NewScientist Article: Why Eating Greens Won't Save the Plane

[Fallen_Horse]

Not as anti-vegan as the title suggests...

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727691.200-veggieworld-why-eating-greens-wont-save-the-planet.html

[Dallas]

Our compassion grows with our collective knowledge and continuing decline of violence. I think most people will be vegan and vegetarian when they realize you can be just as healthy (if not more) as one - also veg food doesn't have to taste bad either. The people who are in the public like Robert are making the biggest difference in showing people this, I think.

[Ducati]

I think there is some bad math in that article.

 

Livestock farming does the most damage. In part, that is because most livestock eat grain that could be used to feed people. As little as 10 per cent of that grain gets converted into meat, milk or eggs, so livestock amplify the environmental impact of farming by forcing us to grow more grain than we would otherwise need.

 

As a rough measure of how much more, consider that livestock consume about a third of the world's grain crop. So as a first approximation, a vegan world would need only two-thirds of the cropland used today. That's only part of the story, of course: meat and milk make up about 15 per cent of calories eaten by humans, so we would need to eat more grain to compensate for their loss. Altogether, switching to a vegan diet would reduce the amount of land used for crops by 21 per cent - about 3.4 million square kilometres, roughly the size of India.

 

If 15% of calories come from animal products and only 10% of grain gets converted to meat, then it takes 150% of those calories to make that 15%, right? Is a vegan is eating 100% from crops, then a meat eater would be eating 85% from crops, plus the 150% from meat. That is 235%. So how can a vegan world need 2/3's of the cropland used? By his math it should be closer to 42%, not 66%.

 

Also, he mentions land that is not suitable for growing crops would be suitable for growing livestock. I hear this all the time in Colorado. The land is too dry to grow crops, so we have livestock grazing. However, they have to truck in water to feed the livestock. If they used that water to grow crops, they would create many more calories than the livestock. Especially if it is a tough and calorie dense plant like hemp or soy.

[Vegan Joe]

As a rough measure of how much more, consider that livestock consume about a third of the world's grain crop. So as a first approximation, a vegan world would need only two-thirds of the cropland used today.

 

66.66 + (.15 x 33.33) = 71.66

 

"switching to a vegan diet would reduce the amount of land used for crops by" 28.34 "per cent".

 

Not to mention saving a boat load of water, goes a long way to "Saving The Planet".

[Marcina]

Math!

 

*head blows up*

[Im Your Man]

We need to suscribe to that magazine to read the full article and it costs something ? Can someone post the full article here ?

 

The term "save the planet" is too simple, too green and does not reflect the reality. When we say saving the planet, we actually mean to save mankind and other animals. The planet does not need to be saved. We need to be saved. If the temperature and seas rise, WE will be swept from the surface of the Earth, the planet will be different but fine. If we pollute the atmosphere or if an asteroid crashes, we can't breathe and we all die, it will be a century long night and later it will come back to normal. Let's say we destroy it almost totally: we and other animals will disappear, but the planet will not disappear, it will come back the way it was before we destroyed it, or it will become a bit different, with new animals and new plants, it may take a few million years but the planet will always change. It is puerile to think that the planet needs us to continue existing or that we have the power to make it a sterile desert like Mars for eternity.

 

SAVE US. GO VEGAN.

[Fallen_Horse]

Oh sorry! It was free, but I guess the free period runs out? I just assumed it would be free forever.

[beforewisdom]

I've had that happen to me with newscientist articles too. I'm going to stop posting URLs to their site

[Im Your Man]

Humans are such hypocrites. Yes we confess that we are responsible for polluting the atmosphere, the soil, water, and that this is causing harm to the planet, but we always put the blame on others, them, with their SUV's, or the industries, etc. We admit we harm the environment but then we say it is the Earth that will destroy us, with the earthquakes, tsunamis, etc; while in fact it is us that are destroying us, because we are the cause. All the bad things we do, it returns to us. It is hypocritical to think that what we do will not turn against us. This is the Law of Nature. Fishermen say that fish eat all the fish in the seas, of course... We say that its the cattle, the pigs, the cows, the farm animals that pollute water and air with manure and methane, while we know it is US, all this is our fault. We say that the blue algaes spread in lakes and are toxic to humans and animals, it is an economic tragedy for tourism industry, people cannot swim in lakes and river because of those invasive algaes (at least it is a problem in Quebec), truth is that the proliferation of those algaes is entirely due to human activity!

water dishes, often loaded with phosphates;

fecal coliform from septic tanks

Phosphate fertilizer;

agricultural and industrial waste;

the absence of natural vegetation, because we destroyed it. All this can be resumed to : Humans. Algaes are the Poison of Lakes... No, WE are the poison.

[Vegan Joe]

66.66 + {(66.66 / .85) x .15} = 78.42

 

"switching to a vegan diet would reduce the amount of land used for crops by" 21.48 "per cent".

 

correction