Want to help reach 350 ppm? Stop eating meat!

With all the recent 350 ppm hoopla, I am astonished at the lack of mention regarding the effects of animal agriculture on, well, everything. The surrounding events hit all the basics — land, water, energy, pollution — yet nothing and no one focused on the biggest contributor to all of these topics.

It was like Al Gore coordinated the event (he who also failed to mention animal-ag in his documentary).

In 2006, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization released a report "Livestock's Long Shadow" stating that animal-ag is the biggest contributor to global greenhouse gasses — 18 percent at that time, but now believed to be at 51 percent (Livestock and Climate Change, by Goodland & Anhang). Furthermore, 80 percent of agricultural land in this country is delegated to raising livestock (Vesterby and Krupa, 2001), not to mention that livestock creep onto designated range-land and decimate public forests as well (www.fseee.org/appeals/frog); one-third of all U.S. raw materials are used in the [animal-ag] process: feed, water, fuel (E magazine, "The Case Against Meat," Motavalli). One mid-sized feedlot (dairy or beef) churns out a half-million pounds of manure each day; the methane that cattle and their manure produce has a global-warming effect equal to that of 33 million automobiles (Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Six Arguments for a Greener Diet"); the pollution strength of raw manure is 160 times greater than raw municipal sewage (John Lang, "Manure Proves to Be Massive Environmental Problem," Scripps Howard News Service, 24 April 1998). I'll stop there; I'd need a feature or two just to summarize the basic details. 

I know many people eat "free-range" and "pastured" meats, but would it not be greener to re-wild those pastures? Just because the land can't grow crops for us does not mean we need to utilize it to satisfy our palate. We do not need to, nor should we, eat meat anymore. The health implications are for another letter. It's time for us to evolve — for the health of our species, biodiversity and the climate.

— Joseph Jamison
Black Mountain

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

12 thoughts on “Want to help reach 350 ppm? Stop eating meat!

  1. travelah

    I am ging to eat an angus burger just in tribute to this idiotic letter.

  2. travelah

    phew that was close …. I coulda left a letter out of the other word!

  3. Bea Elliott

    A quick search on the web will yield a thousand alternatives to a “meat based diet” – Going Vegan is better for human health, better for the planet and certainly better for the animals.

  4. Carrie

    Maybe we should stop breathing, or at least decide who gets to breathe and who not… that will help our carbon footprint:)

  5. travelah

    Maybe we should stop breathing, or at least decide who gets to breathe and who not… that will help our carbon footprint:)

    Pelosi has that covered in her plan to desroy health care in the country. Oh wait, she will let them breath in prison but no carbonated beverages.

  6. travelah

    85% of people in this country have health insurance coverage. The real quest is to break down that 15% who do not into understandable numbers. How many do not have coverage by their own choice? How many are young people who have not considered health insurance to be a priority? How many are here illegally and not entitled to U.S. health insurance coverage?
    The sticking point in this matter is whether or not the 85% who do have coverage, employees and elderly, are willing to have their costs driven through the roof to meet the socialist desires of a Democrat statist regime.

  7. entopticon

    Nancy Pelosi has a plan to destroy healthcare. Socialist Democrats are conspiring for a statist regime. travelah the antichrist is undoubtedly a completely delusional, paranoid fanatic of the highest order, but at least it is a never ending source of entertainment.

  8. lilith

    While vegetarian diets are certainly helpful in reducing carbon emissions, not creating babies is more effective.

  9. chops

    travelah, the 85% already pay the costs for the 15%, it’s just hidden. Socialized health care would reduce that cost.

    On another note: it’s funny how an environmental issue will trigger a discussion on vegetarianism, then on health care. In a system where everything is related, it is easy to hide the cost of one thing somewhere else…

  10. travelah

    chops …. you are right that we are paying for the other 15%. I would rather continue paying that 15% than see my costs double in order for a statist regime to destroy what is already working. Instead, perhaps the more reasonable approach is to tweak the existing system to ensure that additional coverage without busting what already works.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.