The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day -- by Dave Johnson

[kpete]

The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day

-- by Dave Johnson
The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save:

● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;

● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;

● 70 million gallons of gas -- enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;

● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;

● 33 tons of antibiotics.

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:

● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;

● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;

● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;

● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.

There is much more there - go read!

more at:
http://www.alternet.org/water/134650/the_startling_effects_of_going_vegetarian_for_just_one_day/
via:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2009/04/the_startling_e.htm

[cali]

1. ack. not this again.

[medeak]

82. miss one meal per week and wow..great statistics as well:

My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads. See how easy it is to make an impact?

[slackmaster]

2. Every time I go for a day or three without eating meat, the same thing happens

I develop an extra-strong craving for meat.

[flvegan]

3. nom nom

:popcorn:

[TZ]

4. Now why did I think of you and popcorn when I read this thread?

Pass me some...:rofl:

[TroglodyteScholar]

66. Ugh, why popcorn?

Hand me some popbeef, please...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. You're taking up too much room on the couch

:popcorn:

[Marrah_G]

46. Scoot over !

[Bryn]

106. Next time I will just sit and watch with

:popcorn:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. .

:popcorn:

I totally agree, but soon people will be in here going, "Mmmm...steak...dead cow...yum."

[cali]

7. I agree too, but this article is so filled with false claims

that it doesn't help at all.

[Zywiec]

8. Even more at DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5369857

:think:

[Mari333]

9. oh i posted this a day or two ago

be prepared for WILD EYED MEAT EATERS SMASHING YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH THE BONES OF DEAD ANIMAL CARCASSES.
:)

[kpete]

11. thanks

i am preparing homemade hummus...kp

[Mari333]

12. mmmmmm

I like to add a little black and white olives chopped up to hummus.

[kpete]

15. i used

basil and garlic pesto

[Mari333]

18. oh lord mouth is watering

I had 2 jellybeans for breakfast. not good at all.
thinking of hummus....

[MineralMan]

39. That's really a good side dish with lamb, too.

[Demeter]

10. Not to Mention a Massive Shortage of Immodium

and long lines at bathroom stalls.

[mainegreen]

13. Even better, we could implement sensible farms that utilize crop and animal rotation with

land management. Super low economic imprint, less so than even with just veggies, all things considered.

Plus, we get to eat meat. Win-Win.

[glitch]

14. Good Gawd, there are just as many idiot responses on Alternet as there were on DU when this was

posted yesterday. Either people are not learning critical thinking skills or they are abandoning them in their knee-jerk response to the thought of even ONE FUCKING DAY of going without meat.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. There are definitely long-term advantages to cutting back on meat consumption

However, those have to be LONG TERM changes on both a personal and systemic scale. The "if everyone were vegetarian for one day" concept has no contact whatsoever with reality.

[glitch]

22. Oh come on, surely you know the writer is using a technique to make the topic simple.

And is talking about long-term advantages of cutting back on meat consumption!

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Simplifying it to the point of inanity and irrelevance

I would go so far as to say that these factoids are presented so out of context as to border on outright lying.

[MADem]

23. I go without meat most of the week, but it's a choice I make all by my self.

I do it because I don't need or want to eat a lot of meat. I rarely eat cow or pig, but I don't eschew it totally. We enjoy a lot of poultry and fish, and by "a lot" that would be three or so meals of it a week.

The lecturing and hectoring approach never works. And I don't see how any water will be saved--really, you still have to feed and water the livestock in the pipeline...and you've got to wash all those fucking vegetables, to boot!

It's just stupid, these threads. About as stupid as the smoking threads (and I don't smoke, either). But they are funny as hell...it's like rubbernecking at a car wreck, or something.

Any time ya wag a finger, ya gotta expect a few rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery.

[glitch]

29. Exactly like the smoking threads.

People get very uptight when their addictions are threatened, even by something as non-threatening as a list of potential savings put in the simplist terms possible.

[MADem]

48. No, I was referring to the people who want to regulate the behavior of those who

aren't anywhere near them, aren't blowing smoke in their faces and aren't impacting their "personal space" in any way, shape or form.

You're not "selling" it. Sorry. You're coming across like a scold.

[glitch]

62. Actually my beef is with people who use red herrings to avoid discussions which might cause them to

deal with their addictions. As a former nicotine addict I recognize it for what it is, and I admit I don't have a lot of tolerance for it.

But thanks for the personal input!

[MADem]

69. Hee hee....

Beef....

Red herrings...!!!

:rofl:

Contextually quite amusing!

[glitch]

71. Thanks, I do try. :) nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. You forgot to mention the 20 million tons of bullshit

Because these stats are predicated on every animal being raised for meat suddenly vanishing off the face of the earth for that same day.

[glitch]

21. Thank you for making my case, and so quickly.

Usually I agree with your posts, you seem quite rational typically.

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. Please explain how these stats could be accomplished

Suppose everyone on the planet gave up meat for a 24 hour period. We will guarantee that it is a 24 hour period by starting it at midnight Greenwich Meridian, regardless of local time.

Let us assume that no meat animals will be slaughtered during this period, although animals slaughtered before the period starts will continue through processing. Let us also assume that meat already processed for consumption is merely put aside and not thrown out, so no mass emptying of refrigerators or freezers. Lastly, because this is a temporary vegetarian phase, let us assume that animals being raised for slaughter will remain in captivity and will, at best, receive a 24 hour reprieve in their journey to the butcher shop. Are these reasonable assumptions?

Tell me if you can:

How will the 100 billion gallons of water be saved?

From where will come the 1.5 billion pounds of crops?

What is the source of the 70 million gallons of gas?

How will the 3 million acres of land become available?

How does any of this produce a surge in pharmaceutical manufacturing, leading to the 33 tons of antibiotics?

And further,

How will this prevent greenhouse gas emissions?

How will this prevent soil erosion?

Who magically poofs away the manure?

How is the ammonia being disposed of?



I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts on these questions.

[glitch]

38. Read the Lerkfish post. and my response

You are old enough and intelligent enough to understand how the gradual cutting of demand would affect a market over time.

edit: better yet, read pacifist patriot's response.

[LooseWilly]

94. A 24 hour spate of vegetarianism wouldn't affect demand over time.

A gradual cutting of demand over time is a completely different event than a 24 hour not-eating-meat-fest.

Just saying...

[BurtWorm]

54. I think there would be a radical increase in the amount of bullshit

if everyone swore off meat for one day. Just from the amount of people saying they'd given up meat who were sneaking slim jims and bacon bits.

[TechBear_Seattle]

59. "In the daytime I'm Mr. Natural"

You know I love that organic cooking
I always ask for more
And they call me Mr Natural
On down to the health food store
I only eat good sea salt
White sugar don't touch my lips
And my friends is always begging me
To take them on macrobiotic trips
Yes, they are

Oh, but at night I stake out my strong box
That I keep under lock and key
And I take it off to my closet
Where nobody else can see
I open that door so slowly
Take a peek up north and south
Then I pull out a Hostess Twinkie
And I pop it in my mouth

Yeah, in the daytime I'm Mr Natural
Just as healthy as I can be
But at night I'm a junk food junkie
Good lord have pity on me

Well, at lunchtime you can always find me
At the Whole Earth Vitamin Bar
Just sucking on my plain white yogurt
From my hand thrown pottery jar
And sippin' a little hand pressed cider
With a carrot stick for dessert
And wiping my face in a natural way
On the sleeve of my peasant shirt
Oh, yeah

Ah, but when that clock strikes midnight
And I'm all by myself
I work that combination on my secret hideaway shelf
And I pull out some Fritos corn chips
Dr Pepper and an ole Moon Pie
Then I sit back in glorious expectation
Of a genuine junk food high

Oh yeah, in the daytime I'm Mr Natural
Just as healthy as I can be
Oh, but at night I'm a junk food junkie
Good lord have pity on me

My friends down at the commune
They think I'm pretty neat
Oh, I don't know nothing about arts and crafts
But I give 'em all something to eat
I'm a friend to old Euell Gibbons
And I only eat home grown spice
I got a John Keats autographed Grecian urn
Filled up with my brown rice
Yes, I do

Oh, folks but lately I hae been spotted
With a Big Mac on my breath
Stumbling into a Colonel Sanders
With a face as white as death
I'm aftraid someday they'll find me
Just stretched out on my bed
With a handful of Pringles potato chips
And a Ding Dong by my head

In the daytime I'm Mr Natural
Just as healthy as I can be
But at night I'm a junk food junkie
Good lord have pity on me


Lyrics

[Lerkfish]

17. and if we all stopped breathing for one day, imagine how much money we'd save...

but seriously, folks,
the problem with the numbers in the OP is that they completely discount how long it would take to realize those savings, and how the infrastructure would not immediately respond to one day of turning us all into vegans. The meat that was on the counter the day before the boycott would still be on the counter that day, and the day after that, etc. Even if everyone turned vegan overnight, it would take a lot time for the meat industry to realize it and stop shipping meat, and then all the meat would spoil and those animals would have been killed in vain.


the OP should make the point that hypothetically speaking, in a vacuum that does not address industry infrastructure of existing patterns, theoretically we could see a savings over a LONG period of time, ONLY if every man woman and child stopped eating meat and never returned to eating meat. Of course, the money saved would then be offset by the lost jobs, the end of the butcher industry (except of course for Kosher butchers -- who for RELIGIOUS reasons must remain)


the problem with arguments that take a one dimensional view of a three dimensional issue is that they aren't practical, they aren't intellectually honest, and they don't convince anyone but the acolytes of whatever point of view is manipulating statistics to catapult their propaganda.

[glitch]

24. The author assumes most people can make the "dimension" leap without having it spelled out.

But considering how that leap is being deliberately (IMO) not taken, you are probably right, the author should have spelled it out.

[MineralMan]

47. The author is a poor writer.

Badly written articles in support of a position do more harm to the position than no article at all.

It would have taken no more work to have written that article in a way that was factually correct. One such strategy was suggested in this thread, with a number of people becoming vegetarian for a number of years.

Not everything posted on Huffington Post is worth promulgating.

[Lerkfish]

58. no effective argument can ever be made with intentionally false data

you seem to be saying the author merely didn't spell out something definitively enough, but that's not the problem. the problem is the author definitively creates concrete numbers that ignore multiple variables.
It is implying a degree of precision to make a point that it cannot support.

[glitch]

70. Damn, I did misunderstand you.

It would be interesting to see the article's suppositions inacted IRL and get some real numbers as a result, 10 years from now.

As a writer's gimic to get people talking about its subject, I guess this article fails, it allows for too many diversions from the actual discussion, diversions from implied precision to limited time frames.

Point conceded.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. I find these threads both amusing and enlightening.

Why do so many readers assume it means every single person going without meat for one day only on the exact same day?

I hate it when authors phrase things like this. It's only saying what the presumed effect would be if meat consumption was reduced by, I assume, roughly 14%. It's not suggesting the same thing as a call to action like "no one buy gasoline on April 5, 2009."

If meet consumption (demand) was reduced by about 14%, than supply would ultimately decline over time as well wouldn't it? Businesses don't tend to keep producing what they cannot sell.

[datasuspect]

19. they would poop a lot too.

[MineralMan]

26. Didn't we beat this one to death already this week?

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Not quite

Because of the temporary vegetarianism, the horse got a 24 reprieve from being sent to the knacker, so it isn't quite dead yet.

[MineralMan]

32. Ah...OK...carry on, then.

It's time for my lunch, anyhow. I think I'll have a pastrami sandwich.

[TexasObserver]

93. Yes, but it was resurrected three days later. Must be the season.

[NeedleCast]

30. The simple solution is to just kill all the animals

[Lorien]

35. Trying to get that post count up, eh?

*yawn*

[NeedleCast]

41. Well, more mocking a silly argument really

I have no problem for the argument of eating less meat, but using knee-jerk statistics that border on outright lies doesn't help the argument. Rather, it diminishes it by using false information to make it's point, which helps invalidate the greater argument.

"*yawn*"

Tired? Perhaps more meat protien is the answer to getting your energy level up?

[Lerkfish]

68. well, certainly there are many animals who eat meat.

so if eating meat is evil, wouldn't killing all predator animals help resolve the issue?

[NeedleCast]

84. I think the key is to save killing the carnivores for last

they can help us kill off the herbivores for now...

[datasuspect]

36. the simple solution is to just kill EVERYTHING

[Lorien]

31. I have a friend who nearly died of liver failure ten years ago

he was even on a wait list for a transplant. He was a health conscious bodybuilder during most of his youth. His wife has been a vegetarian for most of her life. She designed a "liver friendly" vegetarian diet for him and his liver is now back to 100%. People don't want to hear it; they like the taste of meat more than they enjoy living, more than they love the earth they live on, more than they care about their own children. Does that sound extreme? Every scientific study out there shows that beef consumption is more destructive to the planet than automobiles are, and that heavy beef consumption comes with serious health risks-but beef lovers don't care. Momentary pleasure is everything to some people. Just give it up for ONE DAY; live selflessly for 24 hours. It's not too much to ask, and you may start to feel better for it!

This is the body of a vegetarian:

[MineralMan]

33. Hmm...I see a box with a red X in it. Is that what happens to

vegetarians? You can't see them any more?

[Zywiec]

40. LOL

:rofl:

[MADem]

49. .....

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

37. OK, but I already did that...

"Just give it up for ONE DAY; live selflessly for 24 hours. It's not too much to ask, and you may start to feel better for it!
"

In fact, I was a vegetarian for three years, because my ex-wife decided that would be a good thing. I prepared all meals, and ate the same thing. I studied the subject, to make sure I was providing a completely balanced diet.

About two years into the diet, my wife became seriously anemic, and her physician said to add animal protein to her diet. Ninety days after doing so, her anemia was gone.

You see, I can offer anecdotal evidence, too. Mine is as meaningless as yours with regard to vegetarianism.

You make your choices. I'll make mine. How's that sound?

[LooseWilly]

95. Liver regeneration veggie diet? tell me more...

... I'd be happy to give up meat, again, if a diet were provided to me that would regenerate my liver... or rather would offset the regular damages I do to my liver with my good friend the whiskey.

Tell me about the vegetarian diet that can offset 4-12 ounces of whiskey a day, and I'll go back to vegetarianism.
Seriously. Lay out a diet. I'l give it a try and let everyone know how it works.
I love whiskey far more than I love meat.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. this piece would be way more effective this way:

If 160,000 people cut their meat consumption in half for ten years, we would save...

The rest of the numbers would be identical, but it would address the issue nearly everyone raises about the real effect of modifying one's behavior for only 24 hours.

[glitch]

43. True, but by making it 24 hours it gives people something easy to do this week

It brings it home to the people who are open to it.

But you're right, the 24-hour gimic gives people a red herring to focus on, they give themselves permission to deny the whole point with it.

An opening paragraph spelling it out, followed by the one day a week examples would make that harder to do, but I bet they'd still find a way.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. Or even something simple like what the effect would be if...

XX number of people who eat meat at every meal chose vegetarian options for just three of their twenty-one meals each week for a year.

I do find the range of reactions to such articles fascinating in an armchair psychologist kind of way.

[Marrah_G]

44. False data used for propaganda

If you want to talk about the benefits of reducing how much meat we consume, then say so.

Stop using false statistics to try and guilt people into following what you consider to be the correct way of being.

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. It is doing exactly what you are asking it to do.

It's talking about the benefits of reducing how much meat we consume. It says nothing about everyone adopting a 100% vegetarian lifestyle for the rest of their natural lives. Did you miss where it says 24 hours, not 24 years?

He could have said everyone cut their consumption in half for two days. Or as pointed out above, 160,000 people cut it in half for five years. He's using those particular numbers because they are presumably easy for us to wrap our minds around. But then again, I suppose not.

[NeedleCast]

56. It uses false statistics as it's argument

to produce an emotional, not rational, response. It undermines the argument that eating less is a good thing because of this.

It doesn't matter if the numbers are "easy to wrap your head around" or not, they're false. Producing false information to promote something is not productive.

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. How do we know they are false?

Not being snarky. I'm asking a legitimate question. Have they been shown to be in error by other research?

[Lerkfish]

75. the point of statistics is that they have the burden of proof.

I could say 100 angels dance on the point of a pin. If you cannot produce opposing data, does that make me correct? no, because I am making the assertion, I have to back up my assertion with more than faked data that doesn't account for obvious variables.

the point is that there is a way to make an argument, but pulling numbers out of your ass is not the best way.

ever had a teacher say "show your work"?

at any rate, the author was foolish to come up with these unsupportable figures, because its a distratction from the salient point == most people would agree that a gradual shift to increased vegetable consumption would benefit everyone. Why not just say that? Making up false numbers only works against that point.

[Pacifist Patriot]

77. I understand that. I just wondered if you might have something concrete to share.

For all I know the guy pulled them out of his hindquarters. My only beef, if you'll pardon the truly horrific pun, is with folks who think that basing statistics, made up or otherwise, on a 24 hour abstention translates into strong-arming everyone in the world to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Bit of a leap in my opinion.

[NeedleCast]

86. Really? Okay

I think it's fairly obvious that the "facts" in the article assume that all the animals not eaten that day would just poof out of existence. Simply not eating meat for a day doesn't mean that the food used to feed those animals wouldn't be used and that the animals themselves wouldn't go on pooping and eating just like they do every day.

[Pacifist Patriot]

87. Actually I don't think that's obvious at all.

I don't think the numbers were meant to be taken as literally as if everyone would choose the exact same day to stop eating meat and then resume again the following day. It is referring to a propotional reduction in meat consumption.

Yes, I am also curious how these figures were determined. I too would like to know if they were pulled from some scientist's colonic region. But I think the broader point is being missed here.

Reduction in meat consumption would have measurable results and I for one would like to know what they are. Presumably this is something that can be measured because we do know what it takes to pasture, butcher and market meat verses grow, harvest and market vegetables.

Reduced meat consumption would result in fewer animals pooping and eating, would it not? Of course it wouldn't happen in 24 hours, that is obvious.

[MineralMan]

51. Bingo!

We're really quick to point out such logic flaws in the writings of right-wingers, but less so with regard to writers of things we more or less agree upon.

I eat little meat...maybe a couple of meals a week. I've eaten that way for years, so I'm not opposed in any way to a reduction of meat consumption.

I am opposed to nonsense being used to try to convince people of things.

And, no doubt, this poorly-written article will make the rounds of forwarded emails and will be posted multiple times on DU. It would have been so easy for the writer to produce a piece that had the same effect, but without the logical errors.

Ideas that are fundamentally correct need to be expressed in logical ways, and without such glaring errors.

[Marrah_G]

57. I hate the dishonesty of the arguements used

I find it as obnoxious as the miscarried fetus pictures I drive by every morning being falsley used by anti-choice protesters.

[MineralMan]

60. Yes. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of which

side uses it. We're very quick to identify it when it comes from the right, but less quick when it comes from our own side. We should be better than that.

Good arguments can be made for decreased consumption of meat. Why not make those, instead of using propaganda. This is the same mistake that PETA uses in its campaign. The idea's good, but the presentation is crap.

[rucky]

52. I see your one day and raise you 5. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. This Crock Of Shit Again?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bryn]

61. I honestly think it bizarre that meat eaters demand

to eat meat 3 times a day .. Everyday~ And they whine if they go a day without a meat.

Ugh! I don't enjoy meat and cannot stand it.

[NeedleCast]

63. I'm a meat eater

I eat meat, on average, at zero to one meal per day. I don't demand meat three meals a day. I wouldn't want meat three meals a day.

Your broad brush bullshit is what helps give vegetarians a bad rap.

[Lerkfish]

64. weird. your stereotypical statement has no basis in reality

I am not a vegetarian but I go days without eating meat and think nothing of it. You seem to have this bizarrely inaccurate view of nonvegetarians that is so divorced from reality as to call anything else you might say in serious question.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. I Find It Bizarre That You Actually Think Anybody Has Seriously Demanded Such A Thing.

As far as your lack of enjoyment towards meat, I can honestly give a frog's fat ass.

[Bryn]

105. There is such thing as this

like my family and friends. At least twice a day. If you don't do that then that's great.

[uppityperson]

83. who in the world are you talking about? Good grief. eom

[Pacifist Patriot]

88. My brother-in-law.

Quite seriously. The man thinks life has come to an end if a meal is served without an animal product being included.

Then there is the entire country of Argentina. ;-)

[uppityperson]

91. There probably are some, but seems a bit of stereotyping. nt

[Bryn]

103. Ok then..I should say twice a day at least

This is what I see my family & friends who are meat eaters. Lunch and Supper always consist of meat. Breakfast easily can be skipped or donuts/waffles/pancakes/cereal.

[Mother Of Four]

97. UGH-

If everyone ate meat for every meal..every day...

Can you imagine the constipation? OMGGGGGGG


I eat meat. Yesterday I had:

1/2 cup granola with 1/4 cup milk and an apple for Breakfast.

Lunch was a salad wrap (two cups salad, a healthy amount of cream cheese and pepper in a tortilla wrap)

Was still hungry about an hour later, so nommed another wrap.

Dinner was stuffed pasta shells with riccota, parm, mozz, egg, chives, garlic, oregano, parsley, mushroom (fresh), Onion (fresh), and baby popcorn shrimp. Typical sauce with no beef. And we also had garlic bread.

Today I have hapkido at 11am-
Breakfast was a yogurt and toast.
Lunch is going to be a turkey sandwich with lots of veggies thrown on and an apple-
Dinner is going to be the leftovers from last night.

Not all "Meat eaters" run around with clubs nomming everything that breathes. That's a terrible stereotype!

[Bryn]

104. The way you eat isn't common

but is better than most meat eaters. Average meat eater would have meat at least twice a day (lunch & supper/dinner). I was wrong when I said 3 times a day.

[qazplm]

55. so if everyone goes veggie for a day

do all of the animals we eat stop using water, stop eating, stop farting, stop pooping, and do the crops magically disappear for that day?

I mean I understand the intent but it's ridiculous argument.

The proper argument is if everyone goes veggie permanently this is what would be saved each and every day.

[Pacifist Patriot]

79. Or just if consumption were reduced. It doesn't have to be 100% permanently.

[jmg257]

65. 100 billion gallons of H2O?!!! Does everybody boil their meat or what? Does Veggie Day=St Patrick's?

:crazy:

I don't mind corn beef on occasion, but I typically prefer a nice thick grilled Porterhouse.

[Pacifist Patriot]

78. I don't think that number derives from cooking preparation. I think it might be...

the difference between what livestock drink and what plants require for hydration. Don't know for certain, just a guess on my part.

[DemBones DemBones]

99. Also, when you eat plants, only water to grow

the plants is involved. When you eat animals, water to grow the plants the animals ate plus the water they drank plus the water used for cleaning all figures in.

[stuntcat]

73. ty.

I wish everyone I now would read Jane Goodall's book, "Harvest for Hope"
Whether they cared enough to realize what the facts mean for all our futures, I'd still like everyone to face it all at once, so they aren't consuming blind anymore.

[Enthusiast]

74. I eat wild venison almost daily.

And I will continue to do so.

[peacetalksforall]

76. If I stopped eating meat 39 years ago, how much water have I saved?

I never thought about the water. I am pleased.

[cobalt1999]

80. What's the cost to the planet of this being posted each day?

Think of the environment before you post next time!

[Maru Kitteh]

81. We went veg permenantly almost five years ago for health, the earth, and kindness

I don't miss meat at all. Beef now smells like burnt hair to me, and all poultry smells incredibly disgusting, like the raw vomit of a poisoned person near death.

That's just me.

I understand most people continue to want to eat meat. I would encourage people to try to eat as organic as possible and as local as possible for their health in all things, including meat. Also, I think it's important for people to bear in mind that the amount of meat most Americans consume plays a large part in the diseases that befall them like heart disease, strokes and diverticulitis - and it's no great shakes for the environment either. Simply cutting back on the amount of meat we consume collectively would be a great step forward for our health, and the health of our environment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. I think eating local and seasonal is very important.

But then I suppose the banana purists will jump all over me for wanting to oppress them with a lifestyle change they oppose vehemently. ;)

[Maru Kitteh]

92. God invented plexiglass and portable heaters for just those kind of things :-)

Yum.

[uppityperson]

85. The Startling Effects of Avoiding Factory Farmed Food for a Day.

that is what would do something, or rather if people started avoiding factory farmed foods, meat and veg. Eat what is in season, eat more locally, know your food intimately.

That would help.

[Pacifist Patriot]

89. Indeed

[MillieJo]

96. For most of that to happen Farmers have to also stop work..

They will lose money..Though they still have animals and somebody has to feed them and the animals are still going to shit...they aren't going to disappear for a day and the cows still need to be milked..

[DemBones DemBones]

102. They'd need to change their work, not stop it.

If Americans consumed less meat, farmers would raise fewer animals for slaughter and that would decrease the amount of excrement the animals produce, but of course the only way to have a decrease is to have fewer animals. That should have been pointed out in the article, that it is a long term goal to reduce excrement and ammonia gas. While raising fewer animals, farmers would need to raise more crops to keep their income level.

[DemBones DemBones]

98. Imagine the good we could do if everyone went

vegetarian for one or two days a week, every week. It's not hard to do, doesn't require a total commitment to vegetarianism. We Americans pollute more than anyone else and use more resources than anyone else; this would be a painless way to make some of that up to the world.

[MillieJo]

100. Given the price of meat.. most of us do anyway

I eat mostly chicken and fish..red meat is once a fortnight, good meat is expensive. And like many people there are plenty of meat free days too..

[DemBones DemBones]

101. I realize that, but all would be better than most.

Of course all is probably impossible, but suppose 90-95% of Americans gave up meat for one or two days a week. That would make a significant impact.

It really should be actively promoted, whether the stats in the article are exactly on target or not. We know it would help a lot and lower our cholesterol levels as well. If only someone could promote the idea without antagonizing people the way PETA does.