Not this is really news, but there’s a new study out about the carbon footprint resulting from eating beef.
This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.
That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.
Of course, this was printed in a news paper, so it’s highly likely that it was distorted and confused as much as possible. Nonetheless, it’s yet another reason for vegetarianism that doesn’t involve the “Animals are cute!” rationale.
preacherman
geez, that was quick. plus, that’s the furthest thing from preaching. I’m just smugly pointing things out.
i wonder how much it is for seafood.
I imagine that for sea food it’s substantially less. Naturally caught sea food, of course, not the stuff born and bred in a farm. Nonetheless, you have all the same transport costs. I wonder what the ratio of usable, salable meat from a fish is versus that of a cow. It probably doesn’t matter. That said, I’ve become more and more open to the idea of eating fish in recent months. Not store bought fish, but if I were out on a boat or elsewhere, and I caught it myself, and it wasn’t some weird almost extinct thing like a Chilean sea bass. But that’s cause I wouldn’t have a problem with smashing a fish’s head on a rock, and the carbon impact of me walking to the shore with a fishing pole is negligible, other than the energy required to make my pole and whatnot. that brings up another point: what’s the carbon impact of making my raquetballs, etc. That gets to a reductio ad absurdam. I guess none of it matters. Eat whatever you like.
well, your welcome…
anywho, the bigger my carbon footprint is the smaller my enormous stomach looks… so i guess i should go buy a suvie and a steak
[…] previously posted little bits and pieces about what I thought regarding being a vegetarian and the […]