Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65468 rec.gardens:259211 misc.survivalism:500549 misc.rural:115168 rec.backcountry:172126

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:


(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)


From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

I'd love to see the support for that claim.

Anyway, it ignores the fact that not all meat is
produced the same way. For example, if you eat
"normal" grain-fattened beef, your contribution to
carbon emissions is going to be much greater than if
you eat grass-fed (only) beef, which is increasingly
available, or if you were to eat some game you hunted
yourself.

Another "anyway" point: the optimal amount of
pollution is not zero. You may wish to reduce the
pollution you cause, but you'll never push it to zero.