Meat plays a huge role in climate change. It takes more than 2400 gallons of water to produce only 1 pound of meat. One cow produces around 70-120 kg of methane a year, methane from livestock is accounted for 39% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Going vegan or vegetarian isn't that hard if you try, even if you can't try to reduce to 1-3 dairy or meat products a day.

That is true, and the same can be said about clothing and transportation .

Meat is a huge industry that is hard to move along so even if a group of individuals turned vegan or vegetarian the amount of difference would barely make a small dent in the problem realistic it seems like a better option would be to lobby for the meat companies to cut down on their production but that would be really hard to do as well.

I agree with what you have to say because meat is a real problem in the environment. We can limit the amount of meat we use because it is using to much of our sources such as water which lower the Co2 concentrations.

I agree meat is a big problem and that our individual power is enormous. But I think that we have to do more than a few of us being vegetarian or vegan. We need big factories to help with the problem. Also, I don't think we realize how much food we waste. If meat companies cut down on how much they produce I think that will make a greater difference then some of us becoming vegetarian.

Although meat may or may not play a major role in climate change, is being vegan or going vegetarian truly going to help solve this problem? I understand that it takes a lot of water to produce a pound of meat, but so do the fruits, nuts, and vegetables that we would be consuming more of if we were to go vegetarian. An almond by itself takes at least one gallon of water while one head of broccoli takes 5.4 gallons of water. The problem with the amount of methane produced by cows is due to the fact that they are on grain diets; which is the cheaper and substandard way for cows being raised on factory farms. However, there are other cows that are grass-fed who are able to graze freely accounting for less of the methane gas emission. If we could find more resourceful ways of growing more with the amount it takes for less as well as not feeding our livestock with genetically modified crops or exposing them to pesticides, then just maybe we'd be one step closer for conserving the food for the people who need it the most.

I really agree with your opinion on meat and its relation to climate change. Producing meat falls right on top of the issue with the environment. Raising animals calls for lots of land and energy sources that we could save. Although people love meat, being vegetarian could help the earth just a little bit, step by step.

I really agree with your opinion on meat and its relation to climate change. Producing meat falls right on top of the issue with the environment. Raising animals calls for lots of land and energy sources that we could save. Although people love meat, being vegetarian could help the earth just a little bit, step by step.

I really agree with your opinion on meat and its relation to climate change. Producing meat falls right on top of the issue with the environment. Raising animals calls for lots of land and energy sources that we could save. Although people love meat, being vegetarian could help the earth just a little bit, step by step.

I think the better course of action is rather than resulting to being vegan or vegetarian I think reaching a balance because biologically human was built to be omnivores to eat both is important. We as students and people need to stand and limit ourselves from overeating and wasting meat and finding better ways to get that meat that we enjoy. I think that cutting meat out all together is a drastic measure that isn't necessary also there are people who rely on meat as a convenient course that will feed their families and give them necessary protein so that won't go away 100% it is incredibly unlikely that humanity as a whole will give up meat so instead of trying to go against bad odds instead we should find better way to get meat and greens find balance.

I agree with the opinion that meat does play into global warming. However is realistic for everyone to go vegetarian/vegan? I think a more viable approach would be to cut down meat production because we definitely have excess meat as it is. Even though it isn't solving the whole problem, making this cut would be a step in the right direction.

Hi Lola and all, great discussion.

To me the idea of "cutting down meat production" is problematic: how do you do that?  It seems to me that the best way is thru economics and personal choices.

If we institute a tax on carbon, then meat production will be taxed to reflect the "real cost" of meat's effect on the climate.  Then it will be more expensive, so people would buy less.

But the approach suggested by vross in the original post above is good too: if everyone who eats meat reduces their meat consumption to a few meals a week, then that will reduce the demand, and reduced supply will follow.

Meat is a huge part of the average person's diet for better or for worse. In terms of cutting down on meat, we could perhaps slow down the rate of cows and chickens etc. being bred simply for slaughter. If we can bring the overwhelming population of these animals down then we can use the meat of the animals we have. It's not the most realistic of scenarios there are a lot of holes but we need to slow down the growing population of the animals we breed just for slaughter.

Also if people stick to locally grown free-range meat products it will make a slow but important change because the big corporations which are the problems here will have to either slow their production or change to a better, more environmentally conscious way to get their meat grown and sold

Another option would be to eat animals like rabbits and other small mammals, but mainly rabbits. First off, they reproduce very quickly (just 10 females and 1 male can produce 200 rabbits in one year). Second, they are domesticated so humans can raise their own rabbits. If you also have a garden, you can use the forage from the garden as a food source for the rabbits. Also, the biggest factors are they are a high source of protein and don't require a grain diet to survive, so bunnies and rabbits have a very small carbon footprint. If you were to switch from eating beef and chicken to eating rabbit, then your weekly carbon emissions would change from 160 pounds to 50 pounds. Rabbits are smaller so they'll use less land, less food, less fossil fuels.

Hello all. Great discussion! Very happy to see that people are interested in this discussion about veganism, as discussion is the first step towards change.

While I understand veganism is a radical change, is it really any more unrealistic than expecting everyone to get solar energy (even when it's not effective, and batteries are expensive), walk everywhere (when they might live far away from anything so walking is not effective), get a hybrid (which still suffers from unclean electricity), or expect people to not travel on holidays. Veganism is effective anywhere, does not require large amounts of money to invest in new infrastructure, and also saves considerable amounts of water. Veganism is not a way to save climate change that only the wealthy can partake in. In fact, meat consumption is actually much lower in some developing countries. Vegetarianism also has a significant reduction on carbon footprint and is more feasible. It is a great starting place. 

Meat does not need to be a part of people's diet. In other cultures, meat is far less prevalent. In India, th e average person eats less than 18lb of meat a year. This is far lower than in the US, where meat consumption is 198.5lb a year.

Asking meat industries to reduce production is totally unrealistic/impossible. In a capitalist society, production is driven by demand. The only way to reduce meat production and emissions is to go vegan/vegetarian and reduce demand. As demand goes down, so will production, according to the law of supply and demand.

I agree with the idea of a carbon tax on meat, which could go to fund renewable energy and other prospects. Meat is far too cheap. Given the water usage, carbon footprint, and reduction of the effectiveness of antibiotics caused by the overuse of antibiotics, meat is far too expensive. Also, consider that these are the lives of sentient beings. Does $5 for an entire rotisserie chicken, an entire life, seem a little too cheap, especially given all the environmental cost?

http://www.businessinsider.com/where-do … eat-2015-9