UN says eat less meat to curb global warming

More proof that the “global warming” crows is more interested in micromanaging peoples lives:

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
· Climate expert urges radical shift in diet
· Industry unfairly targeted - farmers

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

Full Story

I am going to increase my mean consumption.

Maybe I will even eat a triple cheeseburger on the steps of the UN. :cool:

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Say, does this meat-free day and talk of personal denial remind you of anything? I’ll spot you the R, l, g,o, n and let you buy a vowel. :slight_smile:

I will give you that, but this looks like the beginning of trying to ban meat consumption. If you read further, this same person is:

Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.

The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organization guidelines.

That is 4 days a week. Of course, they will not stop there if they get their way. :rolleyes:

If they truly want to stop global warming, then they should close their mouths…all the hot air. :stuck_out_tongue:

I remember back in the 90s when they were saying that gassy animals were hurting the o-zone layer by releasing gas into the atmosphere.:rolleyes:

I don’t see how anyone can deny that eating meat and all that that involves contributes to global warming. Forests are cut down to grow grain to feed cattle and for grazing land thereby decreasing oxygen production and increasing carbon dioxide and methane.

But leaving aside global warming we can look at the situation this way. Meat production wastes precious arable land. Eating less meat would mean more space to grow grain for food which produces more food per acre of land that raising cattle. Less land used and more people fed – who can argue with the wisdom of that?

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change

[Catholics] should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice [as penance]. :stuck_out_tongue:

Sorry but what word are you trying to say?

Is this a prize puzzle if I solve?

You misunderstand the issue. Methane produced by giant cattle lots is a greenhouse gas which contributes to warming in the same way that carbon dioxide does. It has nothing to do with the ozone layer. Apples and oranges. Try to learn more about the issues before you apply the “roll eyes” icon.

Meat consumes a lot of resources, and in its production lots of greenhouse gases are produced. The idea that we should curb our appetites for meat is not so silly. I know, it is difficult for many modern Americans to even contemplate the need for sacrifice or self-restraint in our world of immediate consumer gratification. It is especially hard to consider such sacrifice when the potential benefits will not directly and immediately benefit the individual. These benefits will apply to future generations in decades to come. We as a society need to decide which is more important, our wants now or the needs of humans not yet born.

Exactly the way we mass produce meat is an extremely bad way of using the land. Course in some cases raising animals is the best use of land but then in those cases I am mainly talking about very small family farms. Not the massive ones most of our meat in this country probably comes from.

i am having the biggest steak i can find for dinner, and for dessert, …bacon.

OK I agree that they need to stop talking the hot air is beginning to bother me.

But I believe I should get a break as I like my steak rare almost raw if you talk to my husband.:rolleyes: So I use less energy and create less heat when my meat is cooked :smiley: :smiley: . So maybe the goal should be raw meat, no cooking needed. :wink:

No, you misunderstand the issue. The whackos that Chris was speaking of made those claims back in the 90s. It is obvious that the whackos then didn’t know what they were talking about just as the whackos now don’t know what they are talking about. It is called the politics of fear, it has nothing do with the environment, and everything to do with political control.

I’m just glad that the U.N. is no longer blaming me and my SUVs for global warming. :smiley:

It also seems to me that if you follow the logic of this article then man is not to blame for global warming, animals are to blame. :rolleyes:

i’m glad i live in the U.S.A. and not untied nations land so their rules have no legal barring on me, and if they feel differently they can come try and make me stop :cool:

I am pretty sure the USA is a part of the United Nations… Besides this is not a law it;s basically just a suggestion. And really if you look beyond personal opinion and look at the facts eating less meat is healthier for the enviroment. But whatever …

being part of it is differnt to being a subject of it, which is the direction some seem to want us to take…

eating meat isnt always worse on the environment. what we’d need to do is find better ways of raising it.

B-12 an essential vitamin that we can not make in our bodies-ever. it is only found in meat. no plant of any kind contains this. if we cut out all meat then without viamins we die. i think the poor are more likely to have bologna than vitamins.

UN suggestions scare me since they can turn to UN policy, and some courts think that law can be used to determine our laws.

B12 is actually made by a bacteria that can be found on plants if unwashed if I remember correctly. Bacteria in our bodies make it as well but they make it too far in the digestion tract for it to be absorbed.

And yes I agree that raising meat can be a good use of land. I would just argue that in many/most cases our mass production of it is not. Also I donlt think this suggestion is really talking about poor people who can barely afford to eat as it is. It;s mainly talking about who have plenty of money and can certainly afford vitamens see what I mean?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.