An Inconvenient Diet?
The New York Times is reporting that according to the United Nations, "...the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined". This was a surprise to me.
I think people would be more likely to change what they drive then change their diet. Given the small percentage of vegetarians it seems like this new issue could fragment the environmental movement. Perhaps this might even cause more harm then good?
I think people would be more likely to change what they drive then change their diet. Given the small percentage of vegetarians it seems like this new issue could fragment the environmental movement. Perhaps this might even cause more harm then good?
2 Comments:
It seems to me (and I'm completely guessing here so I may be wrong) that a lot of the reason that the livestock business generates lots of greenhouse gas has nothing to do with the fact that people eat meat. Rather it has to do with the equipment they use and the cutting down of forests and so on, no? Why not regulate those sorts of issues more?
You aren't going to get people to change to a vegetarian diet by those ads. In fact, you'll probably just make people upset and hate both vegetarians and environmentalist. It all seems counterproductive to me.
Good point! The land change has quite a lot to do with it. I found a UN article with a bit more of a breakdown. It sounds like the land change accounts for a lot of CO2, but the greenhouse gases come mostly from manure (ewwww! :).
Post a Comment
<< Home