Page 1 2
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
OK guys.
Most of us like meat. All of us can live just fine without it. Most of us would agree that the production of meat for food is a huge drag on the environment. Most of us know how much more food would be available if the US went vegetarian. Most uf us know how much real savings in CO2 emissions would come of shutting down the meat industry. Most of us would be a lot healthier. Meat's probably worse than cigarettes. Why not outlaw it now and save the planet? Think of it. Ease the burden on health care. Clean up the CO2. And.... "Fair enough Ahmet. Wheat is 130 US dollars a bushel. What??? It doesn't grow in sand?? That's rough." Can anyone tell me that we would not be a hell of a lot better off? Who's up for a meat ban? WSS |
||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
I think the CO2 in the OZONE would go up if everyone became a vegetarian. You ever eat a Veggie Burger at BK? The after effects are enough to clear a room.
|
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
And they taste like crap!! Boca and Morningstar aren't bad if ya put stuff on 'em. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Turkey burgers are pretty good. Better for you and the environment than cows.
|
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Turkey is still meat. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. But a turkey has less of an impact than a cow does. They take up less space and need less feed. And less space needs to be devoted to growing the feed. And turkeys emits less methane than cows, and produce less waste.
If your goal is to change your lifestyle to help the environment, you'd be better off eating turkey or chickens than cows. And no meat is, of course, better than turkeys and chickens. But that's up to you. No one is going to make a law saying what you can only have one piece of red meat a week. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
I love, love, love read meat. I limit myself and my cholesterol thanks me (just yesterday). I try to eat lean beef, steaks instead of burgers, and only twice a week. I eat a lot of fish. I don't eat carbs much (if it's white it ain't right), and that lowers cholesterol, too, strangely.
On AOL, they had the sneaky high-cal foods, and some of them were shockers. Ruby Tuesday's Turkey Burger is like 1,200 calories (a double quarter pounder with cheese is 700... McDonald's is surprisingly not that bad and neither is Taco Bell). Three fish tacos at On the Border were something obscene like 1,700 calories, like eight regular tacos at Taco Bell. Carl's, my favorite burger, is way over the top. They didn't tell me what The Habit was, so I've decided that it's 200 calories and is filled with Omega-3. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Yes dear. And smoking 39 cigarettes is better than two packs. My point is that an outright ban would really harm no one and do a great deal of good. If you buy into the global warming scare. But you're correct. Nobody's up for it. WSS |
|||
|
|
Pro Bowl Player |
Simple example and I very complex adjustment in many facets of life in America. Read, "The Worse Hard Time" by Egan. Look what happened in the late 1920's - early 1930's when the price of wheat soared (albeit, artifically increased by the US Government). Where is all the land to plant all the wheat? How do we or do we retrain employees in this industry. Close to home, one can argue all they want about how the devilish Firestone Rubber Company killed rail commerce. At the same time, how many folks in the Akron owe their living to the tire companies? Count me out of the ban. |
|||
|
|
Pro Bowl Player |
[QUOTE](if it's white it ain't right>>
Thanks for joining the board, Jeremaih. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
An outright ban wouldn't harm anyone? You sure about that? What about the millions of Americans who work to get the cow/chicken/turkey/whatever from the pasture to the lot to the slaughterhouse to the processing plant to the packing facility to the people who ship it to the people who sell it?
You're just having a little discussion with yourself. No discussion about how to address global warming is about whether or not we should force people to stop eating meat, because it isn't a problem that will be solved if we're forced to stop eating meat. Nor is that even being proposed by anyone. Nor should it. It's irrelevant. I know you can't see around this corner, but this isn't a problem that is going to be solved by a change in personal habits. It has to be a change in the way we produce and consume energy. Your lifestyle really doesn't have to change much at all if your house and your car and the place you work emitted an acceptable amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or none at all. That's the goal. Which is why the focus is on how you achieve that goal. And that's why the talk is about creating new markets for renewables and new technologies, and investing in new technologies. You keep on with this canard of "no one is willing to change!" as long as you like. But you're missing the point -- personal behavior isn't what we're talking about changing. That only assists at the margins. So if you want to cut back on eating meat - great. That helps. If you don't want to cut back on eating meat - that's fine, too. |
|||
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
I agree with heck's "it has to be government/nation-wide" stance but I do think that personal responsibility is an essential part of the solution.
Why? Becuase that's the only way we can feel the impact of the necessary changes that MUST take place on a global scale. People need to feel that they are part of the solution, even if it's a tiny part. So, in that sense I guess I disagree with heck in terms of the importance of the emphasis on personal responsibility. It should be made clear that the earth is EVERYONE'S problem and EVERYONE can help fix it. That being said, I don't think red meat should be banned outright, though I like Steve's point about maximizing our own natural resources: land and the ability to grow on it. Not that I'd advocate holding countries hostage with food but...it does balance things a bit, doesn't it? Anyway, anybody read "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser? GREAT book, very soundly reported, very frightening in its implication about what the fast food industry has done to not only our waist-lines but to our country itself. Really makes you rethink how you eat and what you eat. Oh, and another small but incredibly effective way to help the environment? Buy all your food local. Find your local co-ops and farmer's markets. Saves gas, better and healthier food, helps local economy, connects you to your community, all great stuff. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Oh, I agree with you there, Dama. Totally. What Dama said. Again.
I'm just saying that there no way you get the reductions necessary without new technologies. You wouldn't even get close. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
That isn't the question. And those new technogies are being assembled as we speak. I don't suppose any of us heat our homes with wood or coal either. I'd venture that any government programs in that direction will be much less efficent if not actually counter productive. Corn ethanol requirements for example. Hey an equal opportunity boondoggle. Shitty results AND a handout to big Agriculture!! Real point two is that even with them the worlds CO2 keeps increasing. So either we will actually be dead in 20 years or that estimate was incorrect. For one of two reasons. Honest mistake or premeditated scam to divert money to the green lobby who loves cash just as much as Exxon. The snark point is that I feel that anyone who spends a lot of time preaching on the subject who isn't driving a Prius and sactrificing to keep his carbon footprint as low as possible is a hypocrite. Like carrying a placard at a MADD rally, then getting shitfaced afterward and driving home. C'mon now, you lefties love it when a TV evangelist gets caught with a transvestite hooker right? WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Awesome material. You should consider switching to comedy. Harkens the quote that said the Weather Channel was going to get rich off this. I honestly don't know how you get up in the morning. We're never gonna pull of this recycling thing either, I bet. I counter that if you drop back in 10 years from now, you'll be stunned by quite a few radical inventions and developments. We always are. We're at our best when our backs are against the wall. I believe Starman said that. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Americans are greedy and lazy. They won't give up there SUV's or McDonald's double quarter pounders with cheese. You really think all the people who make 25,000 per year are going to go out and buy a hybrid? They can't afford it! Not everyone is a writer or lives in Hollywood. Most Americans are not to quick to grasp what is going on in the world. To busy talking on the pre-paid cell phone and driving to Mcd's for chow in there 2003 Buick.
|
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
A carbon tax isn't government program. It's not a handout. It's a tax. It's nothing like ethanol. And we've used cap and trade before. It works much like a tax does.
We know how to do both of these things. They're not hard to implement. Are you for them or against them? Or do you have a better idea to lower carbon emissions? BTW, Steve, in 2006 our population increased and our GG emissions went down. Or take acid rain. The world's population kept going up and we lowered SO2 emissions. Just how does this happen?? Is it magic, or policy? And is your only contribution to this discussion to point out that the world population is increasing, and so trying to do anything is a waste of time? If so, then duly noted. Oh, and global warming might be an international "premeditated scam" to "divert money to the green lobby who loves cash just as much as Exxon." Gotcha. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Then I can be one of your research sources. Just answer me Shep. Is the present world level of CO2 emission causing dire harm to the planet? And Do you believe that level will be less than it is today in 15 years when the world population adds another billion or so humans?? And to save time, I'll stipulate I'm a lunatic drunken racist retard on crack so you don't have to bother wasting time on the usual epithets. WSS WSS[/b] |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Oh, and DieHard?
2008 Buick LaCrosse: MSRP:$23,940-$32,070 2008 Toyota Prius: MSRP: $21,100 – $23,370 They can only afford the Buick? Here's a Ford hybrid: 2008 Ford Escape: MSRP: $26,640 – $28,390 They're really not expensive cars that only Hollywood writers can afford. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
I'm not so sure Hollywood writers actually drive 'em. My Subaru gets the same mileage as Lexus Suv hybrid BYW. Around 25. Which hybrid do you drive Heck? WSS |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens