wood, re-use whenever possible, and recycle.  See http://www.care2.com/news/member/101256935/423420
  

• Conserve water - use low flow showerheads and faucet aerators, low flow toilets, and energy/water efficient appliances.

• Educate yourself about these issues and contact your political representatives to urge them to take action.  See http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

And get yourself a good water filter...
On How the nation's breadbasket is poisoning its own water supply posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Rationalize it any way you want...

but the truth of the matter is that eating seafood these days is one of the leading causes of ocean ecosystems destruction and planetary biodiversity loss (and ethically indefensible, if you really look at how it's done).  As more and more fish stocks plummet into oblivion, we justify continuing eating what remains as if those fish species aren't next on the list to be decimated.  If you haven't already, take a look at the Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize winning explanatory reporting for "Altered Oceans," a series that revealed how man has over-fished the oceans and polluted them with trash and basic nutrients -- decimating advanced sea life, making people sick, and effectively reversing the course of evolution back toward "the primeval seas of hundreds of millions of years ago."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series ...

Seems to me that Brook.com is one of the few that really grasps the gravity of it all, and is willing to speak to more than just easily acceptable band-aid solutions to the unprecedentedly enormous eco-problems that threaten us all.  It's gonna take a lot more than just changing our order from Atlantic salmon to Coho salmon to save the oceans.
On All you need for summer seafood splendor posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses