C'mon, ECB. Quit contributing to the American culture of fear appeals.

But -- and forgive me for trying to hijack this thread to take on a larger issue --even if you're not a vegetarian, you can do some good for the world simply by eating less meat.

Time Magazine recently came up with 51 things that individuals and societies can do to combat climate change. #22 on the list was Skip the Steak:

Which is responsible for more global warming: your BMW or your Big Mac? Believe it or not, it's the burger.

Even Erica here, connoisseur of greasy Texas delicacies, has gone on record saying she moderates her meat consumption as well as her driving.

--- Jensen

No, I don't find it funny or ironic. You see, chefs make a living cooking salmon for people. Hence, they have a stake in the species survival, as do all fish eating people.

Does anyone else find some vegetarians to be as stupid and annoying as evangelical Christians?

Does anyone else wonder whether veganism is just a rationalization for anorexia?

The real issue on both of these rivers is the dependence on water for agriculture as Jensen points out. Once we figure out how to deal with that problem in a way that respects rural communities, we can then make progress in removing the dams.

Do you support the tear-down of dams in the region, even though they are the most cost-effective carbon-neutral energy source we have?

We have to prioritize our environmental causes: if global warming is an existential threat to mankind, we may have to find some other way to accommodate the salmon.

Dams and Global Warming Home

And to the vegetarians and vegans - I think it is the smug moral superiority that some of you display that fuels the negative responses that you get here. Many of us do what we can to reduce our ecological footprint ( or to reduce our feelings of guilt anyway ). Is eating local and organic food, including some local meats worse for the planet than eating soy products that have traveled thousands of miles to get here? I don't know, but I think this game of who is the most righteous is juvenile and reminds me of when I was raised in a fundamentalist religion.

about the traveling food, i don't know exact data about what is less, but i can't see how eating meat in any situation is efficient. if you find anything regarding this, i'd be interested to see it.

and if you were thinking of bringing up the fact that the amazon is being destroyed for soybeans, which is true, the reality is that most of that feed goes towards feeding cows because of the mad cow scares (they stopped feeding cows other animals and now they need a high protein food).

and finally:
"It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons. A totally vegetarian diet requires only 300 gallons of water per day, while a meat-eating diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water per day. You save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for an entire year."

http://goveg.com/environment-wycd-footprint.asp

Because we like to eat meat. We enjoy it. It tastes good. We're well aware that there are plenty of other options. Those options are side dishes for us.

You will never be able to stop people from eating meat. Ever. Deal with it.

Go ahead and make a correlation to eating humans. Those are always fun to ignore completely.

"Does anyone else find some vegetarians to be as stupid and annoying as evangelical Christians?

Amen.

Yeah, let's save water. You know we're running out of it.

Dumbass.

Maybe we, Washingtonians, aren't running out of water, but the Southwest is on its way to being seriously fucked. Many other parts of the world are facing serious water shortages. It's only going to get worse, not better.

Dumb ass.

But that would be ... PRUDENT.

How much water does a fish-eating diet require? I grew up in Hawaii and that is mostly what we ate.

--- Jensen

n contrast, fish require on average 2 kilograms of grain to add 1 kilogram of live weight, and are therefore more “water efficient” as an animal protein source. Aquaculture presents both costs and benefits, producing “water efficient” fish while exacting a heavy toll on habitat and water quality, and increasing evaporative losses from freshwater ponds. Clearly, these tradeoffs have important implications for evolving food and water management policy.

PS: if anyone here feels like they are being preached to, it is not intentional on my part. the difference between veganism and evangelicalism is that we don't know if god exists, but the health, environmental, and animal rights benefits are all very clear through veganism.

and @22, i agree that animals and animal products are tasty, i just think some things come above taste...

Like I said, I haven’t done the research on this, so I’m not putting it forward as "the way things are." But it is another way to look at the question of whether or not food animals can be a good investment of resources.

Strictly from an environmentalist's standpoint (leaving the animal rights issue aside), eating beef like this is certainly preferable to eating beef that comes from a far-away factory farm. But it's still many times less energy-efficient than going vegetarian. Veg fare skips the middle-man, so to speak. Really, the climate change issue with meat-eating is one of degree (forgive the pun). Meat-eating at current levels (barring disproportionate strides in other sectors) is not sustainable. Meat-eating at lesser levels -- even meat from factory farms -- is sustainable.

There are cultures in Europe that have been doing it on the same pastures for hundreds of years.

And you'll find that these cultures, because of the limitations of traditional agricultural technology, didn't eat that much meat. Remember, the palace guards in England are called the Beefeaters. Back in those days, beef was enough of a luxury that such a name meant something. Of course, the other difference between then and now is just how many people there are in the world.

That said, most practicing vegans tend to have abysmal diets, if only because most practicing vegans are teenagers whose primary concept of healthy food extends no further than the Boca burger.

Go evangelize somewhere else, veganists.

Vegans, like Christians, believe that what they have found is good for them should now be a must for us.

I have yet to meet a Vegan who will not flip out into an argument on animal rights the second you suggest that it's your right to eat meat, and that you aren't selfish for enjoying it.

They both have one-track minds. That's selfish.

Note: Vegans, not vegetarians.