UK Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, author of the influential 2006 Stern Review and one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change, has created a bit of controversy with his recent statement that "People should give up eating meat to halt climate change.”
His argument, proving particularly unpopular with those in the farming industry, is that livestock farming is a significant source of greenhouse gases. The UN found that meat was responsible for more than 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions in addition to the deforestation for livestock grazing and overuse of water and food resources.
Livestock is also responsible for a significant amount of the world’s methane – a greenhouse gas estimated to be twenty-three times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
The original interview, published in The Times UK, has created considerable backlash, forcing Lord Stern to issue a clarifying statement about his remarks:
I think that once people understand the great risks that climate change poses, they will naturally want to choose products and services that cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, which means 'low-carbon consumption'. This will apply across the board, including electricity, heating, transport and food. A diet that relies heavily on meat production results in higher emissions than a typical vegetarian diet. Different individuals will make different choices. However, the debate about climate change should not be dumbed down to a single slogan, such as 'give up meat to save the planet'.
It is a fact that reducing meat consumption, along with other individual choices such as driving less, avoiding flying and eating a local diet are all actions that operate to reduce our personal carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions.
I personally recognize that wheat is a far better diet than meat on the ground it normally exits body with ease and rapidity, and we are well aware that our heath depends upon smooth metabolism and blood stream associated with the immune system and how important our daily workout is, as well.
I still think the critical conditions mostly come from breach of our immune system, and the food that stays long in the body is more likely to become a source where germs, bacterias, viruses and the like multiply.
Sounds outlandish, but wheat might be a principal "clean and healthy" food that has led western society to the most decent culture of all.
Disadvantages of meat consumption :
1. The food that stays long in the body looks more likely to become a source where germs, bacterias and the like multiply, which even gives birth to critical conditions involving prostate cancer.
2. The consumption of meat proved lethal as earlier this year, the expansive, long-term release concluded about a third of more than 500,000 Americans aged 50-70 with this behavior tends to wind up with premature fatality caused by cancer, hypertension and more.
3. The in-take of pork raises risks of catching swine flue and its mutation, costing around the initially estimated $2trillion dollars word-wide and endangering recovery,
Still, media downplay this fact out of small thinking to protect meat industry.
4. All but media influenced by meat industry blame calorie for overweight or obesity rather than fat, I still think Fat equals Fat by definition and common sense.
5. Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, which branch into so many different kinds of diseases, excess body fat increases risk for numerous cancers, costing up to $147 billion a year.
7. America needs to put focus on a sustainable energy industry to become a lead exporter, in place of a fast food business where the overall loss outstrips gain more than known, from my stance.
Provided the average temperature is getting higher, accordingly all forms of germs, bacterias, viruses, and influenza etc are more likely to multiply.
Some skeptics say the warning against hazards of climate change is overstated, but judging from more frequent and widespread outbreaks of e. coli, salmonella, and bird, swine flu cases endangering human lives and economic recovery seriously, some prompt measures need to be taken, I guess.
Also, Breathing toxic chemicals in the outdoor air exposes all Americans to a lifetime cancer risk at least 10 times greater than the level considered acceptable under federal law, shows new data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Thank You !
written by hsr0601 , October 28, 2009
written by Allison , October 28, 2009
Show/Hide comment form
There are entire cultures representing millions of people who have lived and thrived for centuries without meat, which is enough evidence that humans do not "need" it to satisfy their taste buds or to survive and thrive.
In fact, the evidence weighs heavily in the other direction: the hazards of a meat and dairy diet and the benefits of a vegan diet are well known in the medical and scientific community. Health, animal cruelty, and environmental issues could be alleviated if everyone ate a vegan diet.
* U.N. scientists have determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, SUVs, trucks, and planes in the world combined.
* Researchers at the University of Chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering climate change than switching from a standard car to a Toyota Prius.
And it's just plain barbaric to breed, confine, and slaughter animals for food. Give up meat and dairy for your health, for the animals, and for the environment!
written by Patty , October 28, 2009