Comments | gloworm59: On health and the environment (and why I wasn't on the Debate Team)

gloworm59

On health and the environment (and why I wasn't on the Debate Team)

Jan 29, 2008 09:40

I am an awful, awful debater. It's the same reason I wasn't a good history teacher. Things really interest me, but the facts fly out of my head almost as fast as I can think about them. I'll read an article and think, "That's a good point!" or "I really agree with that and am going to adopt that point of view!" but if someone actually questions ( Read more... )

food, health, environment

Comments 9

factor farming anonymous January 29 2008, 15:31:14 UTC

It isn't just the factory farming of meat which has a great environmental impact but all factor farming.

And let me applaud you for eating less meat. :-)

-paul

rockinlibrarian January 29 2008, 16:26:37 UTC

Plus, meat is expensive! (Yeah, that's me being the tightwad again)

I have been trying to slip in more meatless meals and meals where meat is more of a flavoring than the main course, but Jason is so dang stubborn and MeatandPotatoes-y. He's going to have to learn because Lent is coming up and now that he works day shift we WILL be eating dinner together and I WILL be going meatless at LEAST once a week...!

Another reason dwhren January 29 2008, 17:20:46 UTC

You may soon be eating the spawn of cloned animals, and if the food industry has its way you'll have no idea.

You should read the book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver. It will change the way you think about where you get your food. Not just meat.

Makes me regret the banana I eat everyday, but since it's pretty much the only approved fruit on my current diet I don't have much choice.

Re: Another reason gloworm59 January 29 2008, 19:16:41 UTC

That book is on my list, as soon as I can find it on CD. :)

I read Small Wonder by Barbara Kingsolver last year, and she has an essay or two that touch on those issues in there, so I have been thinking about those things. I do try to buy as locally and, recently, seasonally as I can. But anyway, if that one banana a day is your one long-distance food, you're still doing a lot better than most people. Get Paul to build you a greenhouse so you can grow your own bananas. ;)

I've thought about getting meat from a local source (that I'm sure wouldn't use cloned critters), but it's so darn expensive...

Re: Another reason dwhren January 29 2008, 19:51:17 UTC

Yeah, I've thought about the local meat thing too, but the problem is that because of Paul I rarely eat meat at home. I occasionally cook fish at home, but really not anything else for the most part. Eating locally when you eat out is a heck of a lot harder.

rockonliz127 January 29 2008, 23:13:22 UTC

Yeah, Jonathan sent me an article recently about how Americans do tend to eat far more meat than they need, and how bad for the environment processing meat really is. I think if you eat meat once or twice a week and get your protein otherwise through vegetables, you'll be healthier and help the environment out a lot.

"green house gasses" from livestock anonymous January 30 2008, 05:33:57 UTC

Yes, livestock produces a lot of carbon dioxide... however, they can be considered "carbon neutral", as the carbon dioxide they produce is coming from the plants they were fed which absorbed that carbon from the atmosphere to begin with. The reason that fossil fuels are bad is because we're releasing carbon that has been removed from the atmosphere for millions of years, with no path for it to go back into the ground. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to think that cutting back on meat production is like switching to a car that gets greater fuel economy ( ... )

Re: "green house gasses" from livestock gloworm59 January 30 2008, 14:16:51 UTC

My impression is that the concern about greenhouse gasses "produced" by livestock is not so much from the livestock itself, but from the vehicles involved with maintaining the...farms? factories? and transporting the meat to where it's sold. At least, *my* concern would be more about that than the cows passing gas. :)

Re: "green house gasses" from livestock anonymous January 31 2008, 22:32:53 UTC

The article you quoted was using numbers that included the methane produced by the livestock (which is quite a bit more than the other greenhouse gases involved due to processing and transport, which are themselves substantial). But the best way to minimize that fossil-fuel powered overhead is to stick with locally produced, organic meat and produce. It tastes better anyway!

-brian