data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/468bb/468bbfcd76bde11f0e6055b068382f4325094fd7" alt=""
The report claimed that, "direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. methane is 23 times more powerful than carvon dioxide as a global warming gas." Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I.G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics. He said that, "meat is a wasteful use o water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the worlds resources. A vegetarian diet is better." Ofcourse I completely agree with this but my meat eating source thinks that, "Is it fair for the UN to ask us to stop eating meat when it's happy to encourage the industries of countries such as China (the world's biggest emitter of CO2 from power generation) without making serious efforts to control their greenhouse gas production. And let's not forget the USA (the biggest CO2 producer per capita) who still have not ratified the Kyoto agreement." This is yet another argument, the government are starting off small, and starting with restricting the UK's populations dietary habits but isn't concentrating or trying to change the larger picture and massive corporations. should the restrictions start with the entire population or with large companies distributing more green house gases than individual people?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/edcc5/edcc5514013f812053517b709217552b2e22c5cb" alt=""
Another advantage for cutting out the meat is that it takes 20.9 square meters of land to produce 1kg or beef whereas it is only 1.3 square meters for vegetables. This massive land reduction would mean there being a LOT more food for everyone. Livestock takes up 67% of agricultural land, if replaced with vegetables, not only would every bit of the land be used but there would be over double the amount of vegetables, the UK would become healthier and obesity wouldnt be as much a problem as it is now.
Another question to be asked is, becoming vegetarian buts out chicken, duck, game, fish etc, does this mean that the population wouldn't be able to eat this either or if they would be allowed and not strictly vegetarians. we would get a build up of the animals not being eaten. Would there be a mass slaughter of them too?
For countries such as India, becoming vegetarian wouldn't be too much of a problem. India's vegetarian population is 399 millions, 40 % of the country whereas the UK's population is 3.7 million, 6% of the population. This leaves 94% of the population as meat eaters, people that the government would have to stop letting eat meat. Other countries such as France have even more of the population to turn vegetarians, with only a vegetarian population of 1.2 million, less than 2%.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52293/522939ed3c66b8f5bf1c80938a2c04d5bf2c60a8" alt=""
I leave it up you, my reader to have your own opinion on this matter, myself however, shall wait and see what the government chooses to do next; and if it will actually work, or if it is too simple an answer to a very large problem.
A strong advert for becoming a vegetarian, a youtube video for KFC chicken abuse - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxv7PPGZqg
I like this :D im a vegetarian of 2 years and i think this article is very well researched and raises questions for both sides of the argument to think about.
ReplyDeleteas much as i hate PETA for being overly pushy and patronising...
they have produced this gizmo which allows you to calculate your diet's carbon foot print, here is my results!
"Congratulations! You have already saved 560 animals by choosing a vegetarian diet! By sticking with it, you will save over 15960 more animals from dying and 188100 lbs. of CO2e from polluting the Earth during your lifetime."
and here is a link to the application!
http://www.peta.org/feat_Carbon_Calculator_Widget.asp