Skip to main content

View Diary: Still No Major Media Coverage of Alaska Oil Spill (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you have a good source for those statistics? (none)
    I'm a vegetarian for the reasons you mention (and beause it's really pretty easy for me), but I've always wondered how much of a difference it really makes.  It seems logical that feeding an animal to adulthood just to kill it for food is more energy-costly than just eating the food yourself, but I fell the people who write those statistics always slant them pro-vegetarian.

      For instance, is that 20,000 kcal figure based on beef that is strictly grain-fed?  Because I see a lot of cows eating scrubby grass on land that looks difficult to use for other agriculture.  Are those all dairy cows, or do some/most beef cattle eat grass or hay as a significant portion of their diet?  If you've got a relatively unbiased source for such data, I'd love to know where to find it.

       As far as your example;  it is indeed fun, but one flaw immediately jumped out at me:  if you get all (or even a significant portion of) your calories from grain-fed beef, you are 1. gonna die soon, lessening your overall environmental impact. 2. driving an H2 anyway, so walking will be no less efficient for you, and you could use the excercise, you cowmunching cowboy you.

      Also, you left out bicycling, which is more energy-efficient than walking (also 3.5 mph is a little brisk for crosstown walking, and is a speed favored by "power walkers" who are explicitly trying to burn as many calories as possible).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site