Blog

0

Possible Duplicate:
How environmentally responsible/green and sustainable is the paleo diet?

So, I was reading the above mentioned article on motherearthnews.com. I really enjoy this website and think they have a lot of good information. However, I was slightly horrified when i got to #12, which is: Reduce your meat consumption. I'm all for going green, but reducing my meat consumption? I can't do it. It suggests following a meatless Monday (which in my opinion, Monday's are bad enough without taking away my meat!). Does anyone else on this forum do something like this? If so, how do you do it? Or do you think that those of us that eat grass fed or raise our own are exempt from this suggestion, as we obviously use less resources getting/growing our meat? I have planet guilt, what can I say...

flag
The article: motherearthnews.com/nature-and-community/… – AlohaSpeck Jan 4 2012 at 13:12

closed as exact duplicate by Ed Jan 4 2012 at 13:42

3 Answers

2

12. Reduce Your Meat Consumption.
Livestock production accounts for about 18 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for about 23 percent of all global water used in agriculture. Yet global meat production has experienced a 20 percent growth rate since 2000 to meet the per capita increase of meat consumption of about 42 kilograms.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-community/simple-steps-going-green-zwfz1112zhun.aspx?page=5

I understand the point, but I wonder about the quantitative effect reducing the purchase of some meat once a week actually has. Possibly it is more sustainable to purchase a whole cow for two months, rather than repeatedly buying sirloin steak daily where multiple animals are involved.

Eating select cuts the whole time needs multiple animals, and possibly wastes a lot of space and the animal. (Though we then have to take into account that even though we don't eat the whole animal, the whole animal is used in a large number of industries and the products we use.)

Maybe we should (as higher meat eaters) take the time to find a good organic butcher/farmer, and find out how he runs his farm. Then purchase as much of a single animal as we can. This way we are supporting someone (and his family) who is directly managing his local ecosystem with good stewardship and respect, and we are maximising the utilisation of a single animal for food (as food is the context here).

Just thinking about this as I write, maybe the point should actually be about eating more meat (as in the whole animal) rather then eating less meat. To me the more I think about it the more sustainable it seems to be to me. This seems to me to be the best of both worlds.

Now this is easier said then done, as I personally want to eat meat but now I realise need to eat "more" of it, without so much picking and choosing.

link|flag
Shorten your food chain! Plus one. – Asclepius Jan 4 2012 at 17:42
1

Both, kind of. You are right that consuming grass fed meat exlusively does not hurt the environment that much. At the same time, you still need to think of the rest of the world. If CAFOs were abandoned and everyone switched to grass-fed beef then consumption would still have to be decreased just to match supply. Prices would rise as a matter of course.

I've been thinking about these topics a lot lately and we clearly have a problem with the continuing growth of populations everywhere. As it seems now it is currently impossible to feed everyone sustainably. That is, as soon as fossile fuels run out and synthetic fertilizers are no longer available, we will have a problem.

To keep this paleo: Apart from eating less meat there is still the option of just buying less and throwing less away. Actually, no food should be thrown away. Yet 50-60% of all food in western countries gets thrown into dumpsters. I hate the phrase but here goes: Throwing food away is NOT paleo.

link|flag
"I've been thinking about these topics a lot lately and we clearly have a problem with the continuing growth of populations everywhere. As it seems now it is currently impossible to feed everyone sustainably." In what, specifically, are basing on your thoughts? That same argument was used in the 1900's and it's easy to see how futile the argument was. – devoured_elysium Jan 4 2012 at 13:01
Take all the grocery stores in the country, remove all the fake food. Make 1/3 of the store land that grows produce. 1.5/3 growing animals, And the remaining storage of goods like smoked fish,'sausages, preserved produce. Problem solved! – a tricksty trickster Jan 4 2012 at 14:14
@devoured_elysium: The planet has a fixed size. That means a fixed production capacity for food. We are currently struggling to "feed the world" while we still have synthetic fertilizers based on fossile fuels. The latter are a finite and thus not sustainable by definition. It's that easy. Things have changed since the 1900's. I assume that the planet's surface and sil reserves are not going to increase. Given that, to truly believe that continuing growth of populations and thus increased food demands are indeed no problem at all, one needs to be an economist. – Gone Jan 4 2012 at 14:32
1 
"The planet has a fixed size. That means a fixed production capacity for food. We are currently struggling to "feed the world" while we still have synthetic fertilizers based on fossile fuels." That was also true 50 years ago, when earth's population was half than what is today. Well, it was still true almost over 100 years ago. – devoured_elysium Jan 4 2012 at 20:49
To see how flawed your logic is, see how it still seems to be true in a world with only 10 people alive, 5 of which by various reasons don't have any access to decent food (because they are in the middle of the mountains, or in the desert). – devoured_elysium Jan 4 2012 at 20:51
show 8 more comments
1

Veg*anism just pushes the killing to where it cannot be seen. The problem of overpopulation is that there are too many people after Earth's limited resources - not that they are eating meat per se.

From a paleo perspective, don't waste food. Eat all the animal (seek out obscure cuts from your butcher), and remember that a carcass has wider utility - although implementing this is 'hardcore'!

Also aim for indigenous meats and wild game as (particularly the former), will support native habitat.

link|flag
Ah, you posted this while I was still writing mine. I very much agree. – AlohaSpeck Jan 4 2012 at 13:41
Mash - I like your idea of purchasing a whole carcass! Notwithstanding the cost of refrigerated storage (and the challenge of butchering), this would probably work out as very cost effective and could be done amongst a group. You'd save on all that packaging as well. I am guessing you've read Simon Fairlie's 'Meat: A Benign Extravagence'? If not I heartily recommend you do so. – Asclepius Jan 4 2012 at 17:39
Nope never read that, thanks! Wish it was on Kindle though. – AlohaSpeck Jan 4 2012 at 21:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.