Eat Less Meat to Save Planet, Government Says

May 31, 2007

Well, I'm all for not killing cows and more folks going

vegetarian. I'm just not clear how increasing the cow population

above current levels will decrease the amount of methane containing flatulence.

It would seem to me that if there were more cows on the planet alive, they

would be doing more farting. Hence, releasing more methane into the

atmosphere.

Corey...

doesn't mention the

9:1 ratio of fuel and water required for meat production versus a plant-based

diet.

===================== Eat

Less Meat to Save Planet, Government Says

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42256/story.htm

Eat

Less Meat to Save Planet, Government Says

UK:

May 31, 2007

LONDON

- Eating less meat and dairy could help tackle climate change by reducing

the amount of methane gas emitted by cows and sheep, a government agency

says.

June 1, 2007

On 5/31/07, Corey <isomorphics wrote:

>

> Well, I'm all for not killing cows and more folks going vegetarian.

> I'm just not clear how increasing the cow population above current

> levels will decrease the amount of methane containing flatulence.

> It would seem to me that if there were more cows on the planet alive,

> they would be doing more farting. Hence, releasing more methane

> into the atmosphere.

There's a law in economics called the Law of Supply and Demand. The

way it would work in this instance is thus:

1. People learn that eating less (or not) meat and animal products is

a way they can help the environment. As a result, fewer people

purchase meat products. DEMAND for animal products decreases.

2. Farmers who produce animals for food and other commercial purposes

find that they cannot sell as many cows as they used to. SUPPLY is

bigger than demand. There are a surplus of cattle.

3. In response to the lowered demand, farmers will do two things:

3a. In the short term, they will decrease the price of cows (or, more

correctly, the market pressures will have decreased the value of cows.

Price is, among other things, a marker of the aggregate value of a

good.) (Note that the price of cows might stay the same since farm

goods are typically maintained by government regulations that assign

price floors and ceilings as well as many other economic controls.)

3b. In the long term, farmers will breed fewer cows. (This will not

occur if a price cut occuring as a result of demand being lower than

supply leads more consumers to change their mind and return to buying

animal products (which means demand will rise again) . . . or if it

leads those consumers who were still buying animal products to

purchase even more of them because the price has been lowered. (which

means demand will rise again)

A market " wants " to be in equilibrium, the condition where supply and

demand are equal. If less people demand cows, the supply of cows will

go down until equilibrium is regained.

So - using less animal products will make farmers breed fewer cows.

UNLESS

Using less animal products causes farmers to lower the price for

animals, thus causing demand for animal products to rise again until a

new equilibrium is found (which might or might not be an equilibrium

involving the same number of cows as before. It might be an

equilibrium involving MORE cows than before, depending on the many

complex factors of market pressures.)

I'm sure this was all clear as mud . . . but the gist of it is that

buying less cow-stuff is most likely to cause farmers to make less

cows. Thus fewer cow farts. Thus less methane.

Sparrow (yes, I'm an economics major)

June 1, 2007

S : There's a law in economics called the Law of Supply and Demand.

The

way it would work in this instance is thus:

1. People learn that eating

less (or not) meat and animal products is

a way they can help the environment. As a result, fewer people

purchase meat products. DEMAND for animal products decreases.

2. Farmers who produce animals for food and other commercial purposes

find that they cannot sell as many cows as they used to. SUPPLY is

bigger than demand. There are a surplus of cattle.

3. In response to the lowered demand, farmers will do two things:

3a. In the short term, they will decrease the price of cows (or, more

correctly, the market pressures will have decreased the value of cows.

Price is, among other things, a marker of the aggregate value of a

good.) (Note that the price of cows might stay the same since farm

goods are typically maintained by government regulations that assign

price floors and ceilings as well as many other economic controls.)

3b. In the long term, farmers will breed fewer cows.

(This will not

occur if a price cut occuring as a result of demand being lower than

supply leads more consumers to change their mind and return to buying

animal products (which means demand will rise again) . . .

C : Well, actually, it is helpful if the demand increases,

as long as farmers are required by law to stick to keeping the cow reproduction

rates under control. Methane levels should decrease, if demand significantly

out paces supply.

S : or if it

leads those consumers who were still buying animal products to

purchase even more of them because the price has been lowered. (which

means demand will rise again)

A market "wants" to be in equilibrium, the condition where supply and

demand are equal. If less people demand cows, the supply of cows will

go down until equilibrium is regained.

So - using less animal products will make farmers breed fewer cows.

UNLESS

Using less animal products causes farmers to lower the price for

animals, thus causing demand for animal products to rise again until

a

new equilibrium is found (which might or might not be an equilibrium

involving the same number of cows as before. It might be an

equilibrium involving MORE cows than before, depending on the many

complex factors of market pressures.)

C : If that happens, then there are more cows around

passing gas and methane would likely increase. So, a floating equalibrium

point could potentially mess things up.

S : I'm sure this was all clear as mud . . . but the gist of it is that

buying less cow-stuff is most likely to cause farmers to make less

cows. Thus fewer cow farts. Thus less methane.

C : Yes, but less cows will be killed if at the same

time people are being converted over to vegetarianism. And that will

retain a good amount of passing gas in the system that we would have to

account for. So, the question then becomes how drastically would

we have to reduce the cow reproduction rates to make a dent in the methane

production that is significant enough to make a difference.

Corey...

June 2, 2007

I'm having a hard time following the thread now. It's easier on me if

you use the standard carat quotes (>) that I'm used to reading.

Thanks!

On 6/1/07, Corey <isomorphics wrote:

>

> C : Well, actually, it is helpful if the demand increases, as

> long as farmers are required by law to stick to keeping the cow

> reproduction rates under control.

That's government regulation (something the article said they were

*not* promoting) rather than economic market pressure.

> Methane levels should

> decrease, if demand significantly out paces supply.

If there are the same number of cows, why would methane decrease

because more people wanted to buy them?

> C : If that happens, then there are more cows around passing gas

> and methane would likely increase. So, a floating equalibrium point

> could potentially mess things up.

That's exactly what I said. I just used more words to say it and

explained the possibilities in detail. The problem is that there are

two ways to look at this issue. Ceterus Paribus - which is when all

other factors are held equal and we just look at pure supply/demand.

And full economic modelling - which requires far more information than

we have available to us in the article.

When you mix together Ceterus Paribus reasoning and full model

reasoning, you get a mess that means nothing. All I was trying to show

was that it is sincerely economically feasible that reducing demand

for cows will reduce supply for cows.

I probably shouldn't have gone into all the other details since that

muddled things up unecessarily.

> C : Yes, but less cows will be killed if at the same time people

> are being converted over to vegetarianism.

Only if *all* the people are converted to vegetarianism. There is a

significant portion of the population that will only become vegetarian

by extreme force. At least in our lifetime. A universal change of

consciousness on the magnitude that would lead *everyone* to become

vegetarian of their own free will is not very likely to happen in a

short amount of time. Cultures don't change that rapidly.

Since it is unlikely that *all* people will become vegetarian, there

is a possibility that *more* cows will be killed because when *some*

people become vegetarian, the demand for cows goes down so (CETERUS

PARIBUS) the price of cows will go down. When the price of cows goes

down, those people who did not become vegetarian will buy a whole lot

more beef and then there will be *more* killing of cows directly

caused by a large number of people going vegetarian.

I'm definitely not saying that people shouldn't go vegetarian, but it

is a logical economic possibility that if 20% of the population became

vegetarian overnight, beef sales would go up, not down.

> And that will retain a good

> amount of passing gas in the system that we would have to account for.

> So, the question then becomes how drastically would we have to

> reduce the cow reproduction rates to make a dent in the methane

> production that is significant enough to make a difference.

The only way to be certain that this would occur would be to pass

government regulations restricting the number of cows allowed to

exist. Encouraging people to become vegetarian is just as likely to

cause more methane as less methane in the absence of government

controls.

Now, to the concept of government regulations on the number of cows

allowed to exist, it is easy to put restrictions on commercial farms.

What will be done about privately-owned cattle that are not traded in

the marketplace? Will it become illegal to own a family cow? Or will

people have to prove that they require a milk cow and get government

permission to own it? What happens to cows that are accidentally

impregnated? Who will pay the taxes that support the enforcement of

the legislation because it will cost a lot of money to send government

cow counters around.

And if individuals are allowed to own a family milk cow without

restriction or regulation, what prevents them from owning fifty family

cows and butchering them at home for family meat? How many families

have to have fifty unregulated cows before the methane problem is once

again unmanageable? What if we regulate cows and people start raising

buffalo or yak instead? Will we regulate all mammals above a certain

size? Including large dogs? I smell a dictatorship on the rise.

People want things. Including animals (which are, in my mind, not

" things " but creatures.) There are two ways to make them have fewer

things. One way is to force them - through economic or legal means -

to have fewer things. The other way is to make them want fewer things.

In my opinion, the only ethical way to make people have fewer cows is

to lead them to want fewer cows. This means raising their

consciousness about the effects of having more cows such that the

*entire society* undergoes a shift. Promoting a new consciousness is a

struggle and in this case it's one made even more difficult by virtue

of struggling against the beef and dairy industries which have a great

deal of money to throw into advertising and into funding studies that

show things like " people lose more weight if they include three

servings of dairy in their daily diet " and " milk builds strong bones

and teeth " and " lean beef protein is the healthiest form of protein "

and so on.

The only ethical way to have fewer cows is to fight a battle of ideas

and information and expect changes to be slow and take a long time. So

many of the people fighting on the vegetarian side of the battle are

losing ground rather than gaining it because they're engaging in

tactics that offend and alienate their target audience. For example, I

am undecided whether I am more appalled at how chickens are treated or

more appalled at activists waiting outside playgrounds and schools to

tell children that mommy and daddy are murderers because they eat

chickens.

If we want fewer cows, we need to stop alienating and offending meat

eaters and find advertising and information more likely to bring them

to a new consciousness. We need skilled writers and directors to make

entertainment that includes a vegetarian message in a manner that is

not preachy and that connects with the sensitivities within each

human.

I think news articles that highlight the problem of cow-produced

methane yet reassure readers that the government is not considering

draconian measures is a good place to start. The question shouldn't be

" what will that one article change? " but rather " what shall we do

next? "

Sparrow

June 3, 2007

Apropos this discussion, check this out:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/peta-seeks-tax-breaks-for-

vegetarians-2007-05-31.html

(concat the two lines in your browser, if necessary)

-Erin

www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

June 4, 2007

Sorry, I forget you sighted folks use your eyes and

not your ears when reading. I usually try to avoid the angles and

such because it wastes a lot of time when listening. but, I'll try

to remember it when I interleave comments in the future.

Corey...

I'm having a hard time following the thread now. It's

easier on me if

you use the standard carat quotes (>) that I'm used to reading.

Thanks!

On 6/1/07, Corey <isomorphics (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

wrote:

>

> C : Well, actually, it is helpful if the demand increases, as

> long as farmers are required by law to stick to keeping the cow

> reproduction rates under control.

That's government regulation (something the article said they were

*not* promoting) rather than economic market pressure.

> Methane levels should

> decrease, if demand significantly out paces supply.

If there are the same number of cows, why would methane decrease

because more people wanted to buy them?

> C : If that happens, then there are more cows around passing gas

> and methane would likely increase. So, a floating equalibrium point

> could potentially mess things up.

That's exactly what I said. I just used more words to say it and

explained the possibilities in detail. The problem is that there are

two ways to look at this issue. Ceterus Paribus - which is when all

other factors are held equal and we just look at pure supply/demand.

And full economic modelling - which requires far more information than

we have available to us in the article.

When you mix together Ceterus Paribus reasoning and full model

reasoning, you get a mess that means nothing. All I was trying to show

was that it is sincerely economically feasible that reducing demand

for cows will reduce supply for cows.

I probably shouldn't have gone into all the other details since that

muddled things up unecessarily.

> C : Yes, but less cows will be killed if at the same time people

> are being converted over to vegetarianism.

Only if *all* the people are converted to vegetarianism. There is a

significant portion of the population that will only become vegetarian

by extreme force. At least in our lifetime. A universal change of

consciousness on the magnitude that would lead *everyone* to become

vegetarian of their own free will is not very likely to happen in a

short amount of time. Cultures don't change that rapidly.

Since it is unlikely that *all* people will become vegetarian, there

is a possibility that *more* cows will be killed because when *some*

people become vegetarian, the demand for cows goes down so (CETERUS

PARIBUS) the price of cows will go down. When the price of cows goes

down, those people who did not become vegetarian will buy a whole lot

more beef and then there will be *more* killing of cows directly

caused by a large number of people going vegetarian.

I'm definitely not saying that people shouldn't go vegetarian, but it

is a logical economic possibility that if 20% of the population became

vegetarian overnight, beef sales would go up, not down.

> And that will retain a good

> amount of passing gas in the system that we would have to account

for.

> So, the question then becomes how drastically would we have to

> reduce the cow reproduction rates to make a dent in the methane

> production that is significant enough to make a difference.

The only way to be certain that this would occur would be to pass

government regulations restricting the number of cows allowed to

exist. Encouraging people to become vegetarian is just as likely to

cause more methane as less methane in the absence of government

controls.

Now, to the concept of government regulations on the number of cows

allowed to exist, it is easy to put restrictions on commercial farms.

What will be done about privately-owned cattle that are not traded

in