Do you have sources for the information just within the first part of that meme image? I am finding information directly crossing off the first big thing on that list which negates reading the rest of it. I wish when people made meme images, they would cite sources or provide full information instead of statements, but I guess that is what makes them memes. This is what I have found:
"Fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 80% of total greenhouse gasemissions as compared to about 6% from animal agriculture"
"Animal agriculture and meat consumption are significant contributors to global warming, but far less so than fossil fuel combustion. Moreover, fossil fuels are an even bigger contributor to the problem in developed countries, which use more energy and have increased livestock production efficiency" http://www.ncfar.org/MITLOEHNER_091911.pdf
Neither of the sources I read discount that eating animals and livestock use causes issues, but the statement that it is the "leading cause" is so damning. It reminds me of all those D.A.R.E. programs in school that existed but they show don't work. I believe part of that was because they would exaggerate things about the drugs, so when the kids found the reality of them, they could no longer trust D.A.R.E. as a source for information. I do not wish this to happen with vegan stuff more so than it already is, the extreme fear tactic is not a positive way (I won't say it doesn't work sometimes, but it never works long term).
On top of only being 18-19% from the source you linked as well as another I found, I keep not seeing specific numbers on cows, but more on livestock. Also, not all cows that are livestock, and not all livestock itself , are being raised just to be eaten. I want to believe.
You should check out this discussion between people on this topic, a good debate that I feel brings out excellent points about that types of gas livestock would have versus a vehicle http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=77718
I wish someone would just the update the image, because it is not like the information could not be presented in a way that is fun and informative but also be true.
I dunno what you wanna prove or disprove here. From the links and points you made on the above comment thread :
"Fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions as compared to about 6% from animal agriculture"
it looks like you are questioning the data about GHG emission by quoting some 15-20 years old report that is specific to US. Please also take into account the following reports:
And mind that these reports were out after the further researches when United Nations report claimed that emissions from animal agriculture industry at 18% is far greater than all fossil fuel transport combined (only 13%):
However the latest FAO report lowers that number a bit but it's still higher than the emissions by transportation industry. This is even when you consider the IPCC's new guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas production.
I'm not contradicting your data, you made a valid point about a single nation i.e. USA. The latest EPA report clearly states that the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. But this doesn't take into account the consumption of livestock through imports. It would be much better if you consider the global stats instead of looking at the stats of a single country.
There are even reports for projection which projects that by 2050 this emission will reach 80%. Read more here about it.
I'd like to add that by strongly contradicting such data, you are not helping any cause. Tell me, what cause it hurts even if data is slightly off (though it is not!)? You would also love to watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" which will make all data and controversies black & white for you.
Thank you for taking time to research this data further!
From the image: EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF: *GLOBAL WARMING
It's the first thing on the image, what the person was giving me a link to that did not back this up as a fact. It is too strong of a statement that could be reworded to give good information would and still make a strong point about animal consumption and can be a fact. If someone else were to see this image spread and just do a quick Google search they would be turned away from the overall message here. Just saying is all.
Well, I had taken that quote from your comment here. Please read your comment again to better understand my answer.
Secondly, a quick Google search may not always lead you to truth and that should not be a basis to take a side with a lie. Can you give me any authentic and reliable link to counter the links I have posted in my previous comment?
Ah, I was looking at the wrong reply, sorry. I do see that quote and I didn't even notice both me and you included other links more current for those percentage numbers.
It is up to users to decide if they want to use peer reviewed scientific material or online opinion articles as sources for information. This makes a huge difference in providing factual information to people in an unbiased way.
Peer reviewed studies or reports or papers are called that because peers review them, this is to ensure no 'fake news'. You stated "Please also take into account the following reports:" and you provided three links that I am not sure I would define as a report. The first link goes as far as to not even make a statement but rather have a question formed as it's title that is more similar to a brochure to sell you an idea, not provide information and allow people to make informed decisions.
You can see this right away based on how the information is presented, and in fact the third link you provided uses the first pdf link as a reference, when it is now trying to reference an opinionated question piece as fact (on top of it being the Independent which is not exactly known for it's science information), and it keeps going down a hole until we have this meme image not being factual. I have to give the Independent their journalistic integrity as far as they worded themselves beautifully to make sure their ass is covered legally that this is not their words and not even fact:
"Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated..."
To go back to that link from "World GHG Emissions Flow Chart" for example http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-flow-chart if you look at how the information is presented, the format not the numbers, it is just information, no opinion. This matters a lot is all and it really should if people in their heart want people to understand the benefits to not eating meat.
Thank you for the links, so far all signs are showing to me that this image is still going to do more harm than good as an attempt to be fun and exaggerated but comes off smug and without substance (and I want to state I just mean the image, not any of the users posting here).
Vegans can do better for the animals and for humans I feel. Thank you for a polite discussion on this topic, I feel strongly about if something is going to try and pop out some quick info at people, maybe have a back up link that comes from an unbiased place to help progress something that would be positive.
Thanks for going through few of the links I pointed to. I hope you are aware that the science of assessing environmental impact is a relatively new. Methodologies are still being developed and perfected, and best practices are still in the process of being established. So your questioning and disagreeing is valid to some extent.
That said, the World Watch report I quoted, is the only report on this issue which can be termed as peer-reviewed. Of course, the UN's report sounds more credible due to the institute's worldwide recognition but did you know that its report was NEVER peer-reviewed?
The background of authors of the above-said report should also be considered. Robert Goodland is a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang was a current adviser at the time of authoring that report. Moreover, the lead author of FAO's LLS report too joined these people later on. As an employee of the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, Jeff Anhang was required to have peer review on any report he had his name on. Several researchers and institutions (I don't have a list at the moment, but can find one) had reviewed the Worldwatch draft prior to publication and many have cited it after its publication. On the other hand, none of the authors of UN's Livestock's Long Shadow were environmental assessment (EA) specialists.
It seems like you are actually disagreeing just for the sake of it! Your entire comment has not pointed to a single report to support your own comment. Would you please kind enough to quote at least one peer-reviewed report from last decade to counter the statement that EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING? Even if you don't agree to the 51% figure, the only other figure you have is of 18%. Now do some math. 18% is higher than 13%. So how come that can not be said as the leading cause? Here again, I want to bring to your notice that the wri report you are repeatedly quoting is country specific. We are talking about the whole planet here.
Before coming up with further counter-arguments, I'd suggest you to read this report where authors of World Watch Institute report answers to all critical comments & responses. If you have got anything unique in your criticism than sure go ahead!
From your posts alone (please anyone reading make sure to click the links and don't be afraid to sit on some pages and read through) anyone can gather that there is no set conclusive number that has been scientifically peer-reviewed, therefore making the statement EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING false. This is not arguing to argue at all, I enjoy a good discussion and more than that I enjoy good information, I was hoping for that from this image because it is funny and if it was right it would have been awesome, I am disappointed and hope others can see our comments and come to their own conclusions on if they see a meme image like this it is worth taking the second step and research a little. I enjoyed this with you, again, no argument, discussions on a topic I consider serious and close to my heart.
Vegan 4 life
Do you have sources for the information just within the first part of that meme image? I am finding information directly crossing off the first big thing on that list which negates reading the rest of it. I wish when people made meme images, they would cite sources or provide full information instead of statements, but I guess that is what makes them memes. This is what I have found:
"Fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 80% of total greenhouse gasemissions as compared to about 6% from animal agriculture"
World GHG Emissions Flow Chart can be seen here http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-flow-chart
"Animal agriculture and meat consumption are significant contributors to global warming, but far less so than fossil fuel combustion. Moreover, fossil fuels are an even bigger contributor to the problem in developed countries, which use more energy and have increased livestock production efficiency"
http://www.ncfar.org/MITLOEHNER_091911.pdf
Neither of the sources I read discount that eating animals and livestock use causes issues, but the statement that it is the "leading cause" is so damning. It reminds me of all those D.A.R.E. programs in school that existed but they show don't work. I believe part of that was because they would exaggerate things about the drugs, so when the kids found the reality of them, they could no longer trust D.A.R.E. as a source for information. I do not wish this to happen with vegan stuff more so than it already is, the extreme fear tactic is not a positive way (I won't say it doesn't work sometimes, but it never works long term).
Carbon Monoxide from cows 51%.
On top of only being 18-19% from the source you linked as well as another I found, I keep not seeing specific numbers on cows, but more on livestock. Also, not all cows that are livestock, and not all livestock itself , are being raised just to be eaten. I want to believe.
You should check out this discussion between people on this topic, a good debate that I feel brings out excellent points about that types of gas livestock would have versus a vehicle http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=77718
I wish someone would just the update the image, because it is not like the information could not be presented in a way that is fun and informative but also be true.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
This link you are providing does not list any 51%, but only "19% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions"
Another source says 18% http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/cow-farts-really-significantly-contribute-global-warming/
Very succinct and to the point!
But unfortunately not fully factual, this is hurting more causes than it is helping by spreading false information.
I dunno what you wanna prove or disprove here. From the links and points you made on the above comment thread :
it looks like you are questioning the data about GHG emission by quoting some 15-20 years old report that is specific to US. Please also take into account the following reports:
And mind that these reports were out after the further researches when United Nations report claimed that emissions from animal agriculture industry at 18% is far greater than all fossil fuel transport combined (only 13%):
FAO Report - Livestock's Long Shadow, 2006
However the latest FAO report lowers that number a bit but it's still higher than the emissions by transportation industry. This is even when you consider the IPCC's new guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas production.
I'm not contradicting your data, you made a valid point about a single nation i.e. USA. The latest EPA report clearly states that the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. But this doesn't take into account the consumption of livestock through imports. It would be much better if you consider the global stats instead of looking at the stats of a single country.
There are even reports for projection which projects that by 2050 this emission will reach 80%. Read more here about it.
I'd like to add that by strongly contradicting such data, you are not helping any cause. Tell me, what cause it hurts even if data is slightly off (though it is not!)? You would also love to watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" which will make all data and controversies black & white for you.
Thank you for taking time to research this data further!
I do not know what you are referring to with the beginning of your statement, the only link that I provided and commented with a percentage was this one http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/cow-farts-really-significantly-contribute-global-warming/ and it said 18% not 6%
From the image: EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF: *GLOBAL WARMING
It's the first thing on the image, what the person was giving me a link to that did not back this up as a fact. It is too strong of a statement that could be reworded to give good information would and still make a strong point about animal consumption and can be a fact. If someone else were to see this image spread and just do a quick Google search they would be turned away from the overall message here. Just saying is all.
Well, I had taken that quote from your comment here. Please read your comment again to better understand my answer.
Secondly, a quick Google search may not always lead you to truth and that should not be a basis to take a side with a lie. Can you give me any authentic and reliable link to counter the links I have posted in my previous comment?
Ah, I was looking at the wrong reply, sorry. I do see that quote and I didn't even notice both me and you included other links more current for those percentage numbers.
It is up to users to decide if they want to use peer reviewed scientific material or online opinion articles as sources for information. This makes a huge difference in providing factual information to people in an unbiased way.
Peer reviewed studies or reports or papers are called that because peers review them, this is to ensure no 'fake news'. You stated "Please also take into account the following reports:" and you provided three links that I am not sure I would define as a report. The first link goes as far as to not even make a statement but rather have a question formed as it's title that is more similar to a brochure to sell you an idea, not provide information and allow people to make informed decisions.
You can see this right away based on how the information is presented, and in fact the third link you provided uses the first pdf link as a reference, when it is now trying to reference an opinionated question piece as fact (on top of it being the Independent which is not exactly known for it's science information), and it keeps going down a hole until we have this meme image not being factual. I have to give the Independent their journalistic integrity as far as they worded themselves beautifully to make sure their ass is covered legally that this is not their words and not even fact:
"Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated..."
To go back to that link from "World GHG Emissions Flow Chart" for example http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-flow-chart if you look at how the information is presented, the format not the numbers, it is just information, no opinion. This matters a lot is all and it really should if people in their heart want people to understand the benefits to not eating meat.
Thank you for the links, so far all signs are showing to me that this image is still going to do more harm than good as an attempt to be fun and exaggerated but comes off smug and without substance (and I want to state I just mean the image, not any of the users posting here).
Vegans can do better for the animals and for humans I feel. Thank you for a polite discussion on this topic, I feel strongly about if something is going to try and pop out some quick info at people, maybe have a back up link that comes from an unbiased place to help progress something that would be positive.
Thanks for going through few of the links I pointed to. I hope you are aware that the science of assessing environmental impact is a relatively new. Methodologies are still being developed and perfected, and best practices are still in the process of being established. So your questioning and disagreeing is valid to some extent.
That said, the World Watch report I quoted, is the only report on this issue which can be termed as peer-reviewed. Of course, the UN's report sounds more credible due to the institute's worldwide recognition but did you know that its report was NEVER peer-reviewed?
The background of authors of the above-said report should also be considered. Robert Goodland is a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang was a current adviser at the time of authoring that report. Moreover, the lead author of FAO's LLS report too joined these people later on. As an employee of the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, Jeff Anhang was required to have peer review on any report he had his name on. Several researchers and institutions (I don't have a list at the moment, but can find one) had reviewed the Worldwatch draft prior to publication and many have cited it after its publication. On the other hand, none of the authors of UN's Livestock's Long Shadow were environmental assessment (EA) specialists.
You would also find it interesting to read UN admits flaw in report on meat and climate change.
It seems like you are actually disagreeing just for the sake of it! Your entire comment has not pointed to a single report to support your own comment. Would you please kind enough to quote at least one peer-reviewed report from last decade to counter the statement that EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING? Even if you don't agree to the 51% figure, the only other figure you have is of 18%. Now do some math. 18% is higher than 13%. So how come that can not be said as the leading cause? Here again, I want to bring to your notice that the wri report you are repeatedly quoting is country specific. We are talking about the whole planet here.
Before coming up with further counter-arguments, I'd suggest you to read this report where authors of World Watch Institute report answers to all critical comments & responses. If you have got anything unique in your criticism than sure go ahead!
From your posts alone (please anyone reading make sure to click the links and don't be afraid to sit on some pages and read through) anyone can gather that there is no set conclusive number that has been scientifically peer-reviewed, therefore making the statement EATING ANIMALS IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING false. This is not arguing to argue at all, I enjoy a good discussion and more than that I enjoy good information, I was hoping for that from this image because it is funny and if it was right it would have been awesome, I am disappointed and hope others can see our comments and come to their own conclusions on if they see a meme image like this it is worth taking the second step and research a little. I enjoyed this with you, again, no argument, discussions on a topic I consider serious and close to my heart.