Post by Hornblower on Aug 11, 2009 13:46:06 GMT 10
One of the interesting things that came up in last night's debate was discussion about the relative environmental impact of vegetarian and meat-eating diets.
Some of the discussion focused on Global Warming and the methane contribution of cows to the greenhouse effect. There is certainly evidence to suggest that Methane from cow digestion alone makes up 70% of the greenhouse contribution of agriculture in Australia, (http://www.maff.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/february/research_to_cut_greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_livestock) so it is not unreasonable to assume that this could be reduced.
While I think there is some merit to this discussion, far more important and relevant is another environmental catastrophe that does not get nearly as much coverage - the Food Crisis. Essentially, shortages in staple foods (pressures due to biofuels, env change, etc.) have been driving prices up, pushing somewhere around 150 million people into poverty over the last two years, and leaving just under a billion people technically undernourished - according to the World Bank.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that vegetarian dominated diets are massively more efficient when it comes to producing food. Essentially, the production of meat is incredibly inefficient if it is consuming otherwise edible crops - in the order of 5 - 30 times less efficient, depending on context. This is of course because one kilogram of food fed to an animal does not equal one kilogram of meat. Most of the food is turned into heat, and shit.
Think about how much you weight and how much food you've eaten in your life, to get a sense of the indirect relationship. The two articles below detail these ideas, first in a more readable way, the second in a lot more scholarly detail.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm
www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/664S
Interestingly, they make the point that a low meat diet can actually be more efficient, because there are types of land that are not suitable for crop production, but that can be easily used for animal grazing - I imagine like much of the land in Australia that is used for beef production. (though this is of course has it's own problems, causing land degradation and salinity.) As such, the counter is that while reducing the amount of meat in our diets is good, banning it all together may be stupid.
But in essence, they suggest that a state like New York could produce 50% more food by swapping to a vegetarian (dominated) diet. Pretty strong facts for feeding a hungry world.
Some of the discussion focused on Global Warming and the methane contribution of cows to the greenhouse effect. There is certainly evidence to suggest that Methane from cow digestion alone makes up 70% of the greenhouse contribution of agriculture in Australia, (http://www.maff.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/february/research_to_cut_greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_livestock) so it is not unreasonable to assume that this could be reduced.
While I think there is some merit to this discussion, far more important and relevant is another environmental catastrophe that does not get nearly as much coverage - the Food Crisis. Essentially, shortages in staple foods (pressures due to biofuels, env change, etc.) have been driving prices up, pushing somewhere around 150 million people into poverty over the last two years, and leaving just under a billion people technically undernourished - according to the World Bank.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that vegetarian dominated diets are massively more efficient when it comes to producing food. Essentially, the production of meat is incredibly inefficient if it is consuming otherwise edible crops - in the order of 5 - 30 times less efficient, depending on context. This is of course because one kilogram of food fed to an animal does not equal one kilogram of meat. Most of the food is turned into heat, and shit.
Think about how much you weight and how much food you've eaten in your life, to get a sense of the indirect relationship. The two articles below detail these ideas, first in a more readable way, the second in a lot more scholarly detail.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm
www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/664S
Interestingly, they make the point that a low meat diet can actually be more efficient, because there are types of land that are not suitable for crop production, but that can be easily used for animal grazing - I imagine like much of the land in Australia that is used for beef production. (though this is of course has it's own problems, causing land degradation and salinity.) As such, the counter is that while reducing the amount of meat in our diets is good, banning it all together may be stupid.
But in essence, they suggest that a state like New York could produce 50% more food by swapping to a vegetarian (dominated) diet. Pretty strong facts for feeding a hungry world.