Global Warming

 Medical News Today:

The popular perception of "climate change" is images of melting ice caps and dramatic rises in sea levels swamping coastal cities. But what most people are probably less aware of is how rising temperatures and increases in precipitation will affect global distribution of some of the world's most dangerous pathogens. As WCS president and CEO Dr Steven E Sanderson explained:

"The health of wild animals is tightly linked to the ecosystems in which they live and influenced by the environment surrounding them, and even minor disturbances can have far-reaching consequences on what diseases they might encounter and transmit as climate changes."

"The Deadly Dozen"

Health experts from the Wildlife Conservation Society released a report on October 7 that lists 12 pathogens that could spread into new regions as a result of climate change. All have potential impacts to both human and wildlife health as well as global economies.

These include: avian flu, Ebola (and its cousin Marburg), cholera, tuberculosis, yellow fever, rift valley fever, Lyme disease, and a range of parasites

 Looks like everyone's on board-ready to approve?

At least 18% of the global warming effect comes from livestock, more than is caused by all the world's transportation systems (cars, planes, trains, etc.) combined.
(Source: the New Yorker, January 22, 2007)

This was in an email sent to me from a friend. I can find a link, i'm sure. but for now, suffice is to say this is a good issue.

Time magazine: Meat: Making Global Warming Worse

observer.com - 

Oh, I like this one... there'd definitely be overlap, but I can see people feeling there aren't persuasive reasons but at least cutting down consumption would effectively combat some of global warming.

Good issue Jim, but shame on you for being so damn selfish!

 This is a good one!  There's similar issue in the Health section:

Are there persuasive reasons why people should not eat meat?

There was some evidence from this issue posting global warming as a persuasive reasons, so, there's ready made evidence for this issue, which is different enough to be its own issue.

Chair of the UN's IPCC says eating less meat will substantially reduce the threat of global warming.

The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.
 

The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.

Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

And Boris Johnson at Telegraph says thats not the issue:

Why, oh why will the modern UN say nothing about the real issue, the prior issue, the unspeakable truth that is at the heart of deforestation, global warming, the depletion of the seas, the destruction of species and just about every environmental problem that afflicts us?

The biggest threat to the planet is not the lowing of the cows as they take over the Latin American savannah.

It is the dizzying increase in the numbers of people driving those cows and then eating them. The world's population is up to 6.72 billion, and set to rise to 9 billion by 2050.

The UN's argument seems pretty convincing to me but I'm just not going to cut down on burger consumption any time soon.