The Startling Effects Of Going Vegetarian For Just One Day

staggeringly biased report

Not to double post but come on! Doesn't she know how to write any other kind of article??

http://www.alternet.org/authors/8188/

I got rid of wife #2 when she went veggie. meep that meep!

Every time I go vegetarian, the effects startle me AND my neighbors

haha #2 means meep

4.5 million tons of animal excrement;

But that's the best part!

right now a chicken asked to smell your meep

She also has an article saying 'vegetarianism is the new Prius', which seems entirely reasonable, as vegetarianism is just another way for wealthy first-worlders to alleviate guilt without actually achieving anything worthwhile.

I'd really like to see exactly where these numbers came from. I'm thinking from someone's pristine, shiny colon.

" 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;

" 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;

" 70 million gallons of gas -- enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;

" 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;

" 33 tons of antibiotics.

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:

" Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;

" 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;

" 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;

" Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.

My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.

OH, bullmeep. The meep's sitting in the freezer, you mean if I subsist on a liquid diet today and everyone(what kinda stat is that?) did the same. Bullmeep meep stats. Eat meat be happy, suck my meep and we'll both be happy.

No-one at Linkswarm.com was convinced by the smug article.

If I date a vegetarian, does that mean she won't swallow? Since my meep(no pun intended) comes from an animal.

Only if she's vegan. Most vegetarianettes are ovo-lacto-spunko.

I went veggie today just to test it out. Asparagus rolls w/herb meeper sauce for breakfast, tofu burger for lunch with (you guessed it) salad and red onion and broccoli and chestnut terrine w/beet soup for dinner. It was okay until a little after breakfast when my morning coffee kicked in and the usual 5 minutes of reflective silence wasn't so silent. The kids went to live with their mother after lunch had my meep making motorboat noises. I just got back from the burn unit a few minutes ago. I'm typing this on my laptop. It was the only thing that survived the blast after the gas from dinner reached the hot water heater's pilot light.

^ lol, the sacrifices we make to save the world.

Color me confused... How does everyone eating leaves for 1 day, prevent cows from farting?

I went vegan for a year and a half, lost 175 lbs.

I'll lay off animals when they let me eat people.

Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian.

/thread done.

It's done when I say it's done.

I became a dedicated vegan over eight months ago and I've never looked back. Sure I'll sneak in some cheese every now and then, but I've never felt better in my life.

Color me confused... How does everyone eating leaves for 1 day, prevent cows from farting?

This statement pretty much sums up this entire thread, you are confused because your thinker is broken.

The meep's sitting in the freezer

Hahahaha, wow.

-1 by nurglets , stupid and wrong

nurglets, stupid and wrong.

Simple unweighted comparison, for arguement's sake: 1) In your head, map the process steps and resources needed to produce one unit of plant-based food. 2) Now map the processes steps needed for one unit of meat-based food

Which consumes more resources?

Now if you applied the % of resources saved to published metrics you certainly could produce an estimate that resembles what the author proposes. Even if she was only 50% correct (holy meep, two days of vegetables) the resource savings would be signifigant.

Like syriously gisse, stop being dumb.

The startling effects of poor reading comprehension and reasoning skills. God you guys are dumb.

Like syriously gisse, stop being dumb.

No u.

do you seriously think if everyone went veggie for 1 day a week all that would happen? that the meat industry will suddenly cut back on production, will hand over it's land to government and public control, and any other of those statistics would actually happen? realistically you can't say they will, even saying some bullcrap about supply/demand, income demands cutting back or whatever, the meat companies will just package up their products and store/export them.

My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.

newsflash, not every american eats meat for every meal all week let alone chicken, point being broadly applying statistics to the general public does not make hard facts.

How much of the land, emissions and resources saved by being vegetarian for that 1 day will be offset in land needed to produce enough crops for every single american, enough chemicals for the extra fertilizer and pesticides to be manufactured and how much vegetation and trees need to be felled in crop capable areas to grow the crops for them to be grown economically viable.

your cost based comparison is also flawed until i can pick up a decent vegetable meal when I want it for cheaper than a meat based meal. That cheap intensively farmed meat may not taste as good as an organic free range steak that's been allowed to roam half a state before being carefully slaughtered by a family butcher with generations worth of experience, but that cheap meat still tastes good, whereas that cheap mass produced vegetable doesn't really taste of anything.

also, are you aware of how much of america's crops are imported? I'm certainly not but i wonder how much this would factor into all those facts, sorry, statistics that are being put forward.

wow

No u.

No seriously, U

do you seriously think if everyone went veggie for 1 day a week all that would happen?

I think that a reduction of resources consumed would have a net benefit.

that the meat industry will suddenly cut back on production,

It would reduce the demand for meat, causing supply resources to diminish.

will hand over it's land to government and public control,

Not relevant, stop being dumb.

...and any other of those statistics would actually happen? realistically you can't say they will,

Yes I can

even saying some bullcrap about supply/demand, income demands cutting back or whatever, the meat companies will just package up their products and store/export them.

I think I see the speed bump that your little braincar is trying to chug over, I realize that trying to explain the spirit of the article would be a waste of effort.

The author is offering food for thought, that's the thing that your head should be doing.

My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads

newsflash, not every american eats meat for every meal all week let alone chicken, point being broadly applying statistics to the general public does not make hard facts. .

If you actually read the article she sites the studies from which she gathered the metrics. How else do you model the theoretical without using statistical analisys?

How much of the land, emissions and resources saved by being vegetarian for that 1 day will be offset in land needed to produce enough crops for every single american, enough chemicals for the extra fertilizer and pesticides to be manufactured and how much vegetation and trees need to be felled in crop capable areas to grow the crops for them to be grown economically viable.

How much?

Lots

What do you think these animals eat, meeping universe dust? The author is proposing that a process step in the delivery of food units be removed. Not feeding animals to feed animals.

your cost based comparison is also flawed until i can pick up a decent vegetable meal when I want it for cheaper than a meat based meal. That cheap intensively farmed meat may not taste as good as an organic free range steak that's been allowed to roam half a state before being carefully slaughtered by a family butcher with generations worth of experience, but that cheap meat still tastes good, whereas that cheap mass produced vegetable doesn't really taste of anything.

It is not flawed, and what you are saying here has no bearing on what the author is saying.

also, are you aware of how much of america's crops are imported?

How is this relevant?

I'm certainly not but i wonder how much this would factor into all those facts, sorry, statistics that are being put forward.

Your wallmart response to statistics kinda tells me something important about you.

The author is offering food for thought, that's the thing that your head should be doing.

also

<blink>universe dust</blink>

Oh, you craxy Europes.

Your wallmart response to statistics kinda tells me something important about you.

sorry, i should have prefaced my comments with that growing up in and around a heavily farming influenced area and knowing how agricultural and livestock farming generally works (by knowing and talking to farm owners) can give me a little scope to make an informed comment about ground level operations based on working facts rather than statistics.

What do you think these animals eat, meeping universe dust? The author is proposing that a process step in the delivery of food units be removed. Not feeding animals to feed animals.

obviously animals eat crops, but the percentage of a crop plant used in feeding animals is meep of lot more than the percentage used in human consumption, what that means if you suddenly want to convert animal feed cropland to crops for human consumption then you're going to need more land, sooooo i'll talk a little simpler for you to make my point clearer, how much out of the 3 million acres of land saved will the extra crops use, how much extra gas,chemicals and emissions will be produced in making the extra pesticides and fertilizer, possibly likely less than in livestock production, but how much will it eat into the figures? point being don't give me a set of figures that take one factor but doesn't involve other contributing factors.

unfortunately my 'walmart response' is one that will more than likely be shared by the public majority, given the choice between a cheap, easy and relatively tasty meal over the alternative, it may not have any bearing on what the author is saying, but it has a bearing on whether anyone would actually choose to do it or not.

Although having said this, everyone today would driving cheap reliable hybrid cars if the Great American Public spending habits were based on actually saving money. Everyone has been told for years now how much it would save personally and consequentially environmentally if they chose more fuel efficient cars (like this article is now saying about how veggie's can save the world) and yet only now are people slowly taking notice, yet it's more about $ per mile than polar bears saved.

also, are you aware of how much of america's crops are imported?

How is this relevant?

how much pollutants and gallons of gas are produced/used currently in importing crops, and how much would this increase, considering as the author is talking about global grain/crop production and local actions.

the author's right of course, i never claimed otherwise (just that the figures themselves don't ring true), but it's never gonna happen, it's already been proven time and time again.

I shouldn't have bothered typing this all out but my manliness has been affronted and pride overruled my English sensibilities.

ok, i'll bite.

obviously animals eat crops, but the percentage of a crop plant used in feeding animals is meep of lot more than the percentage used in human consumption

by how much? is that enough to offset the inherent inefficiencies of using crops to raise meat?

from here: Conservative estimates are that cattle require 7 kg of grain to create 1 kg of beef, compared with about 4 kg for pork and just over 2 kg for chicken.

you maintain that more land will be needed to feed the same amount of people, but is that really true with a conservative estimated disparity of 7:1 for raising beef?

from the same article: Land planted in cereal grains produces 2-10 times as much protein for human consumption as land devoted to beef production; for legumes the ratio is anywhere from 10:1 to 20:1

if the payout is so much more efficient why would extra gas/chemicals need to be used, aren't we already using those resources already?

if you really want to introduce the resources argument, what about re-purposing the 2,400 gallons of water each pound of beef requires or the elimination of waste produced by animals?

What mundhra said.

But duuuuude, you are like a farmer and meep (hvac) how can we know foodz?

your years of experience in the manufacturing business and ability to use google have convinced me, i am an moran and in the future not base any further ideas on personal knowledge and experience but on statistics calculated by a journalist from someone elses work.

surely, if saving the environment just meant cutting out meat for one day of the week, then the government/environment agency would have some sort of program to promote this fact if it were oh so simple, surely? not just put forward by one vegetarian using another vegetarian's work?

So basically you're saying the government is infallible and that they are the only ones that know what is right for us?

FART

a) surely your government argument couldn't be countered by the probability that the cattle/pork/chicken lobby might be displeased by support of such a program or that the usda food pyramid is heavily weighted toward grain products when nutritionist say otherwise or or or

b) the plural of anecdote/experience is not data. if you think the figures are bullmeep then please enlighten us. the site i linked to is a peer-reviewed journal, so come correct meepa.

Listen dude, dont confuse nurglet with any facts.

well that was meepin weird.

yeah, i guess you could be right, the government/lobbyists are being paid to keep quiet about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, considering the previous administration and general track record of government action based on economy vs environment.

you seemed to miss the point even though i kind of spelled it out, how much of her figures, (which i've said are not wrong if you're only taking in the fact that cattle production be decreased) would be affected by increased agricultural farming for human consumption, because as far as i can tell, you're assuming that the same crops grown for animals could suddenly be used for human consumption, and that's just like saying if we stopped making dog/cat food we could use it to feed the third world, yes it's edible but its just not right, and you seem to be thinking that the one day people won't be eating meat, all they'll be eating is grain and not other crop vegetables which may or may not need to be imported. you cut back on one but increase the other, what's the end result?

you're blindly assuming the figures take everything into account, whilst I'm questioning the fact that while they're focusing on cattle reduction, are they taking the knock on effects of if it into consideration, no where does it state it. The only other material related to the guy who's figure's are being used in the article i can find is him telling jews to go veggie.

I can see you knuckleheads are locked into your usual 'ignore the question, post googled links' mode, so until you come up with something that says either yes, every american doesn't just need to eat grain solely for one day a week for the veggie stats to work and that the stats in the article won't be effected by the consequences of increased vegetable farming (hint, not all crops are farmed the same way), I'll just leave it at that.

Holy meep dude, mundhra literally pointed at a meeping 7 part peer-reviewed scientific journal with 131 cited references that addressed your points exactly and all you respond with is 'duuuurrrrrp google duuuurp'.

You missed the point, missed it in a huge way.

NOBODY IS SAYING MAKE PPL EAT COW FOOD YOU meepING RETARD, THEY ARE SAYING A COMBINATION OF LAND/WATER OPTIMIZATION AND A REDUCTION OF WASTE IN GENERAL (PROCESS WASTE) WOULD HAVE A NET BENEFIT ON THE WORLD.

I dont see how the question is ignored, we are kinda beating it to death. It is like I'm saying that shoe-wearing is a best-practice when walking across broken glass and you are lecturing the readers about meeping socks.