Alternet Wrote:Will Vegans Save the World? Eating Less Meat Will Reduce Earth’s Heat

The environment and climate would benefit substantially if more people gave up or at least cut down on meat and animal products—especially in over-consuming Western societies

By Dr. David Suzuki / DeSmogBlog

Will vegans save the world? Reading comments under climate change articles or watching the film Cowspiracy make it seem they’re the only ones who can. Cowspiracy boldly claims veganism is “the only way to sustainably and ethically live on this planet.” But, as with most issues, it’s complicated.

It’s true, though, that the environment and climate would benefit substantially if more people gave up or at least cut down on meat and animal products, especially in over-consuming Western societies. Animal agriculture produces huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, consumes massive volumes of water and causes a lot of pollution.

But getting a handle on the extent of environmental harm, as well as the differences between various agricultural methods and types of livestock, and balancing that with possible benefits of animal consumption and agriculture isn’t simple.

Estimates of how much animal agriculture adds to greenhouse gases range widely, from about 14 to more than 50 per cent of total global emissions. Agriculture exacerbates climate change in a number of ways. Clearing carbon sinks such as forests to grow or raise food can result in net greenhouse gas increases. Farming, especially on an industrial scale, also requires fossil fuel–burning machinery, as does processing and transporting agricultural products.

Determining the overall contribution is complicated by the fact that livestock agriculture accounts for about nine per cent of human-caused CO2 emissions but far greater amounts of other greenhouse gases, which are worse in many ways but less dangerous in others.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock farming produces 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the global warming potential as CO2. It also contributes “37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.” But methane stays in the atmosphere for about 12 years, and nitrous oxide for about 114, while CO2 remains for thousands of years.

Emissions also vary by livestock. Pigs and poultry contribute about 10 per cent of global agricultural emissions but provide three times as much meat as cattle — which are responsible for about 40 per cent of emissions — and use less feed. Some plant agriculture also causes global warming. Wetland rice cultivation produces methane and nitrous oxide emissions, the latter because of nitrogen fertilizer use. Different agricultural methods also have varying effects on climate. And some people, such as the Inuit, have adapted to meat-based diets because fresh produce is scarce — and flying it in causes more emissions than hunting and eating game.

The bottom line is that cutting down on or eliminating meat and other animal products from our diets is necessary for protecting humanity from runaway climate change — and from many other environmental consequences, including water scarcity, degraded ecosystems and pollution of waterways and oceans. The FAO reports that global demand for livestock products could increase 70 per cent by 2050 if nothing is done to slow consumption.

Worldwide meat-consumption rates show there’s room to cut down in industrialized countries, where the average person consumed 95.7 kilograms in 2015, compared to the 41.3-kilogram global average, and 31.6 in developing countries. People in South Asia eat less meat than anyone, at about 7.6 kilograms in 2015.

A study by scientists at the U.K.’s Oxford Martin School found global agriculture-related emissions could be cut by a third by 2050 if people followed simple health guidelines on meat consumption, by 63 per cent with widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet and 70 per cent with vegan. The authors found adopting healthier diets with less meat and animal products could also reduce global health-care costs by $1 billion a year by 2050.

Although switching to better agricultural methods and encouraging local consumption could also reduce emissions, those are topics for another column. In the meantime, we can do our part by at least cutting down on meat, especially red meat, or by taking the more significant step of adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Perhaps the best dietary advice for our own health and the planet’s is from food writer Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”

(09-09-2016, 07:07 AM)Dog Star Wrote: milk, eggs etc should be OK as long as the animals aren't under poor conditions or murdered imo.

(09-09-2016, 12:59 PM)Icaro Wrote: Almond milk is awesome...

(09-09-2016, 12:59 PM)Icaro Wrote: Almond milk is awesome. So is this pea milk by Ripple?

(10-08-2014, 02:36 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: not that I'm attached to labels, but I've switched to being a vegan.

vegetarian: no meat
vegan: as above, plus also no directly related animal products (no eggs or dairy basically).

why?

I can't say for sure.  Ever since I got back from Homecoming 2014 at the start of September (about 5 weeks now) I've initiated a series of changes to my life.  This is not unusual; other members and other attendees have also reported a similiar change of tact.  It's like something gets re-awakened or re-connected by being in such a positive space.  So many people, and so much clear heart radiation.

We talk about love.  We even experience with friends and significant others.  But the Law of Squares being what it is, when there is a grouped collection of aligned individuals such as at Homecoming, the effects can only be described as being Transcendent.

- -

so I dropped eggs and dairy from my diet.  Why?  It was actually incidental, rather than primary.  I've been using an electric frypan as my main cooking device for over 2 years now, and eggs and butter go well with that .  I've also been enjoying my desserts over that time too (since the time I dropped meat at the start of 2013), and it's really made for satisfying and full meals to complete things with a huge serving of gourmet ice cream and organic yoghurt.  That sort of 'ultra-loading' was what enabled me to survive off one or two meals a day over the last 2 years.

But I was interested in a change post-Homecoming, and decided to purchase two rather intriguing devices.  One was a Masticating Juicer, and the other was a Pressure Cooker.  Both are kitchen devices that I've never owned before.

Juicer: enabled me to enjoy more 'difficult vege's' such as carrots and various leafy greens.  I love both of these things well cooked, but even so, there's only so much that you can eat of vege's (to me that is).  Juicing is a great way to get a surplus of nutrients without all the chewing and fibrous content etc.

Pressure Cooker: makes mince meat of brown rice.  One great recipe I've found is to throw in some of the dry pulp from the Juicer (just above!), and that way, you can 're-assemble' some of the whole food content.  In the pressure cooker, that pulp gets tender and thoroughly cooked in no time.

- -

that's the methodology, but not really an explanation for the Vegan Change.

I decided to drop Dairy for a couple of reasons.  One is that I am lactose intolerant by nature (asian genetics), and I can enjoy dairy, but only usually through taking some food enzyme pills.  I've never eaten a lot of dairy in my life (not a great attraction to cheese, hardly any ever milk, and occasional ice-cream for the most part), so I didn't really need it.  I did notice that I would suffer from the occasional indigestion from my meals, and I chalked that up to the dairy intolerance via my sumptuous deserts.  Plus I've had enough Ice Cream in the last couple of years to last me a lifetime lol.  I've sated that experience.  No more delights there

as for eggs, they go well with frypans, and less so with Pressure Cookers.  I did try, but the effects are, quite obviously, overcooked eggs.  I liked my eggs sunny side up when I did use my frypan, so lightly done is my preference.  The proteins are also much more accesible when they are lightly done.  So the eggs were incompatible with pressure cooking for the most part.  I guess I could always crack an egg over the final cooked dish, and let the high latent heat do it's work, but I don't need it.  Again, I've had my fair share of free-range eggs the last 2 years.

- -

so how does it feel?  well, it's only been a couple of weeks since I started this new dietary tack, and so I'm still fine tuning things.  I also decided to add Celtic Salt to the mix (something I've never used previously either) to replace the liquid mineral supps I was taking.

anyway, so that's my story

Quo Wrote:Eating a diet which is balanced in its ability to provide the body what it needs in order to provide its portion of vital energy. You may fruitfully consider the grains, the vegetables, the dairy products to the extent that they are necessary, the animal products of an high order of being when necessary to increase low vital energy.

Ra Wrote:The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

(09-15-2016, 05:03 PM)Patrick Wrote: Lol I like the photo of the green juice with headphones.

I juice as well, with an Omega NC800HDS.  But I would like to get a Green Star Pro at some point.

(10-11-2016, 10:33 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: I always feel like the carrageenan carcinogen scare is to get people wary of eating healthy. I mean, we've used carrageenan in baby formulas for a long time - why is it more of an outrage that we put it in soy milk?

Quote:As mentioned earlier, once the Cornucopia Institute began reviewing carrageenan, a seaweed derivative used as a stabilizer, it became clear that just like Martek's DHA/ARA oils, it does not belong in truly organic foods. This is a timely issue, as carrageenan is currently up for a sunset reevaluation by the NOSB. (By law, all synthetic ingredients in organics must be reevaluated every five years.) According to Mark:

Quote:"When carrageenan was first reviewed in 1995, the NOSB, as required by law, looked at the potential environmental and health impacts after examining a technical review produced by three experts with corporate agribusiness ties: Dr. Steve Harper, director of R&D at Small Planet Foods (now owned by General Mills), Dr. Richard Theuer, a vice-president of R&D at Beech Nut, and Dr. Stephen Taylor, professor of food science at the University of Nebraska and defender of genetic engineering. Dr. Taylor has published studies on genetically engineered organisms (GMO) and allergy risks, co-authored by agribusiness scientists at DuPont and Pioneer Hi-Bred (manufacturers of chemicals and organic seed). 
This technical review hardly mentions some potential serious health impacts from degraded carrageenan, failing to cite any of the research to inform the board that historically, as much as 25 percent of carrageenan on the market was categorized as degraded. Current research shows all types of carrageenan can degrade in the body and can create serious known health impacts. 
A number of peer-reviewed published papers that should have been cited indicate that degraded carrageenan causes inflammation and can cause serious intestinal abnormalities. Degraded carrageenan is also considered a possible carcinogen, and it's in organic foods! There is no doubt that carrageenan is an inflammatory agent. In fact, in testing anti-inflammatory drugs, laboratory animals are given carrageenan to produce inflammatory symptoms. There's no secret in the medical community that this is a problem. 
The technical review also failed to document the known environmental hazards from discharge of alkaline water, the deleterious impacts of seaweed farming to coral reefs, coastal ecosystems, and mangroves. By law, organics is supposed to do no harm. By law, these environmental externalities needed to be considered. Now, carrageenan is up for review again this year. As before, no negative environmental impacts and no human health threats were recognized by the NOSB's industry-friendly handling subcommittee, which unanimously again recommends its approval. 
We must oppose the relisting of carrageenan and assure that it is taken out of organic foods. It shouldn't be in any food – conventional or organic. We need to be careful about reviews of all synthetics and organics. We need to re-review them, and the weight of your voice will help us make this argument.""

(10-11-2016, 11:07 AM)BlatzAdict Wrote: One of the problems with Organic is that a lot of times you can have GMO corn or chemicals and oils and nutrients derived from gmo vegetables that are then blended or mixed into a product labeled as organic.

(09-09-2016, 12:35 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: I'm glad I'm not the only one that is sharing this with people when it comes up as such, and it felt nice and supportive that we both offered the same sad truth in the exact same moment.