I think it is important to compare the relative greenhouse gas emissions and land and water damage caused by American humans and farm livestock, per unit of useful food. To prioritise climate saving actions we need to know this.
You need to look at the whole world, four producers account for 55+% of beef production.
Or do we need to look at beef consumption per capita rather than production, in which case the USA is 4th instead of first.
World Beef Consumption Per Capita (Ranking of Countries) - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better
China is way down the list at number 47 for per capita consumption, but has the fastest growing beef industry in the world.
World Beef Production: Ranking Of Countries - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better
At over half the production of the USA, it will become the largest producer in the near future.
Or do we need to look at beef consumption per capita rather than production, in which case the USA is 4th instead of first.
World Beef Consumption Per Capita (Ranking of Countries) - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better
China is way down the list at number 47 for per capita consumption, but has the fastest growing beef industry in the world.
World Beef Production: Ranking Of Countries - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better
At over half the production of the USA, it will become the largest producer in the near future.
In that case, the most populated places should be looked at first and America isn't the first.Reduce animal rearing for food. Especially Americans.
Last edited:
In other words, there is nothing humans can do to change / reverse the global temperature rise and fall. Got it.Let's assume for this argument, that it's not man-made. If we know, from empirical evidence that the sea water is warming and more importantly rising, then take strategic actions to mitigate the effects. If you can't stop it from happening then meet the challenge head on! I'm not a climate guru, but starting to build seawalls in the most vulnerable places, relocate from low-lying wet-lands areas, elevated roadways in lower areas seems like places to start. Maybe stricter building codes in hurricane prone areas, etc. etc. These are mitigating steps, since there appears to be (at least in this group) no consensus as to the real cause. If you understand the cause we may be able to reasonably engineer a solution, or change a few habits to help ward it off or slow the progression.
Be sure it won't happen over night, nor is anyone suggesting that it will. It won't be cheap, nor easy either.
I've found out over my life time that almost all projects are more successful if carefully, and methodically planned. Ignoring a problem does not magically make it go away.
Now that you mentioned it, it takes human labor, exploitation in many cases, to produce and prepare vegan foods. That's suffering but it doesn't stop them from eating.
I've heard all sorts of greenhouse gases but am curious what your answer is. What is your answer of greenhouse gas that you knew when you posted the above quote (not something you are going to look up now)?
Not a single western european country in that list, except Switzerland.
A bit odd, don't you think?
Hard to believe that the EU consumes <0.6lb per capita in a year.
Well the total consumption by the USA is way ahead of the next. To improve the ratio needs either fewer cows in the US or more Americans. You decide.
Last edited:
Total consumption per capita of USA is fourth, not first.
I vote for fewer Americans. Then again I realized in 1968 that there were too many people already in the world.
Interesting note, discounting immigration, the population of the USA has been decreasing since the early 1970s.
" In fact, overall U.S. fertility is slightly less than replacement level and has not exceeded replacement level since 1972."
U.S. immigration, population growth, and the environment - SUSPS
Immigration constitutes the growth rate of the USA.
I vote for fewer Americans. Then again I realized in 1968 that there were too many people already in the world.
Interesting note, discounting immigration, the population of the USA has been decreasing since the early 1970s.
" In fact, overall U.S. fertility is slightly less than replacement level and has not exceeded replacement level since 1972."
U.S. immigration, population growth, and the environment - SUSPS
Immigration constitutes the growth rate of the USA.
How long ago was that? Just how old are you?One could feed the humans to the cattle, oh no, we aren't allowed to do that any longer, progress eh?
(finally I can deploy that hitherto unusable smilie)
Sorry, I get confused what with animals being people too, to some. I mean we can't feed cows to cows anymore These Videos Prove That Animals Are People, Too | PETA
These Videos Prove That Animals Are People, Too | PETA
Last edited:
The total is way higher and the per-capita may not be favourable if the US persons are themselves more polluting than others. I think we need some research on how polluting individual Americans are. Then we can decide who gets it - the cows or the capita!
You may argue this is a moot point. (groan)
What is the end result of improving it?Well the total consumption by the USA is way ahead of the next. To improve the ratio needs either fewer cows in the US or more Americans. You decide.
Since animals have been around before people, the proper description should be, "People are animals too."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.