Last Friday I saw the president of PETA on Bill Maer say that no meat eater can call themselves an environmentalist.

She stated that car/suvs account for 1/5 for GH emissions, while livestock farming accounts for HALF.

I remembered hearing the UN report about this earlier, but I guess it took two times to hear it for it to really hit home.

What's a hybrid driver's opinion on this?

Personally, I have been on an almost exclusive raw-vegan diet for 6 months (and lost 50lbs, btw!).

Ian

P.S. I'd also like to point out that I do not believe that this applies to hunters of their own meat -- strictly those who support livestock farming.

 

So what does a Peta taste like?

Bob Wilson

 

Chicken?

 

Dry and crunchy?

 

After a little research I think the PETA president
got it backwards.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dee...activities.gif

and

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...386/index.html
(see Data Limitations Section)

It looks like about 20% for agriculture and 50%
for transportation to me.

 

hmmmm.... Not sure about that first graph, but taking a pretty close look at the Australian government's Dept. of the Environment and Water Resources report, it appears to me that both PETA and you are wrong. To pick a random year from the chart (2003), the total "Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the agricultural sector" appear to be about 90 Mt CO2-e. Then if you scroll down the page to the chart on "Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by mode of travel and road travel" and look at the data for that industry, I notice that the net Domestic Transport Emissions by Mode, when you add all the modes together, comes out to 80 Mt CO2-e.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...385/index.html

That's not 20%:50% in either direction--- that's practically one-to-one! Looking back to 1990 the transportation figure is at 62 Mt, which might make it 2/3rds that of the agricultural mark, still around 90 Mt, but still not really close to 20%:50%

However-- these are domestic Australian statistics!!! Hard to refute PETA statistics with such a narrow focus. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, abowles, just that your cites haven't proved what you're saying.

 

I like Meat but i like the environment to i even stoped driving my car every day and got a bike.

Erik

(i still drive it if im going more then ten miles though)

 

I think if all of us animals stop flatulating for the entire year, then all greenhouse gases will be cut in half.

 

What's not to be sure of Leahbeatle? The first graph is
showing 17 year old data but approximates the 20% 50% split I stated, not the one PETA stated. The Data Limitations section I referred to
clearly states and I quote


Data Limitations

Nil known.
Issues for which this is an indicator and why

Atmosphere — Climate variability and change - Greenhouse
The agricultural sector accounts for around 19 percent of Australia’s net emissions and therefore, is one of the major drivers in our level of net greenhouse emissions. Emissions from the agriculture sector is a direct indicator for this issue.


Looks like "about 20%" to me.

As far as applicability, Australian society is essentially the same as the U.S. in my view, on a smaller scale. They are a modern industrialist state where they eat meat aren't they? They drive cars and work in big cities, etc. don't they?

I will find the U.S. data but the I suspect they will show a similar split. They are not that different from us.

 

Here is a link to the USDA which restates the 20% component of agriculture to GH gas totals world wide. What is interesting is the statement in the 6th paragraph that says in the U.S. agriculture contributes 7%. Hmmmm.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pro...=204&docid=310

Maybe we are more different than I thought.