YOU PEOPLE ARE A BUNCH OF FREAKS!!!! YOU ARENT A REAL AMERICAN IF YOU DONT EAT MEAT.
Signed,
The Great Wolverine

I'm a vegetarian and it's suprisingly easy to not eat meat so why can't everybody else?

meat is yummy in my tummy. i think getting a better car, turning off a light, or recycling would help a little more, than not eating cows. i mean, come on, cows farting up the place is really the thing thats gonna do us in.

I am trying to help the global warning issue by reducing the farm raised beef... one steer at a time, one bite after another. but, I am only one man.

wow Travis - you really know you're stuff. I am very impressed.

Not to mention (per jeffs comment) the other environmental requirements of mass agriculture. To produce enough vegetables to support even our current consumption, millions of gallons of water have to be diverted from rivers for irrigation so that these crops can even be grown. The plains region of north america is used heavily for wheat, other grains, root crops, and in many areas broad leaf "above ground" crops. The amount of water lost through evaperation is astrononomical. In addition most areas dedicated to crop production are not fertile enough to produce viable crops and heance require the commercial production of fertilizers, which like any other industry doesnt exactly walk hand in hand with the environment. Many other areas dedicated to farming were once woodlands (and yes the same is true for cattle land in many cases) deforsetation is a mojor environmental problem as trees clean the atmosphere and produce oxygen. As for organics, simply put not enough organic crops could possibly be grown to feed the whole world and to add to jeffs comment, the costs of transportation on the environment would be increased ten-fold if all of our crops had to come from "organically" viable areas. One thing on the side of cattle and livestock is that in the plains regions, free range cattle can be raised with minimal supplemental foods (mainly in winter) and minimal water diverted from rivers or collected from wells (say one or two stock tanks for an entire herd.) As for the pollution caused by cattle in the form of waste gases, both parties can be held responsible. What do you think happens to the left over plant material after harvest? It decomposes and releases gases like N2O, CH4, and CO2. I suppose one way to look at is that even though you may criminalize cattle and thier consumers for damaging the environment both parties can be held equally responsible. in reality any change or taxing activity we place on the environment through any form of agriculture is not viable for the planet in the long term. If you dont want people to eat meat, I suggest you stick to a differnt argument, as the same can be made for any agricultural practice. Lets face it, the earth simply cannot support the current population of humans, to say nothing of the projected increase in the next 50 years without demolishing the environment and eventually turning around to bite us in the rear.One interesting idea (although probably not sustainable and likely not any kind of long term solution) is the "vertical farm" have a look at this just for kicks. www.vertica lfarm.com

I do understand that scientists are trying to come up with feed that will cause cows and steers to be less "gaseous" (a source of methane), but how does the consumption of meat contribute to global warming any more than the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Typically fruits and vegetables need to be transported farther than meats before arriving on our dinner tables contributing more to global warming than meats.

What kind of resources are we saving?