Bicycling wastes gas ?
I found this interesting and thought I would pass it on. I never considered the fact that what and how I eat had this much of an impact on anything more than my own health and well being. Chalk one up for the Veggiemonster :)
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
Views: 150
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on -
"Nature" is all about the flow of energy and the life forms that make up ecosystems within in. Because a cow is eating the grass it means another animals can't eat that grass… if it takes the niche of another animal then it is in compaction with that animal for its recourses. That is exactly the problem, there is not enough land, non depredated and human influenced land, for ecosystems to remain in any kind of a resilient thriving ecosystems. And these ecosystems play huge roles in what is actually keeping the earth in a state that humans can inhabit it- called ecosystems services.
EPA “Ecosystem services are the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature--clean air and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control. These ecosystem services are important to our health and well-being, yet they are limited and often taken for granted as being free.”
So yes, in a place where cattle are being raised those cattle affect the ecosystem, which in turn support the earth.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:What would 'nature' use the land for? Animals do exist in nature as well, probably not in the population density that humanity has had a hand in, but wild animals still exist and do 'eat off the land'.
Andrea Bolks said:And I would really argue that an animal "eating off the land" is really taking resources away from what nature would use it for. There is only so much energy in an ecosystem, and there for degrading that land to some condition. I don’t necessarily think more land being used to an extent of being degraded is better than a small amount of land vastly degraded. Although- we as Americans have taken this to the extreme with our meat consumption… and now we use huge amounts of land with a high degree of degradation in order to feed all us meat lovers (lots of corn fields).
I'm just saying, humane does not equal environmentally friendly.
Dr. Doom said:"Free range" is a marketing gimmick. Chickens, for example, who are raised in a building the size of several football fields are considered free range so long as that building has one point of entry into a fenced in open area. If the entry point is about the size of a chicken, and if the open area is about the size of the average Hyde Park lawn, that still qualifies.
If you have to eat meat, it really is best for any number of reasons to get it from local farmers. Once your operation reaches the scale necessary to supply a place like Whole Foods, it's really difficult to give animals the kind of treatment that would be considered humane anywhere outside the meat industry.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
Check out FRONTLINE: poisoned waters | PBS documentary!
And fact- it takes a LOT MORE food to feed the cows to feed than if we just ate lower on the food chain most of the time. I would argue it is one of the greatest problems, and most environmentally significant problems... because all those field of corn and all the fresh water (which we are running out of) and all the fertilizer (which is polluting our waters) and all those pesticides, herbicides and fuel it takes to grow that corn for that steak... had enormous and widespread environmental impacts.
If you want to learn about environmental issues, some of the best information explained in normal terms:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/learn.htm
it’s amazing…
"Po
nik was here said:never mind the oil for our tires, the ships brining us the tires on our bikes, the production cost to transport resources, manipulate and deliver the products we use in every aspect of our life... yes, it is the meat bringing us down...
I appreciate the focus of the article, but I think the problems are a lot grander than some cows eating our harvest. And when I get home tonight from my commute, I just might have a steak, with a side of steak.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
It takes a LOT MORE food to feed the cows to feed than if we just ate lower on the food chain most of the time. I would argue it is one of the greatest problems, and most environmentally significant problems... because all those field of corn and all the fresh water (which we are running out of) and all the fertilizer (which is polluting our waters) and all those pesticides, herbicides and fuel it takes to grow that corn for that steak... had enormous and widespread environmental impacts.
If you want to learn about environmental issues, and really a lot about what agriculture does to water:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/index.cfmit’s amazing…
also: Check out FRONTLINE: poisoned waters | PBS documentary!
nik was here said:never mind the oil for our tires, the ships brining us the tires on our bikes, the production cost to transport resources, manipulate and deliver the products we use in every aspect of our life... yes, it is the meat bringing us down...
I appreciate the focus of the article, but I think the problems are a lot grander than some cows eating our harvest. And when I get home tonight from my commute, I just might have a steak, with a side of steak.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
:) hahaha
Michael Perz said:This somewhat deviates from the topic at hand, but I've never been one to allow perfectly good, panic-inducing hyperbole go to waste. Please excuse me as I inject this into the conversation...
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on -
True, if a cow is eating a section of grass, it's not there for another animal to eat. But that's presupposing that the cow was put there artificially, ie. didn't naturally migrate there. What about wild horses vs buffalo? They're competing for the same food sources, yet both are in the same location due to nature, not humans. Or any other pair of species that live side by side and are vying for the same food source.
Andrea Bolks said:"Nature" is all about the flow of energy and the life forms that make up ecosystems within in. Because a cow is eating the grass it means another animals can't eat that grass… if it takes the niche of another animal then it is in compaction with that animal for its recourses. That is exactly the problem, there is not enough land, non depredated and human influenced land, for ecosystems to remain in any kind of a resilient thriving ecosystems. And these ecosystems play huge roles in what is actually keeping the earth in a state that humans can inhabit it- called ecosystems services.
EPA “Ecosystem services are the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature--clean air and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control. These ecosystem services are important to our health and well-being, yet they are limited and often taken for granted as being free.”
So yes, in a place where cattle are being raised those cattle affect the ecosystem, which in turn support the earth.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:What would 'nature' use the land for? Animals do exist in nature as well, probably not in the population density that humanity has had a hand in, but wild animals still exist and do 'eat off the land'.
Andrea Bolks said:And I would really argue that an animal "eating off the land" is really taking resources away from what nature would use it for. There is only so much energy in an ecosystem, and there for degrading that land to some condition. I don’t necessarily think more land being used to an extent of being degraded is better than a small amount of land vastly degraded. Although- we as Americans have taken this to the extreme with our meat consumption… and now we use huge amounts of land with a high degree of degradation in order to feed all us meat lovers (lots of corn fields).
I'm just saying, humane does not equal environmentally friendly.
Dr. Doom said:"Free range" is a marketing gimmick. Chickens, for example, who are raised in a building the size of several football fields are considered free range so long as that building has one point of entry into a fenced in open area. If the entry point is about the size of a chicken, and if the open area is about the size of the average Hyde Park lawn, that still qualifies.
If you have to eat meat, it really is best for any number of reasons to get it from local farmers. Once your operation reaches the scale necessary to supply a place like Whole Foods, it's really difficult to give animals the kind of treatment that would be considered humane anywhere outside the meat industry.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on -
Right on! Raising beef on pastures raises the cost of meat, and thereby lowers the demand.
But we are getting into very narrow discussion here and making decisions based on a narrow subset of aspects is not always a good thing.
Reminds me a little about the chain lube discussion from last week. Yes, non-synthetic chain lube has an positive impact on the environment. But is it really the best bang for the buck?
I've decided that the total of my other actions has a much bigger impact on my footprint and is easier to to achieve than not eating meat.
Andrea Bolks said:If intensive confinement operations were banned, it's highly unlikely producers could supply an entire nation of 300 million meat-, egg-, and dairy consumers with enough animal products to sustain the typical American diet.
-
Permalink Reply by thang van ung on -
i've never been a fan of this type/angle of argument -- you are a good and smart person (for being a [?], in this case cyclist) so why are you committing un-redeemable acts of eating meat? i had also heard the same argument on cigarettes. i can smell this stench of rotten lettuce a mile away. i rather go and listen to a screaming (derelict) pastor of a sidewalk than sucked into "come be a [complete] elite like moi."
[raw vegans] condescend [vegans] condescend [vegetarians] condescend [ovo vegetarians]....
condescend [omnivore]... condescend [deep fried twinkie-vore].
such fond memories of debate with my vegan ex-w... hold on, those debates sucked.
p.s. PETA's cakes is terribly NOT delicious...
-
Permalink Reply by Jason on -
Actually the next biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint after giving up your car is switching to a meat free (and even more effective, a vegan) diet. The impact is huge. It's just a fact.
I anticipate that some people are going to throw their arms up in protest and trot out the same tired old rationales, justifications, misdirections and outright taunts in defense of a meat heavy diet, but it doesn't change the facts. A vegetarian or vegan diet, especially when dealing with 6 billion people is vastly more sustainable for the planet, our resources, our economy and our overall health. Not to mention the welfare of the animals involved and the workers within the factory farming systems. Anyone who wants to deny that is in my opinion right there in the same boat with those who deny climate change science. I don't say that to vilify people who eat meat, I'm just saying that meat heavy diets are bad for the planet and everyone one on it, and if somebody wants to pretend otherwise they're in denial. I don't expect to change anyone's mind about it but there it is.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on -
^^^
Completely agree, just wish people wouldn't feel the need to exaggerate the already appalling impact of meat eating. I also wish people wouldn't feel the need to make the case for eating less animal food in strictly negative terms. The best reason to avoid meat is that proper vegetarian (or pescetarian—I will give up sardines for no one) eating is tastier, better for you and cheaper! Once your palate adjusts you start drooling over Brussels sprouts and kale the way you once drooled over a well prepared steak. I swear this is true.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
So then a monoculture of corn growing in a field is no different than the wetland that was there before it was farmed? These are two instances of different species growing/ communities using the energy on that land.
This picture is of a pasture (in which there is not any management preventing the cows from going into the stream, which I have seen again and again) is very different from the ecosystem that would be there if the cows were not. This is different than the Buffalo- because they evolved as part of that ecosystem, and if they made the ecosystem too unhealthy they would eventually die too...or their numbers would lower to the level that the ecosystem could support. This is called “carrying capacity.” “The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
In a pasture the human controls the cows, and the grazing system that is being used (if they are in a continous garze, switchback, rotation, etc) and often does not rely entirely on the natural state of that ecosystem (which is what we would call hunting I guess?- Get animals that are produced by only the land) and will fertilize the land to produce more grasses or will also feed the cows corn. This means the cow does not realy on the ecosystem to support it, and can therefore go on living as it is really far past its carrying capacity on that land, in turn being able to severely degrade the land. Now this situation is much different than the buffalo roaming over the fast undeveloped U.S.
And yes- there are many species that live side by side, using the same food source- but if these species have the same “niche” in an ecosystem, through competition one will eventually push the other out because it is more “fit.”
-“The community of living things interacts with the non-living world around it to form the ecosystem. The habitat must supply the needs of organisms, such as food, water, temperature, oxygen, and minerals. If the population's needs are not met, it will move to a better habitat. Two different populations can not occupy the same niche at the same time, however. So the processes of competition, predation, cooperation, and symbiosis occur.”- http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/habitat/habitat.html
It is much more than just this human induced competition of food that is to worry about here though- it’s more than just the cow eats the grass so that buffalo don’t get any- the famer, puts animals and plants on land that passes it’s carrying capacity by the use of bringing in externalities like fertilizer or excess grain/corn for cows. In this way a population live past its carrying capacity being fed artificially and in turn you can have an harshly degraded ecosystem (like the one pictured above). This means biodiversity is lost- ecosystem services aren’t as effective etc etc etc…
And what about letting cattle/ animals graze (and not give them extra food etc) so only as many cattle can survive as that land would naturally allow? We have too many cattle, as of now people demand more meat than the areas we could graze cattle in. There not enough, not large enough, not interconnected enough productive natural areas left to keep species from becoming threatened, endangered, extinct as of now! That’s how I come to the conclusion of a much much smaller amount of meat being produced in areas of medium (not high) population densities where there is still room for nature to exist.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:True, if a cow is eating a section of grass, it's not there for another animal to eat. But that's presupposing that the cow was put there artificially, ie. didn't naturally migrate there. What about wild horses vs buffalo? They're competing for the same food sources, yet both are in the same location due to nature, not humans. Or any other pair of species that live side by side and are vying for the same food source.
Andrea Bolks said:"Nature" is all about the flow of energy and the life forms that make up ecosystems within in. Because a cow is eating the grass it means another animals can't eat that grass… if it takes the niche of another animal then it is in compaction with that animal for its recourses. That is exactly the problem, there is not enough land, non depredated and human influenced land, for ecosystems to remain in any kind of a resilient thriving ecosystems. And these ecosystems play huge roles in what is actually keeping the earth in a state that humans can inhabit it- called ecosystems services.
EPA “Ecosystem services are the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature--clean air and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control. These ecosystem services are important to our health and well-being, yet they are limited and often taken for granted as being free.”
So yes, in a place where cattle are being raised those cattle affect the ecosystem, which in turn support the earth.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:What would 'nature' use the land for? Animals do exist in nature as well, probably not in the population density that humanity has had a hand in, but wild animals still exist and do 'eat off the land'.
Andrea Bolks said:And I would really argue that an animal "eating off the land" is really taking resources away from what nature would use it for. There is only so much energy in an ecosystem, and there for degrading that land to some condition. I don’t necessarily think more land being used to an extent of being degraded is better than a small amount of land vastly degraded. Although- we as Americans have taken this to the extreme with our meat consumption… and now we use huge amounts of land with a high degree of degradation in order to feed all us meat lovers (lots of corn fields).
I'm just saying, humane does not equal environmentally friendly.
Dr. Doom said:"Free range" is a marketing gimmick. Chickens, for example, who are raised in a building the size of several football fields are considered free range so long as that building has one point of entry into a fenced in open area. If the entry point is about the size of a chicken, and if the open area is about the size of the average Hyde Park lawn, that still qualifies.
If you have to eat meat, it really is best for any number of reasons to get it from local farmers. Once your operation reaches the scale necessary to supply a place like Whole Foods, it's really difficult to give animals the kind of treatment that would be considered humane anywhere outside the meat industry.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
Totally- if we could, without increasing the amount of land used for agriculture, raise cattle in pastures that were very well managed (thus hopefully kind of environmentally friendly) and have a much smaller supply of beef and raise the price a ton that would be kickin! I don’t think that’s possible… this is America, where we are all free to do all the stupid shit we want! Haha… which also means we are driven by the $, so farmers try and grow things cheaper and cheaper and more and more efficiently degrading the earth more and more.
It’s really like “The Tragedy of the Commons” argument with the whole world at stake.
Duppie said:Right on! Raising beef on pastures raises the cost of meat, and thereby lowers the demand.
But we are getting into very narrow discussion here and making decisions based on a narrow subset of aspects is not always a good thing.
Reminds me a little about the chain lube discussion from last week. Yes, non-synthetic chain lube has an positive impact on the environment. But is it really the best bang for the buck?
I've decided that the total of my other actions has a much bigger impact on my footprint and is easier to to achieve than not eating meat.
Andrea Bolks said:If intensive confinement operations were banned, it's highly unlikely producers could supply an entire nation of 300 million meat-, egg-, and dairy consumers with enough animal products to sustain the typical American diet.
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
