- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
18 Jul 07
2 edits
Eating 1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but can't afford to buy one those fancy, ladeda, hybrid cars, perhaps stopping eating beef would be a cheaper solution for you.
18 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfOver two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
Eating 1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12292-icy-geysers-may-erupt-on-plutos-largest-moon.html
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but can't afford to buy one those fancy, ladeda, hybrid cars, perhaps stopping eating beef would be a cheaper solution for you.
Transport.
By the way, how much was spent in producing and distributing gas? And in producing and distributing a car? Tires? Building roads? The list goes on...
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaWhich would be cheaper to do from an individual's perspective, stop eating beef or getting a car with a lower carbon footprint?
Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
Transport.
By the way, how much was spent in producing and distributing gas? And in producing and distributing a car? Tires? Building roads? The list goes on...
Sure, if you can, do both, but some people can't, that is what I my thread is directed at.
p.s. I don't eat beef.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfMy point is that the relative carbon footprint of using a car with respect to eating beef is seriously under-estimated in such comparisons.
Which would be cheaper to do from an individual's perspective, stop eating beef or getting a car with a lower carbon footprint?
Sure, if you can, do both, but some people can't, that is what I my thread is directed at.
p.s. I don't eat beef.
So your question is misleading. A better question would be: What would be more cost-effective from an individual perspective?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't think my question is a bad one.
My point is that the relative carbon footprint of using a car with respect to eating beef is seriously under-estimated in such comparisons.
So your question is misleading. A better question would be: What would be more cost-effective from an individual perspective?
Yours is better though.
Fine, let's use that.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's easy - buy a bicycle and become a vegetarian.
My point is that the relative carbon footprint of using a car with respect to eating beef is seriously under-estimated in such comparisons.
So your question is misleading. A better question would be: What would be more cost-effective from an individual perspective?
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI was being fascetious. I don't ride a bike, in London it's just plain too dangerous, and I have no intention of resorting to vegetarianism, except possibly as part of a seduction attempt. In any case vegetables are transported all over the world as well, so what's true for beef is probably true for bananas as well.
Perhaps for you it's easy.
The main problem with the question is that it puts the onus on the individual. The problem is two fold. People's workplaces are too far from where they live and public transport by and large is too expensive and frankly poor to make it an attractive option, so you can't do without a car. Food is produced too far from where people eat it. Ordinary people can't really be expected to hunt down locally sourced produce or move house every time they change jobs - if you work in the City of London for example you can't live there there just isn't any housing and that means using energy to get to work. What is required is some collective action to sort out our demographics so we don't waste lots of energy transporting food around the planet so it can go rotten on supermarket shelves.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDo your part, don't expect the government to do everything for you.
I was being fascetious. I don't ride a bike, in London it's just plain too dangerous, and I have no intention of resorting to vegetarianism, except possibly as part of a seduction attempt. In any case vegetables are transported all over the world as well, so what's true for beef is probably true for bananas as well.
The main problem with the questio ...[text shortened]... energy transporting food around the planet so it can go rotten on supermarket shelves.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou're overlooking the fact that the eater of beef now has the energy to plow a field, work in a factory, score the winning goal for Manchester United, fight terrorism, procreate or even develop the next greenhouse gas-limiting technology. Eating beef is not a zero-sum gain.
Eating 1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but can't afford to buy one those fancy, ladeda, hybrid cars, perhaps stopping eating beef would be a cheaper solution for you.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfWe could tell by your first post. My question is, how do you get your creatine? Supplement?
Which would be cheaper to do from an individual's perspective, stop eating beef or getting a car with a lower carbon footprint?
Sure, if you can, do both, but some people can't, that is what I my thread is directed at.
p.s. I don't eat beef.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
18 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIndeed, it is a loss.
You're overlooking the fact that the eater of beef now has the energy to plow a field, work in a factory, score the winning goal for Manchester United, fight terrorism, procreate or even develop the next greenhouse gas-limiting technology. Eating beef is not a zero-sum gain.
Look at it as a whole, with everyone eating large amounts of beef, and the amount of CO2 given off as a result, yet not everyone is contributing to greenhouse gas limiting technologies now are they? - More CO2 given off than what is stopped, at least in the short term.
And to be Frank, the other examples aren't useful in fighting Global Warming.
Besides, are you of the impression that not eating beef, (which of course could replaced by another food) means you cannot do these things?
My suggestion placed the onus on the individual, and would be done voluntarily, I thought you would have appreciated that...
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfWhat is the point in me doing anything if they allow the opening of the 5th terminal at Heathrow? The problem is a collective one, if you fall for the type of thinking that says that ordinary people have to make changes in their lives - without making it easy for them to make them - all you'll end up doing is moralizing at people while the planet goes to pot.
Do your part, don't expect the government to do everything for you.
Anyway, I generate about 1.5 - 2 Tonnes of CO_2 per year (according to the on-line calculator I used) compared to a national average of 7.5. I've already "done my bit" it's time for the government to do theirs.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfI eat organic beef, not because of the environment but because it is usually cheaper at the farmers market than beef in the stores.
Eating 1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but can't afford to buy one those fancy, ladeda, hybrid cars, perhaps stopping eating beef would be a cheaper solution for you.