Diet & Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm

Diet & Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm
5 (100%) 16 votes

While epidemics of chronic disease are currently by far our leading causes of death, global warming is considered a looming public health threat. How can we eat to combat dietary diseases and greenhouse gas emissions at the same time?

Discuss
Republish

One of the most prestigious medical journals in the world editorialized that climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, and currently, chronic diseases are, by far, the leading cause of death. Might there be a way to combat both at the same time? For example, riding our bikes instead of driving is a win-win-win for people, planet, and pocketbook. Good for us, the environment, and cheaper too. Are there similar win-win situations when it comes to diet?

The same foods that create the most greenhouse gases appear to be the same foods that are contributing to many of our chronic diseases. Meat, fish, eggs, and dairy were found to have the greatest environmental impact, whereas grains, beans, fruits and vegetables had the least impact. And, not only did the foods with the heaviest environmental impact tend to have lower nutritional quality, but also a higher price per pound, thereby scoring that win-win-win scenario.

The European Commission, the governing body of the European Union, commissioned a study on what individuals can do to help the climate. In terms of transport, if Europeans started driving electric cars, it could prevent as much as 174 million tons of carbon from getting released. We could also turn down the thermostat a bit, maybe put on a sweater. But, the most powerful thing people can do is shift to a meat-free diet. What we eat may have more of an impact on global warming than what we drive. Even just cutting out animal protein intake one day of the week could have a powerful effect. Even just Meatless Mondays could beat out working from home all week and not commuting.

And, a strictly plant-based diet may be better still, responsible for only about half the greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, studies have suggested that moderate dietary changes are not enough to reduce impacts from food consumption drastically. Changes to healthier diets, without significant meat and dairy intake reductions, may result only in rather minor reductions of environmental impacts. This is because the average fossil energy input for animal protein production systems is like 25 calories of fossil energy input for every one calorie produced—more than 11 times greater than that for grain protein production, for example, which is down around two to one.

Researchers in Italy compared seven different diets to see which one was environmentally friendliest. They compared a conventional, omnivorous diet adhering to dietary guidelines, to an organic, omnivorous diet, conventional vegetarian, organic vegetarian, conventional vegan, and organic vegan to what the average person actually eats. For each dietary pattern, they looked at carcinogens, air pollution, climate change, effects on the ozone layer, the ecosystem, acid rain, and land, mineral, and fossil fuel use. This is what they came up with. This is how many resources it took to feed people on their current diets. These are the negative effects the diet is having on the ecosystem, and the adverse effects on human health. If they were eating a healthier diet, conforming to the dietary recommendations, the environmental impact would be significantly less. An organic omnivorous diet would be better, similar to a vegetarian diet of conventional foods, beaten out by an organic vegetarian diet, conventional vegan and organic vegan diet.

The Commission report described the barriers to animal product reduction as largely, lack of knowledge, ingrained habits and culinary cultures. Proposed policy measures include meat or animal protein taxes, educational campaigns, and putting the greenhouse gas emissions info right on food labels.

Climate change mitigation is expensive. A global transition to even just a low-meat diet, as recommended for health reasons, could reduce these mitigation costs. A healthier low-meat diet would cut the cost of mitigating climate change from about 1% of GDP by more than half; a no-meat diet could cut two-thirds of the cost, and a no-animal-product-diet could cut the cost 80%.

But many aren’t aware of the cow in the room. It seems that very few people are aware that the livestock sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s changing.

The UK’s National Health Service is taking a leading role in reducing carbon emissions. Patients, visitors, and staff can look forward to healthy low carbon menus with much less meat, dairy, and eggs, for evidence shows that as far as the climate it concerned, meat is heat.

The Swedish Government recently amended their dietary recommendations to encourage citizens to eat less meat. Even if we seek only to achieve the conservative objective of avoiding further long-term increases in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, we are still led to rather radical recommendations such as cutting current consumption levels in half in affluent countries—an unlikely outcome if there were no direct rewards to citizens for doing so. Fortunately, there are such rewards: important health benefits. By helping the planet we can help ourselves.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Christmas via Flickr.

One of the most prestigious medical journals in the world editorialized that climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, and currently, chronic diseases are, by far, the leading cause of death. Might there be a way to combat both at the same time? For example, riding our bikes instead of driving is a win-win-win for people, planet, and pocketbook. Good for us, the environment, and cheaper too. Are there similar win-win situations when it comes to diet?

The same foods that create the most greenhouse gases appear to be the same foods that are contributing to many of our chronic diseases. Meat, fish, eggs, and dairy were found to have the greatest environmental impact, whereas grains, beans, fruits and vegetables had the least impact. And, not only did the foods with the heaviest environmental impact tend to have lower nutritional quality, but also a higher price per pound, thereby scoring that win-win-win scenario.

The European Commission, the governing body of the European Union, commissioned a study on what individuals can do to help the climate. In terms of transport, if Europeans started driving electric cars, it could prevent as much as 174 million tons of carbon from getting released. We could also turn down the thermostat a bit, maybe put on a sweater. But, the most powerful thing people can do is shift to a meat-free diet. What we eat may have more of an impact on global warming than what we drive. Even just cutting out animal protein intake one day of the week could have a powerful effect. Even just Meatless Mondays could beat out working from home all week and not commuting.

And, a strictly plant-based diet may be better still, responsible for only about half the greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, studies have suggested that moderate dietary changes are not enough to reduce impacts from food consumption drastically. Changes to healthier diets, without significant meat and dairy intake reductions, may result only in rather minor reductions of environmental impacts. This is because the average fossil energy input for animal protein production systems is like 25 calories of fossil energy input for every one calorie produced—more than 11 times greater than that for grain protein production, for example, which is down around two to one.

Researchers in Italy compared seven different diets to see which one was environmentally friendliest. They compared a conventional, omnivorous diet adhering to dietary guidelines, to an organic, omnivorous diet, conventional vegetarian, organic vegetarian, conventional vegan, and organic vegan to what the average person actually eats. For each dietary pattern, they looked at carcinogens, air pollution, climate change, effects on the ozone layer, the ecosystem, acid rain, and land, mineral, and fossil fuel use. This is what they came up with. This is how many resources it took to feed people on their current diets. These are the negative effects the diet is having on the ecosystem, and the adverse effects on human health. If they were eating a healthier diet, conforming to the dietary recommendations, the environmental impact would be significantly less. An organic omnivorous diet would be better, similar to a vegetarian diet of conventional foods, beaten out by an organic vegetarian diet, conventional vegan and organic vegan diet.

The Commission report described the barriers to animal product reduction as largely, lack of knowledge, ingrained habits and culinary cultures. Proposed policy measures include meat or animal protein taxes, educational campaigns, and putting the greenhouse gas emissions info right on food labels.

Climate change mitigation is expensive. A global transition to even just a low-meat diet, as recommended for health reasons, could reduce these mitigation costs. A healthier low-meat diet would cut the cost of mitigating climate change from about 1% of GDP by more than half; a no-meat diet could cut two-thirds of the cost, and a no-animal-product-diet could cut the cost 80%.

But many aren’t aware of the cow in the room. It seems that very few people are aware that the livestock sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s changing.

The UK’s National Health Service is taking a leading role in reducing carbon emissions. Patients, visitors, and staff can look forward to healthy low carbon menus with much less meat, dairy, and eggs, for evidence shows that as far as the climate it concerned, meat is heat.

The Swedish Government recently amended their dietary recommendations to encourage citizens to eat less meat. Even if we seek only to achieve the conservative objective of avoiding further long-term increases in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, we are still led to rather radical recommendations such as cutting current consumption levels in half in affluent countries—an unlikely outcome if there were no direct rewards to citizens for doing so. Fortunately, there are such rewards: important health benefits. By helping the planet we can help ourselves.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Christmas via Flickr.

Doctor's Note

There are tons of articles on diet and sustainability. Someone should start a SustainabilityFacts.org! It’s such an important topic that I figure I’ll review the new science maybe once every year or two. Let me know in the comments if you’d like more (or less!). When the USDA entered these waters, the meat industry appeared to freak out. And the Dietary Guidelines debate continues.

What about just cutting down on meat in terms of health impacts? See my video Do Flexitarians Live Longer?

What are the health and food safety consequences of buying organic? See my five-part video series:

What about GMOs? See:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

150 responses to “Diet & Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Maybe there should be incentives for the meat and dairy industries to convert to raising greens and beans instead of animals. If those industries could net bigger profits from producing plant foods instead of animal foods then there might be some progress.




    3
      1. Julie, the cost to purchase meat and dairy would increase substantially and leave a lot of folks without food. A Better idea would be to subsidize produce and bonus subsidies for small organic farms. No mono cultured produce. Subsidize to take care of the soil that the food grows in.




        2
        1. ” and leave a lot of folks without food” Wait what? In countries where there are subsidies, don’t tell me people cannot eat all fruits en vegetables they want…. They won’t be left without food… Actually all the money from the subsidies could be use for way better things….




          0
        2. The whole point is to discourage people from eating meat and dairy and start consuming healthy foods instead. It does NOT mean that people would need to go without food. One can survive without meat and diary, and even become more healthful in the process.

          People should be responsible for the cost of their food without any government subsidies. Foods that have damage to health or the environment should be have specific taxes applied to help the government deploy programs to minimize the effects of that damage.




          2
    1. Like the illegal drug industry, we can make that change for a better world, not through government intervention (man, that war on drugs is really going well), but through education. Remove the market and the industry will die and be replaced by a more favorable one. We live in a global marketplace where profit is the incentive to business – the only incentive. We need less, not more government.




      2
      1. “Like the illegal drug industry, we can make that change for a better world, not through government intervention (man, that war on drugs is really going well), but through education.”

        The government already intervenes, as Randy points out. Subsidies for the production of animal foods make them affordable when they wouldn’t be without the supports. Perhaps people would have to make changes in their diets that mimic the China Study and Okinawa levels of meat consumption if the government would simply STOP intervening.




        2
      2. Aw BULLCRAP. Historically, GOVT = people making decisions, not some ephemeral ghostly power like an unseen god, so the more or less gov’t is just stupid. Part of the problem for example, is we have a representative Senate unchanged despite the very large population increase. The Senate has a longer session in office for a reason, and to have Montana and California have the same 2 members to represent the people means someone’s being left out. If you as a lawmaker must speak for 10 peopl;e versus a lawmaker who has to speak for 10,000, who gets heard? Then, toss in other complications of forcing 2 parties as if there’s only 2 ideas on the table to choose from, not to mention how each tries to game the system, through dishonest redistricting, and obvious plain dishonesty over who they lie about representing, then toss in, a SCOTUS presumed to be UNBIASED and NON partisan, but whose decisions are obviously also gaming the system for one party or the other.
        As for a marketplace of incentivisation, humans will forever do what’s right, but only if they themselves are secure in where their next meal is coming from, and today(Mid 20th century) humans, a few, have gotten away like bandits and those oligarchs have managed to create a system that benefits only them despite, their wealth capable of sustaining many descendent familial generations but only if they can keep gaming the system.
        If you are displeased with this Federal gov’t so, thank the Oligarchs for making it so bad for most of us. Before they got back the controls and under Reagan, neoliberalised the world, perpetuating Capitalism, as is a system that is based on bang and bust, aka unsustainable for the few who benefit from it.
        Neoliberalism is placing every item into a system with all items having a price tag, like any commodity would bring, it perpetuates what later is speculation as all are equal in this commodity system. AND why healthcare remains equal in some lawmaker’s minds as a choice between an iphone and a heathcare plan they can afford(which is none that can pay for treatment for illness, since their profits are tied to denying you exactly the care you need), but, we all know each of us each day throws a pair of dice for even our continued existence, leaving out if it’s a healthful one, but all due to human frailty the levels of which we cannot know precisely.
        Gov’t is the people who make decisions about how to perpetuate a civilisation that is peaceful, caring, and is fair for most of us(when it’s unfair, it’s due to unforeseen circumstances, hopefully, not deliberate, which is why we need as many ideas from as many people as we can get since no one person or even a group has all the answers, and that determines the size of gov’t not power, which is what it is now, a power struggle between dumb and stupid. More or less gov’t is not an issue, the so called GOP and its less gov’t rhetoric is only that, when it’s power they seek, not gov’t size, and ‘there’s pawr in them thar’ donors. Corporate Dems have their own flaws, seems they can talk, but in the end join the crazy GOP, which means this duopoly needs a renaming, to The Corporate Party. Clearly, when the League of Women Voters were given a mandate to use the national debate forum as more a media spectacle by the duopoly and to arrest power from the voters, they kept their integrity and declined to allow the voters to be hoodwinked and given a high dose of managed PR scamming.
        Gov’t does what the people cannot do for themselves, such as protect animals(why the need for a law like The Animal Welfare Act for folks to protect and not abuse animals if they were being protected in the first place?Because people need the laws for where the accepted boundaries are, and some won’t comply under threat of even going to jail if they violate the laws, Which means the ones for whom the laws are made aren’t going to abide by the laws and will find a way around laws or just overtly break the laws). Gov’t, like science is what people create to be an arbiter, decide where to draw a line of acceptability. Because unlike science, gov’t has much greater leeway for making changes to itself(science changes only when new evidence is found, but the methods will have to change under the weight of evidence provided, and people then are cataloguers, since say, the Sun appears to be seen in the east at morning, the fact remains and people’s input is only to watch, write down what’s seen. Bad analogy, maybe, point is, laws made by gov’t can change(or be overturned as Prohibition was) natural laws discovered by science and its methods, only the detailed facts change, but usually for the better understanding.
        Peace




        2
    2. The meat and dairy industries are huge and hugely influential. They will not change readily or quickly. Therefore, a huge battle is ahead similar to the one fought over tobacco. And what about the medical and insurance industries? Greatly improved health is possible, up to emptying 75% of hospital beds, but how will the medical industry respond to this greatly increased competition? Do not be deceived, we are talking about a seismic shift in our economy. It will not come easily or quickly.




      2
      1. But I would like to see more tracking on this topic (the win-win-win of WFPB eating) as it emerges and grows, more than once a year I think. I have felt for some time now that the only way this will happen is for a massive grass roots movement to make it so. So the battle is in the USDA, the schools, the movies, and the restaurant menus. How about a video on the NASA choice to send the team to Mars on a spaceship-grown WFPB diet?




        1
    3. Great thought, actions like the one on the big tobacco industry should be reflected and acted upon. Taxes on meat and animal protein like that to cigarettes is possible. Changing environmental influences is also important, labelling the dietary risks on animal products, policies to enforce marketing and advertisements, not marketing to children, and educational strategies could be highly effective (but difficult at first to change within policy).




      0
  2. OFF TOPIC – For those living in the UK or having access to BBC2, a three part series starts tonight at 9pm (BBC2) titled Countdown to Life: The Extraordinary Making of You, described as follows:

    New research reveals the extraordinary impact that your mother’s diet at the time of your conception has on the rest of your life, writes Michael Mosley.

    A team from Britain’s Medical Research Council, which has been collecting data on births, marriages and deaths in Keneba since the 1940s, discovered some years ago that in this part of The Gambia when you are conceived makes a huge difference to your chances of dying prematurely.

    If you are conceived in, say, January and born in September then, as an adult, you are seven times more likely to die in any given year than someone conceived in September and born in June.

    So the effect is big, very big.

    Now the reason this happens has nothing to do with astrology and an awful lot to do with the weather, and therefore, what your parents were eating at the time you were conceived. The Gambia has an unusual and very stable weather pattern. July to November is known as the wet season because it rains almost all the time. The other months are largely dry.

    During the dry season people have plenty of couscous and rice to eat, and these grains form the major part of their diet. During the rainy season there are fewer calories around (these are known as the Hungry Months) but, thanks to the rain, there are a lot more leafy green vegetables to eat.

    And it turns out, certainly in The Gambia, that the amount of leafy green vegetables your mother (and possibly your father) are eating around the time of your conception can have a big impact on the rest of your life.

    What really surprised me is that not only are the effects so profound, but that they don’t kick in for many years. Up until the age of 15 there’s no discernible difference between the children. After that, however, the differences, as I described earlier, become striking, even shocking.

    See link to full article here…. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34222452




    0
    1. The relation between the diet of parents and the health of their offspring can even be found in the Bible.

      “And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: for, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” Judges 13:3-5 KJV.

      “The words uttered by the angel convey an important truth. Our Creator himself declares that the mother’s habits prior to the birth of her child will affect its character and destiny. In speaking to this one mother, the Lord spoke to all the anxious, sorrowing mothers of that time, and to all the mothers of succeeding generations. Yes, every mother may now understand her duty. She may know that the character of her children will depend vastly more upon her own habits before their birth, and her personal efforts after their birth, than upon external advantages or disadvantages.
      “If the mother would be a fit teacher for her children, she must form habits of self-denial and self-control before their birth. She imparts to them her own qualities of blood, her own strong or weak traits of character. If her ways are established in God, if she heeds the admonitions which he gives, she will do her part to give right character, right temper, and right appetites, to her offspring.
      “Said the angel, ‘Let her beware;’ that is, be prepared to resist temptation, and stand firmly at her post. Let principle control her appetites and her passions. Of every mother it may be said, ‘Let her beware.’ There is something to shun, a necessity of guarding herself if she would seek eminence for the gift of God in her child. If she is unstable, double-minded, unprincipled, she will in most cases cause the future ruin of her child. Her fixed principles of action, her unbending purpose to adhere to right rules, as the wisdom of God dictates, will give these same traits of character to her child. The Lord has spoken, and his words are not to be disregarded.
      “The divine command was very explicit, prohibiting the use of the fruit of the vine. Every drop of stimulant taken by the mother as a gratification of the appetite, endangers the physical, mental, and moral health of her offspring, and is a direct sin against her Creator. The accumulated misery and wickedness in our world exists in consequence of disregarding the express commands of God. The restrictions are given by the One who made man, who instituted the laws controlling his physical being, and who knows what is for his good. Dare any regard the lesson with indifference?” {The Signs of the Times, September 15, 1881}

      “Our accountability extends beyond our own well-being. Our influence is constantly affecting others, either for good or for evil. In a pre-eminent degree is this true of all parents. Fathers and mothers who gratify inclination and perverted appetite, at the expense of health, are not only working against their own physical life and moral advancement, but they leave their perverted appetite and their enfeebled moral power, to their children.
      “Liquor drinkers and tobacco devotees transmit their insatiable craving, their irritable nerves, and their inflamed, corrupted blood to their offspring. The licentious hand down their own weakness and wickedness, with a host of vile and loathsome diseases, as an inheritance to their children. Fashionable vices are debilitating and debasing the race. In physical strength, and in moral and intellectual power, every generation falls lower than the preceding. In consequence of the sinful habits of men, the world has become a vast lazarhouse. Satan exults at the success of his devices. Society is demoralized, the church is cursed, and God is dishonored.
      “The violation of God’s law lies at the foundation of all the misery that flesh is heir to. It is intemperance, transgression of the laws of life and health, that has shortened the years of men, and made these few years full of sorrow and pain. Parents are not only responsible in most cases for the violent passions and perverted appetites of their children, but for the infirmities of the thousands born deaf and blind and idiotic. Sins of omission and of commission have brought the sure result.
      “The effect of stimulants and narcotics is to lessen physical strength; and whatever affects the body, will affect the mind. A stimulant may for a time arouse the energies and produce mental and physical activity; but when the exhilarating influence is gone, both mind and body will be in a worse condition than before. Intoxicating liquors and tobacco have proved a terrible curse to our race, not only weakening the body and confusing the mind, but debasing the morals. As the control of reason is set aside, the animal passions will bear sway. The more freely these poisons are used, the more brutish will become the nature and disposition of men.
      “Parents who indulge appetite by eating to excess even of wholesome food, place a needless tax upon the system, and their children will be disposed to self-indulgence and gluttony. Such parents transmit their own perverted appetites to their offspring, who have far less moral power to resist temptation than had the parents. Then, instead of seeking to cure the evil which they have wrought, these fathers and mothers, by their own example, educate their children to indulge appetite regardless of reason, and to give loose rein to animal propensities. Many children die before reaching maturity, while many are ruined for time and for eternity, by tempers and appetites transmitted in consequence of the sinful indulgences of the parents.
      “Unwise, self-indulgent, weak-principled women will urge upon the mother the gratification of every wish and impulse as essential to the well-being of her offspring. But the error of such teaching is clearly seen in the light of facts presented in Bible history. The mother is by the command of God himself placed under the most solemn obligation to restrain perverted appetite. Whose voice will we heed–the teachings of infinite wisdom, or the voice of human ignorance, weakness, and superstition?
      “The thoughts and feelings of the mother will have a powerful influence upon the legacy she gives her child. If she allows her mind to dwell upon her own feelings, if she indulges in selfishness, if she is peevish and exacting, the disposition of her child will testify to the fact. Thus many have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. The enemy of souls understands this matter much better than do many parents. He will bring his temptations to bear upon the mother, knowing that if she does not resist him, he can through her affect her child. The mother’s only hope is in God. She may flee to him for strength and grace; and she will not seek in vain. Fathers as well as mothers are involved in this responsibility, and they too should seek earnestly for divine grace, that their influence may be such as God can approve.”
      “It should be the constant effort of every mother to conform her habits to God’s will, that she may work in harmony with him to preserve her children from the health and life destroying vices of the present day. Let mothers place themselves without delay in right relations to their Creator, that they may by his assisting grace build around their children a bulwark against dissipation and intemperance. If mothers would but follow such a course, they might see their children, like the youthful Daniel, reach a high standard in moral and intellectual attainments, becoming a blessing to society and an honor to their Creator.” {The Signs of the Times, September 22, 1881}




      0
      1. I admit, rudy, being of the atheist persuasion, that I at once did not want to like your posting. But, after reading it I found it both charming and eminently wise. The paragraph on accountability was particularly poignant to today’s topic. If you could, would you please post something in a similar vein to convince those who would deny the science of man-made climate change of the error of their ways? After all, it seems that those in American society who thump their Bibles the loudest also seem to be the ones who are the most vociferous in their denial of climate science. Thank you and may the LORD continue to bless you with your good works.




        0
          1. ROFLMAO! Thanks, rudy, for the best laugh I’ve had in weeks. And thank you NF and Team, and all you serious posters. I have learned so much from you all. But, it’s time to move on and this is my final post. All the best!




            0
            1. Lawrence isn’t it just better to ignore those you don’t agree with then to leave? I enjoy your comments. The Internet is absolutely amazing but it also can give fodder to the most gullible. Why not just move past Ruby’s post instead of getting upset? Would you rather see it deleted?




              0
              1. No! Absolutely not should rudy’s comments be deleted. It is no accident (and I am speaking to not only U.S. citizens, but also to our international visitors as well), that the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If that were the only amendment, that would be enough to make America a beacon among nations exemplifying human rights.

                Thank you for your kind words, and the feeling is mutual. Honestly, I was genuinely laughing out loud when I saw what was before me following rudy’s links, and there is no need to move on from a place I never was. Actually, I thought rudy was pulling my leg (or, if one prefers, having me on). But, now I see that he was actually serious, and that I do find troubling-briefly, for a moment-there, I’m over it. Everyone who inhabits this cyberspace should have the option, as we did, to follow these links and to form their own opinion of what they are looking at.

                I’ll be around. Once an NFer, always an NFer! Am I right? Warmest regards. Lawrence.




                0
            2. Is that how you treat persons with opposing views, by
              laughing at their views rather than presenting them the facts and reasons of
              what you accept as truth? You may be correct in your views, but you don’t seem to be a person to have a discussion with.




              0
          2. Really?Joke, right?This video is a sermon os stupid, and reveals nothing of how Physicists see Global Warming and that’s who we should listen to, not some dumbass ancient WhollyBabble banging Preachturd on a book that has no current findings of current knowledge of the natural world in it.




            0
      2. Hi Rudy – God (which ever one of the millions of Gods you chose to believe in) has had over 2000 years to sort out the worlds problems, (I would argue 13.7 billion years) . It shouldn’t be too difficult for a supreme being that created everything in 6 days, but yet here we are…..




        0
        1. I hope this may help.

          “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” Matthew 13:24-30.

          “The teaching of this parable is illustrated in God’s own dealing with men and angels. Satan is a deceiver. When he sinned in heaven, even the loyal angels did not fully discern his character. This was why God did not at once destroy Satan. Had He done so, the holy angels would not have perceived the justice and love of God. A doubt of God’s goodness would have been as evil seed that would yield the bitter fruit of sin and woe. Therefore the author of evil was spared, fully to develop his character. Through long ages God has borne the anguish of beholding the work of evil, He has given the infinite Gift of Calvary, rather than leave any to be deceived by the misrepresentations of the wicked one; for the tares could not be plucked up without danger of uprooting the precious grain. And shall we not be as forbearing toward our fellow men as the Lord of heaven and earth is toward Satan?
          “The world has no right to doubt the truth of Christianity because there are unworthy members in the church, nor should Christians become disheartened because of these false brethren. How was it with the early church? Ananias and Sapphira joined themselves to the disciples. Simon Magus was baptized. Demas, who forsook Paul, had been counted a believer. Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles. The Redeemer does not want to lose one soul; His experience with Judas is recorded to show His long patience with perverse human nature; and He bids us bear with it as He has borne. He has said that false brethren will be found in the church till the close of time.”
          “The Saviour does not point forward to a time when all the tares become wheat. The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest, the end of the world. Then the tares are bound in bundles to be burned, and the wheat is gathered into the garner of God. ‘Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.’ Then ‘the Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.'” -Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 72,75.

          “The discord which his own course had caused in heaven, Satan charged upon the government of God. All evil he declared to be the result of the divine administration. He claimed that it was his own object to improve upon the statutes of Jehovah. Therefore God permitted him to demonstrate the nature of his claims, to show the working out of his proposed changes in the divine law. His own work must condemn him. Satan had claimed from the first that he was not in rebellion. The whole universe must see the deceiver unmasked.
          “Even when he was cast out of heaven, Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question.
          “Satan’s rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages—a perpetual testimony to the nature of sin and its terrible results. The working out of Satan’s rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God’s government is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy beings, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin, and suffering its penalty.
          “He that ruleth in the heavens is the one who sees the end from the beginning—the one before whom the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread, and who, beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, beholds the accomplishment of His own purposes of love and blessing. Though ‘clouds and darkness are round about Him: righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His throne.’ Psalm 97:2, R.V. And this the inhabitants of the universe, both loyal and disloyal, will one day understand. ‘His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.’ Deuteronomy 32:4.” -Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 42-43.




          0
        2. God gives men every opportunity possible that they may repent of their evil ways.

          “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Ezekiel 33:11.

          There are limits to the forbearance of God.

          “Sacred history presents striking examples of the Lord’s jealous care for the weakest of his children. During the journeying of Israel in the wilderness, the weary and feeble ones who had fallen behind the body of the people, were attacked and slain by the cowardly and cruel Amalekites. Afterward Israel made war with the Amalekites and defeated them. ‘And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.’ Again the charge was repeated by Moses just before his death, that it might not be forgotten by his posterity: ‘Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary, and he feared not God. . . . Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.’ {The Signs of the Times, January 25, 1883}

          “Every nation that has come upon the stage of action has been permitted to occupy its place on the earth, that the fact might be determined whether it would fulfill the purposes of the Watcher and the Holy One. Prophecy has traced the rise and progress of the world’s great empires–Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. With each of these, as with the nations of less power, history has repeated itself. Each has had its period of test; each has failed, its glory faded, its power departed.
          “While nations have rejected God’s principles, and in this rejection have wrought their own ruin, yet a divine, overruling purpose has manifestly been at work throughout the ages. It was this that the prophet Ezekiel saw in the wonderful representation given him during his exile in the land of the Chaldeans, when before his astonished gaze were portrayed the symbols that revealed an overruling Power that has to do with the affairs of earthly rulers.
          “Upon the banks of the river Chebar, Ezekiel beheld a whirlwind seeming to come from the north, ‘a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber.’ A number of wheels intersecting one another were moved by four living beings. High above all these ‘was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.’ ‘And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man’s hand under their wings.’ Ezekiel 1:4, 26; 10:8. The wheels were so complicated in arrangement that at first sight they appeared to be in confusion; yet they moved in perfect harmony. Heavenly beings, sustained and guided by the hand beneath the wings of the cherubim, were impelling those wheels; above them, upon the sapphire throne, was the Eternal One; and round about the throne was a rainbow, the emblem of divine mercy.
          “As the wheellike complications were under the guidance of the hand beneath the wings of the cherubim, so the complicated play of human events is under divine control. Amidst the strife and tumult of nations He that sitteth above the cherubim still guides the affairs of this earth.
          “The history of nations speaks to us today. To every nation and to every individual God has assigned a place in His great plan. Today men and nations are being tested by the plummet in the hand of Him who makes no mistake. All are by their own choice deciding their destiny, and God is overruling all for the accomplishment of His purposes.
          “The prophecies which the great I AM has given in His word, uniting link after link in the chain of events, from eternity in the past to eternity in the future, tell us where we are today in the procession of the ages and what may be expected in the time to come. All that prophecy has foretold as coming to pass, until the present time, has been traced on the pages of history, and we may be assured that all which is yet to come will be fulfilled in its order.
          “Today the signs of the times declare that we are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. Everything in our world is in agitation. Before our eyes is fulfilling the Saviour’s prophecy of the events to precede His coming: ‘Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. . . . Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.’ Matthew 24:6, 7.
          “The present is a time of overwhelming interest to all living. Rulers and statesmen, men who occupy positions of trust and authority, thinking men and women of all classes, have their attention fixed upon the events taking place about us. They are watching the relations that exist among the nations. They observe the intensity that is taking possession of every earthly element, and they recognize that something great and decisive is about to take place–that the world is on the verge of a stupendous crisis.
          “The Bible, and the Bible only, gives a correct view of these things. Here are revealed the great final scenes in the history of our world, events that already are casting their shadows before, the sound of their approach causing the earth to tremble and men’s hearts to fail them for fear.
          “‘Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof; . . . because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate.’ Isaiah 24:1-6.
          “‘Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come. . . . The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered. How do the beasts groan! the herds of cattle are perplexed, because they have no pasture; yea, the flocks of sheep are made desolate.’ ‘The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.’ Joel 1:15-18, 12.
          “‘I am pained at my very heart; . . . I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled.’ Jeremiah 4:19, 20.” -Prophets and Kings, pp. 535-538.




          0
          1. Wholly macaroni, you pain our hearts, too. Stop it, you’re wasting bandwidth, pasting all this crap. Use your own thoughts if you have any, else go away. The discussion is about eating meat and impacts on global warming both reality, no myths there.




            0
  3. Worried about the greenhouse emissions? A bigger concern of many that is a growing and present
    danger to our health via air quality is the second-hand vapor coming from electronic e-cigarettes, heavy
    metals being exhaled as well as nicotine. And indoors in public spaces. Drug addicts and drug users are
    also using electronic smoking devices that look exactly like the e-cigarette devices, and they are smoking
    synthetic street drugs in these – – – – – and there is no way to know or detect on the spot (no odor) what
    they are smoking. Yet little kids are breathing in this second-hand vapor in cafes, stores, airplanes, homes,
    cars, trains, buses,……adults breathing this junk in as well.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/vaping-abuse/




    0
    1. That is SO SMALL compared to the other things that people could change such as even eating meat one or two times less per week. Better yet, don’t eat meat at all.

      One cow produces more warming gases (CO2, Methane) than 100 people with e-cigs ever would. Cattle have other huge issues and impacts on the environment as well that e-cigs would never touch even if everyone vaped. Think of the waste, disease, hormones, etc. that come with cattle farming to table.

      Focusing on e-cigs as the problem would be like telling everyone “if every household just added one more house plant the air would be so much cleaner”




      0
    2. Seriously, there a lot more crucial issues to focus on than the few
      seconds you might breathe somebody else’s exhalations! Have you ever smelled pot? Did you get high from it? Chances are if
      there is no ODOR there aren’t many molecules that can affect you
      anyway, so quit worrying so much about it, this isn’t your first post. As far as e-cigs and vaping itself, it was sure good for me, got me off cigarettes at last, an ugly, insidious addiction! Get the facts, please. casaa.org/
      They way they are being abused is loathsome, but that is another issue that will unfortunately prevent the people who need e-cigs most to benefit.




      0
  4. Environmental and sustainability arguments can be more relevant to quality of life than even health arguments. Global warming, species extinction, destruction of the environment and pollution effect EVERYONE immediately. The reason WFPB dietary issues are a “debate” is because if people live an active lean omnivore lifestyle it can take many, many decades to see the effects of cardiovascular disease, autoimmune problems or cancer. Meanwhile the individual has the impression of doing well and being healthy. Good references, but you are just getting your toes wet. Also at issue is the amount and quality of food that could be produced if animal agriculture were intelligently replaced. Would abundance and lower food cost lead to a destructive human population explosion? Sample the waters by all means.




    0
  5. Would like to see more of this. It seems that a very powerful picture is given by the win-win-win nature of sustainability, health, and low cost. I really appreciate the references on the sustainability or climate change issue. Would love to see that more than once a year.




    0
    1. I second your recommendation. I will be forwarding today’s clip to environmentalist friends who have not yet made the connection between their personal eating habits and their environmental footprint. I am very glad to have the European studies’ charts to forward.




      0
      1. Like Howard Lyman The Mad Cowboy says. “You can’t call yourself an environmentalist and eat meat.” If you can, get them to watch the film ” Cowspiracy”




        0
        1. Wegan Cowspiracy was very informative. The dead zones in the oceans created by the cattle waste runoff is sickening. I don’t see how an informed populous can continue to contribute to these problems by buying meat. A must see.




          0
        2. Sorry to be a dissenter on this; I’ve already taken tons of heat for being a traitor re. voicing this opinion. But I thought Conspiracy was a terrible movie and does a disservice to the cause it’s promoting. Rather than actually doing any useful research and fleshing out the claims of the World Watch Institute that they initially quote the movie fairly rapidly devolves into an unfocused melange of issues including the argument that there’s a conspiracy between major environmental groups and big ag to suppress information on the effects of the animal ag industry on climate change. Perhaps such a conspiracy exists but the “evidence” they provide is that the environmental groups won’t talk to them. I claim that this is counterproductive and will provide a field day for clever marketing types who will use it to portray those advocating for a vegan diet as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.




          0
          1. Karl: I appreciated this post even if I don’t fully agree with it. I think you have some points, but I think the movie did more than you are giving it credit for. First, it does a great job of educating people on the link between the food they eat and global planet depletion.

            Second, while the evidence that some of the major environmental groups take money from the animal food industry was a bit weak, they did a great job of pointing out that the organizations do not point out the link between food choices and harm to the environment and the animals the organizations supposedly care about.

            I checked it out for myself after seeing the movie and changed my charitable donations accordingly. Even after I stopped giving money to some organizations, I still get some of their mailings. I can’t remember which organization it was, but one very well known and respected environmental group sent me a publication/magazine a couple months ago. They had an entire page with big text and lots of graphics devoted to things the average person could do to help stop global warming. Diet change was mentioned nowhere. And this was a year after the release of the movie. Plenty of time for the organization to start sharing the real information. I find it suspicious (and enraging) that organizations which are supposed to be fighting to protect our environment are failing to mention the number one thing people could do to achieve that goal.

            So for me the bottom line is: while the movie isn’t perfect, it helped me a great deal by helping me to avoid contributing to organizations which do not share my values. And it gave me a great resource that I could point people to when they need educating about the link between food choices and the environment.

            Just sharing an alternative perspective.




            1
          2. I’ll also add: I hope you don’t interpret my reply above as giving you any sort of “heat”. That’s not my goal and I really did appreciate your post. It forced me to think about the movie more critically.




            1
            1. Thea: No, I wouldn’t at all consider that “heat”. I thought you made a reasonable argument that, while I might still not totally agree, did make me think a little more about the fact that, with all of what I consider it’s warts, the movie might still be doing some useful work. But I’m still not quite over what I consider a bit of a missed opportunity re. really clearly getting the message out about the connection between animal ag and climate change to a broader audience.




              0
  6. This is all very impressive and supports factual statistics on the overall benefits of a plant based diet for a longer healthspan. It also supports the common sense of conservation. However, there is not nearly enough time/science to state we are seeing climate change vs just weather pattern variation. And we are only supposing that man is the cause of “climate change”. A lot of this hoopla is fostered by government sources with the agenda of increasing control over more and more of everyday life. That’s just what governments do. The good doctor is right, but perhaps for the wrong reasons.




    0
    1. Can you provide some examples of government sources that are trying to gain more control over everyday life? I hear these vague conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up all the time. I can’t figure out how latching onto climate change as a way to control the population makes any sense. Is it all world governments, or just the US?
      One example of actual scientific proof is that burning coal has a direct effect on human health, the closer one lives to a coal burning electric plant the higher the risk of death from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
      There is also clear proof that meat eating is having a huge impact, again, science. If anything the government is controlling the situation now, by subsidizing meat and dairy farming.




      0
    2. I say let’s err on the right side then. Quit eating dairy, meat and eggs,

      feel better and live longer and healthier

      and if the change doesn’t affect global warming,we still get to live a great healthy life!




      0
    3. The climate is changing rapidly, and is FOR SURE because of human activity. I remember hearing a news report many years ago, I don’t remember exactly, but it was even possibly as long ago as the late 90’s that stated that there is no longer a single body of fresh water left in the US that isn’t above the level to be officially considered ‘polluted’. The mountains of waste. The polluted air which is now being shown to be a cause of autism, among other things. The constant pumping of chemicals into the environment. The destruction of topsoil, the ‘dead zones’ in the oceans. The plastic gyre engulfing the oceans, etc, etc. Every body of water I have visited in all my recent memory has always had trash floating in it. Every park, every sidewalk, every street, garbage everywhere. The climate is not ‘changing’ it has already been changed! And it is ALL because of human activity.

      But, all the detractors just focus on the rising temperature/sea levels and say ‘oh no, we couldn’t possibly be causing this, it’s natural, it’s all a conspiracy!’ It’s all nonsense. We are destroying the Earth, plain and simple. Reducing carbon emissions goes hand in hand with improving the Earth because all the greatest polluting/destroying activities are all the same ones dumping the majority of carbon into the atmosphere.

      If you can look your kids in the eyes and tell them that humans do not need to change their ways, that the world is just fine, that we can go on polluting as usual…then you are condemning them to death. We cannot sustain our current ways, plain and simple.




      0
    4. Perhaps you’re correct but for my money a far more likely danger is control via corporate propaganda and misinformation. That’s just what corporations do.




      0
    5. Go to youtube, watch a video called The Unchained Goddess, a 1950s AT&T science show. The issue isn’t new, and the reason for its urgency has to do with better instruments and methods for evaluating the data, not rigging the findings. Gov’t agencies for the most part gather data, and most are not politically bound to twist the data to suit anyone in particular. But who you gonna believe instead a Thinktank like the Heritage Foundation that is there to find any small discrepancy with which to skew that data. BTW, it isn’t just the USA collecting data, and believe it or not scientists results go through peer review and it would require a huge conspiracy for them to come together to sustain what you’re claiming as untrue.




      0
  7. Sad to see that climate change is once again being so directed at man’s activities. Climate change is real. It has proceeded, unopposed, for millions of years. However, climate change is milder now that at other times in history, including times long before mankind imposed any influence. Man is far less significant than we credit ourselves. Personally, I am vegetarian – near total organic vegan; however, I also know that one average, hum-drum volcano causes more greenhouse gas than 50,000 years of human activity and that the energy used to produce and use an electric car exceeds the energy used to produce and use a fossil fuel burning car. We do have to be responsible. We must also be responsible with regard to preventing global taxation based upon the politically motivated premise of man-made climate change.




    0
    1. Actually the volcano example is not true, I heard an NPR Environment episode that addressed this topic, the scientist speaking was clearly sick of hearing this. The governor of Alaska made that statement in a speech, and it just simply isn’t true. He was also pretty definite that dumping trillions of tons of carbon into the air, at rates unprecedented is going to reach an stoppable tipping point pretty soon. Climate change has obviously happened over millennia, but the changes that are happening now, that are scientifically documented, are happening at a rate never seen before, and pretty directly attributable to human activity.




      0
      1. Ahhh, but, I believe that the volcano example is indeed true. It originated from environmental engineers and researchers. Numerous qualified opinions do concur with the volcano example. I will not get into NPR’s agenda or reporting reputation; however, I believe that we can agree that many are using the public hysteria in order to accomplish political and economic ends. Mankind has been increasingly using fossil fuels, a naturally occurring element of Earth, only for well under 200 years. As we unearth soot encrusted remains of earlier man who burned wood in caves and tepees, I feel that we have quite a cleaner existence in this age. Of course, we can return to burning whale oil for light and tree sap in fireplaces for home heat. Our elevation as a species, in my humble opinion, includes a far more responsible use of natural resources. I continue to believe that we place far too much emphasis upon mankind’s impact upon the Earth. If we were to perish, I doubt that our absence would be particularly noticed or that we would be particularly missed.




        0
          1. Indeed, I concede that if we consider CO2 levels alone, the output is greater now, in our current time. However, this dramatic increase began long before our use of fossil fuels. Who knows? I certainly have faith in humankind to the extent that we will hopefully be able to rectify our environmental negatives by our wisdom and creativity, rather than by emotion and Orwellian political intervention.




            0
            1. You are far too sanguine about Climate Change. Your optimism is pie in the sky hope in the face of utter catastrophe. You’re like the senior member of a Jewish family in 1930’s Germany who advised everyone to relax, not worry or get dramatic about it and leave the country because the Nazis are just a passing phase. You’ve got your head in the sand.




              0
              1. Have you examined the possibility that the year is not exactly 12 months long? Nor is it exactly 12 months long at each location in the Earth? Just as there is a leap year there might need to be a leap month? I don’t really think optimism is the right word to describe climate change. Scientists say if you stop the burning now, never light another combustion engine, too much damage has already been done and we are faced with extinction. That is established climate change science. CO2 levels have gone up by 25 percent, but only ,01 percent in relative terms of atmospheric gases. .I think there is absolutely nothing in common between the Holocaust and Climate Change. If weather now was the weather from August from 1900, we might not have the same problem. The Hebrew Calendar uses a Metonic cycle.




                0
        1. Apparently the dumb animals on this planet know far more than we to changes in their(OUR) environment, and whatever heats the planet is causing them to change their mating patterns, migration patterns, insects are arriving sooner which changes the mating of the foqwl populations, which is timed to when the greatest level of insects which is their major food source, and furthering their species is dependent on other lifeforms like insects, as in mate when food is plentiful as its a greateer chance of surviving than if there’s a lack of food to grow young birtds, not to mention the extinction of species due to ecosystems destruction by human development. Human hubris like yours will kill us and take the planet with it. Venus is a ‘natural’ world, only it’s lifeless as its thick atmosphere heats to 900 degrees and making the atmosphereic pressure(based on densities of air contents) at sea level, 91 times that of earth(14.1 psi). Climate change(also AGW the main contribution) was known due to Venus studies and not new 1950s scientists raised questions of the fossil fuels being burned and its impact on earth(watch The Unchained Goddess AT&T video on youtube). It’s always been a physics problem and even the oil industry knew of but decided they preferred profits to stewardship of the earth and so lied bringing with them lawmakers/deniers of the reality, so concerned they were of policies that would protect earth but cut into their profitting on the raping and pillaging of earth, our only home.
          So you can be nonchalant and downplay its impact and attribute it to dishonest[fill in the blank]and make an observation on the color of the bus that’s bearing down on us and say, oh look at that, it’s a multicolored bus with green stripes, what’s to do, life has been like it is now forever basically, but it hasn’t. Industry collects matter from places that has but a smattering, but humans collect it into one place where nature hasn’t ever amassed that much particular matter in a relatively small area, and when used up, its remains, its waste that can kill all life in such huge amounts that won’t break down into harmless particles for tens of thousands of years, and this is just one substance, uranium that heats water to boiling,carrying risks much greater if the worst happens, a meltdown. In 1 and a half generations the easy fossil fuels energy to reach is about gonme, which took millions and millions of years to collect and create from organic former life forms.
          The one thing that humans have to protect the species and life itself, is human foresight and it’s being ravaged by liars, dishonesty, and myths of religion, that threatens the other thing which is education, more lies about what doesn’t matter teaching creationism, and that climate change isn’t real, reaasoning and logic is the education that is being distorted, with many denying what all(may as well be all, 100%, since no alternative has been able to penetrate and all it’d take is one contrary fact, but we’re at 150 years and holding and more and more facts being tested by those the smartest among us, show that Evolution is a fact, and the scientists agree on evolution as the driver of life.
          So sad, the USA and its so called 1st Amendment should be not Freedom of Speech, but of Freedom of an informed Speech with penalties for lying to mislead others for a selfish benefit(the idea of a penalty is due to laws as deterrent for those honest people who require the needed official boundaries from where to draw a line, since the dishonest will find a way around the boundaries).
          Peace




          0
    2. “Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report that it’s on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period. ”

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

      “According to a range of studies doing a ‘well to wheels’ analysis, an electric car leads to significantly less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.”

      http://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/myths-vs-reality (and references therein).




      0
      1. Indeed, this is correct. I misspoke in one area … the emissions are, of course, immediately less from an electric vehicle’s exhaust pipe than from a fossil fuel burning vehicle’s exhaust pipe. However, we must take into account the production of the vehicle and of the battery, including all components. One of the greatest considerations that is nearly always omitted is the disposal of the tremendous amount of horribly toxic by-products from manufacture and the disposal of spent battery components. The formula changes dramatically when all elements are included. Don’t get me wrong, I wish we could develop practical, affordable alternative forms of energy. The fact is, we are waaay farther from that lofty goal than the majority realize. Logic seems to have been thrown out of the window with regard to alternative energy. My fear is that governments (and top level industrial powers) are using this hysteria as a means to a dark end. We have only to look at the wind energy industry as an example. If not for government tax-and-fund philosophy, wind energy would never have gotten off to a start. It is a horribly inefficient energy production method that can’t possibly ever produce a profit without government funding. Taxpayers in Florida, for example, are now paying for investors’ projects that glean huge profits to supply electricity to those across the nation in Montana. Taxpayers are making up the difference. Those paying for the investors’ profits receive no benefit from their taxation. This is my fear regarding the entire “electric car” and emotional global climate change hysteria. I believe that we need to research frantically to arrive at alternative fuel practicality; however, we must do it honestly and logically.




        0
        1. You assert quite a bit. How about citing some specifics. For instance, taxpayers in Florida are indirectly paying for electricity in Montana? I live in Montana. Almost all of our electricity is derived from coal. Also, what data shows that energy derived from wind is highly inefficient? What are your numbers and how can they be verified or confirmed? Citations please. You call it “global climate change hysteria”, I call it seeing what is unfolding right in front of our eyes. July was the hottest month ever recorded. Ever!
          Joseph in Missoula




          0
          1. “ever recorded!” You do realize they have been recording this for less that 100 years?

            Beyond that, using oil much better than using coal. Coal should be the very last resort.




            0
          2. I agree, yak yak yak is what they do well. Now in May 2017, I understand millions are spent if Florida to erect barracades kinda like Holland due to searise levels. Flooded streets prompted gov’t action to address it, wonder if they think climate change isn’t real?As for ‘logic’ of aprrin, it’s so easy to sit and type and toss out blandness unprecedented and with nothing to back up his ‘logic.’
            Gov’t gets involved cuz, investors demand a return. gov’t provides a service to the people and even allows their research to benefit businesses, gov’t takes up the slack, and so many in business benefit from gov’t investment from decades ago. Market research is what companies do, gov’t research is a service these business minds exploit. No investor will fund a nuclear power plant, but as long as risks are taken by tazpayers business loves gov’t, as they reap benefits and risk nothing themselves, even being a corporation, or an LLC, gov’t provided way out for failures, and how many partnerships are there anymore, that will have to give up their big house when their investment in a business doesn’t pan out, LLCs keep their lavish homes, no probl;em, only creditors get screweds.




            0
        2. According to wikipedia, the environmental concerns of lithium batteries, though not negligible, are at least manageable: ” Since Li-ion batteries contain less toxic metals than other types of batteries which may contain lead or cadmium[53] they are generally categorized as non-hazardous waste”. Still, recycling may be possible with some development.

          It’s true that renewable energy is state-subsidized (Alexander Hamilton’s “infant industry protection”) but then so too are /fossil fuels. In fact, when the cost of carbon pollution is factored in, renewables are a veritable bargain: “A new report from Citibank found that acting on climate change by investing in low-carbon energy would save the world $1.8 trillion through 2040, as compared to a business-as-usual scenario. In addition, not acting will cost an additional $44 trillion by 2060 from the “negative effects” of climate change.”

          As far as renewable energy research goes, fortunately we have experts like Professor Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford who has already developed a 50 state plan to convert to 100% renewables.




          0
      1. Excellent link, Bruce. Folks should take a close look at Vital Signs/Arctic Sea Ice Minimums
        http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

        And, whether or not one ‘believes in’ man-made climate change (as if the global climate system cares what we believe), one should take a half-hour out of their busy day (while preparing their organic veggie burgers perhaps? or, better yet, while forgoing their daily diet of Fox ‘News’ thirty minutes of fear/hate from their favorite gas bag/bloviator) and pay close attention to what Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading Arctic climate scientist from the University of Cambridge, has to say about the consequences of uncontrollable methane release from melting Arctic permafrost, what needs to be done to mitigate these effects, and the likelihood of any of these things happening any time soon.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdOTyGQOso




        0
    3. Very well said apprin. Its quite unfortunate that this community is so divergent in this area. That is the one thing I have found with people in the health food world, vegetarian and organic farming — they are overwhelmingly socialist.

      I am a proud, 18 year old (techno)libertarian, because I believe in ethics, freedom, free-markets, and that I should work hard for what I get. Markets will continue to generate wealth throughout the world. The less freedom, the more poverty. Bernie Sander’s proposals add up to over 18 trillion dollars of addition government spending.

      Sadly, many folks would say we should increase that budget to also somehow combat “climate change”. The climate has always been changing as you say ! This is just another government ponzi scheme to tax more, gain more power and control and strike fear in many.

      Thank you for bringing reason and facts into this discussion apprin : )




      0
      1. Yeah, right love the buzzwords, and only LIEbertarians, ‘techno’ or otherwise today, or even 18 yr olds, have integrity, legends in their own minds. LOVE this line:
        ” ethics, freedom, free-markets, and that I should work hard for what I get’ that really cracks me up, did you just make that up, or glean it from your wisdom of the long life experiences? Libertarians of today are in fantasy land, and truly need to rename who they are, cuz it isn’t the traditional Libertarianism of say an Adam Smith. I suggest you read hius Wealth of Nations, then reevaluate who you call yourself. Free Market, what a joke.
        Seriously, for some incite…uh, I mean insight, check out Sam Seder’s discussions with your ‘GROUP’ it’s very revealing.
        Good luck, and long life, and my wish is for you to prosper.




        0
  8. Is there a way that I can add an attachment to a comment here? I have a Microsoft Word Document or a PDF file that I’d like to post. It has some pictures that add to the comment. When I cut and paste the information it does not paste the picture. Thanks, Paula




    0
      1. Here is my data. I can’t attach the pictures and graphics on this site. But this is the data that I used to choose my pictures.

        I chose to write a public
        service announcement.

        Here is how I came up with
        the numbers.

        You can save 8 gallons a day brushing
        twice a day. That is about 2920 gallons a year. Common small talk trucks hold
        about 3000 gallons.

        It takes 10 to 25 gallons of water to take
        a shower. It takes 70 gallons of water to take a bath. The difference in one
        bath(25,550 gallons) versus one shower(3,650-9,000 gallons) a day for a year is
        16,550 to 21,900 gallons of water. Rectangular backyard inground pools have
        that capacity.

        I used the course data that 5,000 gallons
        of water are used to produce one pound of beef and 250 gallons of water are
        used to produce one pound of wheat. I assumed that a typical lunch weighs about
        8 ounces, one being all wheat(plant based) and one being all beef(animal
        based). I also assumed that it takes more water to make the other components of
        an animal based meal and relatively less water to make the other components of
        a plant based meal on the same scale as the difference between beef and wheat.

        One animal based meal of 8 ounces every
        day for a year requires 912,500(2500 x 365) gallons of water. One plant based
        meal of 8 ounces every day for a year requires 45,625(125 x 365) gallons of
        water. By choosing one plant based meal instead of one meat based meal per day
        for a year you will utilize 866,875 less gallons of water per year. This is the
        capacity of a municipal water tower.




        0
  9. Is it possible to make the charts in this video available? I’d like to post them at our church and use them with environmental groups to which I belong. I also think it would be a tremendous fundraiser to sell “Meat is Heat” on front and “Mitigate climate change” on back t-shirts or grocery bags.




    0
      1. Wow! Thanks. It would be wonderful if you could email me Table 1, Maximum realistic mitigation potential (with items 1 thru 10), Table 25, Table 6, and Figure 1, Average Environmental Impact.




        0
  10. We must all start thinking about how our eating habits affect global warming, climate change and indeed biodiversity on the planet. With 7 Billion people likely to expand to 9 Billion in the next 20 years, there has to be a plan to reduce wasteful meat consumption world wide if the available farm land is to become more able to feed everyone on a plant-based diet. I switched to a largely vegan diet a year ago…and I have seen significant changes in my health. Cholesterol levels came down, my weight came down to a steady slim profile and best of all, my arthritis pain disappeared. I feel much better on this diet generally.

    I do intend to watch Michael Mosely’s Countdown to Life: The Extraordinary Making of You, at 9pm on BB2 14/09/15 in the UK (see previous comment by Chris),… diet is so important and has not been taught properly in medical schools. Only Dr’s like Michael Greger MD, and Michael Mosely, have taken the time to look at all the latest dietary studies and shared the results with us (joe public). The general population needs to know how to be healthy and to keep the planet healthy too.




    1
    1. Colette, check out happythinandfree.com
      Dr. Susan Peirce Thompson (Ph.D. Brain and Cognitive Science and tenured professor who teaches The Psychology of Eating) shows the neuroscience on how we can implement dietary changes long-term. Others advise on the health benefits, on what we need to eat or not eat, as does Dr. Thompson, but she also shows how one can stick with it through life. She provides the neuroscience that shows that willpower can’t be relied upon to get the job done. To sidestep that built-in flaw, she shows how to develop automaticity, thus relieving stress on willpower to change habits long-term and stay slim for good. She’s done it herself (she was chronically obese, but has been a size 4 for 12 years and running) and she has helped thousands do the same.
      Joseph in Missoula




      0
      1. Thanks for the tip. I Don’t really need to lose weight – my weight is stable and I am eating all that I want on a vegan diet incorporating Soy Protein, pulses, nuts, seeds, red rice, oats and flax and lots of lovely veggies. I can eat until I’m full and whenever I’m hungry. I avoid wheat (gluten problem) and do not eat sugary snacks… only fruits with natural sugars. I have good cholesterol and stable blood sugar levels. I keep my B12 levels optimal with a 500 mcg supplement of Methylcolbamin and 50 mcg of Vit D ev ery day. I don’t need any willpower at all… it’s all good! People say that I look young for my age (almost a pensioner)! I have all the energy I want for an active life. Sleep well too! I am 50 kg and 163cm tall – have been this weight for years after dumping all the processed foods, sugars, and wheat! Michael Greger’s information has helped me loads!




        0
  11. I wrote this ‘public service announcement” for the T. Colin Campbell Plant Based Nutrition Course. It shows how much water(energy is used to produce usable water/carbon foot print) is saved by eating one planted based meal per week over the course of one year.(much much more than turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth!) It has pictures that add to the information, but I was not able to copy the original text to this site. You can link to the pictures on your own.

    You can save water in small ways and BIG!
    It’s all up to YOU!

    If you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth twice a day for a year you can save enough water to fill a small tank
    truck. Good! That was easy!
    “ZiL-130
    fuel tank truck Karachayevsk” by LukaszKatlewa – Own work. Licensed under
    CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons –
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZiL-

    If you take a shower instead of a bath each day for a year you can save enough water to fill a large
    pool. Wow! Okay!
    Image
    from http://www.freeinternetwallpapers.com/backyard-landscaping-ideas-swimming-pool-design-free-internet-wallpapers.html

    If you eat a plant based meal instead of animal based meal for lunch every day for a
    year you could save enough water to fill a water tower tank.
    Awsome! I think I’ll do that.
    Image from http://people.howstuffworks.com/water.htm

    Here is how I came up with
    the numbers.

    You can save 8 gallons a day brushing
    twice a day. That is about 2920 gallons a year. Common small talk trucks hold
    about 3000 gallons.

    It takes 10 to 25 gallons of water to take
    a shower. It takes 70 gallons of water to take a bath. The difference in one
    bath(25,550 gallons) versus one shower(3,650-9,000 gallons) a day for a year is
    16,550 to 21,900 gallons of water. Rectangular backyard inground pools have
    that capacity.

    I used the course data that 5,000 gallons
    of water are used to produce one pound of beef and 250 gallons of water are
    used to produce one pound of wheat. I assumed that a typical lunch weighs about
    8 ounces, one being all wheat(plant based) and one being all beef(animal
    based). I also assumed that it takes more water to make the other components of
    an animal based meal and relatively less water to make the other components of
    a plant based meal on the same scale as the difference between beef and wheat.

    One animal based meal of 8 ounces every
    day for a year requires 912,500(2500 x 365) gallons of water. One plant based
    meal of 8 ounces every day for a year requires 45,625(125 x 365) gallons of
    water. By choosing one plant based meal instead of one meat based meal per day
    for a year you will utilize 866,875 less gallons of water per year. This is the
    capacity of a municipal water tower.




    0
    1. I only have one bath a week – on Sunday – whether I need it or not.
      I then wash my clothes in the water, then water the garden with it.
      So I even recycle my sweat.




      0
      1. You sound like a lot of my patients. Re: the environment, I’m certainly doing my part. I’m vegetarian. I converted my house to solar power 7 years ago, though still bump my knees on the furniture stumbling around in the dark. To save water I pee with my bulldog in the backyard. As far as biking to work is concerned, they’ll have to pry the keys to my Mustang out of my cold shriveled fist.




        0
        1. How far is your commute ?
          It’s the best part of my day (it would be the almost perfect commute if it wasn’t for other people misbehaving near me), but then I have only about 4 quiet miles each way with random squirrels as a significant danger …

          Exercise gets overrated and it took me a long time as a sport-hater to realise I was enjoying it and wanted to ride further and sometimes faster (I do it to music so it’s more like dancing – which I DO like), but after 28 years and 50-odd thousand miles, I’m so glad that at age 27 I was too poor to fix my motorcycle …




          0
        2. Well, a vegetarian in a Mustang is more friendly to the climate than a meat eater in a Prius. When politicians start recommending a plant based diet, I will start listening to their advice about transportation and maybe stop driving 4 wheel drive




          0
          1. Hey, this is the first car I’ve owned that is fast enough (2013 Boss 302) that I wasn’t compelled to circumvent the emissions controls to extract more power. Before Obama was elected president he drove a Hemi Chrysler 300. When that became public knowledge he quietly foreswore driving pleasure in favor of a hybrid. Back at the ranch Dubya stuck with his Ford Excusion. PC ain’t for me.




            0
      1. For years, I could never understand why people insisted they needed showers in order to be able to cycle to work, whereas I could cycle 50 miles, end up drenched in sweat and not need a bath – or wear the same tee shirt for weeks before I can detect the slightest musky whiff – though I quite often noticed BO in others who clearly showered every day.

        For a while I assumed it was my wholefood vegan diet and not drinking etc, but recently realised I probably have the “ABCC11 genotype” – which also codes for dry earwax – and indeed I never feel the need to poke things in my ears like others do, and have a regular mini rock-fall of earwax “boulders”

        As soon as I realised, I stopped spending 5 minutes in the executive loo at work every morning with flannels and shower gel, and my tee shirts are thankful that I only apply roll-on deodorant once a week after my bath.
        Wearing cotton helps – I always have several clean tee shirts on hand – though hypothermia is an unfortunate side effect if I try to do 20 miles on a cold winter’s day without putting on a dry tee shirt at my half way rest stop..

        I’m losing nearly 2 pounds of weight per week at the moment and actually got a bit whiffy at the end of last week – maybe not ketosis, but cutting into 10 year old fat surely has implications.




        0
  12. It would be great if vegans got tax breaks. Big tax breaks, to compensate for our healthcare savings and to relieve of us of contributing to meat and dairy subsidies. That might incentivize more people to become vegan.




    0
    1. Dang!! I like that idea. Lower taxes for doing something good for myself, family, my neighbors and the planet. If you ever run for office, I’m voting for you.




      0
  13. Eating huge amounts of animal protein is a lose, lose situation – you make animals suffer completely unnecessary, you get fat, sick, you get side effect loaded, unnecessary medication, the economy falls apart due to enormous health care costs and eventually you kill the planet……..LOSER!!!!!




    0
    1. One downside?, of course, is animals are bred to provide food, and if they’re given a good life, one worth losing, rather than a life in CAFOs or a life spent in a four cornered corral where they stand in their manure and never feel or touch grass, and when slaughtered can be assured they are unconscious and will feel no pain, while I’d never kill the animal, the compromise is giving them a good life, not one which if they knew how bad their life really is,. they might kill themselves, a life not worth having. Temple Grandin has done many improvements to the quality of life for cows, these herd animals, who are peaceful and not violent, and what do humans do, exploit and kill them. I have a picture of a guy lying on his back, resting on a cow whose head the cow has leaned over and resting on the man’s abdomen, both napping, now if cows are to be exploited for any reason, my opinion is to use them as pillows as this guy in the photo.
      I learned to love animals, cows especially and pigs and horses, ponies, on a farm run by the orphanage and I’d help milk the cows twice a day in the summer when we’d ride an old school bus for the 7 miles to the farm with and the setup was 6 at a time right and left sides, wash the udders with warm water and disinfectant, the four suction cups for the udders, hooked to a vacuum milker that emptied into a giant tank the milk flowing through the clear tubes of glass and a Pet milk tanker would come and haul the milk to the pasteurising and all at the jugs and carton fillers at the milk plant. I loved those cows, they’d hang out in pasture down near this creek and all it’d take is call them, and get one moseying toward the milk barn and they’d all follow, almost like clockwork they knew when it was time to dump their milk. I’d often sit on the back of a favorite one and yell out moooo-cow mooo-cow, and there were some kids, assholes who thought it was fun to use the cows as punching bags like taking boxing practice. And without fail everytime they’d do that the cows would crap more and the cleanup was harder. BUT the lone bull was meaner than hell and for no obvious reason, if you came into the field he was in, he’d chase you across the fence. There were around 270 kids spread into 10 homes 5 homes boys 5 homes for girls on the campus. March 1, 2017 was my 8 year anniversary as Vegan, and have to be honest, I’m 99.99% Vegan only because I cannot always tell if dairy products, have found their way into some of the more convenient Vegan foods, BUT, I am absolutely 100% vegetarian, and strive for 100%Vegan diet. In 2009 I was able a few months later to stop with the statins for high cholesterol, and any meat was hamburger and only a few times a month, but cheese and milk, yogurt, Rarely eggs, cuz the laying hens, I just could not eat knowing the cruel ways they treat them to increase egg output which is about 10 times their natural egg laying. They leave lights on, they withhold food and all to stimulate them to lay eggs. Some don’t eat meat for their health, I do it to save animals that I refuse to kill, but for a long time let others do the dirty work, and one day, I just was unable to do that. Chickens from egg to slaughter live 1 month, pigs 6 months, cows 1.5 years. 11 million chickens are slaughtered each week in the US and that’s only 7% of the total from just one handler. The Middle East countries get cows that are from Australia, and travel LIVE on ships packed in like sardines.
      The Jain religion has managed to survive without eating meat for 100s of generations, and so can I. Pigs are slaughtered a biut different than cows, and are awrae of what’s about to happen to them, and are terrified, brings tear to my eyes, as Mom pigs have over a dozen cooing sounds when they talk to their babies. BUT birthing sows are exploited and birth litter after litter and never able to mother any of them as they are immidiately taken to stations for the raising of the different growth stages. Veal calves are fed a liquid diet of chemicals but are never given water, and they drink more and more of the liquid trying to quench their thirst but never can, and often have diarrhea, and aren’t able to stretch or move. Foie gras is made large by stuffing the ducks with grain and sometimes the metal tube perforates the stomach wall engorging them to create larger livers, and these actions are needless cruelty and willful disregard for the animals welfare. Humans can be such dispassionate and uncaring assholes. With so much suffering today by animals and human refugees, I just half to eventually shield myself because a person can only take on so much of another’s suffering without damaging oneself in the process, and today any caring person aware of what’s happening in the world, in May 2017, must shed as many tears as is required, and if no one feels the need, maybe they ought to check for callouses on their heart.
      Peace




      0
  14. PlantPure Nation folks are forming “pods” to foster the eating of plants. http://plantpurenation.com/ I joined a pod for my area. There are pods in multiple cities. I can hardly wait for this to get off the ground. I have high hopes that this will overcome the problems of government and lobbyists.




    0
  15. As for optimum health, I would suggest a modification to the diets listed: Whole Foods, Plant-Based, Organic, No sweeteners, and No Flour. Check out happythinandfree.com
    Joseph On The Road




    0
    1. Anyone heard of John McDougall, his idea is about starch diets. Found in staple foods, like grains, beans, no meat, fats etc. Makes sense cuz poor humans even today, never eat meat, cuz they can ill afford it, but they can eat inexpensive staples like grains, rice, wheat, barley, quinoa, also root foods like potatoes, carrots and son on. The idea humans were hunter/gatherers who trailed the herds to kill for food, well, another idea is humans early on have always been opportunists, and the hunter gatherer wasn’t necessarily about the herds of animals, but the chasing away of predators and eating their kills, after all, many ways to find and eat is found if yer hungry enough. and humans have had only their growing over a long time of the huge cerebral cortex, which fostered tool making.
      Oddly, I saw it in a video by Cristina Rad aka ZOMGITScris on youtube, entitled ‘LOVE animals’ check it out, it’s beautiful. I mean the bird fashioned a stem, removing leaves from its sides in order to poke it into a hole where a bug, I guess was, and it could eat, and who says human’s are the only toolmakers cuz we’re so smart, ever heard anyone called birdbrain? After seeing this I’m gonna say thank you as it’s a compliment. And if the Animal Liberation Front is seen as appalling, watch the video of Britches, a young primate deprived of its Mom at its birth its eyes sewn shut in research lab.
      We humans for all our rationality don’t seem to question the necessity for making such destructive weapons as DIMEs, which when it explodes, superheated shrapnel microscopic in size, tears through the cells and due to the size it’s almost impossible to tell what the injury is, until the person bleeds to death, too late to treat then. Zionists of Israel use Palestinians in Gaza as fodder to test the latest weapons gotten from the USA. And every so often Israel calls attacks that kill svseral 100 which they call an seriously they do, “mowing the lawn.” Also, Iraq since 1991 war birth defects due to the weapons used that contain depleted uranium, and plutonium, leaving entire areas radioactive and cancer rates are very high. Until humans somehow remove violence from their humanity, war and cruelty and bombing others will not save us as a species. PEACE cannot be bombed into existence. Corporate Capitalism and humanb hubris is gonna kill life itself. I maintain a colossal sadness and sense of compassion for the humans on this planet, as we are betwixt and between being civilised, and being vandals and marauders raping and pillaging peaceful villages we happen to come across. We’re somewhat smart as we have foresight and can prepare for future events, but if we cannot even agree on the reality being observed right in front of us, by both os us, no insight into proper actions to take is even possible. Climate Change is a Physics problem, and less of a created as political one.
      FYI, Vegan author/advisor Tracye from the byanygreensnecessary Vegan site newsetter email, sent the link, and it’s how I came to be here. The posts are back in 2015 mostly and I have enjoyed taking in all the various views(‘cept for the Babble banging Rude-ee, passive aggressive Xian they appear to be, so thanks ya’ll.
      Peace




      0
  16. As most readers of this website realize, that to solve a problem correctly, one must
    find the root cause and work on correcting that. For instance, as
    Dr. Greger has shown, the root cause of many of our chronic diseases
    is a poor diet, whereas the medical establishment “treats” these
    diseases with medications that only address the symptoms.

    Similarly, with Climate Change. If, in fact, mankind is the cause of climate change,
    and let’s hypothetically assume that it is, Isn’t it really only a
    symptom? Isn’t the root cause of all man-made pollution overpopulation!
    If one is familiar with exponential growth in dynamical systems with
    finite resources, it can easily be shown that one day one or more of
    the resources will be exhausted! Moving to cleaner energy, or
    conserving this or that may help temporarily, but they are only
    stop-gap measures. To really “solve” the pollution problem,
    wouldn’t we have to find a way of limiting exponential population
    growth to achieve a steady state system? I would think that if
    mankind doesn’t solve this problem, then eventually Nature will solve
    it for us with rampant plague-like diseases and/or starvation! Oh
    well, as the old saying goes, that’s for future generations to solve, :-)




    0
    1. That is a completely horrible thing to say. I am 18 and I take great offense on many accounts. In addition, as the old saying goes, “Sometimes we must let the old scientists die off before bringing in the new ones.”
      Climate change is nature. Humans are part of nature. And the climate has been changing for millions of years. This is just more government seeking its tentacles out for more power. As far as overpopulation, it is an emotional appeal to inteligent people to stop breeding. Lower intelligent people will breed regardless and don’t care. Just look at the millions of single moms. There is plenty of resources. Let us allocate it freely.




      0
      1. One way to look at the global warming mess. As individuals we need to do all we can do. If as individuals we do the right thing then your concern about government involvement is moot. If we ignore it all and assume it is a government conspiracy to tax us and we go beyond the tipping point then what?




        0
        1. Perfect instance for a Pascal’s wager. think of it. Do nothing because you disbelief it and perish, do something just in case and it gets mitigated so nothing was lost, doing nothing and it being true and your doing nothing makes it worse as found true
          Better: Do nothing find it untrue, lose nothing,
          Do something as if true, but find it’s untrue lose only time&expense in taking action, no real loss.
          Do nothing, but find it’s true, you lose big time.
          Do something and find it’s true you end up by saving yourselves.
          As with god belief, act as if he does and find he doesn’t lose nothing, don’t believe and find he does you lose, act as if he doesn’t lose nothing when he doesn’t, believe he does when he does, no loss
          Like rolling dice, and how many ways to lose at craps by having a 7, most ways for 2 die, times 7 comes up as, 1,6;6,1;4,3;3,4;2,5;5,2 which means 1/6 times a 7 comes up, since more ways for 7, for very large tosses will always be 1/6 of the time a 7 combo will be rolled. A good book on craps is by Tocci.




          0
      2. You’re a simpleton. 18? it shows. Go ahead stick your head in the sand it saddens me that someone so young has such closed mindedness, and without any experience you dfraw conclusions that are very naive. And you’re parroting other stupid people.




        0
  17. Bravo, Bravo, Bravo Dr. Greger for this video!!! It’s about darn time! Yes, of course the Europeans are leading the way – They were instrumental in the science and analysis done resulting in the United Nations report on “Livestock’s Long Shadow” published in 2006. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM – I recommend everyone read at least the introduction. it describes all the facets in which animal products contribute and result in Livestock farming being the #1, some say, or at least the #2 cause of climate change! Unfortunately we don’t hear about it in the US, due to the money interests, who stand to lose when folks cut back on meat and dairy consumption. Let’s all pass this info around! Also, J Morris Hicks http://hpjmh.com/ and T Colin Campbell have collaborated in an effort to get the word out. According, to Hicks we can reverse climate change faster by focusing on reducing methane rather than carbon, as it has an effective 50% of the “half life” of carbon. It dissipates faster!




    1
  18. Several people have mentioned Cowspiracy. It’s an awesome, must-see movie. I thought I would point out that Cowspiracy is now available on Netflix. So, if you have Netflix and haven’t seen Cowspiracy, you can easily see it now. It’s entertaining as well as educational. I think it is a good film for the whole family (say over 8???).




    0
  19. Dr. Gregor, have you seen the movie, Cowspiracy? (Cowspiracy.org)
    It presents a good case for cutting down/out animal product consumption. Very persuasive. Do you think that it is accurate from the point of view of “facts?”




    0
  20. How much does lactose intolerance contribute to greenhouse gases? This may sound like a joke but when my brother and I stopped dairy products the change was huge, and social embarrassment was dramatically reduced.




    0
    1. Robert: I don’t know the answer to your question, but I wanted to say that I think it is a great question. I remember doing a paper in college where I learned about how much “emissions” from cows contribute to greenhouse gases. (It’s significant.) Given the ginormous numbers of humans on the planet, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the answer to your question was the same: “significant”.

      I’m glad your social embarrassment levels have gone down! ;-)




      0
  21. Hi,

    I was looking for the table in the CE Delft reports that appears in your video at 2:00 but I can’t find it. Is there a page number? This will be really useful in my presentation in setting up a WFPB program at my job.




    0
  22. Excellent documentary on this topic recently released by Netflix, “Cowspiracy” Highlights the problem and the awkward silence regarding animal agriculture by major environmental groups.




    0
  23. on the topic of climate change, readers may be interested in my new book: The Restore-Our-Planet Diet: Food Choices, Our Environment, and our Health. available on Amazon.




    0
  24. Makes me wonder, given what the above video is saying. Why is it when I go vegan and organic for a month, my food budget skyrockets 2X. I am very meticulous in tracking these expenses. Yes I know there is some marketing and mispricing going on, but if eating a hamburger is as bad for the environment as running your shower hot for an entire day, how come a hamburger at McDonalds is not $20?I went to whole foods the other day and bought a small bag for raw organic cacao power for $30. Give me a break.




    0
    1. Andrey: My understanding is that animal products are under priced because those products are so highly subsidized by governments, and because there are such large costs that no one is paying for (costs to the environment, etc.) or not paying for directly (health care costs are not put into the cost that burger).

      I can sympathize with you over the cost of your raw organic cacao powder, but I want to share that eating healthy does not have to be expensive at all. It can be the cheapest way to eat. Here are two cookbooks that I like:
      Vegan On The Cheap
      Vegan for $4 A Day

      Full disclosure: I like to splurge too. I’m OK with spending money on food. I don’t have a problem with it, because I am saving so much on medical costs, and I enjoy having some food freedom. But I can also honestly say that that Vegan On The Cheap book is one of my favorite books with delicious and easy recipes. There is no sacrifice eating that way, and it is truly affordable.

      Here are links to those books if you are interested:
      http://www.amazon.com/Vegan-Cheap-Robin-Robertson/dp/0470472243/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445978029&sr=1-1&keywords=vegan+on+the+cheap
      http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Vegan-4-00-Day-Conscious/dp/1570672571/ref=sr_1_2_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445978029&sr=1-2&keywords=vegan+on+the+cheap

      Hope that helps.




      0
      1. Thanks for the book recommendations. I live in HI, which may have the most expensive food in the world, and routinely spend $1500+ on food/month just on myself.
        The biggest issue is the inconvenience and how eating vegan can turn off my close friends, family, and co-workers. My family has lived into their 90s with less education and finances than my generation, eating tons of meat.
        So for me, I happen to love animals. But given my FHx and my love for tea, the potential health ‘threats’ are a 5th or 6th place concern to be honest.
        People already thinking I am weird, would only get more pronounced on a vegan diet. ;)




        0
        1. I just remembered: Hawaii is known for a very active and very large vegetarian group: http://www.vsh.org/ The group brings in great speakers and has cooking classes, etc. Getting involved with that group would be a great way to meet folk who also care about animals if you are interested.




          0
  25. Currently researching the Environmental aspects of Diets, where this helped already a lot.

    But I couldn’t find any study or data about comparing of animal products to the equivalant vegan product, so like vegan cheese,egg-white,mayo,meat etc.

    Would really like to see some data about it, so we can have a better understanding how much the effects really are and make it more visual for the normal consumer.




    0
    1. Hi Marius,
      Our diet tracker at NourishLab includes the greenhouse gas emissions associated with thousands of foods. You can thus calculate the GHG total for various foods, meals, and diet patterns. You can even share complete meal plans with this information publicly. Our GHG data is approximate, of course, but it appears to be quite valid for foods produced in the U.S.
      https://www.nourishlab.com

      You can quickly search individual foods here:
      https://www.nourishlab.com/quicksearch

      We also have a blog post with some graphics which illustrate the relative greenhouse gas intensities of various diet patterns including the average American diet, the USDA-recommended diet, and both vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets.

      https://www.nourishlab.com/blog/2015/combating-climate-change-through-diet

      The references for the data used can be found at the end of the blog post.

      I hope this helps your research, if you or anyone else has any questions, please feel free to contact us through the site.




      0
  26. Why is it so hard to reduce CO2 levels? Because it is stupid!. One should note that the main idelology behind the whole heavily funded climate science is “population reduction”. It’s based on the Malthusian idea that there are limited recources and so therefore human population has to be reduced to not “disturb” some kind of perceived “natural balance”. There are well documented studies that show that the whole climate stuff is bunk and that the earth’s climate is controlled by solar and galactic phenomena, not human. The EU is a non-democratic bureaucracy anyway, and the studies that shows that unhealthy foods also are the cause of climate change, is a sophistic way of abusing people’s minds. I mean, come on. Once they have tricked people, they can make a model that fits people’s beliefs. What would happen if the so called third world would have development? “Oh my god, then we would produce much more CO2 and since the high priests of climate science tells us that CO2 is bad, then we can’t have that happen.” And so the next step, conciously or unconsiously, is to think about population reduction, which is exactly the trick that is behind all this climate stuff. By the way, wanna earn lots of money. Invest in CO2 trading on Wall Street. You can make a “killing”. Well, with modern day technology we can produce food for at least 1 trillion people, and house them, if we wanted. There are all new ways of producing healthy foods in high towers (i.e.
    hydroponics, aquaponics, aeroponics), so let’s eat healthy food because
    it is healthy, and not because we believe in Malthus.




    0
    1. “There are well documented studies that show that the whole climate stuff is bunk and that the earth’s climate is controlled by solar and galactic phenomena, not human.” You’re apparently an idiot. AND you didn’t leave any references for your claims. This statement you made is 180 degrees the opposite conculusion of the reality of climate change. Migratrion patterns have changed, animals are going extinct because they cannot adapt to the environmental shifts due to the greater heating if the earth. Insects come sooner due to heat and birds having their young coincides with the insects prevalence, oceans are unable to absorb so much CO2 and marine animals dying iut changing the food chain. Coral is dying due acidification. Arctic ice is almost gone.
      It’s not politics and animals are responding to climate change as it’s truly a physics problem not political, humans discuss politics as the animals react to the changing planet based on Climate Changes, and they don’t waste time bickering, as they respond instinctively to THE physics and not the politics humans blather on about. THINK Pascal’s wager is perfect for these changes, fits better than with a god wager




      0
  27. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the agency of the European Union (EU) that provides independent scientific advice and communicates on existing and emerging risks associated with the food chain. Its commitment to ensuring that European food is safe is not yet comprising any view on the risks and safety of food related to climate change or water pollution…




    0
  28. Dr Greger, I have a question which might not have the answer, but I want to know about insects as being a viable food source, I know they are also an animal protein, but they have many good vitamins and minerals in them, similar omega 3 profile to fish and eating insects would reduce land required and CO2 emissions even more if they were fed on manure or harvested with grains legumes etc, removing the need for pesticides (since we would be eating them). If we wanted to truly minimise environmental damage and maximise calories per unit area. I pose this question because insects are a “staple” or regularly eaten, for many cultures around the world, around 2 billion people.




    0
  29. The documentary “Cowspiracy” does a good job illustrating this issue and how politically sensitive it is at the government level. It simply is not discussed.




    0
  30. Quoting WHOLLYBABBLE verses never helps. Your barrage of cut and paste really destroys/steals bandwidth usage, it’s enough to just leave the verse reference and then if anyone wants to read it they can, but like most Xians you want to stuff it down people’s throats especially those who don’t want to hear it, or force people to just page down to avoid it, a passive aggressive move on your part, rudy, so just stop, leave the ref, then go away.
    Think of it, do you consult a weather report from 1920, for taking a trip today? 98 AD was last thing written in that book, and where’s the Thomas gospel that wasn’t included in the King James version? What of Maccabre?Global Warming is a Physics problem, not a religious or political one. Dishonest companies made it into a political one, on the negative, and Dems like Al Gore, with the best of intentions on the positive didn’t make it political, but he should’ve foreseen how it would become that.
    So, rude-ee, quoting bible verses says nothing other than you can cut and paste, and have no idea what is being discussed, otherwise you’d use your own thoughts. But it does reveal only that you have no understanding and rely on preachers who claim they do.
    THINK for yourself then read the science of AGW, how did it come about as an issue of politics, the greenhouse effect, and especially Venus atmosphere. Then watch the 1950s AT&T video on youtube The Unchained Goddess. It isn’t a new ‘thing.’ Cut out the middleman, and even your god and the bible are by another name, considered middlemen.
    Peace




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This