Is reducing meat consumption an effective way to combat global warming?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
    Reviews of this issue

    This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

    Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

    This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

    10/1/2008 1:22:53 PM

    9/10/2008 5:52:57 PM

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

    9/10/2008 5:28:41 PM

    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.


     

    previous version of issue

    Is cutting down on meat consumption an effective way to combat global warming?

    • Yes
    • No
    9/10/2008 11:07:09 AM

    Time magazine: Meat: Making Global Warming Worse

    9/9/2008 5:27:56 PM

    observer.com - 

    9/9/2008 4:29:51 PM

    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.

    9/9/2008 4:28:05 PM

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

    9/9/2008 1:32:17 PM

     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.

     

    9/9/2008 12:57:14 PM

    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.