Do you think people will ever understand this?
Too many people hide their heads in the sand and refuse to accept the facts.
How sad.

Maher and Newkirk
2008

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | September 28, 2007 06:28 PM

Typical inaccuracy from PETA, meat is not the no.1 cause of global warming. Fossil fuels used for electricity generation far exceed the impact of animals. Farmed or otherwise.

If PETA wants credibility, how about using the truth.

Posted by: rojo | September 28, 2007 06:51 PM

Rojo - do you have proof that the UN got its figures wrong in the recent report that demonstrated that meat production is the leading cause of global warming?

Posted by: DaliyVeg Editor | September 28, 2007 09:45 PM

So rojo, I guess previous scientific studies, coupled with the UNITED NATIONS' recent research are not credible? Yeah, the United Nations really has a vested interest in making false claims about the biggest cause of global warming... (NOT!)

PETA did not just make this stuff up because it sounded good - it is FACTUAL information based on science. Just because your (subjective) opinion does not coincide with (objective) research does not mean the research is untrue.

Posted by: Michele | September 28, 2007 11:38 PM

So rojo, I guess previous scientific studies, coupled with the UNITED NATIONS' recent research are not credible? Yeah, the United Nations really has a vested interest in making false claims about the biggest cause of global warming... (NOT!)

PETA did not just make this stuff up because it sounded good - it is FACTUAL information based on science. Just because your (subjective) opinion does not coincide with (objective) research does not mean the research is untrue.

Rojo, here is a really simple example to illustrate my point: I happen to think that chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream (though now as a vegan I would only be eating soy "ice cream"). That is MY opinion. I have read in the past that the most popular flavour is vanilla, based on various surveys. Now, I have a hard time believing that, because to me, vanilla is really BORING -not bad, just not a very exciting flavour. BUT, that is what factual surveys have determined, whether I agree with them or not.

So once again, research now shows that MEAT is the number one cause of global warming, whether you believe it or not. That is the TRUTH, whether you believe it or not.

Posted by: Michele | September 28, 2007 11:48 PM

When I became vegetarian almost 25 years ago, nobody talked about global warming, but there was a lot of information about the positive environmental impact of eating a meat-free diet.

Take water for example. It takes approximately 12,009 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef compared to 60 gallons to produce a pound of potatoes.

Meat animals are almost exclusively raised in factory farms with lights and equipment running 24/7. I am sure the fossil fuel consumption to produce that much electricity is staggering.

The effort to reduce my impact on the environment doesn't stop with eating a vegetarian diet. I changed to fluorescent lighting, added insulation and energy-efficient windows, keep lights off and appliances unplugged when not needed, work from home and drive very little, and have plans to convert to solar energy.

I do believe the UN report. It makes sense to me. But for the sake of argument, say we have no idea if animal agriculture ranks 2nd or 57th on the global warming cause scale; isn't there enough evidence to cause an environmentally-conscious individual to consider changing his or her diet?

Posted by: Karen | September 28, 2007 11:51 PM

to rojo,

try reading "Livestock's Long Shadow" an FAO-UN report indicating that the meat industry contributes more greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) than the automotive industry. it is you who need to read more.

Posted by: Archie | September 29, 2007 03:49 AM

ROJO:

I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble but you can find the United Nations report stating that raising livestock produces more greenhouse gasses than transportation at the Farming & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website: www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Posted by: Janet Fitzgerald | September 29, 2007 04:00 AM

Sorry Rojo,

May have missed something but where does it say in this post that "meat is the No.1 cause of global warming"??

Posted by: What | September 29, 2007 04:24 AM

Awesome campaign! Way to get some attention to the issue!

Posted by: Curtis | September 29, 2007 06:43 AM

hi big chicken u look silly how old are you

Posted by: Yasmine causer | September 29, 2007 07:20 AM

deal with it rojo

Posted by: alex | September 29, 2007 07:23 AM

Those who refuse to accept the fact that raising animals for the frivolous purpose of eating them shows proof of only one thing: they are meat/egg/dairy consumers who refuse to step out of their comfort zones. By choosing to ignore that little voice in the back of their consciences that tells them that consuming animals is wrong, they do a vast disservice, not only to themselves, but to our planet as well, and especially to the animals who are the innocent victims of their indifference.

Posted by: Maryanne Appel | September 29, 2007 08:38 AM

Rojo:
Read the UN report! It says that the meat "industry" is the #1 cause of global warming. Argue about it with them.

Great demonstration, chickens and Hummer! Right to the point!

Posted by: Susannah S | September 29, 2007 09:11 AM

rojo you become boring: there were all the necessary statistics concerning global warming and factory farming - go back to the peta files! you really make me sick and i don't want to loose always time with such suckers like you and steve the bad one!

Posted by: King Kobra | September 29, 2007 10:20 AM

"Meat animals are almost exclusively raised in factory farms with lights and equipment running 24/7. "

Not even close to being fact.If ignorance is bliss then you must be the happiest person on the planet.

Posted by: Mars | September 29, 2007 01:45 PM

Why is it that this issue is not part of common basic lists to help fight global warming?

1. unplug unused devices.
2. turn off unnecessary lights when not used.
3. recycle everything

The list goes on and on and going vegetarian is not mentioned.

That's really really strange...

I guess in the end it's all about money (as usual).

Posted by: Rena | September 29, 2007 02:14 PM

"Read the UN report! It says that the meat "industry" is the #1 cause of global warming. "

I wouldn't have thought that the "meat industry" was such as to be able to melt the glaciers that once covered North America.How did they manage that before they existed?

Posted by: Mars | September 29, 2007 05:43 PM

CNN ran a story on the top 20 things you can do to fight global warming, and not eating meat did actually make the list. But Rena's point is well taken.

Al Gore recently presented "things you can do", and they were embarassingly trivial. Adjusting your thermostat just isn't going to solve this problem. Not eating meat would do far more than all of his suggestions combined.

Go for it, Humvee team!

And where, I ask, are the environmental groups on this???? Loving birds in the woods on their field trips, then stopping by KFC on the way home?

Mars - you're slipping, man. If you are going to prod us into a discussion, it's going to take more than a groundless refusal of the facts. Even dairy cattle never see the light of day any more.

Posted by: The Good Steve | September 29, 2007 05:48 PM

Approximately 99% of all animals are factory farmed. I would say that counts as pretty close to being "almost exclusively".

Posted by: Michele | September 29, 2007 06:16 PM

Dailyveg, when I read the report I didn't see such a claim, could you quote it for me.

What, perhaps you are visually challenged, see the banner on the hummer? With the peta logo. No apology needed.

Please don't get too upset when you realise transportation is also a realatively minor contributer to anthropogenic global warming. The main emitters are still coal and gas fired power stations which expel carbon long ago taken out of circulation, and transportation also expels this carbon. Meat, milk,eggs etc are using carbon already in the atmosphere. Although methane has 21 times the warming influence of carbon dioxide, it has a "life" of 8 years in the atmosphere versus 100+ for CO2.
Interestingly although nitrous oxide has nearly 300 times the warming effect of CO2, apparently the amount produced by animals reacts with methane in the atmosphere to the extent it has a net reduction to GW.

Once again I remind you that "meat" is being compared to transportation, not the total. Please take particular note janet.
Michele, PETA factual? If you say so. Let me guess, the 99% fact came from peta.

Posted by: rojo | September 29, 2007 08:08 PM

Eating meat isn't wrong. If you think it's wrong, tell the carnivores that! eating meat isn't the #1 cause of global warming, the production of electricity and transportation needs are. Really retarded of PETA to advertize their blunt message while driving a Hummer. Hypocrisy at its finest!

Posted by: halo snipe | September 30, 2007 12:44 AM

From section 3.4: "Overall, livestock activities contribute an estimated 18 percent to total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions"

Please provide a reference for figures showing the contribution from coal and gas fired power stations, worldwide, so we can compare.

Posted by: DaliyVeg Editor | September 30, 2007 04:34 AM

What is unfortunate about folks going back and forth on the issues nowadays is that many of you will argue until the cows some home and never compromise. If daily business was conducted the same way you folks argue, nothing would get done. How about this: If you truly were tasked, as a group, to resolve the issues concerning global warming how about taking the stance that BOTH of these (meat and transportation) contribute to global warming and both need to be addressed. Don't trivialize the impact of transportation. If you think it's a minor factor then go live within 300 meters of a highway and see how your quality of life improves and then let us know when your kids first get cancer. Being able to champion your beliefs while understanding others is a challenge. To constantly debunk everyone elses view because no one is right but PETA is pretty easy and borders on being fanatical. I would say that if PETAs methods of persuasion were a little less dramatic and extreme, you would proabably win over more believers or at least supporters to the causes that you believe in.

Posted by: Harold Rempel | September 30, 2007 08:50 AM

Rojo-good points.

Now let's consider the environmental degradation caused by the meat industry. The American west has been demolished by cattle: 70% of USFS land, and 90% of BLM land is free range (our tax dollars going directly into the pockets of cattle ranchers). What would those habitats be like without cattle? Far more primary production, more oxygen, less carbon dioxide, far more diversity, far less methane.

Amazonia: demolished for hamburger.

China: an environmental nightmare. In the last 30 years, the 1.5 Billion people in China have increased their meat consumption by 12,700 percent (that's not a typo). The entire population of China used to consume 2% of the meat that the US does, now it's more than double. We are, of course exporting our expertise at factory farming to them: now 25% of Chinese meat is factory farmed - and they now have 2,000 KFCs and 1,000 MCDs.

Speaking of factory farming, we are teaching the whole world how to do that. US inspired chicken factories are now in South Africa, for example.

Hog farms: notorious for their sewage runoff, resulting in several monstrous disasters which made the news, and daily pollution which doesn't.

Well, I'm running out of time, and haven't even gotten to the energy input it takes to raise meat compared to veggies.

A good book on the subject, if a bit dated (it came out in 2000, I think): The Food Revolution, by John Robbins. This is the one that got the middle school teacher kicked out of his classroom. Robbins has a new book on the health effects of eating meat: Healthy at 100, which also makes for good reading.

Posted by: The Good Steve | September 30, 2007 09:59 AM

Rojo:
For a person that hates PETA you sure spend a lot of time on this blog. You are not going to change anyones mind or make a difference here(despite what you might think). The people who care about the animals and the planet that contribute to this site believe you are just trying to find a way to justify your lifestyle. We've seen it a million times. Please, if you feel guilt about eating and wearing animals don't take it up with us. Take it up with God. PETA cannot cure your moral cowardice.

Posted by: Janet Fitzgerald | September 30, 2007 11:59 AM

I just wonder if driving a Hummer around and actually CONTRIBUTING to the emission problem is the way to go. Maybe you could have done so with a ton of people on bicycles dressed as chickens. To me, this is sending the completely wrong message.

Posted by: Stevie | September 30, 2007 12:44 PM

Rojo, these factory farms that produce the turkeys, cattle, chickens and hogs for food contribute to global warming.

Here is how it is done, the manure and waste produces methane gas that gets released into the air, the stench of the manure that can be carried for miles is also a contributor to global warming because it is pollution.

Also, the waste products end up in our ground water and pollute that as well. Moreover, the meat that these factory farms produce (as well as dairy cattle because we all know that dairy cattle will be ground up as hamburger also someday) is not healthy for you because of all the drugs and hormones that are pumped into their bodies.

This is a part of how meat causes global warming.

Posted by: Brandon Harris | September 30, 2007 04:09 PM

Littlevoices in the back of my head telling me eating animals is wrong? Should I punish my cat when he catches a rat? he probably won't eat it I gues that's a pretty sick animal. What is the research on this subject? It is kind of interesting even if I like every steak I ever ate.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2007 06:53 PM

dailyveg, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

You should be able to follow the pie chart, energy production emits 75% more co2 equivalent gases than all of agriculture, ie rice, grains included.

The US climate action report,pg 162 summary shows energy industries produce 1962 Tg CO2 equiv. and transport 1745 Tg against a mere 178 Tg from animal production and 488 Tg from Agriculture as a whole.

Comparing animal products to transportation is a little unfair given a lot of the worlds population doesn't have access to cars, trucks trains etc, and often use animals instead.

Brandon, I know how it happens, I'm merely pointing out that it is not the No.1 cause of global warming.

Posted by: rojo | September 30, 2007 07:19 PM

daily veg , I meant the claim "meat is no.1 cause of global warming", where in the UN report does it say that? I have never disagreed with the comparison to transport.

Janet, the moral high ground is a real debate winner.

Good steve, I'm not familair with inland US, but I don't disagree with anything you've said. Taxpayers have been subsidising farmers on nearly everything they grow, not just cattle. China in the last 20 years has doubled it's intake per head of pork to 40kg. If you mean beef consumption has risen 127 times, quite possible as they become richer, beef wasn't previuosly a big part of the eastern diet.

Posted by: rojo | September 30, 2007 07:32 PM

"Approximately 99% of all animals are factory farmed."

Where did you pull that figure from? I've lived on and around farms my entire life and have seen 2 such factory farms for animals.How many have you? I have however seen numerous factory farms that raise your beloved veggies.I take note that when you all mention factory farming you skip over the veggie factory farms.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 07:50 AM

Rojo's comments are extremely misleading, as power plants don’t generate energy for their own sake, but rather to provide power for industrial and consumer purposes—like animal agriculture. In fact, animal agriculture uses enormous amounts of electricity from power plants to process feed crops (the vast majority of staple crops raised in the U.S. are fed to farmed animals); to provide ventilation, lighting, and heat for factory farms; to operate slaughterhouses and processing plants; and to refrigerate animals’ flesh, eggs, and milk for transportation around the country. Overall, it takes 11 times as much fossil fuel to produce a gram of animal protein as it does to produce a gram of plant protein.

All this power used (and CO2 emitted) by the animal agriculture industry is in addition to the fact that the industry is the number one emitter of both methane and nitrous oxide, huge contributors to climate change.

As mentioned in previous posts, the UN report found that raising animals for food emits 18 percent of all greenhouse gasses - about 40 percent more than all the world’s transportation systems—that’s all the cars, trucks, SUVs, Hummers, ships, and planes combined! While animal agriculture dwarfs transportation (which accounts for about 13 percent of emissions), it also dwarfs all the other leading industrial contributors of global warming, including all residential buildings (10 percent), all commercial buildings (5 percent), and the entire chemical industry (5 percent).

Researchers at the University of Chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is approximately 50 percent more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

The official handbook for Live Earth, the global warming concerts that Al Gore co-organized, says that “refusing meat” is the “single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint”.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 11:39 AM

Rogo: Well, we all know that Wikipedia is a completely relaible source for information! The encycolpedia that can be edited by anyone. Hm.

Mars: I grew up in farm country as well...the thing is, you don't "see" slaughterhouses. You see cows in fields. You don't "see" dairy cows in pens; you see a big barn. Just as with most major operations, the dirty work goes on indoors, unlabeled and away from your eyes. I now live in the city, and I'm sure I've passed many sweatshops. But have I seen them? Nope. And true, veggie factory farms aren't angels: they've pushed out family farms and they use pesticides. But in terms of cruelty and energy efficiency, I still prefer eating a vegan diet to an omniverous one.

Some people eat meat, some people hit their kids, some people smoke. I don't do any of these, nor do I agree or support that behavior. If you support eating meat, you're not going to get your converts here. Everyone know that consuming animal products is bad for the environment. If you want to waste your time figuring out exact percentages here, that's like saying, "Well, I enjoy smoking, so how bad is it really? My uncle smoked 'till his eighties!" Animal factory farming bad. REALLY BAD. Do you still want to contribute to it? Defend it? That's your choice.

Posted by: Pirkko | October 1, 2007 12:07 PM

Hey, I'll take whatever helps.

Posted by: Carla | October 1, 2007 12:10 PM

If you want the real culprit of CO2 levels rising then I can argue that the harvesting of food plants is a major contributor.Plants are natures O2 makers and natural bio filters. They suck in CO2 and others gases and pollutents and give off O2. Killing off the plants for food will decrease the amount of plant life to reduce CO2 levels and less production of O2. Plus the fact that eating a plant is like eating an air filter.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 01:06 PM

Mars,
all your talking around here is futile because you just want one thing: to eat meat! stop your harassing this blog and cook your dead things! that's it!

Posted by: King Kobra | October 1, 2007 02:59 PM

Mars, don't you ever eat plants yourself? What do you feed your livestock with? Hopefully only plant feed.

When an omnivore orders a a hamburger, the patty may be meat, but the bun, relish, mustard, tomato, pickle and onions are all plant food.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 1, 2007 03:32 PM

Oh, Mars, you still don't get it, do you? When you eat animals, you are responsible for the deaths of all the plants that were fed to the animals over the course of their lives, about 16 times more than if you ate the plants directly. How difficult is this to comprehend?

Posted by: Catgrrrl | October 1, 2007 03:34 PM

Last time I checked tobacco was a plant so it must be healthy.

I do see dairy cows in pens and I do go in barns on a daily basis.Dairy cows are only penned up when being milked and they are fed during the process.Chickens and other birds are sometimes raised solely in pens for the short 6-7 months until they are slaughtered but large animals are not and cannot be penned up for long periods of time.

" you don't "see" slaughterhouses. You see cows in fields. "

Tell me how a cow can be penned up in a slaughter house and out in a field at the same time?

"The official handbook for Live Earth, the global warming concerts that Al Gore co-organized,"

Oh yea! The great Al Gore who owns a 10,000 sq ft home here in Tn. that uses more power in a month then the average home does in a year and who travels by plane and limo to meetings about increased CO2 levels.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 05:32 PM

Arguing about eating meat,or eating vegetables will not change anything,yes farm factories produce global warming effects,but not from the animals(unless you count them passing gas)this effect is from the machinery used in this operation.And even if it is the #1 producer,you cannot ignore that vehicles that run on gasoline,or the use of fossil fuels of any kind or in any way is at the very least,a close second.But ask yourselves this,Will millions of people want to stop eating meat,or stop using fossil fuels?Many companies have already begun creating new fuels with no emmisions,however cars will still run on gasoline until they are more "popular".Many people have stopped eating meat,but the production of it continues.Many people don't even see global warming as a threat.Even if america was to stop both,would other countries follow suit,if they didn't it would be shipped into america,and factory farms in china,or asia would be producing these effects,After all it is "Global" Warming.It's easier for people to swallow using a new car in a few years,that runs on a new fuel.And don't forget the government,they don't want to lose business,I.E. Money.Either way you look at it,Global Warming IS happening and unless everyone works together all the countries,the world and everyone and everything in it will be at stake.After all "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and the world is the only house we've got.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 05:57 PM

For those of you who need to keep ignoring solid information regarding factory farming, the environment, pollution, etc, for the sake of justifying your meat-based diets and enjoyment of the blood sport of hunting, obviously you are the types who will never likely listen to the facts, no matter how credible they are.

However, if you REALLY and TRULY want factual info that is not tied to PETA in any way (for those of you who automatically assume that anything printed by PETA is false, even though they obtain their info from credible sources), then go to the website for the United States Department of Agriculture. You can get lost in the massive amounts of reports, articles, studies, etc, regarding agriculture in the US. There you can find a ton of info on factory farming - with percentages, numbers, whatever floats your boat.

Another site separate from PETA is that of the Humane Society of the United States, with plenty of links regarding factory farming.

What I do not understand, however, is your need to try to justify your animal killing behaviours on a site you entered into voluntarily, knowing it is a site for animal rights activists. Nobody knows who you are (nor do we care, based on the posts from dozens and dozens of different readers), so just go about your lives, without writing silly comments here. You are like stubborn children who repeat the same behaviour, over and over, without learning the consequences. You STILL have not figured out that you are just not going to convince any activists here to all of a sudden decide to start eating animals again, or agreeing with animal testing, etc, etc.

You all obviously have lots of time on your hands, so find something useful to do with that time (like the animal rights people, who are all involved in the movement to some extent). Go help at a food bank, or help at a nursing home.

Posted by: Michele | October 1, 2007 06:03 PM

they wont give up anything because there just a bunch of corporate losers who are scared to sacrifice something as easy as meat eating even if it does kill them in the future (global warming and heart disease)

Posted by: ashley | October 1, 2007 06:07 PM

pikko, I agree with you on Wiki, feel free to edit it with the correct figure.

Anon, feel free to address the "meat is no.1 cause of global warming" issue when you are ready.
Animals provide to humans, just like power plants do. Therefore we get to make emission source comparisons. How much more/less CO2 is emitted baking bread vs cutting up a cow? Does the truck transporting fresh vegetables use less fuel than one with meat? No anon, any loss of meat/milk must be made up in larger quantities of plant material moved and processed.

If we look at the US, transport accounts for approx 10 times the emissions of livestock, in a country with one of the highest incidences of factory farming and highest per capita consumption of meat. Poor third world farmers who have a few livestock, but no car, plane etc certainly skew the results.

Posted by: rojo | October 1, 2007 08:42 PM

Mars, if we can't eat meat and we can't eat plants, what the heck are we supposed to do for food. If we don't eat cows, or deer, or fish, the ecosystem becomes overpopulated and many animals die due to starvation. we fish for salmon because they taste good and they eat too many other fish, is it cruel for one animal to kill another animal. NO!! what's the difference. You people need to get with the program.

Posted by: palm23 | October 2, 2007 01:00 AM

Mars: EXACTLY, you are EXACTLY RIGHT. The problem with your end result, however, is that it takes more "natural bio filters" to feed livestock than it would to feed humans. So you are right in saying that harvesting of food plants is a major contributor, too bad the harvest goes to CAFOs. Without livestock, we'd grately reduce the amount of "air filters" that are killed every year.

Posted by: Wilghal | October 2, 2007 09:08 AM

While I don't like the fact that a hummer SUV was used, the point that they were trying to get across was completely factual.

Posted by: Nik | October 2, 2007 02:43 PM

Michele,
The people that come to this site that attack the activists are nothing more than the common "BULLY."
We will never get rid of them because they are the real terrorists.
They enjoy terrorizing the good people here, the decent people.
But our minds are much stronger.
And it is fun to laugh at them because they do not have a clue.
The Bush clones have arrived.

Maher and Newkirk
2008

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 2, 2007 04:18 PM

"they" do talk about how vegetarian or vegan diets help with global warming... on the inconvientent truth website it says to "skip the steak". in the resent Time magazine book about global warming it says to cut out meat. so they ARE talking about.... not enough.. but they are...

and also the amount of money the meat industry brings in is phenominal. and that is the reason why they havent mentioned that eating a plant based diet would start to fix everything.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 11:40 PM

Michele, how about someone present some solid information. Heres some: (from an organisation opposed to factory farming)

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1826
In summary factory farmed animals involve
50% of pigs
74% of poultry
43% of beef
68% of eggs

I really can't see where the 99% you quoted came from. And you wonder why people are sceptical of claims from groups like peta (if that is indeed your source). I'm in no way critising you, but the people who deliberatly publish untruths and present them as fact to you.

judith, oh to be on the outside looking in.

Posted by: rojo | October 3, 2007 07:10 AM

Well if you all care about animals so much, why not just live with them in their natural habitat instead of wasting space by living in your houses that use electricity generated by coal and other fossil fuels! (Or step into their shoes and see what their life is like!)

Posted by: halo snipe | October 3, 2007 06:04 PM

OR................. Wage war against us omnivores, allied with your animal friends. I'm sure you will win.........IF we don't use Ar-15s, Colts, revolvers etc. (If you anything to do with meat so much!)

Posted by: halo snipe | October 3, 2007 06:08 PM

Janet.
PETA lovers blogging is just a big of a waste as the haters.õ_-

Posted by: halo snipe | October 7, 2007 06:27 PM

Michele
YOU must have had a lot of time with that response.

Posted by: halo snipe | October 7, 2007 06:31 PM

"Methyl iodide was developed by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. as an alternative to the widely used fumigant methyl bromide, which has been banned under an international treaty because it depletes the ozone layer. Like methyl bromide, the new product, to be sold under the name MIDAS, kills off weeds and soil pests before planting a wide variety of fruits and vegetables."

"Without livestock, we'd grately reduce the amount of "air filters" that are killed every year."

Some much for your animal "love" stance since you advocate exterminating all livestock.Is that your new credo, Destroy animals before they destroy us"?

"When an omnivore orders a a hamburger, the patty may be meat, but the bun, relish, mustard, tomato, pickle and onions are all plant food."

And your veggie burger is 100% plant.Yep, animals consume plants. So what? Do you want to rid the world of competition for plants? Your animal to vegetable conversion is also way off.Animals return the food they eat not just in meat but in chemicals they produce, ammonia from urine for example, and fertilizers and skins for clothes and chew bones for your pets.

Posted by: Mars | October 9, 2007 07:37 AM

Hey, Mars.

I appreciate your concern for my happiness. :)

I stand by my statement that animals raised for food are "almost exclusively" factory farmed. And it's not pretty. And it uses a lot of resources; many times more than it would take to feed people directly with the food raised for meat animals.

I stopped eating meat because it didn't feel right to me to eat an animal. Later I learned a lot of other benefits of a vegetarian diet.

I am under no delusion that anything I say will convince you to eschew meat. So I say good luck to you and goodbye.

You can learn a lot on the PETA Web site. If you don't trust our Web site there are others you can research as well. You do seem very interested in PETA's issues.

OK, bye bye.

Posted by: Corndog | October 10, 2007 05:08 AM

Corndog;

Animals are raised in areas usualy are not suited for plant production and animal food as well. You cannot simply stop one and start the other. Agriculture does not work that way.The truth is that if the population relied soley on plants then we would not exist. There is simply not enough land that is suitable to grow them on to feed a large population and the entire world would be like ethiopia.

Posted by: Mars | October 10, 2007 05:18 PM

"How much more/less CO2 is emitted baking bread vs cutting up a cow?"

The baking of bread and cutting up of cows are the end of this story. It takes many, many times the resources (water, energy, vegetation, land, cleaning pollution of ground water, etc.) to produce a pound of beef as to produce a pound of vegetables.

"Does the truck transporting fresh vegetables use less fuel than one with meat? No anon, any loss of meat/milk must be made up in larger quantities of plant material moved and processed."

Yes, it costs much less to transport grain and vegetables directly than to first run those vegetables through a cow.

It takes many truckloads of feed, antibiotics, hormones and other goods to supply factory farms (or bucolic pastoral scenes if you prefer) for each cow for each of its 4-5 years before slaughter. Then, those same cows who ate all the grain have to be trucked to slaughter and market, butchered and wrapped and sent to the place where the parts are sold. Meat requires refrigeration or freezing, so add that to the transportation costs as well.

It's exponentially more costly, even if you are only considering transportaion.

The cost of replacing the meat and milk with vegetables would be NOTHING compared to this. If the cows didn't eat the grain, we would. In fact, research shows we would have so much abundance that we could alleviate hunger not only here, but in other countries as well.

It's staggering to think what we could do if we could reclaim the extra resources we would have if we didn't eat meat. Cleaner air, cleaner and more plentiful water, burning of less fossil fuel, enormous reduction in methane released into the environment, land that could become forest or habitat again . . .

I come here more or less taking for granted that I will encounter people who share a common belief in humane treatment of animals and the benefits of a meat-free diet.

I find that people here are more than happy to answer an honest question or listen to another's opinion in the spirit of free exchange of ideas.

But, when a person has received many thoughtful and intelligent replies and continue to post hostile challenges and repeat the same ustudied "opinions," it becomes clear that more information isn't the answer.

If someone here believes that something other than the meat industry is the greatest contributor to global warming, go fight it with the same passion we bring to our cause. I promise I won't come over to your blog and make demeaning and insulting comments.

Posted by: Corndog | October 10, 2007 10:47 PM

Hi, Mars.

I hear what you are saying. We can't simply stop one and start the other.

Shortage of land suitable for plant agriculture shouldn't be an issue. As far as I can determine, we in the U.S. feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals. Worldwide, the number drops to a bit less than half. Even if my sources are inaccurate by half, we feed more than 1/3 of all grain and cereal to meat animals.

It seems reasonable to me that as the demand for meat decreases, land that grew animal feed would free up to grow crops for people.

I appreciate your polite response to my post.

Posted by: Corndog | October 10, 2007 11:54 PM

Just wanted to say some Hummer owners get a bad rap. I have a Hummer but only use it on the weekends.

Posted by: Rock | October 11, 2007 12:06 PM

Good God, Halo, how old are you, 12???!!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 12:36 PM

On a more serious note, I can't believe this topic is even under debate.

Imagine: Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He advises that there are a number of things that you can do to increase your chances of survival, such as stop smoking, give up red meat, drink green tea and reduce stress. Any one by itself will increase your chance by 25%, whereas doing ALL of them will increase your chances by 90%. Are you really going to quibble about which one is the higher percentage??? Of course not! If you want to live, you will do everything in your power!!

Why is this so different?? Our planet is riddled with "cancer" and we all need to do EVERYTHING we can to heal it. Who really cares if the percentage is 20% or 80%? If it will help in any way, it should be done, and not just "justified away" because it will inconvenience us too much.

Frankly, I want to be able to look my son in the eye and tell him I did everything I could, not just present him with a bunch of excuses as to why it made sense to me to I contribute to the destruction of his planet.

Posted by: Sheri | October 11, 2007 01:04 PM

Wow halo... thats sad

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 05:40 PM

I wish they would do that around here. I live in metro Atlanta, and hummers are all over. Yesterday I saw a pink hummer! People just think they are a status symbol, "look what I have"! Bunch of inconsiderate idiots!

Posted by: Fran Takacs | October 11, 2007 06:41 PM

I wish they would do that around here. I live in metro Atlanta, and hummers are all over. Yesterday I saw a pink hummer! People just think they are a status symbol, "look what I have"! Bunch of inconsiderate idiots!

Posted by: Fran Takacs | October 11, 2007 06:41 PM

So who bought the hummer & how does driving it around expending pollutants help anyone? Thanks (cough) for supporting (cough) the environment...

was that a hybrid Hummer?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 09:53 PM

hi corndog, no arguement on water used per pound etc, but what how do you plan to utilise the water saved? rain falls on millions of acres unsuitable for growing crops, so how will that water(from rain) be used to feed humans?
Most feedstock for animals is sourced from neighboring farms, if not from the very farm on which the animals live. When it comes to transport to markets, the nutrient dense meat is equivalent to a much heavier/volumous amount of vegetables ie more truckloads needed to supply the same amount of nutrition. Most fresh fruit and vegies are refrigerated in transport these days, and last time I checked there was a frozen vege section in the supermarket. I don't know how many hormones US producers use (if any) on a pound/pound production but it will little differ to the amount of pesticides and herbicides used on vegetables.
You'll have to explain why anyone has to be hungry in this world because of animals, corn has been very cheap for so long it being used to make fuel. High value crops like nuts have taken over farmland capable of producing large tonnages of grain, aren't they to blame too?
Corndog, if people on this site furnished worthy facts there would be no problem from me. Meat is not the number one cause of global warming, prove me wrong if you disagree. I too find providing information to be not enough. I would have thought you might prefer the truth. Apologies for appearing hostile, I just give what i get.

Posted by: rojo | October 12, 2007 08:33 AM

It's fantastic about the Nobel Prize! Good for PETA congratulating Gore immediately and asking him to add the 8th point. I hope the U.N. study will have its due influence. This is uplifting.

Posted by: Corndog | October 12, 2007 06:16 PM

Land suitable for animal feed production is not always suitable for human plant production. There are different standards in the legal sense and agricultural sense.They are not interchangable.

Posted by: Mars | October 12, 2007 06:34 PM

I THINK THIS IS AN EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE WAY TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ANIMALS! Great job PETA! THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF I LIKE TO SEE! kEEP ON ROLLIN'!

Posted by: Julianne | October 13, 2007 05:53 PM

Im 14 and it's nnot an obssesion. I picke d the name because i could be a sniper and it sounds cool. I'm smarter than you think. H4x

Posted by: halo snipe | October 14, 2007 01:19 AM

I's not sad, it's cool. What do you do in your spare time. I play video games, you do something different. So why bum rap on something someone does as entertainment? Makes no sense! Juilanne, you're an idiot. Hypocrisy is the most retarded form of spreading information (in this case, false). It only makes the relayer look like an a hole. Oh, and get the finger off shift or detoggle caps lock nOOb!

Posted by: halo snipe | October 14, 2007 01:32 AM

It is not meat but factory farming that is the problem. Please don't allow self rightous veganism blind you to the imapct of all the CO2 and other GHG spewing vehicles and homes - hummers are just one of the worst. Corn production for ethanol is another huge GHG producer (again, factory farming and monoculture is the problem. For biofuel, the best choice so far is celluloid (from straw, wood chips etc. Also, turn off your lights when not using and don't overuse your AC, in the home or vehicle. Cruelty to animals is a moot point if none of us except maybe certain types of bacteria can live on this planet. Do not support monoculture. Walk, cycle, take public transit or carpool. Make your home energy efficient. Buy locally produced food (if your soy was grown half a world away and flown, trucked or shipped to you, then please address your own choices before criticizing others). PETA - Please do not inadvertantly glorify fossil fuel wasting vehicles by indirectly advertising for them. Also, if reducing greenhouse gasses is a reason not to eat meat, then please do not encourage the use of PVC or other plastics for clothing, footware etc. They off-gas and are toxic to all animals including people and their pets. Plastics are made from petroleum, which is oil.
The Hummer stunt only invalidates your arguments.

Posted by: common sense canuck | October 24, 2007 05:53 PM

Isn't it funny that common sense these days is very rare?

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 25, 2007 09:06 PM

Sheri

It makes more sense to do what helps the most.(Not this though).

Posted by: Caboose | October 27, 2007 08:19 PM

wow... this has to be one of the DUMBest protests i have ever seen... it makes no sense at all, and not to mention is pretty stupid...its just another case of PETA twisting facts for their own cause... PETAs cause is actually an oxymoron... they dont want to eat animals... but more than half of the animals in existance eat other animals!!!

Posted by: nefarian | January 13, 2008 10:34 AM

It's the SUN-stupid!! Climate change is sunspot driven: the more activity from sunspots the warmer the climates. We are now entering a period of low activity so we are cooling off. We are also emerging from the "little ice age" so of course there is "global warming" for the past 200 yrs. Also C02 lags behind temperature rise; in other words, temps go up first then C02 rises later. Do any of you older bloggers remember the global cooling scare of the 70's? This is just another NWO freak show to cow the population while controling them & taxing them to death. By the way, Al Gore is a member of the Skull & Bones as is Bush. Google climate change people & get your facts straight.

Posted by: meanjean | February 13, 2008 07:03 PM

Okay.....global warming. Carbon monoxide emissions that stagnate the air, leading to uv rays coming though unpreturbed. Years of global warming....... a lot of spare carbon monoxide and a build up of carbon dioxide caused by the density choice of the common populations. Final choice and answer.........A machine with the ability to vacuum the air, and then gather up the carbon in filters. A comment on the tests as I have no resources, would be most appreciated.

Posted by: Duane | April 24, 2008 05:15 AM

Has everyone who believes it is big industry and cars that have the most impact on global warming stopped driving thier cars? Or written any big industrial companies? or pushed to have any laws making the big industries be more earth friendly? I believe raising animals is one of the largest causes of global warming, and because I do believe that I put my money where my mouth is and went Vegan. If you believe anything that humans do is causing global warming, don't argue about it, do something about it. stop using your car so often, write your congressman and ask them to support laws governing big factories. Most poeple who do not believe raising animals is a large cause of global warming is simply because they do not want to cut back or god forbid stop eating meat. So to keep thier consious clear they deny raising animals is a contributing factor to global warming.

Posted by: Julie Ann Zserdin | October 5, 2008 06:51 PM