Thursday, September 11, 2008


Dilemmas abound in the world of green.

And, sadly, nature is not always the best guide. I think I am safe in saying that we, humin beans, are essentially omnivores. And that includes eating meat. It's not strictly essential, but what we were designed for (OK, actually raw, but that can be covered in an appendix... geddit).

And, in the great climatic scheme of things, that is actually a bit of a design fault, if we are also to ignore our developing intellectually beyond the level of pragmatic and practical population balance measures.

There's no getting around the fact that, for a day's worth of sun, an acre of crops feed a lot more folk than an acre of crops feeding a cow... feeding some folk.

So... and accepting it is just another delaying tactic, vegetarianism is another potential mitigation in our march to destruction. Though it does I suppose leave around an awful lot of belching and windy Friesans to serve the cause of greenhouse reduction less well. So, just one last T-bone then?

Note: National Vegetarian Week in May

Links (evolving, natch, as advised or I stumble over new ones)


Indy - Can you reduce your carbon footprint with a vegan diet?
Guardian - Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat - I think this is the right place for it. A few other sacred cows ('scuse pun) get dragged in, too - biofuels, population, etc. Nice holiday ads though... somewhere to stay when writing about those on $2 a day I guess)
Indy - The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?
Observer - It is time to become a vegetarian?
BBC Newsnight - Is it time to turn vegetarian? I argue with the 'facts' of the statement, not the ethics: In environmental discussions, Mother Nature, or doing what's 'natural' is often cited, in my view rightly, as a good thing. As one of her creations, it seems odd that our omnivorous design is now deemed by many as a flaw.

And the meat-banning advocacy might not serve too well some of the poster children of the climate change movement. Polar Bears or Tigers, for instance.

Whilst seeing the logic in part of what he says, I have to disagree with Mr. de Boer that this option is 'a solution'. At best it is a measure that buys some more time if other factors are not addressed.

Especially with greater affluence bringing currently already quite carnivorous cultures to the... er... table. In their billions. I kinda think we've been here before, too.

Guardian - UN says eat less meat to curb global warming - married to a Chinese with a great culinary repertoire, 'one meat free day' is not a stretch for us.

Guardian - Meathead mayor - I didn't post his piece because I thought he was being a bit silly and unnecessarily provocative (basically 'bacon breakfast, lunch and dinner 24/7, 365/365 - which is how to wind up the Guardian readers and ensure a high rating). QED.

Spiked - Why I’ve got a beef with going vegetarian

Guardian - NEW - Eating less meat won't save the planet


Veggievision - source of info


No comments: