T Nation

Climate Change and Meat Eating

So I came across this link:

The short version is that Paul McCartney says eat less meat and we will have less global warming.

Now assuming global warming exists (I think it does) and assume also that humans caused it then wouldnt controlling the number of humans be the obvious solution.

We need population control not meat control.

Paul McCartney had 4 kids by the way, what would the world be like if we all did that. Hypocrite.

The closest I’m going to get to agreeing with him, is to say “Eat fewer cows”, Cows in general are incredibly destructive to land, and produce lots of methane (even if you don’t buy into global warming, it’s still nasty).

We should be changing the way we raise meat, and which meat we eat… like lots more buffalo and bison… much less destructive all around.

[quote]Raided wrote:
So I came across this link:

The short version is that Paul McCartney says eat less meat and we will have less global warming.

Now assuming global warming exists (I think it does) and assume also that humans caused it then wouldnt controlling the number of humans be the obvious solution.

We need population control not meat control.

Paul McCartney had 4 kids by the way, what would the world be like if we all did that. Hypocrite.[/quote]

Maybe we should eat the Paul McCartney’s of the world? That way, we solve both problems.

Cows derive energy from hemi/cellulose through bacteria production, which in turn the cow consumes. There is NO OTHER way to drive their energy!! Instead of telling the masses to give up a nice red piece of meat, people like Paul (cough Obama!!) need to get off their high fucking horse and stop consuming fossil fuels. Gas is proven to produce hydro carbons. Methane is NOT a free radical!!

Of course, before man, or before for that matter before man killed off so many of the animals, there were vast number of ruminants out in the wild, consuming the vast amounts of grasslands that we’ve converted to other things.

Somehow then methane then wasn’t as bad as methane now.

It’s a lucky thing that the Earth wasn’t destroyed by all the bison that existed in such vast number on the American plains.

We owe a great debt of thanks to the hunters that all but exterminated them: if not for their methane-reducing work, the Earth would probably have already gone past the global warming tipping-point by now.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

They have bison in WY and MT don’t they push? My cousin had a tag two years ago, not sure if the hunt was on a private ranch though. Didn’t some ranchers try breeding cattle and bison together? I wonder what ever happened with that. hhmmm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You ever seen a bison other than in the zoo or on the internet? Bison be a different breed of cat in more ways than one. Can’t be raised similarly enough to cattle to meet a huge demand.

Tidbit of trivia so that you can appear slightly smarter in this discussion: buffalo = bison. At least in North America.[/quote]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I love me some buffalo, fucking delicious. Spare the buffalo, kill the McCartney’s.

This agenda is infecting the California State and UC college system right now. See the Meatless Mondays thread in GAL forum.

Real life story. This agenda is here.

Loving how the link above says “eatless Mondays”!

Oh. The damned trees not only contribute to ozone, but emit methane:

http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000251.html

How has the Earth survived these assaults from the trees and the ruminant animals? (Or more accurately the methanogenic bacteria they carry in their digestive systems.)

We are going to have to cut down the rain forests. Ultimately they are not carbon absorbers, because the carbon of the wood ordinarily is never sequestered into the ground (e.g. as coal) but eventually returns to the atmosphere. But they produce methane.

It’s a tough price to pay to save the planet, and of course will be rough on the animals in the rain forest, but come to think of it, they too produce methane, as well as dreaded CO2.

[quote]Raided wrote:

The short version is that Paul McCartney says eat less meat and we will have less global warming.

Paul McCartney had 4 kids by the way, what would the world be like if we all did that. Hypocrite.[/quote]

And a narcissist.

I say why don’t we ban that Gawd awful insect music of his which leaks xenoestrogen into my atmosphere so I then have to go ahead and eat more meat to compensate for the attack on the T layers?

“Lo o ve me do…
So please, love me do.
Whoa, love me do.”

Do be do be do.

Seriously. Begging to be loved is so masculine.
A man like that is asking to be slapped.

I am sorry and I just can’t stand the Beatles; it is because of shemales like him that women have since then demanded for the metrosexual type of manipulative males that have poisoned my oxygen for decades.

Good. Some eco-ninnies don’t want to eat meat. That will reduce the demand, which will reduce the price, and I will become a carnivore.

Steak with a side of steak for me please!

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
This agenda is infecting the California State and UC college system right now. See the Meatless Mondays thread in GAL forum.

Real life story. This agenda is here.

There are more noble laureates teaching at Berkeley than at Yale. Cost of tuition at Berzerkely is 5k, cost of tuition at Yale is near 30k. Go figure why they are bitching.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
This agenda is infecting the California State and UC college system right now. See the Meatless Mondays thread in GAL forum.

Real life story. This agenda is here.

They’re trying to start a “meatless monday” type thing in the City of Cambridge, across the river from Boston. Freaks. Fine with me - as someone else said, maybe it will bring the price of beef down?

I’m not so concerned about global warming, but I’m concerned of the amount of grains, water, antibiotics, and overall resources that go in to raising cattle. Shipping feed, shipping cattle, and overall energy use and grain use that could be used to feed humans in other parts of the world may not be infinitely sustainable.

As modernization is occuring in currently less developed parts of the world, they want more protein in their diets and they start consuming some of the finite supply of meat, this means less for me.

So if people buy this crap, let them eat all the veggies they want. I will eat what remains. I’ve been getting bottom round at Kroger for 2$/lb, same w/ pork, and 2.50$ a pound for top round. I’m happy w/ these prices.

Also, you see what happens when bison have a couple of easy Winters and their population explodes, but then you have a relatively easy existence for human beings and their population explodes.

When life becomes a bit tougher, probably when there are too many people alive for the earth’s resources to support, people will start to die off.

This means hard times for everyone and I’m thinking sooner or later, human flesh may be a potential meat source for those willing to eat it. Human meat farms are a scary thought and I’m wondering if shit ever hits the fan will people die fast enough to support the meat demand.

If meat was in short supply, would you be willing to eat human flesh that died of natural causes? Would you eat it if somebody killed it for you? Would you be willing to do the dirty deed yourself and axe your neighbor to get his protein?

[quote]theuofh wrote:
When life becomes a bit tougher, probably when there are too many people alive for the earth’s resources to support, people will start to die off.

This means hard times for everyone and I’m thinking sooner or later, human flesh may be a potential meat source for those willing to eat it. Human meat farms are a scary thought and I’m wondering if shit ever hits the fan will people die fast enough to support the meat demand.

If meat was in short supply, would you be willing to eat human flesh that died of natural causes? Would you eat it if somebody killed it for you? Would you be willing to do the dirty deed yourself and axe your neighbor to get his protein? [/quote]

There’s a thought that one may study human history as a guide to what may be likely or unlikely in the future under given scenarios.

The human population cannot keep growing at this rate but I hear that as countries modernize there will be a population decrease in this century which is great news.

[quote]Raided wrote:
So I came across this link:

The short version is that Paul McCartney says eat less meat and we will have less global warming.

Now assuming global warming exists (I think it does) and assume also that humans caused it then wouldnt controlling the number of humans be the obvious solution.

We need population control not meat control.

Paul McCartney had 4 kids by the way, what would the world be like if we all did that. Hypocrite.[/quote]

And we need a Supreme Universal Dictator to lord over us all and give us our right to reproduce…as well as eat meat or any other permissions he may deem necessary.

It will be a Utopia like none other. Global warming will be solved and poverty will be eliminated.

I’m voting for me for life long Supreme Universal Dictator.

Who’s on board?