Search results

I’m not trying to minimise the impact of rice paddies. But rice being a contributor to rising methane levels doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t seek to reduce said levels where we can. I am merely putting forward the idea that lesser consumption of animal products may well be necessary to reduce the...

Apparently so. As well as 1.5 million pigs and 100,000 beef cattle. Globally it's close to 12 billion animals.

Scientists have already declared that avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce an individual’s environmental impact on the planet so... :shrug:

All I read there was ‘Be quiet. I don’t like the fact I might have to examine my choices and the impact they have so I’m going to insinuate you’re a child’.

That’s not strictly true though is it. Methane, the gas produced extensively by the livestock industry worldwide, traps up to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a 5 year period. Focusing on carbon emissions is only half the battle – or 74 percent of total emissions...

So you wouldn’t reduce your meat intake, knowing it could have a positive impact on the environment simply because you feel others are overreaching? I’m no fan of a ‘nanny state’ but considering what it is at stake I’d be willing to get over myself for it. What a very shortsighted, selfish...

You honestly think Waitrose is the only place to get a range of fruit and vegetables? You poor soul. Did I say the whole world should go veggie? Or vegan? I said society should collectively reduce their meat intake, something which is perfectly doable in a lot of countries. In the UK alone, an...

It is in no way meant to be a perfect solution. The consequences are indeed uncertain but something needs to be done on a global scale to reduce carbon emission and as raising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than all of the carbon dioxide excreted...

But we no longer need to. All nutrition you get from meat you can get from other sources, including many plants. We now know enough about nutrition and the impact that mass farming has on our environment to make better, more informed choices.

Or, as I previously suggested, we could use all the grains and crops we use to feed said animals to feed millions of people. Our consumption of meat has gone far beyond the realms of staving off starvation. When you have 100s of millions of people starving and yet we prioritise the growing of...

Do you honestly think the mass farming of animals for slaughter is done to aid starvation? Or, you know, we could use all that grain we use to feed said animals to feed the starving.

No, you should reduce meat intake so a variety animals don’t go extinct, the Great Barrier Reef doesn’t cease to exist and so the human race might actually be able to survive comfortably. Or you know, don’t. Just be sure to give your kid and grandkids the middle finger whilst you do :thumbsup:

Very defeatist attitude. We still have time to change. The most recent UN report said that by consuming less meat an individual can make a huge difference over the course of a lifetime. Considering most of the crops in the world are grown to maintain animals for slaughter to satisfy human...