I was reading through the beefy site(see below http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/) and they were sounding downright GREEN. Hmmm, I says to my self, they provide one citation to support the numbers given; they cite the EPA. Bush's EPA. The same EPA that refuses to act on the court ordered mandate to regulate emissions from autos, Hmmmm.
Who else do they have on the links.
Well, they have probably every university that has a school of agriculture, OK.
They have the USDA and its assorted departments, including the USDA marketing department. That's right, USDA has as a major part of its mission the selling of US raised food, that is, selling to you and me as in making it look as good as possible.
And then I looked at the NGO's they list as resources. Among them is Junk Science http://www.junkscience.com/a website devoted to countering all evidence of human(read 'industry') contribution to global warming. Another great resource listed is Center For Consumer Freedom http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ sponsored, as they say on the site, by 'hundreds of companies' all of whom have of course requested anonymity. Smart move on their part. This website is dedicated to such worthy causes as refuting the myth that obesity is caused by sugar and fats, fighting to keep nutritional information off menus and working to discredit PETA, The Humane Society, The Center for Science In The Public Interest and anyone else who stands in the way of maximizing profits from food and drink. The ever objective American Council On Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/, is pretty much devoted to denying problems of conflict of interest in industry supported research. How FOOLISH to think that your research might be influenced by the fact that your livelihood is dependent on the people who peddle the shit you are researching. The Animal Health Institute http://www.ahi.org/ wants to assure you that the antibiotics pumped into livestock by the gallon are nothing to worry your purty little heads about. So much for the ngo resources.
Next I looked at some of the "Sustainability Fun Facts" they provide.
One such 'fun fact' states, "In the Eastern and Central United States, wildlife is almost entirely dependent on ranch, farm and other private lands; so, ranchers play an important role in the survival of native species." and "Rangelands and pastures provide forage and habitat for numerous wildlife species"
But then they tell us, "About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages."
Well, no shit the wildlife depend on rangeland and pasture, that's pretty well all they have, the rest is suburbs and Wal-Mart parking lots!
Then we read, "Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture decreased 4.2 percent from 2001 to 2006. " According to the EPA chart they refer to, methane from enteric fermentation(cow farts) decreased by 4.5% between 1990 and 2004. But methane from manure management incrreased by 26.4% during the same period for a net gain of about 22% in one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases around. They provide no support for the 2001-2006 decrease.
I don't think I got a lot of real objective info during my sojourn with the beef producers. But I honestly looked at what they had to say. I don't doubt that many beef farmers are good folks. I am sure that many farmers are working hard to keep from polluting water sources, hell they have to use the water too. But,all in all, given the info from far more objective sources, eating meat is bad for the environment. Sure, there are small operations that maybe raise their pigs, beefers, fowl from cradle to grave and do a good green job of it. But when you go down to the supermarket for those bargain cuts or to McDougle's for the happy dead cow patty, you are actively countering most or all of any other green efforts you have made. It is of course your choice to make, but it is not just a personal choice, it effects us all.
Ep 389 The Professional Left Podcast
4 days ago