This is not another doom and gloom piece about how eating meat is destroying the planet, I promise.
But Ecorazzi senior editor Michael Parrish DuDell's recent blog about environmentalists partying with beef tartar got me thinking: If people know about the massive global damage caused by meat production, why is making a change so difficult? Is it because people don't care? Is it because it's too difficult to give up meat? I'd argue it's neither. It's simply because we all think: it's just me and my burger, what's the difference?
Well, instead of more stark statistics and guilt, I thought I'd try something different: inspirational facts on the difference you could be making. The source for the following list is Marianne Thieme's amazing documentary, Meat the Truth, a quirky, unauthorized sequel of sorts to the more famed An Inconvenient Truth. You can watch an abbreviated version of the film here.
Here's what Marianne's research team found it would mean if all Americans left meat off their plates for just one day. Or two. And so on. I suggest you print out this list and put in on your fridge door, you might just get inspired:
- If all Americans did not eat meat for one day a week, they would save 99.6 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of removing 46 million round trip flights between Los Angeles and New York, or taking 19.2 million cars off the road for a full year.
- If everyone in the US did not eat meat for two days a week, they would save 199 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have the same effect as replacing ALL household appliances in the US with energy efficient ones.
- If all Americans did not eat meat for three days a week, they would save almost 300 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have a greater impact on the climate than replacing all US cars with Toyota Priuses.
- If everyone in the US did not eat meat for four days a week, they would save 398 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the carbon savings equivalent of cutting the use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum, and kerosene in the United States in half.
- If all Americans abstained from eating meat for five days a week, they would save 498 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 13 billion trees and letting them grow for ten years.
- If all Americans did not eat meat for six days a week, they would save nearly 600 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.
- And finally: If everyone in the United States ate a vegetarian diet for seven days, they would save around 700 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the same as removing all the cars off the roads in the US.
Need another reason? I thought not.
And if you're one of those people who still feels I'm just trying come between you and your burger, I say: not at all. Just eat a veggie burger. At least once a week.
![5 Days of War [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51J0djjEZ7L._SL160_.jpg)
Do articles like this make you all feel good about your selves-that there is an evil enemy out there and it could never be you that is destroying the world?
Ironic that there has been a reported sharp decline in green house gas emissions in the last year due to the economic recession. http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090921-recession-causes-steep-fall-co2-emissions.html.
This would mean that the problem is humans not the animals grown for consumption, because there has not been a significant decrease in meat production.
Oh and today there is more Arctic Ice than the 30 year average. Look up Amundsen who completed the NW passage in a sailing/steam ship in the 1850's. The Ice Cap melting is not a new thing. From 1817 to around 1860 the ice and glaciers melted enough to allow for exploration and mapping of the arctic region.
The same is true with car buying -- Americans like to drive big, powerful, protective tanks. We know both of these lifestyle choices have to be changed, but the only way that will happen is for the cost to skyrocket so people will consider alternatives. Unlike gasoline though, there's not much chance of meat prices going through the roof, even when energy prices go up. So, the question is how you get people to change their diets. Education is the key, but having taught high school classes myself, I can tell you that is a losing battle!
It's also amazing to me how selfish we are as human beings. Someone spoke of tastebuds, which change every 3 weeks. If you could give up your selfish desires for meat, after 3 weeks you might be able to actually taste real food. Meat and dairy pollute the tastebuds. I have been vegan for 7 years and I NEVER feel deprived.
The point that Mikko is trying to make is that everyone can eliminate at least 1 or 2 meat meals a week. That shouldn't be hard for anyone, in any part of the country, whatever your ethnicity, status, gender, religion. etc. There is no reason why you can't help the planet out, in return helping your heart and your waistline.
Yes, I think most people will be able to give up some meat, but again I'm saying there have to be readily available (and quick) alternatives. What do you suggest? If you take away dairy, there isn't much. Tofu sandwich?...not likely. Nut/seed butters?...except for peanuts, they're very expensive and high in fat. Cornbread and beans/lentils?...well, once in a while. For me, it always seems to come down to cost, effort and time. And flavor -- just try making a good sauce without dairy or meat products. It's not easy.
(cont.)
I know it's possible to save money by buying bulk ingredients and preparing foods, but most people are just not willing to do this. Most people who work regular or long hours, want to come home and fix dinner quickly. That's why frozen prepared foods are so popular. But there are very few that are truly healthy -- most contain meat, of course, but also refined grains and loads of salt and fat. The ones that are nutritious, cost a whole lot more and the portions are too small. The average person would have to spend too large a portion of their income this way.
If it were possible to create an enterprise specializing in environmentally responsible prepared food products that are affordable and taste good, I think this would have been done. I don't see any examples. The natural food stores are stocked with very expensive stuff (including much of the produce), and you can see that the shoppers are well-off. Most poorer neighborhoods (like where I'm living now) don't even have such markets, only big supermarkets that carry national brands (mostly junk). I challenge you to find a quality loaf of whole grain bread (free of chemicals) at any supermarket -- they simply don't carry it! OK, so buy a bread machine (I did, and it broke down after a year). It's very frustrating to me, and I think I'm pretty well educated. Think of how "average" people feel.
No one seems to take into account the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be emitted from decaying vegetation if ruminant animals were not eating it. They convert inedible, indigestible cellulose into the most nutritionally valuable foods.
Ruminants, cattle, goats, sheep, alpacas, etc. are very efficient at converting cellulose (something that human cannot digest efficiently) into something that we can digest, as an added bonus they return 80% of what they digest back to the soil.
How many products in your house are soy and grain based?... Margarine? Mayonnaise? Chocolate? Soy products are some the most heavily processed, sodium laden foods available. Soy also contains phytoestrogens, hormones very similar to what is injected into commercial beef. Moreover, many people are also allergic to soy, never heard of anyone allergic to beef.
I will defend my cattle and my joy of raising them on open pasture, hormone and antibiotic free. I will defend my right to eat them.
What is indefensible is misinformed judgments and opinions, such as the post I am replying to.
Soylent Green
contains no meat
fried, smoked, grilled, etc...
We could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by not eating beans and broccoli.
Let's get real! I would bet that 99.999% of Americans would scoff at the idea of eating vegetarian. I don't plan to become a vegan again any time soon -- I know from my previous experience (about 10 years) that this consumed too much of my time in food preparation, in order to get adequate nutrition esp. protein, and it severely limited my options for dining out or getting meals while on the road.
There is no perfect option -- even locally grown produce has an impact. The question is: what is the most practical for me (the individual), based on where I live (long distance from bodies of water, no arable land, desert climate), my tastes and lifestyle, and what is affordable and available where I live?
If Environmentalists want to implement change toward reduced greenhouse gas emissions, they need to deal with these practical issues in total, not just the narrow theoretical and statistical basis of food production.
If we are to address the food problem from all sides, we need to offer alternatives that are affordable, readily available, and TASTE GOOD to most people's palettes. So, make us a cheap "veggie burger" that satisfies, and see if you can sell it. Good luck! Americans will continue to be the biggest consumers and wasters of resources, and that includes the Environmentalists, in spite of their best intentions (and pretensions).
There's no question that population growth is the biggest challenge to humanity, especially because of the inescapable suffering by the poorest people and the rising expectations of the developing world. There is not enough attention paid to this, but HOW to deal with it, is the question. China's one-child-per-couple law worked quite well, but it required an oppressive state to implement. That will not be acceptable to most other cultures, and we have no right to impose our will on others. Access to birth control methods and education (especially to women) is the only other answer, but this has to be provided through governments that are often paternalistic, backward, and mired in religious traditions that are not helpful to women. And it takes time; meanwhile the situation gets worse.
(cont.)
We need to focus mainly on what we can do to minimize our own impact. But we are stuck with a segment of the public that refuses to recognize the need for radical change. Our population, and that of other developed countries, is aging while population growth is diminishing. I for one, as an older person, have to struggle to accept changes to my own lifestyle that I recognize will be essential. But many other Americans appear to be far more recalcitrant than I am -- in fact they are living in denial.
Only strong leadership can effect change in the face of powerful entrenched special interests. The overarching policy that we must support is to account for ALL of the external costs of industry practices and technologies in the pricing and taxation of them, and to establish uniform international standards that will diminish the destruction of our planet. The U.S. should be leading the way, but for a decade we've been dragging our feet and making things worse.
Thank you for posting.
The beauty of this diet, as opposed to vegan, vegetarian, or grain-fed meat diets, is that it does not require the use of any artificial fertilizers or pesticides (both derived from fossil fuel); or diesel fuel to run agricultural machinery to plow, cultivate and harvest; or artificial irrigation (fossil fuel powered pumps); or GM seeds.
It is completely independent of farms and all of the agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil and kills millions of ground-living animals. It eliminates the need for any of the products produced by the pesticide, fertilizer, and GM AgriGiants, or the need for feed-lots, egg-breeders, or dairy farms.
It does not use anything made by Deere, Caterpillar, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, Dean Foods, Heinz, Nestle, Kraft, General Mills, Betty Crocker, Kellogg, Nabisco, Stonyfield, Yoplait, ConAgra, Cargill, etc.
The ecological footprint of this diet is estimated to be much smaller than either a vegan, vegetarian, or Standard American Diet. It arguably has the lowest profile of natural toxins, and respects the ethical treatment of both animals and plants - something unavailable in any other diet.
A description of this diet (an experiment based on nature), along with supporting references, can be found in "The Wellness Project", or "The Original Diet - The Omnivore's Solution".
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
As you can see from the home page of my website, I donate my books to public and university libraries that request a copy. If your local library does not have a copy, have them contact me and I will send them one.
Thank you Huffington Post for bring this to your viewers!!