Beef eating & Environment

[prasadr]

Just few little facts ->

How much reduction in Pollution would happen if humans stopped eating meat?

Ans: 8 Gigatons/year

 

That's greater pollution than 2000 Coal power plants,

Or in other words, Meat eating generates more pollution than all combined Coal power plants in the world by multiples.

 

And among meat, BEEF accounts for the largest share.

It needs 28 times more land than Pork or Chicken.

11 times more water

and 5 times more emissions than any other meat.

 

If you compare to Potatoes, Wheat and Rice, it needs 160 times more land and produces 11 times more pollution per Calorie.

 

While champions of environment are openly hostile to nuclear plant coming up in Telangana,

these same people have no issues with BEEF eating which causes a million times more pollution than a nuclear power plant 

[prasadr]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-22/meatless-mondays-small-diet-changes-have-big-climate-effects

 

Global meat consumption has more than doubled since the 1960s, and meat production is set to double again by 2050. In one way, that’s a good thing — proof that rising incomes are supporting higher living standards in developing countries. But Americans, famous for enjoying too much of a good thing, still eat three times as much meat as the global average. For solid self-interested reasons, they and other rich-world diners ought to curb their appetite. 

 

 

Consider this: Livestock are responsible for 12% of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, more than the entire aviation industry. Most of that comes from just one animal: the humble, gassy cow. On a per-calorie basis, cattle are responsible for vastly more emissions than chickens and pigs, in part because their digestive systems produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. From a climate-change perspective, serving your family roast beef at dinner is as bad as driving about 100 miles in the average car.

 

 

 

 

 

Cattle don’t just produce gas; they also take up a lot of space. In Brazil, for example, swaths of the Amazon have been cut down to make room for cattle ranches, releasing huge amounts of trapped carbon. The pace of destruction has gotten worse under President Jair Bolsonaro, who has called himself “Captain Chainsaw.” But Brazil is hardly the only culprit: More than a quarter of the earth’s ice-free land has been set aside for grazing.

 

 

In fact, thanks to climate change, the world’s system of beef production is on course to destroy itself. A warming planet is already threatening the world’s food supply. After decades of steady decline, global hunger has begun inching up over the past five years — not coincidentally, the hottest five years on record. If the global temperature rises by 2 degrees Celsius, scientists predict global wheat output will fall by 10 percent, with months-long heat waves damaging crops that feed humans and animals alike. Heat stress will reduce meat and milk yields and could kill off thousands of cattle. Pastoralists in the developing world would be particularly vulnerable.

 

 

 

Curbing meat consumption voluntarily seems a better bet than letting the industry self-destruct after years of contributing to climate change. Most climate scientists agree that eating less meat would help to avert a worst-case scenario. But how much less? If all the world swore off meat, it would cut global emissions by 8 gigatons a year — roughly the same as shutting down 2,000 coal-fired power plants. But if you’re not cut out for veganism, just eating less meat would help. Adopting the Mediterranean diet, which includes poultry but limits red meat, would have about the same impact as driving 70 fewer miles each week. (It would also thrill your doctor.)

Or you could join the “Meatless Mondays” movement, now active in 40 countries. Despite some backlash from American agribusiness and politicians (this issue is red meat to culture warriors), dozens of U.S. schools, businesses and hospitals — plus thousands of families — have committed to going vegetarian one day a week. The effects add up: Skipping a single quarter-pound hamburger can save more than 400 gallons of water and the energy it takes to power a smartphone for six months. Do it every week for a year, and the greenhouse-gas savings are equivalent to biking 1,000 miles instead of driving.

Not everyone can or should go meatless, of course. And spontaneous voluntary action alone won’t suffice. Lawmakers need to take the initiative, by reining in meat subsidies and encouraging sustainable agricultural practices, and perhaps by rewriting their dietary guidelines as the Netherlands and Sweden have done.

In the meantime, if you’re fortunate enough to live in a wealthy country with abundant protein, try taking a meat hiatus. Your children — and their children — will thank you.

[prasadr]

Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

 

Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with one expert saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars.

The heavy impact on the environment of meat production was known but the research shows a new scale and scope of damage, particularly for beef. The popular red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.

Agriculture is a significant driver of global warming and causes 15% of all emissions, half of which are from livestock. Furthermore, the huge amounts of grain and water needed to raise cattle is a concern to experts worried about feeding an extra 2 billion people by 2050. But previous calls for people to eat less meat in order to help the environment, or preserve grain stocks, have been highly controversial.

Advertisement

“The big story is just how dramatically impactful beef is compared to all the others,” said Prof Gidon Eshel, at Bard College in New York state and who led the research on beef’s impact. He said cutting subsidies for meat production would be the least controversial way to reduce its consumption.

“I would strongly hope that governments stay out of people’s diet, but at the same time there are many government policies that favour of the current diet in which animals feature too prominently,” he said. “Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry and rising prices will do the rest. In that way you are having less government intervention in people’s diet and not more.”

 

Eshel’s team analysed how much land, water and nitrogen fertiliser was needed to raise beef and compared this with poultry, pork, eggs and dairy produce. Beef had a far greater impact than all the others because as ruminants, cattle make far less efficient use of their feed. “Only a minute fraction of the food consumed by cattle goes into the bloodstream, so the bulk of the energy is lost,” said Eshel. Feeding cattle on grain rather than grass exacerbates this inefficiency, although Eshel noted that even grass-fed cattle still have greater environmental footprints than other animal produce. The footprint of lamb, relatively rarely eaten in the US, was not considered in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Sign up for Word of Mouth: the best of Guardian Food every week

 

 

Read more

Prof Tim Benton, at the University of Leeds, said the new work is based on national US data, rather than farm-level studies, and provides a useful overview. “It captures the big picture,” he said, adding that livestock is the key to the sustainability of global agriculture.

“The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”

Prof Mark Sutton, at the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said: “Governments should consider these messages carefully if they want to improve overall production efficiency and reduce the environmental impacts. But the message for the consumer is even stronger. Avoiding excessive meat consumption, especially beef, is good for the environment.”

He said: “The US and Europe alike are using so much of their land in highly inefficient livestock farming systems, while so much good quality cropland is being used to grow animal feeds rather than human food.”

Separately, a second study of tens of thousands of British people’s daily eating habits shows that meat lovers’ diets cause double the climate-warming emissions of vegetarian diets.

The study of British people’s diets was conducted by University of Oxford scientists and found that meat-rich diets - defined as more than 100g per day - resulted in 7.2kg of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, both vegetarian and fish-eating diets caused about 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while vegan diets produced only 2.9kg. The research analysed the food eaten by 30,000 meat eaters, 16,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish eaters and 2,000 vegans.

[Joker_007]

Beans thini bambulu vadalamantava bayya.....

[Somedude]

 

[Somedude]

 

[Somedude]

BJP has no issues with Northeast's beef eating: Manipur CM Biren Singh
 

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58990216.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

BJP has no issues with Northeast's beef eating: Manipur CM Biren Singh

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjp-has-no-issues-with-northeasts-beef-eating-manipur-cm-biren-singh/articleshow/58990216.cms

No beef ban if we come to power in poll-bound northeast states: BJP

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-beef-ban-if-we-come-to-power-in-poll-bound-ne-states-bjp/story-s73qgNWp0gWNf3B6NAJIbM.html

[psycopk]

Ipudu nee article chadivi tine vallu agutara?? 

[lovemystate]

most cattle population is in india. So india is biggest cuplrit for bovine pollution. eliminate MILK then you have truly solved pollution from mlik.

[Maradalu]

13 minutes ago, lovemystate said:

most cattle population is in india. So india is biggest cuplrit for bovine pollution. eliminate MILK then you have truly solved pollution from mlik.

Maa @lovemystate annayya intlo aadavaalla milk tappa vere milk taagadu 

[hyperbole]

the pollution is due to farting methane gas..though they are less cows than human but they eat a lot and fart a lot ..so nee logic prakaram eliminate all mankind. 8 billion species unnayi.so everyday every species is farting burbing emiting filth but trees are the ones which are cleaning up our filth.

aaka is pak pak is aak type la unnadi nee luvdala analysis. co2 ki uranium radiation ki comparison endi? one is reversible other not for 4-5 generations atleast and long term complications 

forests are the ones which are a sink to take in co2 and create a balance. if you digging in desert nobody gives a fck about and it is detrimental if forests and water bodies are targeted especially the one which is creating an ecological balance for about 4 cr people, domestic and wild life in few hundred/thousand sqaure kms

[PakkintiKurradu]

21 hours ago, prasadr said:

Just few little facts ->

How much reduction in Pollution would happen if humans stopped eating meat?

Ans: 8 Gigatons/year

 

That's greater pollution than 2000 Coal power plants,

Or in other words, Meat eating generates more pollution than all combined Coal power plants in the world by multiples.

 

And among meat, BEEF accounts for the largest share.

It needs 28 times more land than Pork or Chicken.

11 times more water

and 5 times more emissions than any other meat.

 

If you compare to Potatoes, Wheat and Rice, it needs 160 times more land and produces 11 times more pollution per Calorie.

 

While champions of environment are openly hostile to nuclear plant coming up in Telangana,

these same people have no issues with BEEF eating which causes a million times more pollution than a nuclear power plant 

[lovemystate]

29 minutes ago, hyperbole said:

the pollution is due to farting methane gas..though they are less cows than human but they eat a lot and fart a lot ..so nee logic prakaram eliminate all mankind. 8 billion species unnayi.so everyday every species is farting burbing emiting filth but trees are the ones which are cleaning up our filth.

aaka is pak pak is aak type la unnadi nee luvdala analysis. co2 ki uranium radiation ki comparison endi? one is reversible other not for 4-5 generations atleast and long term complications 

forests are the ones which are a sink to take in co2 and create a balance. if you digging in desert nobody gives a fck about and it is detrimental if forests and water bodies are targeted especially the one which is creating an ecological balance for about 4 cr people, domestic and wild life in few hundred/thousand sqaure kms

Mankind population is because mankind wants to live. Cow population is because mankind wants to drink it’s milk even when there are alternatives. Get the difference?

[prasadr]

BJP pulkas are as hypocrites as any other party pulkas.

 

So, not sure why few pulkas are posting BJP supporting Beef videos.

 

This is purely a debate on environment issues. 

 

43 minutes ago, lovemystate said:

most cattle population is in india. So india is biggest cuplrit for bovine pollution. eliminate MILK then you have truly solved pollution from mlik.

 

I am all for it.

Rear as little cattle as needed, it's sad seeing them roam streets.

 

Is Beef absolute necessary for survival? NO

Is milk absolute necessary for survival? For Kids, Yes, as an adult NO.

 

So, limit it, start discussion and take action.

Instead of aiming for ones that cause maximum pollution, why target nuclear plants?

 

31 minutes ago, hyperbole said:

the pollution is due to farting methane gas..though they are less cows than human but they eat a lot and fart a lot ..so nee logic prakaram eliminate all mankind. 8 billion species unnayi.so everyday every species is farting burbing emiting filth but trees are the ones which are cleaning up our filth.

aaka is pak pak is aak type la unnadi nee luvdala analysis. co2 ki uranium radiation ki comparison endi? one is reversible other not for 4-5 generations atleast and long term complications 

forests are the ones which are a sink to take in co2 and create a balance. if you digging in desert nobody gives a fck about and it is detrimental if forests and water bodies are targeted especially the one which is creating an ecological balance for about 4 cr people, domestic and wild life in few hundred/thousand sqaure kms

 

Well, Democrats wants to eat children, so, your wish may come true sooner than expected.

 

Radiation is not reversible? Which scientific study shows that?

Have you been Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

After they were bombed, they went back and are living happy life.

Go to Chernobyl, in fact watch the video below

 

CO2 does much more irreversible damage to us than radiation.

 

The argument itself is stupid because nuclear mining produces very limited radiation, which dissipates in few minutes anyway.

 

Hence, the argument is very valid for comparison.

The stupidity is people assuming CO2 does less permanent damage than nuclear material, which is Pulka logic.

 

Forests are a great sink for CO2

Just for comparison, the recent Mumbai metro which people opposed because it would mean cutting 2500 trees, would over time is a net positive emission sink.

Studies show it would have same impact on environment as having millions of trees.

yet, pulkas opposed it.

 

PLanting trees does not solve everything. IN fact, it is a band aid solution.

You need to cut down on emissions as well.

Beef eating causes emissions, just planting more trees does not make any sense because no amount of planting forests would help the amount of destruction caused by beef eaters.

[PakkintiKurradu]