Talk:Environmental vegetarianism/Archive 1

Just the Facts
I have initiated editing this article to better reflect the science (with solid back up) to reflect why environmental vegetarians have chosen so. There is a ton of source material in this article now. I have also tried to remain sympathetic to to those on the other side of the fence on this and included much of what was previously written. It was very much POV and not much source material was provided for. I think EVERYONE find much of the reference material solid and from reliable sources.

Those of you interested in staving of attacks from those who do not share an environmental vegetarian motive in their edits, please join in the opposition. There happen to be a number of activists who don't think much of vegetarians and are quite active in edits to these sites. Vagget 14:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My comments were a little harsh, sorry Idleguy. This article should contain more worldwide data, and it shall soon. Environmental reasoning for vegetarians in not limited to American vegetarians. I am quite sure this motivation spans the globe. Take a good look at official statements from NAS (170 members being Nobel Prize winners)64.105.20.237 10:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Idleguy, please take note of the fact that the tag you use at the top of the article states "This template should only be on talk pages". 64.105.20.237 17:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Idleguy, as you have tagged this page as of DEC 1, I would very much like to initiate discussion with you on the how this article is this article is NPOV and not Worldwide view. Give your explanations please. You have opened up a can of worms here and it is not going to end anytime soon. Your response has been nonexistant thus far, other than edits intended to initiate dicussion. However, Idleguy has chosen not to do so. RESPOND. 64.105.20.237 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Idleguy, the onus is on you. I will continue to provide solid source material on this page. The next on my list is the U.N. and particularly the World Health Organization. Now, I realize you don't agree with why vegetarians become so. In particular, environmental vegetarians who give credence to ecological science. Do you perhaps lend no credibility to organizations like the the NAS (with 170 Nobel Prize winners), or the USDA or other scientists from respectable learning institutions? The academic sources continue to flood you. However, unlike NOAH you will not remain as a survivor after all is said and done. Just waiting for you. RESPOND. 64.105.20.237 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not turn your stomach into graveyard of animals - Mohammad

ஸ்ரீனிவாஸ ஐயங்கார் ராமானுஜன

Idleguys latest edit points to data on rice cultivation as a down-pat solid preclusion of environmental vegetarian reasoning. He has no concern for environmentalism according to his love of biryani, an Indian rice dish (particularly meat versions) in his native land. This points once again at his patent attempt to subvert the integrity of these pages. This information isn't entirely out of place but is used in such a strange way and for obvious ulterior purposes.64.105.20.237 11:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking Idleguy. --Viriditas 10:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the label of this as an "attack." Idleguy's user page makes it clear that he loves biryani, a rice dish, apparently with meat, too. Both Rice and Meat are very resource-intensive to produce, Idleguy has before used particular placement of information in a confusing manner. This is all true. Canaen 10:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy
Use of selective sources to drive home one point is fine, until one realises that the USA is not the only one inhabiting the world. The very source shows that 75% of natural methane emissions come from "wetlands". Even according to NASA, Anthropogenic sources, primarily rice cultivation followed by bovine burping and farting :) etc. is the main source of emissions though the  line does not state the exact order. A full reading on various sources (one given in the article) would reveal that wetlands in most parts of the world is used for rice cultivation thus leading to methane emissions far greater than than emanating from the cows/goats. So pl don't make scapegoats (or scapecows) based on a sliver of data that doesn't reflect the world properly.

Animal manure while producing its own share of methane gas, does not contaminate groundwater and is recognized as an organic and sustainable crop production. Knowledge of how animal dung is used as manure and as fuel (after it is dried) would not have resulted in such POV statements as the topic is nothing but US centric. The use of chemical fertilizers and thier pollution and the attendant problems while producing such chemical pesticides and fertilizers should also be included if the scope is to involve the nitty gritty of such production. I'm sure that fuel is burnt during production and transportation which shoud also be calculated to arrive at the exact figures. Issues such as chemical residue (as opposed to natural dung) and other side effects have to be discussed if this line is readded again.

And I'm finding many sympathetic tones in the article like other related ones. One main concern is that it's not a worldwide view and the stats also don't reflect the real world glimpse. Tagged accordingly. Idleguy 06:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A distinction needs to be made here. The only way to prevent Methane Emissions from Wetlands would be to destroy the Wetlands, something most Envrionmentalists, and people who respect life, would oppose. Methan Emissions from Natural Wetlands have no relevance whatsoever here. Methane naturally makes up part of our atmosphere. Not to mention, that the 75% you throw out there includes only natural sources, excluding anthropogenic ones.


 * "Anthropogenic (human-related) sources such as flooded-rice cultivation, enteric fermentation in ruminant animals, landfills, biomass burning, and fossil-fuel production and consumption account for about 70% of annual methane emissions." <-- This is the part that matters. It's only when we start adding massive amounts of methane to the air that it starts to be a problem.


 * So, we have those evil Wetlands producing 75% of 30% of total Annual Methane Emissions. That works out to 22.5% of total annual Methane Emissions. Ok, so Wetlands cause 22.5% of total annual Methane Emissions. What's that have to do with Environmental Vegetarianism? Canaen 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, animal manure, along with other facets of the Meat Industry, does contaminate groundwater, and that's normally one aspect of an environmental attack on said industry. Cattle Producers in general don't take care of all the waste their facilities generate (and, especially when factory farming, where conditions are, strictly on a scale of cleanliness, simply horrid, that means a lot). Canaen 10:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Biofuel
I added this to the Petroleum section, feel free to re-section it, I couldn't see it fit in elsewhere. - FrancisTyers 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems a little out of place here and perhaps a biofuel or criticism section could be added. Note that since livestock is so prevalent now in first world countries, this is a good arguement for pro-omni environmentalists in industrialized nations. Some vegans may be opposed, as are some environmentalists, to biofuel such as MtBE, which many states of the U.S. have concluded that MtBE poses an unacceptable threat to water resources. I seriously doubt however that environmental vegetarians are vegetarian because of the unnatural abundance of what they see as a environmentally devestating industry. I think a "critisism" section should be added to state the position of other groups. I would imagine there are pleanty of pesco-vegetarian environmentalists, omni environmentalists, organic vegan environmentalists, pollo-vegetarian environmentalists ect, or even pro-GMO economic vegetarians. We'll have to boil this down somehow, although source material I am finding is somewhat limited. 64.105.20.237 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, its difficult with such terms. This particular example is probably only viable for large scale transport such as trains because of the concentration of livestock animals due to intensive farming/slaughter. However, this does provide a counterpoint for the livestock farming creates "so much waste" argument. I'm sure this could be adapted for Permaculture conditions though. Nice metaphor btw boil this down :) - FrancisTyers 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe a well written, well sourced criticism section would provide a useful and neccassary counterpoint. Please note that environmental vegetarianism is not just simply a protest to "too much waste" but also takes into consideration, meat to grain ratios, water usage, land usage, emmissions, deforestaton, desertification, groundwater contamination, etc. Additionally, environmenatal vegetarianism is primarily in protest to industrialized agriculture. Most likely, some environmental vegetarians would revert to omni if they were in the right situation. As well, although I have no source material on this, there are probably many vegetarians and non-vegetarians that avoid use of certain inefficient or polluting plant commodities such as rice, bannanas, coffee, cashews, mangos, etc for similar reasoning. What does this have to do with price of tea in China however? (Certain commodity avoidance would be interesting fields that could be added in some of the environmental calculators.) 64.105.20.237 01:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually this is true, I have a friend who recently went from eating soya products as his main form of protein to locally produced organic free-range chicken. He was concerned that the soya was produced on large monoculture farms and then imported, creating a lot of pollution (the air miles thing) whereas the chicken was farmed locally and in a much more environmentally friendly manner. Of course this is just an anecdote :) I'd also like to point out that none of other things you point out are inherent to meat-eating (aside from the obvious meat-to-grain ratio (which I still dispute as misleading), they are a side effect of the industrialisation of agriculture. Many of them would apply to purely vegetarian industrialised agriculture. I liked one quote from one of the sources (I think) you posted on the Veganism page:


 * There are positive ecological implications of moving animals back outside. Producing just one calorie of flesh—beef, pork, or poultry—requires 11–17 calories of feed, whereas animals raised on pasture require little if any grain. As a result, a diet high in grain-fed meat can require two to four times more land than a vegetarian diet. Moreover, the manure becomes a valuable agricultural resource, rather than being a toxic waste.


 * Agree that figures on certain commodity avoidance would be interesting. Regarding the criticism section, agree again, its difficult to find sources, but perhaps I'll try looking for permaculture stuff. - FrancisTyers 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, "Idleguyspal", please stop using that username and choose something else. I am neither your pal nor do I think that you want to be friendly with Idleguy. Idleguy 04:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed
''Attacks can be found here: 
 * No personal attacks please. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding Personal Attacks, the opening line is a direct quote from Idleguy's user page; that hardly qualifies. As for the rest, I would suggest this qualifier: "this is what happened in a previous Vegetarian article," or something similar, and a rewording of the content. Canaen 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the personal attack. --Viriditas 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I understand your reasoning (or, I assume to, on a level of common decency), and I agree that what was said does not belong here, I'm not sure how in-line your removal of somone else's content from a talk page. I can liken it to a violation of free speech very quickly. Simply asking the user in question to remove their own material might be a much better solution.Canaen 10:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please review Remove personal attacks. --Viriditas 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please Review the disclaimer at the top of the page reading: "This guideline is disputed.", the first lin reading "This is not official policy.", Requests for arbitration/AI, and Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks. Canaen  08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a point in continuing this "discussion" much further. We disagree; fine. I'm sure we can both spend our time in better ways than this. Canaen  08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bovine Herbicide
I remember reading that cows have driven several plant speicies to extinction/near extinction. can anyone back this up? Eds01 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have references for this in particular, however: In places such as the Sierra Nevada, Cattle Grazing has been a problem ever since Cattle arrived with the Spanish. Farmers let their Cattle loose all Summer in the Mountains to graze so that they don't have to feed them, and the mountains get their meadows trampled, flora devastated, and Hikers / Backpackers / anyone who loves the wilderness gets to step in Cow Dung all the time. It's a constant issue between Environmentalists and Ranchers, so I'm sure I can find some resources, when I have the time. Or someone else could take the initiative. Canaen 10:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I recall reading something about this in a scientific journal recently. Going by memory, I believe that some plant species suffered while others benefited.  I'll see if I can find the article.--Viriditas 10:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite interested to know how a species benefitted from bovine interaction. Perhaps by having their competitors, or some of them, gotten rid of? Canaen 10:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Permaculture
Some possibly useful links for criticism:, , ,

Vegetarians aren't the only ones who are environmental ;) - FrancisTyers 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ,


 * As the T-shirt says: “Animals are my friends. I don't eat my friends.” But such a code encourages people to close in on themselves and their own bodies. As a purely personal step, it is little more than a righteous gesture. Being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us. Even among advocates of organic farming, the ecological logic of this is questioned. Bill Mollison, the founder of the complex food system of permaculture, insists that vegetarianism drives animals from the edible landscape so that their contribution to the food chain is lost. For instance, yams, which keep poorly, are stored inside pigs, and today's rotting apples attracting fruit fly are tomorrow's bacon. 


 * I've added a see also to Permaculture - FrancisTyers 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Francis, come on now. Nobody here said non-veggies are not environmentally aware. Some are, some aren't to differing degrees in numerous catagories of individual. Environmental concerns are somewhat common in the vegetarian community however. That probably explains why it is described in the "motivational" sections on the vegan and vegetarian pages and is a common subject in pro-veggie sites. God for bid. Personally, I don't come home at night and say to myself "I made a good decision by becoming a vegan because it is more environmentally devestating." Wording like this need not be used in making some genuine progress. Write it into a critisism section. Nidara 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will do when I have some more time. Problem is that it isn't really a criticism of vegetarianism, its just pointing out that the arguments are against intensive agriculture not against meat-eating in general. Ever ate roadkill? ;) - FrancisTyers 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

More links
 

Worldwide View
I think that having a Worldwide View tag at the top of this page is pointless. Of course, we have a bias in this wikipedia, and it exists everywhere. If I wanted, I could put that disclaimer on Clan Fraser because it doesn't have enough information on what Frasers have done in the Americas, but that'd just be silly. Likewise I could add that tag to the main page, because it says absolutely nothing about Antarctica, but I don't because it'd be just as silly. Every article is always in need of more information, of being more worldly. That doesn't mean that we should tag every single one with an ugly disclaimer at the top. Not to mention, the tagger hasn't done anything at all to fix the problem, and hasn't contributed anything at all to the article in 4 days. Canaen 04:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The tag exists for a reason and it isn't silly unless one decides to plaster it in every article which is not the case with this or any other tag. Also any attempts by me to fix the bias have only met with reverts and outright deletions by some who are determined to display only their POV here and elsewhere. --Idleguy 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The tag stays. - FrancisTyers 11:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Idleguy, we've just got over the nonsense in Veganism, please don't try to start it again. Muttering it under your breath doesn't make it any less clear whom you are attempting to discredit, and I ask that you stop making accusations of me every time something that you've done comes under criticism. It's old. Canaen  23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your link
This link would be suitable for the Diet for a New America page. - FrancisTyers 00:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh cool, its already there. - FrancisTyers 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it would. The "See Also" is a good compromise, that I accept, however, I would still like to know why you deemed the "Environmental Argument" section of it completely irrelevant. Canaen  00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality
I've gone over the talk page, and can't seem to find out why the page's neutrality is disputed. Is it? If so, I would appreciate if someone would say why, so that we can fix it. I intend to remove the tag if no one speaks up within a few days. Canaen 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Grazing and Land Use
Idelguy, please stop deleting the content I'm putting into Grazing and Land Use. It's backed up by online resources, which I've included. Please explain yourself here, on the Talk Page, instead of edit summaries. I believe that I asked you to explain yourself on this particularly before attempting a revert. I have not gotten rid of your information, however misleading I believe it to be, simply added, with sources.

The only thing done with your line was replace ''"However, according to the Canaen  07:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User Canaen has again reverted to his selective quote of what FAO has to say on the reason. FAO and almost all organizations studying raiforest deforestation throughout the world have authoritatively concluded that agriculture ranks on top along with logging as the primary reason. Ranching comes in at third or fourth. To claim that this (ranching and not agriculture) is the "main reason" is nothing but twisting facts and appropriately I have reverted so only to find it re-reverted again! Then Canaen posts a message here wondering why the article is tagged POV when clearly his edits are nothing but blanket removals or blatant misquoting of facts. Again threats of vandalism surface against me in my talk page from this user. Please stop this. Tx Idleguy 06:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not selective quoting; they support eachother. I can accuse you of the same if I wish, but I don't, because your quote actually helps the article. I find it funny that you can place Ranching at third or fourth, when, as the FAO stated in July 2005 (the first source I used), put Ranching in Latin America as one of the main causes. This may be 3rd or 4th within the grouping that is "Agriculture," but it is still none-the-less one of the main causes. We're both using the FAO as a source. I'm simply quoting a more recent report. I don't see what you're trying to do. My quotes are direct, and I'm not twisting anything.


 * Your qualms need not be directed at me, it seems, but the FAO. Accuse them all you want, but I suggest you take it up with them instead of with me. I haven't removed anything from this page; I don't know what you're talking about. As far as misquoting: check the pages yourself. They are direct quotes; I even used "copy-and-paste" commands to get it damned accurate.


 * As for reverting twice, you are incorrect; look at the history. I added information once, then you deleted it, reverting. I reverted once, you reverted for a second time.


 * As for Agriculture, I feel it needs to be pointed out that when the FAO and other organisations use that word, they are including unsustainable agriculture of all kinds -- including Cattle Production, or "husbandry," as you might term it. Within "unsustainable agriculture," Cattle Production, especially if you include the entire industry, and everything involved in keeping the industry running, is at the top.


 * The threats of vandalism arrise because that's exactly what your reverts here appeared to me as. Know that I do not use the term lightly, and I am dead serious.


 * Finally, as for disputed nuetrality: please post your explanations, if you have any, in the space I've created. It helps a lot if we can keep these places clean. Canaen  07:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is further clarification on the exact definition of agriculture: "Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other desired products by the cultivation of certain plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock)." Nidara 02:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I've NPOV'd the page somewhat, at the same time fixing some grammatical and spelling errors. I think the NPOV tag is almost ready to come off, does anyone have any further objections? - FrancisTyers 19:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'm glad someone finally went through the whole thing. Canaen  21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed subsection Trophic levels till source is cited properly. It is as follows:

According to studies it is claimed that only about 10% of the energy used in livestock is available for humans to eat:

"Only a fraction of the energy at one trophic level can be passed on to the next. This fraction varies from a high of about 35 percent for the most efficient ... to below 0.1 percent...Given the inefficiency of the energy transfer from one tropic level to the next, it might seem that the earth could support more humans if we all stopped being omnivorous, and lived on a wholly vegetable diet instead of the combined animal and vegetable diet ... (Keeton)" Nidara 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)