Hamburgers are the Hummers of food in global warming
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.
Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That’s because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Well folks, let me lay it on line:
I am allergic to soy. I found out after suffering from a chronic stomach ache that lasted three months. You don’t really want to know what that was like. As a result, I have to avoid every thing that contains soy, including lotions, shampoos and cosmetics, but particularly tofu, miso and soybeans.
Adding to that, I am severely hypoglycemic. What that means is that I have very low tolerance for carbohydrates, which in turn means I must get most of my calories from proteins and fats. I tried living on salads and lost so much weight my doctor was worried.
And what foods contain proteins and fats?
Meat, fish, poultry.
Which means I’ll gladly remain at the top of the food chain, thank you.
Now that we established that, I’ll let you have my fries.
(If you must ask, my cholesterol is excellent, thank you.)
Linking to this post
Doug Ross
“That’s because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.”
… Then the solution is to improve efficiencies and see if there are ways to offset or even capture and sequester a portion of that methane. The solution should not be deprivation. I know full well that beef is not a necessity in life, but I question the wisdom of eliminating such an excellent source of protein and other nutrients from the human food chain.
This is the problem with modern environmentalism: To date, all solutions reducing environmental harm and impact and improving the state of the world have been technological ones based on increasing scientific knowledge. Yet, future recommendations are centered around intentional deprivation. It’s moralistic hectoring like that which keeps people cynical about environmental issues.
There’s a scientific aspect to environmentalism, and there’s also a social one. I’m impressed with one, painfully disgusted with the other. Guess which one’s which?
E.M.H.– Scientists are working on solving the methane problem at the source, ie, in the cow’s gut. Like you, I hate the hectoring, especially when the hectorers haven’t a clue about the science. There was a great video a while back in which someone got the clueless to sign petitions against dihydromonoxide.
From my cold dead hands!
expat, that dihydromonoxide is deadly stuff! I mean, fish are dieing in it all the time.
insert \”fan\” between country and either and I might not sound like a moron 🙂