Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Riding A Bike or Walking: Help Posted by: " Joseph Puentes " makas makas_nc Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:42 am (PDT) >I've heard things that I've possibly misunderstood and I'm looking for >source information to prove this if I have understood correctly. >If a person is riding a bike or walking but if their energy comes from >eating animal products they can actually be less energy conservative >than a person on a Vegan diet driving a Prius. >Yes I know that might be to vague but if its true does anyone where I >can find source information to be able to put some " bite " into the >point? >thanks for any and all help with this research. I will try to post some hard evidence on this in the next day or two. The misconception you mention is based on the UN report " Livestock's Long Shadow " and a report from Chicago University. More details of the latter in due course. Livestock's Long Shadow found that WORLD WIDE livestock rearing caused more damage than all transport and people have naively extrapolated this to their own areas, which is clearly nonsense. A good way to weed out nonsense is to change the subject matter without changing the argument - e.g. the leading cause of infant mortality world wide is starvation (or whatever) so it must also be true in Liverpool, which it clearly isn't. The reason why livestock rearing is more damaging than transport world wide is because all countries rear livestock but very few have Western levels of motor and air transport. In Europe transport is twice as damaging and in the US three times as damaging as livestock even allowing for imports, transportation, and so on. On average in Europe, driving a 4x4 is at least two and probably three times more damaging than eating meat. So your meat eater on a bicycle is far more planet-friendly than your vegan in a 4x4 (but a vegan on a bicycle is better than either, of course). One long haul flight wipes out the benefits of about three years on a vegan diet, a return flight to mainland Europe wipes out about four months, and so on. You haven't misunderstood - a lot of people believe that being vegan is more beneficial than giving up cars and air travel, but it ain't true. It will take a day or two to get you all the figures, but I hope the above gives some idea how the misconception arose (Paul McCartney also came out with it on News at Ten a while ago). As well as altering one variable and then looking at the argument again, as with the child starvation in Liverpool, another good way of ensuring that we aren't tempted to believe something just because it suits our case is to reverse the whole argument - e.g. substitute meat eating for veganism and vice versa - and see if the logic, if any, still seems so persuasive(a variation on the old gender bias detector: substitute Janet for John and vice versa throughout the story and see how it sounds) An even more flawed argument that still surfaces occasionally is the nonsensical claim that " milk causes osteoporosis " . This was based on a study of nurses which found more fractures in the milk drinkers than in the vegans. What the purveyors of the myth don't mention (and some don't even know) is that a second study of the same people a number of years later showed the opposite effect. Those who put out propaganda on whichever side are generally well aware of the true position (though they sometimes come to believe their own bullshit) while those who read it are discouraged from asking too many questions. I applaud your search for genuine evidence and will try to post some hard figures shortly, complete with references - hopefully without boring the rest of the list to death. Good wishes to all, Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:31 AM, interveg wrote: > ...lots and lots of words... > > Vanessa And very good words they were too. Execellent post, Vanessa. Michael -- A Forum for Vegans :: http://vegans.gastoasters.co.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Thank you Vanessa, this is interesting and I look forward to hearing more from you about it. It just goes to show that the strongest argument for veganism, one which is pretty much impossible to poke any holes in, is the straightforward fact that veganism reduces animal suffering and exploitation. I think too many of us (and I included myself in this) have jumped on the bandwagon and cited environmental arguments just because we may think people will listen more readily to these arguments. I'm not sure why we believe this, maybe because it's trendy these days and most people tend to be sheeple and jump on the eco-bandwagon. I don't know why we don't expect people to go vegan just for the animals, after all many of us did, didn't we? Maybe we need to be more confident in using animal rights arguments (again I include myself). If anyone asks me why I am vegan I am honest about my belief that animals are not morally ours to eat, wear or test on, but on stalls I still sometimes still find myself giving out the Eating the Earth leaflet, and feel sometimes very conflicted about my own feelings and behaviour.. Lesley _____ On Behalf Of interveg 23 October 2008 08:32 Riding a bike or walking Riding A Bike or Walking: Help Posted by: " Joseph Puentes " makas. <makas%40nc.rr.com> com makas_nc Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:42 am (PDT) >I've heard things that I've possibly misunderstood and I'm looking for >source information to prove this if I have understood correctly. >If a person is riding a bike or walking but if their energy comes from >eating animal products they can actually be less energy conservative >than a person on a Vegan diet driving a Prius. >Yes I know that might be to vague but if its true does anyone where I >can find source information to be able to put some " bite " into the >point? >thanks for any and all help with this research. I will try to post some hard evidence on this in the next day or two. The misconception you mention is based on the UN report " Livestock's Long Shadow " and a report from Chicago University. More details of the latter in due course. Livestock's Long Shadow found that WORLD WIDE livestock rearing caused more damage than all transport and people have naively extrapolated this to their own areas, which is clearly nonsense. A good way to weed out nonsense is to change the subject matter without changing the argument - e.g. the leading cause of infant mortality world wide is starvation (or whatever) so it must also be true in Liverpool, which it clearly isn't. The reason why livestock rearing is more damaging than transport world wide is because all countries rear livestock but very few have Western levels of motor and air transport. In Europe transport is twice as damaging and in the US three times as damaging as livestock even allowing for imports, transportation, and so on. On average in Europe, driving a 4x4 is at least two and probably three times more damaging than eating meat. So your meat eater on a bicycle is far more planet-friendly than your vegan in a 4x4 (but a vegan on a bicycle is better than either, of course). One long haul flight wipes out the benefits of about three years on a vegan diet, a return flight to mainland Europe wipes out about four months, and so on. You haven't misunderstood - a lot of people believe that being vegan is more beneficial than giving up cars and air travel, but it ain't true. It will take a day or two to get you all the figures, but I hope the above gives some idea how the misconception arose (Paul McCartney also came out with it on News at Ten a while ago). As well as altering one variable and then looking at the argument again, as with the child starvation in Liverpool, another good way of ensuring that we aren't tempted to believe something just because it suits our case is to reverse the whole argument - e.g. substitute meat eating for veganism and vice versa - and see if the logic, if any, still seems so persuasive(a variation on the old gender bias detector: substitute Janet for John and vice versa throughout the story and see how it sounds) An even more flawed argument that still surfaces occasionally is the nonsensical claim that " milk causes osteoporosis " . This was based on a study of nurses which found more fractures in the milk drinkers than in the vegans. What the purveyors of the myth don't mention (and some don't even know) is that a second study of the same people a number of years later showed the opposite effect. Those who put out propaganda on whichever side are generally well aware of the true position (though they sometimes come to believe their own bullshit) while those who read it are discouraged from asking too many questions. I applaud your search for genuine evidence and will try to post some hard figures shortly, complete with references - hopefully without boring the rest of the list to death. Good wishes to all, Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Hi, Yet logically speaking, to a degree Viva's claim must be true. The problem lies in the lack of clarity as to that degree.. It is pretty much accepted and proven, I think that an average vegan diet has less of an envirionmental impact than an average meat-based diet. It is also the case that riding a bicycle has less of an environmental impace than driving a 4x4. The question then, becomes simply that of at what point the one outweighs the other. Which is to say, how far does one have to drive a 4x4 to cause as much damage as a meat-based diet does over a vegan one? I've no idea how far that distance is, and for all I know it could be a few feet, but logically it must exist! In which case Viva could say 'a vegan commuting X miles a day in a 4x4 has less of an environmental impact than a meat-eater on a bicycle'. Perhaps a saner way of putting it, however, as most people do, is that both ditching the 4x4 and going vegan are good for the environment, and leave it at that. John - <interveg Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:31 AM Riding a bike or walking > > Riding A Bike or Walking: Help > Posted by: " Joseph Puentes " makas makas_nc > Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:42 am (PDT) > >>I've heard things that I've possibly misunderstood and I'm looking for >>source information to prove this if I have understood correctly. > >>If a person is riding a bike or walking but if their energy comes from >>eating animal products they can actually be less energy conservative >>than a person on a Vegan diet driving a Prius. > >>Yes I know that might be to vague but if its true does anyone where I >>can find source information to be able to put some " bite " into the >>point? > >>thanks for any and all help with this research. > > I will try to post some hard evidence on this in the next day or two. > The misconception you mention is based on the UN report " Livestock's > Long Shadow " and a report from Chicago University. More details of the > latter in due course. > > Livestock's Long Shadow found that WORLD WIDE livestock rearing caused > more damage than all transport and people have naively extrapolated this > to their own areas, which is clearly nonsense. A good way to weed out > nonsense is to change the subject matter without changing the argument - > e.g. the leading cause of infant mortality world wide is starvation (or > whatever) so it must also be true in Liverpool, which it clearly isn't. > > The reason why livestock rearing is more damaging than transport world > wide is because all countries rear livestock but very few have Western > levels of motor and air transport. In Europe transport is twice as > damaging and in the US three times as damaging as livestock even > allowing for imports, transportation, and so on. > > On average in Europe, driving a 4x4 is at least two and probably three > times more damaging than eating meat. So your meat eater on a bicycle > is far more planet-friendly than your vegan in a 4x4 (but a vegan on a > bicycle is better than either, of course). One long haul flight wipes > out the benefits of about three years on a vegan diet, a return flight > to mainland Europe wipes out about four months, and so on. > > You haven't misunderstood - a lot of people believe that being vegan is > more beneficial than giving up cars and air travel, but it ain't true. > It will take a day or two to get you all the figures, but I hope the > above gives some idea how the misconception arose (Paul McCartney also > came out with it on News at Ten a while ago). > > As well as altering one variable and then looking at the argument again, > as with the child starvation in Liverpool, another good way of ensuring > that we aren't tempted to believe something just because it suits our > case is to reverse the whole argument - e.g. substitute meat eating for > veganism and vice versa - and see if the logic, if any, still seems so > persuasive(a variation on the old gender bias detector: substitute Janet > for John and vice versa throughout the story and see how it sounds) > > An even more flawed argument that still surfaces occasionally is the > nonsensical claim that " milk causes osteoporosis " . This was based on a > study of nurses which found more fractures in the milk drinkers than in > the vegans. What the purveyors of the myth don't mention (and some > don't even know) is that a second study of the same people a number of > years later showed the opposite effect. > > Those who put out propaganda on whichever side are generally well aware > of the true position (though they sometimes come to believe their own > bullshit) while those who read it are discouraged from asking too many > questions. I applaud your search for genuine evidence and will try to > post some hard figures shortly, complete with references - hopefully > without boring the rest of the list to death. > > Good wishes to all, > > Vanessa > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.5 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 146246 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 It also depends on what you mean by damage, as there are many different negative factors in activities such as meat-eating and car- driving, e.g. - CO2 emissions - Other greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. methane, CFCs) - Air pollution (particulates etc) - Water pollution - Resource use - Energy use - Environmental damage (deforestation, soil erosion, etc) - Animal suffering/exploitation - Human suffering/exploitation - etc Paul On 23 Oct 2008, at 14:07, John Davis wrote: > Hi, > > Yet logically speaking, to a degree Viva's claim must be true. The > problem > lies in the lack of clarity as to that degree.. > > It is pretty much accepted and proven, I think that an average vegan > diet > has less of an envirionmental impact than an average meat-based > diet. It is > also the case that riding a bicycle has less of an environmental > impace than > driving a 4x4. The question then, becomes simply that of at what > point the > one outweighs the other. Which is to say, how far does one have to > drive a > 4x4 to cause as much damage as a meat-based diet does over a vegan > one? > > I've no idea how far that distance is, and for all I know it could > be a few > feet, but logically it must exist! In which case Viva could say 'a > vegan > commuting X miles a day in a 4x4 has less of an environmental impact > than a > meat-eater on a bicycle'. > > Perhaps a saner way of putting it, however, as most people do, is > that both > ditching the 4x4 and going vegan are good for the environment, and > leave it > at that. > > John > > > > - > <interveg > > Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:31 AM > Riding a bike or walking > > >> >> Riding A Bike or Walking: Help >> Posted by: " Joseph Puentes " makas makas_nc >> Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:42 am (PDT) >> >>> I've heard things that I've possibly misunderstood and I'm looking >>> for >>> source information to prove this if I have understood correctly. >> >>> If a person is riding a bike or walking but if their energy comes >>> from >>> eating animal products they can actually be less energy conservative >>> than a person on a Vegan diet driving a Prius. >> >>> Yes I know that might be to vague but if its true does anyone >>> where I >>> can find source information to be able to put some " bite " into the >>> point? >> >>> thanks for any and all help with this research. >> >> I will try to post some hard evidence on this in the next day or two. >> The misconception you mention is based on the UN report " Livestock's >> Long Shadow " and a report from Chicago University. More details of >> the >> latter in due course. >> >> Livestock's Long Shadow found that WORLD WIDE livestock rearing >> caused >> more damage than all transport and people have naively extrapolated >> this >> to their own areas, which is clearly nonsense. A good way to weed >> out >> nonsense is to change the subject matter without changing the >> argument - >> e.g. the leading cause of infant mortality world wide is starvation >> (or >> whatever) so it must also be true in Liverpool, which it clearly >> isn't. >> >> The reason why livestock rearing is more damaging than transport >> world >> wide is because all countries rear livestock but very few have >> Western >> levels of motor and air transport. In Europe transport is twice as >> damaging and in the US three times as damaging as livestock even >> allowing for imports, transportation, and so on. >> >> On average in Europe, driving a 4x4 is at least two and probably >> three >> times more damaging than eating meat. So your meat eater on a >> bicycle >> is far more planet-friendly than your vegan in a 4x4 (but a vegan >> on a >> bicycle is better than either, of course). One long haul flight >> wipes >> out the benefits of about three years on a vegan diet, a return >> flight >> to mainland Europe wipes out about four months, and so on. >> >> You haven't misunderstood - a lot of people believe that being >> vegan is >> more beneficial than giving up cars and air travel, but it ain't >> true. >> It will take a day or two to get you all the figures, but I hope the >> above gives some idea how the misconception arose (Paul McCartney >> also >> came out with it on News at Ten a while ago). >> >> As well as altering one variable and then looking at the argument >> again, >> as with the child starvation in Liverpool, another good way of >> ensuring >> that we aren't tempted to believe something just because it suits our >> case is to reverse the whole argument - e.g. substitute meat eating >> for >> veganism and vice versa - and see if the logic, if any, still seems >> so >> persuasive(a variation on the old gender bias detector: substitute >> Janet >> for John and vice versa throughout the story and see how it sounds) >> >> An even more flawed argument that still surfaces occasionally is the >> nonsensical claim that " milk causes osteoporosis " . This was based >> on a >> study of nurses which found more fractures in the milk drinkers >> than in >> the vegans. What the purveyors of the myth don't mention (and some >> don't even know) is that a second study of the same people a number >> of >> years later showed the opposite effect. >> >> Those who put out propaganda on whichever side are generally well >> aware >> of the true position (though they sometimes come to believe their own >> bullshit) while those who read it are discouraged from asking too >> many >> questions. I applaud your search for genuine evidence and will try >> to >> post some hard figures shortly, complete with references - hopefully >> without boring the rest of the list to death. >> >> Good wishes to all, >> >> Vanessa >> > > > -- > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. > We are a community of 5.5 million users fighting spam. > SPAMfighter has removed 146246 of my spam emails to date. > Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len > > The Professional version does not have this message > > > > --- > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > ! Groups Links > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.