Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[God Save The King]

Technically consuming anything is bad for the environment.

But if you read your own source, it attempts to hide one of the real sources of environmental damage: vehicles. All the burgers eaten in America harm the environment as much as around 10k SUVs.

Maybe we should do something about those SUVs huh?


"pro-environment" is more or less a meaningless buzzword, but I shall try to dissect it.

If you mean "believe that climate change is not a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese", yes you can still eat meat. Understanding basic principles of science does not conflict with consumption of meat.

If you mean "humans are responsible for climate change", then see above, same thing.

If you mean "humans need to protect the environment", then yes you can still eat meat. Agriculture is a contributor to climate change, but it's also a human necessity. People need to eat, and meat is an important part of healthy diets (granted there are alternatives).

Choosing to eat meat or not is a personal decision, which can be influenced by environmental impact, but simply recognizing climate change, human's impact, and taking steps to solve/reduce the problem does not mean you cannot eat meat. The question you pose is an interesting red herring, suggesting that people who don't take every single step to minimize impact are not allowed to be "pro-environment". Unfortunately, like all red herrings, it attempts to distract the reader from the real issue.

It's like asking, can you drive a car and support the environment, or fly in a plane, or run air conditioning, or have electricity.

I drive a hybrid, keep my house at 76 in the summers, and have sensors that turn off lights when I'm not in the room, and all my appliances are rated to be green. But I still enjoy fish, steak, pork, eggs, milk, etc. Am I allowed to be "pro-environment"?


Ideologically, it's about minimizing impact, not removing it. The more general response to this question, is that the world, as a whole, could survive with consuming less meat, which would ultimately lower food costs and help the environment.

[Queen of Hamsters]

... can someone on this planet NOT be "pro environment"...? I hope those idiots are aware that this planet is the only place we've got.

And of course you can. I know people that only eat meat that's been hunted around these parts. Necessary changes wouldn't happen if everyone stopped placing pressure on corporate fat cats to innovate new and more environment-friendly methods and just started eating vegetables. Mankind won't stop eating meat.

And, lots of vegetables are also being shipped around the globe. Not very eco-friendly if you ask me. The sugar-snap peas I can purchase in my local store in the North of Sweden, has been shipped from Guatemala or Kenya depending on season...

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes.

Why, do you think it's all or nothing?

Only the sith think in absolutes.

[mvaliz]

You know... other countries eat meat without having to resort to American-esque methane farms, right?

As for me - I am pro environment, and do eat meat - albeit far more reduced when I knew the sources (and, in some cases, the animal abuse).

[Felya]

No, those who are pro environment only eat human brains. I might be thinking of zombies... not sure...

[Endus]

Or fart catchers!

No... really...

It's not as silly as it sounds, actually. They're not just putting cow farts in a bag and burying it, that stuff can be used to create biofuels and such. While those will still contribute emissions, it mitigates it a lot and we get an additional use out of the stuff before it enters the atmosphere.

[Dug]

Yes and it's ridiculous to make absolute statements like you cannot be pro environment while being a meat eater. I for one am of the mind that we could do with a huge reduction in the meat industry while still appealing our carnivorous desires. The problem is as more cultures/countries get "westernized" the demand for meat increases. Nobody else eats as much meat and as often as us (us being those in 1st world/western countries with relatively a lot of money compared to the poor).

If there could be a big cultural change in what we consume we could reduce our meat consumption and in that lowering the livestock industry.

[Gorgodeus]

Yes. Native Americans ate meat; they simply respected the animal and did not waste it. If you can do the same (IE not waste food), you can eat meat and respect the environment.

Why does this feel like a loaded question?

Not even comparable. Native Americans were killing wild game and eating the meat, and not domesticating them while ravaging forests to accommodate the large-scale raising of cattle and other animals. There is now so many cattle and poultry being raised in the world that just over half the annual greenhouse gas emissions are from the methane released from large-scale meat and poultry production. There are multiple documentaries about this issue.

[belfpala]

I thought the solution was to start feeding them seaweed so they get more fiber and fart less.

Tried it, makes the milk taste like fish. Only edible by mermaids.

- - - Updated - - -

If there could be a big cultural change in what we consume we could reduce our meat consumption and in that lowering the livestock industry.

Mass agriculture isn't particularly good for the environment, no matter what's being produced. Vast tracts of land!

[jimboa24]

Personally, I think that cattle farming in America should be replaced with bison farming. Bison meat is so much better, so much more delicious, and bison burgers are lightyears better than cow burgers.

But to the topic, no, humans are omnivores, and anyone who thinks that we must abandon meat for the betterment of the environment is a loony radical. You can enjoy meat without encouraging harmful commercial practices, and you SHOULD in fact do so. Capitalism is all about voting with your wallet. Buy local, source your food, and you already do far more good than you ever could if you simply went without.

[Krastyn]

Other source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/how...ute-to-gw.html

In addition to that knowledge, we haven't discussed side effects like deforestation for pastures, water polution, etc. And we havent even discussed other meatproducts Just hamburgers.... let's think about that for a second.

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

Can you link the source of the actual quote? Kind of hard to discuss something that has no backing.

[araine]

Other source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/how...ute-to-gw.html

In addition to that knowledge, we haven't discussed side effects like deforestation for pastures, water polution, etc. And we havent even discussed other meatproducts Just hamburgers.... let's think about that for a second.

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

10k SUV's which is nothing in the USA stand to do as much of an impact as proper animal handling for food. next time perhaps omitting these figures would make the case better but really we have millions of SUV's and mankind have eaten meat for generations.. What really needs to change is the SUV's etc since they pose a serious threat to our life with the climate change they create

[Dug]

Mass agriculture isn't particularly good for the environment, no matter what's being produced. Vast tracts of land!

Well in general we in the western world can just do with less food, period.

[dextersmith]

Anyone can hug a tree while eating bacon.

[Auxora]

I question the calculation a bit since it includes all components of a hamburger including non-meat parts like the bun, condiments, vegetables, etc. Not that those would add up to a lot, but including that in an argument about eating meat raises red flags that the numbers might be exaggerated.

Either way humans have to eat, so if not hamburger meat they would have to get food and protein from other sources, all of which have various effects on the environment from water usage to insecticides, trucking them to grocery stores or restaurants, etc.

Every human is impacting the environment negatively to some degree through waste and using resources. It's just finding a balance where we can exist sustainably, without ruining the planet for future generations, without sacrificing so much quality of life that it sucks. That's the catch though, since most people aren't interested in living like Native Americans did 300+ years ago. And a lot of people today think they are doing their part by driving a Prius or recycling cans, when that's a tiny drop in the bucket of their environmental impact. But something is better than nothing. I guess in the end mother nature will re-balance things even if it's in an unpleasant way in the future.

[Bakis]

Ban meet except bacon and I'm all good :<

[belfpala]

I question the calculation a bit since it includes all components of a hamburger including non-meat parts like the bun, condiments, vegetables, etc. Not that those would add up to a lot, but including that in an argument about eating meat raises red flags that the numbers might be exaggerated.

Add that many of the same factors are also necessary for most vegetarian/vegan foods. You might skip the "grow a cow" step, but I damn sure need cumin, coriander, parsley, cilantro, cardamom, cayenne, salt, pepper, and vegetable oil to make my chick pea falafels taste right in the "cooking step." Those all also need a "transport step" and a "processing step." The cow just needs salt and pepper. And so on.

Anyway, as pointed out a few times already, look at cars instead.

[Volardelis]

Either way, we have to eat living organisms, whether animals or plants.

So really, why does it matter which one you pick or both? Our teeth are designed for us to eat both meat and plant material.

[Deleted]

Yes! One can be pro something without being extremist! I know many people especially here find that hard to believe but it really is possible.

[Bodakane]

Technically consuming anything is bad for the environment.

But if you read your own source, it attempts to hide one of the real sources of environmental damage: vehicles. All the burgers eaten in America harm the environment as much as around 10k SUVs.

Maybe we should do something about those SUVs huh?


"pro-environment" is more or less a meaningless buzzword, but I shall try to dissect it.

If you mean "believe that climate change is not a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese", yes you can still eat meat. Understanding basic principles of science does not conflict with consumption of meat.

If you mean "humans are responsible for climate change", then see above, same thing.

If you mean "humans need to protect the environment", then yes you can still eat meat. Agriculture is a contributor to climate change, but it's also a human necessity. People need to eat, and meat is an important part of healthy diets (granted there are alternatives).

Choosing to eat meat or not is a personal decision, which can be influenced by environmental impact, but simply recognizing climate change, human's impact, and taking steps to solve/reduce the problem does not mean you cannot eat meat. The question you pose is an interesting red herring, suggesting that people who don't take every single step to minimize impact are not allowed to be "pro-environment". Unfortunately, like all red herrings, it attempts to distract the reader from the real issue.

It's like asking, can you drive a car and support the environment, or fly in a plane, or run air conditioning, or have electricity.

I drive a hybrid, keep my house at 76 in the summers, and have sensors that turn off lights when I'm not in the room, and all my appliances are rated to be green. But I still enjoy fish, steak, pork, eggs, milk, etc. Am I allowed to be "pro-environment"?


Ideologically, it's about minimizing impact, not removing it. The more general response to this question, is that the world, as a whole, could survive with consuming less meat, which would ultimately lower food costs and help the environment.

I've seen different numbers.

I've seen that livestock and their byproducts account for 51% of all worldwide greenhouse emissions.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-1812909.html
http://www.animalfeedscience.com/art...517-7/abstract

We have to remember that there's around 15 billion livestock animals slaughtered every year for food.