Red meat consumption is at least 6 times bigger in terms of contribution to global warming than air travel is -- and that's not accounting for deforestation/reduction of carbon sinks.

Good to see they're also not advocating extremism (read:veganism) but rather reductions. Think of it this way - if red meat consumption dropped 16% globally, it would be the same as banning all aircraft.

Since when was being vegan 'extremism'?

What about rice & methane? It's more relevant to the East, but rice is a big source! I just hate to see global warming hijacked by animal rightists- we should analyze all food for its impact and not fixate just on meat.

... And if all livestock consumption was removed, that would be BETTER than removing all the world's automobiles.

Yeah, I'm vegan (just recently after 5+ years vegetarian), so my perspective isn't as universally practical or accessible to people. Honestly though, how much polite rhetoric do people need to realize their eating habits are trashing the planet, with no signs of slowing down? Meat consumption/production is to double by 2050. How about HALVING it by then. If you're going to eat meat, take Frances Moore Lappe's suggestion, and do so as in a third world country: like a side dish or garnish.

Less meat production does mean higher costs, but it would also mean higher ethical standards, higher quality product, a more rapid decline to factory farming, less strain on world's food supply, and less contribution to global warming.

...but it isn't such a friendly prospect to the massively subsidized cattle industry, now is it? Or our utterly chaotic food supply chain in general.

I'll personally advocate extremism, and encourage anyone I meet to make steps towards lessening their carbon footprint. Less meat, local meat, ethical meat, no meat. Any or all of the above.

I agree with the words of Jon. Just a simple note about them: the term Third World became obsolete. I am Brazilian, and I feel rather uncomfortable when they say Brazil is part of the 3rd world. There is NO objective definition of the 3rd World.

.. And if all livestock consumption was removed, that would be BETTER than removing all the world's automobiles.

That's not correct, nor will it ever happen.

I'll personally advocate extremism

Why? You only engender more reactive opposition that will completely overwhelm any marginal betterment your own lifestyle has.

and encourage anyone I meet to make steps towards lessening their carbon footprint.

Anyone? You must be young.

Anonymous, there may be other vegetables and grains that contribute to greenhouse gases. However, when talking about meat "production", you always have to factor in how many TONS of vegetable matter each cow must consume before being slaughtered. The overall environmental impact of eating meat is always exponentially greater than eating items from the plant kingdom.

Melissa:

I wholly agree with you in terms of finding the most efficient means to practice all agriculture, be it rice, grains, tea, coffee, whatever. But the quantifiable fact is that, even if all those practices were made the most efficient, it wouldn't be put a dent in the general wastefulness of animal agriculture.

This isn't a matter of animal rightists, it's a matter of reducing greenhouse gages and climate change as rapidly as possible. And bar none, the quickest way to do so would be the removal or reduction of animal based diets. The more I read about climate change, the less my reasons for veganism come from ethical regard for animals and more towards a smaller carbon footprint.

But let's not get onto the matter of nitpicking lesser contributors and not focus on one of the largest. On the scale on which it is operated (ie factory farms), animal agriculture cannot help but be extremely wasteful. Add to that the inequality of resources shovelled their way relative to the output (that, along with biofuel interest, subsidized farmers, and impoverished nations is a horrid misuse of resources), and there's fewer ways to defend it.

I believe they say a carnivore needs 8 acres of land for their food supply, and a vegan needs 1/2. And while it maynot hold as an absolute truth, there is a lot of relevance and practicality to the expression "real environmentalists don't eat meat". Or my personal favorite from Einstein: "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

The more people that really tune into the environment and become part of the green movement, the better. But that also runs the risk that certain values and beliefs will be watered down. I believe in staying true to your highest values, which is why I am vegan. And I'd hope I can help others I know be more environmentally aware, on whatever personal scale they choose.

But I cannot watch someone brush of the consequences and inefficiencies of meat consumption. It is what it is, and people need to be upfront with that, whatever their personal diet habits. I'd love to continue discussing this, but not with personal attacks or irrational arguments, which I encounter far too often on this subject.

"Good to see they're also not advocating extremism (read:veganism)"

Haha, don't make me laugh. There is nothing extreme about veganism except for your aversion to it. Fact: if you want your diet to have the least potential footprint, then go vegan. Nobody says you have to eat luxury fake meats and eat imported bananas.

I'm a vegan for mostly environmental reasons, and although I'm a supporter of animal rights, that isn't really what's at stake now and is definitely not what vegans should be fixating their message around. It's all environmental: meat eaters (and users of dairy/eggs) have a gigantic footprint, not to mention all the grain that they could be eating that is instead going to their animal of choice. Sure vegans have their own carbon problems, especially importing wasteful cereal grains and exotic processed foods, but if you want to look at potential (and EASY potential too, if you live in an urban area), you need look no further than a vegan diet.
Besides, not having diarrhea every other night is a good perk. Jon is right: we should just call things as they are. Meat - bad. No debate needed. Rice: also bad. Less bad than meat? Fo' sho.

Why must people post anonymously? It feels like a small thing, but to me it feels very passive aggressive once you get into an actual exchange. Just knowing someone's name makes it so much more personable. At any rate...

To what you quote me on, "I'll advocate extremism"... in a nutshell, damn right I will! But allow me to clarify:

I won't do so in a way that I scold or belittle everyone I meet who is not also a vegan/localvore/whatever. Rather, if asked, if I breach the subject with someone, I will share my rationale and let discussion go from there. I certainly wouldn't accost a stranger to give them the news. Discussion with family members or friends? Sure. With things like vegetarianism, so many people are reactive and a presentation of objective facts on meat's footprint demands they respond to something concrete rather than belief-oriented.

When I say "extremism, I more mean as an ideal, a role model for myself and potentially others. Isn't that what all great social progress is based upon? Striving toward an ideal, a notion that may not be actually attainable, but captures the hope and aspirations of those involved? We dream of zero-emission vehicles, but it's a very gradual slope to get there, maybe a few more mpg every now and then. But it's the ideal that keeps us committed. Inching towards it.

My philosophical outlook is obviously different, but I do believe in those ideals, and romantically imagine a cruelty-free world where man and beast co-exist on plant-based diets. Where would we get with matters if everyone dreamt of "just eating one steak a week at Sunday dinner, carpooling 3 days a week, and changing the house lightbulbs to CFLs". That's quaint, but not very romantic, and not very visionary.

So that's how I qualify my "extremism". I guess most people just wouldn't understand it. And upon review of the different comments, I see that the only reason I said "extremism" was because Anonymous said it at the very top of the thread. I agree with Andrew, that veganism is far from extremism, and simply a matter of reshaping one's diet.

Many people in the world are typically vegetarian or vegan in their diets, simply due to availability of resources. These people also happen to be the poorest and those who lead lives of endless work and toil. They have the smallest carbon footprints, but will be affected the most by climate change. But we can eat McSubsidized Big Macs to our heart's content.

PS to Ana... I was just anecdotally quoting the thing about 3rd world meat consumption... no intention of implying that Brazil was 3rd world, and it's probably better to just go with "meat as side dish or garnish" metaphor.

Here's another idea (though somewhat different, but still on track with the topic)... have less children (and/or adopt). People poop and pass gas, also drive cars, and eat food and meat. The less people, the less resources we use. Supply and demand.

I'm happy with eating meat, and the last time I checked, humans eat, poop, and pass gas too (not as much as cows), as well as drive cars.

Just sayin...

If you want to think of extremism, then eating the flesh of a dead burnt animal seems pretty extreme to me.

Out of all the species on this planet we are the only one that systematically incarcerates, processes and then burns other animals for our own gastronomic delight.

Choosing to eat humanely (and i use that word with caution) is the only choice we as a species and as a planet have to survive. Otherwise we are going to eat ourselves out of existence...

PLAIN AND SIMPLE GET IT?

If you want to think of extremism, then eating the flesh of a dead burnt animal seems pretty extreme to me.

Why? Humans have been doing it for as long as we've had the ability to do it. Without humans eating meat around campfires in antiquity, you wouldn't exist.

Out of all the species on this planet we are the only one that systematically incarcerates, processes and then burns other animals for our own gastronomic delight.

Incarcerates? No, no extremism there. No one would consider that an absurd comment. So, I guess you don't object to hunting an animal down then eating it? How about catching a fish then eating the raw meat? Your whole ludicrous position tries to single humans out because we domesticate instead of hunt and cook instead of eat raw. Flesh consumption is common throughout the natural world.

Choosing to eat humanely (and i use that word with caution) is the only choice we as a species and as a planet have to survive. Otherwise we are going to eat ourselves out of existence...

Oh, please.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE GET IT?

Do I get that any post like this will bring out the vegan headcases? Yes, I do.

So, Mr. Vegan, I assume you don't consume any products other than those you can gather directly from your immediate environment, right? Because all those trucks, trains, planes, boats, cars and trucks tear up millions upon millions of furry creatures year after year. And I guess you don't use electricity (using an electricity-free computer and Internet, right?) which also leads to the slaughter, disease, etc of millions of birds and animals every year, too.

You're perfectly entitled to your dietary choices, but you're Glass House approach only keeps you in the Extremist Box that all normal people will instantly write off, and more often than not, step up their burger consumption just to spite you. So your extremism gets a bunch of innocent furries killed.

Try toning back on your self-righteousness if you actually care about results. And you might want to not make assumptions about the people you're talking with. They may be vegan or some variation of vegetarian/local/down the food chain type. Thing is they might have learned there's no need to look down on your fellow humans to help them change for the better.

jon, thanks for your first post, i appreciated it very much.

dudes like blingstar seem to forget that we evolved eating meat -- small amounts, but some nonetheless.

i appreciate your willingness to see it doesn't have to be some kind of all-or-nothing thing. as a post-vegan omnivore i love me some chickpea curry, but believe meat-eating is also natural -- even though factory farms should be outlawed.

And here's today's literacy lesson, for those making misguided semantic objections.

extremist, n.
One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

Mr Vegan?

First up, just because I say eating the flesh of burnt animals is extreme, what makes you think i am vegan.

I have not put a limit on my dietary choice. The food I consume is as local as possible, organic or from my own garden.

In my research of the food industry and from experience of being on fishing trawlers I feel I do not have the need to put any animal in my mouth unless I know exactly where it comes from. And even then I can't see much sense in doing that.

Your tone is personal and attacking. Fine, I can take it because my conscience is clean. i often have this reaction Maybe because the people haranguing for me for deciding not to be involved in killing innocent animals know they are complicit in their death as meat eaters.

So here is another statement.

Humans have evolved into a state of abnormality totally out of touch with nature and their natural selves. WhIle we are consumed by trivial modern day perspectives we miss the possibility to realise a higher state of being.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. GET IT?

Blingstar,
The 'what about the computer you're using?' etc argument is trotted out all the time - most vegans agree that veganism is an unattainable ideal but a worthy one nonetheless. No vegan should feel guilt-free or self-righteous (although as human beings we're all of course susceptible to these feelings), but on the other hand I don't think one has to be perfect oneself to hope and advocate for an improvement in some area of society.

In the same way we can accept a protest against war even while the protestors continue to pay the very taxes which fund the military which wages the war. We might also for instance ride on a railroad built with slave labour (whether known to us or otherwise), whilst still doing what we can to fight the practise of slavery.

My personal approach is to avoid animal products as primary ingredients in most things I buy, but I'll sometimes buy things which have eggs, milk or honey as lesser ingredients. I try to demonstrate to those around me, and the mainstream of society, that the lifestyle needn't be impossibly difficult. And it's getting easier to be vegan every day.

No-one seems to have offered a valid rebuttal of the environmental benefits of veganism asserted, except by recourse to a few environmentally-dubious food products for which there are many alternatives.

Finally I don't insist that everyone become vegan, although it's something I'd love to see. Instead I try to advocate meat reduction, as others have posted of.

I think that I'll support my free range bovine, porcine, chickine, sheepine, equine friends and say that they are a mighty tastey treat. I support them (keep in mind... free range) becuase the land that they walk around on before I eat them is a nice place for other little critters and plants to live and generally supports more biodiversity than a huge agri-business farm that chokes out all other species and dedicates one massive plot of land to the propagation of a single species. I would also feel bad if we let them go extinct because no one wanted to eat them anymore. Viva-la-meat!

Bovis,
I don't think any animals are in danger of going extinct because we aren't eating them any more. however I do think there is a difference between the business of agriculture and the people who raise animals.
My friends live ona giant hillside in VT. they raise pigs during the year, and eat them in the winter, selling portions of the pigs to friends. The pigs eat some grain, but also are use to help clear a lower field where icelandic sheep and horses spend good portion of their times. Tjey also have chickens which live up near the top of the hill. The pigs clear up the tree shoots, so it stays a field. They have LOTS of trees in the surrounding area, and all in all it seems pretty natural and functional. They have a garden too, and if civilization came crashing down they could probably do better than most. I feel like it is slightly different to eat pigs raised on tree shoots from a hill in Vt than it is to eat mass produced meat. I could be wrong, but I'm still learning.