Jump to content

Tofu can harm environment more than meat, finds WWF study


Veganluv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Most soybeans are grown to feed livestock. Once factory farms are dismantled I'll begin worrying about if the fraction of the soy crop still being produced is causing an environmental burden.

Good point. Also they are calling tofu a highly processed food? What about hot dogs then?? Or any other highly processed meat food (which happens to be the majority of meat that people eat). If tofu is 'highly processed' enough to damage the environment, think about what the production of those meats is doing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article has no real info in it. I was hoping it'd compare meat to soy pound for pound for environmental impact, taking into consideration the amount needed to feed the animal to get that pound (ironically the soy half will cross into the meat section). There's no info to back up any of the claims made.

 

The bit about replacing meat with pasta/potatoes/bread made me laugh my head off. These are all pretty pointless foods and are in no way a substitute for meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article has no real info in it. I was hoping it'd compare meat to soy pound for pound for environmental impact, taking into consideration the amount needed to feed the animal to get that pound (ironically the soy half will cross into the meat section). There's no info to back up any of the claims made.

 

The bit about replacing meat with pasta/potatoes/bread made me laugh my head off. These are all pretty pointless foods and are in no way a substitute for meat.

I actually agree with everything you say. This article did not give a single fact and did not contribute to the subject in any way. Just a bunch of empty words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article has no real info in it. I was hoping it'd compare meat to soy pound for pound for environmental impact, taking into consideration the amount needed to feed the animal to get that pound (ironically the soy half will cross into the meat section). There's no info to back up any of the claims made.

 

The bit about replacing meat with pasta/potatoes/bread made me laugh my head off. These are all pretty pointless foods and are in no way a substitute for meat.

I actually agree with everything you say. This article did not give a single fact and did not contribute to the subject in any way. Just a bunch of empty words.

 

I agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice is pretty bad for the environment too because of how much methane it produces.

 

Which is a fraction of the methane cows produce.

 

Actually it's about the same. Cows produce about 50 million metric tonnes of methane per year.. About the same as rice.

 

The emissions from cows can be reduced if their feed is changed. It's common practice for farmers to feed their cattle 4 times as much as they should. They're also being grain-fed rather than grass-fed, or fed lower quality foods. This causes bacteria to flourish in the digestive tract and cause the animal to belch and emit methane gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice is pretty bad for the environment too because of how much methane it produces.

 

Which is a fraction of the methane cows produce.

 

Actually it's about the same. Cows produce about 50 million metric tonnes of methane per year.. About the same as rice.

 

The emissions from cows can be reduced if their feed is changed. It's common practice for farmers to feed their cattle 4 times as much as they should. They're also being grain-fed rather than grass-fed, or fed lower quality foods. This causes bacteria to flourish in the digestive tract and cause the animal to belch and emit methane gas.[/quote

 

I would believe you, but I had a botany class years ago where the professor and text book said otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would believe you, but I had a botany class years ago where the professor and text book said otherwise.

 

Hmm fair enough.

 

However I wish you had written it differently.. Cuz when you word it like that it kinda makes it seem like you've got an "I'm smarter than you" mentality. One of the reasons I left the vegan community because I'm sick of the "better than you" vibe I get from forums like this.

 

I like you, beforewisdom. You're a cool guy. I'm just putting that out there to maybe word things a little differently in case you offend someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is another attempt from the mainstream environmental movement to justify their destructive lifestyles. This study or whatever it is was conducted for the WWF.

I have to agree with you on this. I keep hearing people spouting non-facts about how veganism is somehow worse for the environment, and I have to remind them that it's only that way because we allow it. The answer isn't that everyone should be an omnivore, it's that we should demand better practices with farming. After all, it's the farming practice, like over-fertilization and dumping of pesticides, that we have the problem with...not the eating of vegetables.

 

I also have to remind them that the not only eat the animals that were fed with all those "terrible" vegetables, but also eat those "terrible" vegetables themselves, so they're doing far more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The earths climate temperature has been changing drastically on its own for billions of years.

 

A good example is ice ages. We all know about what they are, and that the last one was around 10,000 BC, but we still have not even the faintest idea what caused it, or any others for that matter.

 

The same can easily be said for warming ages which are the natural hangover of ice ages. For all we know, the temperatures we are seeing now could be the natural temperatures of earth before the last ice age. Infact there is solid proof that our planet had endured much longer and hotter periods than those we are recording now.

 

Also people bang on about methane from animals, but our animals production of methane is nothing compared to what the dinosaurs would have been producing, and they were around for 300 million years or whatever, and guess what, the atmosphere survived that.

 

My opinion is that the global warming/carbon emissions theory is very weak, badly drawn from a limited understanding of planetry science, and is most likely an attempt for governments to levy another tax on society, which they are now very effectively doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...