I agree we should get a tax break (along with discounts on our health insurance) but how would we ever be able to stop omnivores from lying about their diets?

Posted by: Kelley | May 30, 2007 01:40 PM

How true, Kelley. But either way, it's a good idea.

Posted by: Canaduck | May 30, 2007 01:50 PM

All those animals raised to feed humans release greenhouse gasses, so eliminating them would help the environment. What about wild animals? If hunter bags 10 deer a year, how much carbon dioxide is he removing from the atmosphere? I know you're going to be mad at me, but isn't that the logical extension of the argument presented here? Avoiding raised livestock is good for the planet and should be rewarded. Likewise, hunting is good for the planet and should be rewarded.

Posted by: Htrg | May 30, 2007 04:01 PM

to Htrg:
animals raised by humans create greenhouse gasses because they are kept close on one place releasing their excrements in one huge place! wild animals are free to let their excrements where they need to - so your statement that hunting should be rewarded is completely wrong and mentally deficient - there is just one advice i can give you: before you put a comment for the next time pls use your brains if you got some!

Posted by: jimmy the shark | May 30, 2007 04:22 PM

i think kelly has a point, maybe we should use recycled paper punch cards to keep track of vegan purchases and non vegan purchases

Posted by: kaitlin | May 30, 2007 04:43 PM

shark,

Isn't it the livestock flatulence that contributes to Global Warming? It all goes into the same atmosphere, so why should it matter if they fart together in a confined group or roam around farting freely? Are domestic livestock notably more flatulent that wild game?
Maybe you know more about this than I. Please enlighten me.

Posted by: Htrg | May 30, 2007 04:46 PM

it isnt just about the animals farting. how about manour lagoons, the amount of energy required to run the machines needed in oreder to kill the animals etc etc

i can go on for a while but if you are really interested just google it...

Posted by: doug | May 30, 2007 09:55 PM

Htrg, you make good points but to take it a little further, why will the amount of fauna change if people stopped eating meat? And thus the amount of excreta remaining the same.
Will animal groups be seeking the extermination of all ruminants to allay their global warming concerns?

Posted by: rojo | May 31, 2007 09:56 AM

to Htrg:
it's the mass of excrements which causes the poisonous gasses - in a forest you never see tenthousand animals together - isn't it?

Posted by: jimmy the shark | May 31, 2007 10:35 AM

Animal waste is a huge polluter, and yes the animals flatuence is another. But don't forget about all the emissions from the trucks shipping these poor animals across the country, from birth to feeding lots to the slaughterhouse, to the stores, etc. Then there's the huge amounts of land used for grazing. The majority of North America's fresh water is used for livestock, not to mention to grow huge amounts of grain to feed them. The list of enviroment problems with the meat industry goes on and on and on.

Posted by: Halv | May 31, 2007 12:32 PM

Hmmm, is it an issue of shear numbers (how many cattle), or is it that they're all crammed together? It would be interesting to see stats comparing the greenhouse gasses that different animals give off per pound of meat. I'm sure it's different for cattle, poultry, and deer. Maybe wild deer don't give off as much, but it must help some to have hunters thin out their herds, especially if they then eat the wild meat instead of buying domestically raised. That would be like killing two birds with one stone.

Posted by: Htrg | May 31, 2007 12:40 PM

What about trapping the gasses that the animals produce and then using them to generate power? Aren't some people doing that? I think they're calling it "poo power". Anyone heard of this? I guess it depends on how efficiently can they capture the gasses.

Posted by: Htrg | May 31, 2007 12:47 PM

Kelley is absolutely correct, that would be completely impossible to regulate. Maybe we should ask the govt. to give tax breaks to fruit and veggie farmers instead?

By the way, for environmental causes, we should be pushing for a carbon tax. That way ALL vehicles will be responsible for their contribution to climate change.

Don't forget that buildings actually produce more CO2 than cars.

Posted by: Maya | May 31, 2007 01:33 PM

Well, if you can have a carbon tax, you can have a methane tax. It wouldn't just be meat though. Irrigation for farming, particularly the flood irrigation needed for rice farming, releases methane too. Not sure how much, but it's some.

Posted by: Htrg | May 31, 2007 02:30 PM

What about methane capture? How much of a difference does that make?

Posted by: Htrg | May 31, 2007 02:39 PM

Kso, about cars...
I'm assuming the PETA members drive cars. You OBVIOUSLY don't get leather, right, so do all of you have cloth? Or can they make cars with pleather?

Posted by: Tay | June 2, 2007 02:02 AM