| Find, explore and network a cause. |
|
Go 
|
New 
|
Find 
|
Notify 
|
|
Reply 
|
|
Admin 
|
New PM! 
|

Registered: September 19, 2001
Posts: 2202
|
quote: on the issue about clothes, I buy fair trade, or resale that my school supports.
Fair trade shirts still have to be shipped. So does everything else you own. I guess you hate the earth.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
|

Registered: February 12, 2008
Posts: 143
|
CSA stands for community supported agriculture. You join a CSA, you volunteer to work at the farm atleast once a month and pay a small fee, depending on how much you work. All the plants are grown organically, and it's pretty cheap. (esspecially if you work alot) Ofcoarce they don't ship 5000 cattle at one time! But have you seriously never seen those double-decker trailers with 50 or so cattle on them? I see them whenever we are or the road (not very often, I only commute between the stable, school, and church) but whenever I'm on my way to the stables I see them. I am shocked that you haven't. on the issue about clothes, I buy fair trade, or resale that my school supports. so ha.
There is a point in our lives where we can do what is easy, or we can do what is right.
|

Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 429
|
quote: And notsojoey, are you serious that cattle aren't shipped to slaughter houses? Or was that sarcastic? If it was, I apolgize for this. HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN CATTLE OR HOG TRAILERS?!?!?!?!?! you know the two-level chambers of torture?
You are talking about very rare instance when small numbers of cattle are transported - usually to the state or county fair. This burns little fuel. A slaughter house would probably not even be willing to do business with small numbers of cattle unless it was a local slaughter house. Most ranchers have over 100 head of cattle and up to 5,000 if they are breeding them simply for slaughter. How in the world would you fit 5,000 cattle on a trailer? How would you fit them in a train? At 10 cattle a cart that is 500 carts. Have you ever seen a train that long? It is not economically prudent to transport cattle to the slaughter house by train or trailers. Please refer to my previous post where I explain why slaughter houses are located where they are.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
|

Registered: September 19, 2001
Posts: 2202
|
Can't afford to buy organic or from a ?CSA?. A lot of Americans can't. And for the record, I have never seen 5000 head of cattle being driven down the road in a trailer of torture. And I hope you make your own clothes and paper and everything else you own. Those have to be shipped too.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
|

Registered: February 12, 2008
Posts: 143
|
Ok, those things are providing that you don't go to a CSA or buy organic. If you buy organic, B and C are eliminated, if you go to a CSA, just about all are. (btw, I'm asuming that you meant agriculture by vegetable growing, cuz 'agriculture' is a refrence to both livestock and vegetable) And notsojoey, are you serious that cattle aren't shipped to slaughter houses? Or was that sarcastic? If it was, I apolgize for this. HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN CATTLE OR HOG TRAILERS?!?!?!?!?! you know the two-level chambers of torture?
There is a point in our lives where we can do what is easy, or we can do what is right.
|

Registered: September 19, 2001
Posts: 2202
|
quote: Originally posted by horseartistgrl27: no I wasn't sayingthat that that's it's bad that the animals are living and creating more emissions, we're creating more emissions by having to have them trasported.
Plus, it's bad for the environment to have less wild animals, and that is not made up for by dommestic farm animals.
Same with agriculture. Notsojoey gave you a nice list of processes that are used. This is of course, all under the assumption that cars contribute to climate change. I have seen much evidence to the contrary, but, that is another board.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
|

Registered: February 12, 2008
Posts: 143
|
no I wasn't sayingthat that that's it's bad that the animals are living and creating more emissions, we're creating more emissions by having to have them trasported. Plus, it's bad for the environment to have less wild animals, and that is not made up for by dommestic farm animals.
There is a point in our lives where we can do what is easy, or we can do what is right.
|

Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 429
|
Clpo, I was just hasseling you. I was hoping the hear the Vegans try to explain their crazy theory on how animals today are super animals compared to past animals.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
|

Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 5962
|
quote: notsojoey: Nice point. What Clpo fails to understand is that humans have breed animals into a super bread for the sole purpose of ruining the environment. Come on Vegans, back me up.
Even when we agree we disagree. Such is the nature of the Internet forum... Anyways, I did consider that, although I discounted it. While there are more animals in farms today, there are less animals in the wild. In the past, it was the other way around. By my estimation, everything balances out.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|

Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 429
|
quote: Animals have existed on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. The planet has handled their methane emissions with no ill effects.
Nice point. What Clpo fails to understand is that humans have breed animals into a super bread for the sole purpose of ruining the environment. Come on Vegans, back me up. quote: c.Those cattle were transported to the slaughter house in a trailer, using fuel.
No, rancher get their cattle to the slaughter house the old fashioned way, by walking them there. That is why slaughter houses are in areas with large amounts of cattle. Do you know much time and money it would cost to load 5,000 head of cattle into trailers? Because of this, you can not say that vegans eliminate this step because it does not exist. Lets take a look at growing plants for food. a - the land is harvested by a tractor, which uses fuel. b - fertilizer and supliments are sent to the rancher by air or ground, which both use fuel. c - the rancher plants the seeds with an automatic planter, which uses fuel. d - the plants are water and sparyed with pesticides via automated mechanism, which use electricity. e - The plants are prepared for shipment, which is done in an enviornment that needs that needs electricty f - The plants are sent to the grocery store either by plane or ground, both using fuel. g - The plants are inspected by the grocery store before being put on the shelf, using elctrictiy. h - the plants are put out for the public in a building that uses electricity and are watered, probably automatically, by a spinkler, which uses electricty. i - the plant is checked out using electrcity. j - the plant is transported to your home, using fuel. k - unless you eat every plant raw, the plant is cooked using some sort of energy. In sum, the arguement that not processing meat will save energy because plants don't need as much energy to be process is non-existent. Also, please substitute plant for vegetable.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
|

Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 5962
|
Animals have existed on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. The planet has handled their methane emissions with no ill effects.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|

Registered: February 12, 2008
Posts: 143
|
1. can everone stop being jerks? please? 2. Of coarse being a vegiterian is going to reduce fuel emissions! Come on Bushsupporter and clpo13, did you think this through! Animals create methane and such too, just not as much as people. a.Think, the feed for cattle was harvested by a tractor, which uses fuel. b. It was then transported to feed the cattle in a truck, using fuel. c.Those cattle were transported to the slaughter house in a trailer, using fuel. d. At the slaughter house, they were killed using a mechine, using electricity. e.Then they were processed by a mechine/s, that uses electricty. f.Then that meat was sent to a grocery store in a truck, using fuel. g. At the grocery store it sat in a refrigerator, using electricty. h. Then It was checked out, using electicty. i. Then the meat was transported to your home, using fuel. j. At you home, it was cooked, using coal, gas, or electricty. And that was just from the process of making a cow into the hamburger in front of you! They create some just by living! 3. While plants have to go through some of these processes too, but steps b, c, d, and somewhat e are eliminated. That saves so much fuel! Why did you not think this though! It's so easy!
There is a point in our lives where we can do what is easy, or we can do what is right.
|

Registered: September 17, 2006
Posts: 35
|
oy; http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm quote: Methane and Vegetarianism By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.
With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.
The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.
|

Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 5962
|
One doesn't need to be logged in to read posts. I get emails notifying me of responses to topics I'm watching and I don't even need to have my browser open.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|

Registered: September 19, 2001
Posts: 2202
|
So veganism is now tied to global warming? Give me a break. And it appears that someday was completely wrong: quote: Well, considering she hasn't logged in in 10 months, I highly doubt you are going to get an answer. You'd think somebody with your "intelligence" would be able to figure that out.
I guess someone as intelligent as you would figure out you are wrong most of the time.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
|

Registered: September 17, 2006
Posts: 35
|
moment of awkwardness: I've been reading every recent post on this thread whenever i get an email alert for it but not replying. I'm a lesbian, and on a semi-related* note, feels no need to impress males. I would want to be vegan because it causes less carbon emissions than ovo-lacto vegetarianism. WHY IN THE HELL IS EVERYONE SPELLING MY USERNAME ODDLY.
///well, the way you pulled the fuzzies from my sweater...
|

Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 429
|
quote: Originally posted by someday355: Well, considering she hasn't logged in in 10 months, I highly doubt you are going to get an answer. You'd think somebody with your "intelligence" would be able to figure that out.
Oh sorry, I guess superchukkholly is the only person who can explain why being a Vegan is cool. Since Supercukkholly hasn't posted in some time, and someday355 believes Supercukkholly is the only person that can debate on this board I ask that a Mod close this board so it doesn't waste any space.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
|

Registered: October 30, 2005
Posts: 5362
|
Well, considering she hasn't logged in in 10 months, I highly doubt you are going to get an answer. You'd think somebody with your "intelligence" would be able to figure that out.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace
|

Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 429
|
Everyone thinks being a Vegan is cool, please explain. Is superchukkholly doing this for a boy?
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
|

Registered: February 20, 2008
Posts: 56
|
that little idiom, also means: something that you say which means someone should not criticize another person for a fault that they have themselves or a situation in which one person criticizes another for a fault they have themselves see..i do read dictionaries, just not wikipedia
if not you, who? if not now, when?
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|