First there was Heather and now Paul McCartney is on the publicity trail. He had the following letter in the Sunday Times. The thing is, I have been told that the UN report acknowledges that livestock do have a role to play in providing solutions to ecological problems. And I also think that we've only just started thinking about ways to cut harmful emission from livestock, so it seems a bit hasty to effectively say - well, let's not have livestock any more.

A RECENT United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, contains one clear message: the single most effective act that any individual can do to lessen the effects of global warming is to become vegetarian. That this message comes from the UN (whose member states, it should be remembered, are not generally considered vegetarian) rather than an organisation committed to vegetarianism, is significant.

For more than 30 years I have been interested in the promotion of vegetarianism and my own feelings were sparked by a simple compassion for animals. What I think is especially compelling is that this report should now encourage everybody to “do their bit” for the planet. The evidence it gives points directly to the detrimental effects of excessive livestock farming on the environment, such as:

* Seventy per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
* Livestock uses 30% of the entire world’s land surface and cattle rearing is a major source of land and water degradation.
* When emissions from land use and use changes are included (ie deforestation), the livestock sector accounts for 9% of C02 deriving from human related activities, but generates 65% of human related nitrous oxide, which has 2.96 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2.

Okay, this may sound like me banging on about vegetarianism again but these facts come straight from the UN and are significant enough to be taken seriously.

Paul McCartney
London W1

Does Sir Paul McCartney really say this? 

"* Livestock uses 30% of the entire world’s land surface and cattle rearing is a major source of land and water degradation. "

Surely deserts, seashores, mountain ranges, antartica, cities, urban areas, arable land, rice fields, and golf courses comprise more than 70% of the land area of the world's surface?

A quick Google shows that only 30% of the earth's surface is suitable for all types of farming so, I'm afraid Sir Paul, you had better not give up the day job just yet!

To be fair on Sir Paul (and it pains me - I am not a fan on the man or his music) the figure comes from the UN report. However, I've just skimmed the executive summary and I can't see that at any point it suggests we all go veggie. It sets out ways to reduce the land and water being used for livestock production etc but doesn't say we should stop producing livestock.

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

 

Isabel Davies:

First there was Heather and now Paul McCartney is on the publicity trail.

 

That's a bit harsh, Isabel. Is he on the publicity trail or is he passionate about vegetarianism and/or the environment?
 

Either way he is working to poop in my breadbasket and I don't care much for it.  You can twist information however you want.  The test of how passionate old Paul is would be to get him on this forum and have him go back and forth with people who don't agree with him.  Most of these types won't respond to anyone with a good counter argument.  The Sierra club was putting forth the same arguments, I sent them a lengthy email explaining why part of their theory was not right(this was the Kansas branch).  I never got a reply.  They can spout stuff that if agreed with and done would put me out of business, but they can't respond to logical disagreement with their views.  I would just add, "Give 'em hell, Isabel"

It would be interesting to see how much of the rain forests cut down we cut down for the wood as opposed to clearing it for grazing. As if the majority was for the wood and the grazing was just poeple using the land that had been clear then surely even if people stopped grazing it they're still going to cut it down anyway.

I was under the impression much of it was being cut down to grow soybeans.  Whatever the reason, it is being cut down so poor people can make a living, the same reason the Afghans grow opium poppies.  The guys growing the poppies aren't well off drug lords, they are farmers who like us are trying to make ends meet.  For "Sir Paul" or anyone else to suggest that the rainforest is being destroyed simply to raise beef is misleading at best.  Could it be that one day people who raise cattle will be on a lower rung than say drug dealers or Al Quaida for our contributions to the ruination of the planet?? 

Sadly, the way things are going, I can just picture the day when, on my way back from the chemist with my state-sponsored heroin fix, I pop into a darkened alley to score a pound of finest Brazillian fillet from a shady character with a Russian accent.  Getting home, I will no doubt discover it's origin was closer to home and used to snuffle around in the local sewer ...

 

Admin.

You use the word passionate in reference to Paul McCartney. He may be passionate but that does not make him right, either as regards facts or in the logic of his opinions.

I am sure Pot Pol, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Cromwell and Blair were passionate and all argued their case, but, in hindsight would we have done better to have viewed them with a greater sense of dispassion and ignored just about everything they said?

 

admin:

Isabel Davies:

First there was Heather and now Paul McCartney is on the publicity trail.

 

That's a bit harsh, Isabel. Is he on the publicity trail or is he passionate about vegetarianism and/or the environment?
 

You are right - he is probably passionate about both. But I also suspect he had that letter written for him by a lobby organisation and has not read the full UN report.

Sir Paul can say what he likes as can the UN.

I know plenty of evidence that not eating any flesh is not a healthy option for most people in the long term  Of course with more of us dead the planet would be "saved" anyway.

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/copper_toxicity_syndrome.htm

 snip

VEGETARIAN DIETS

                        Excess copper interferes with zinc, a mineral needed to make digestive enzymes.  Too much copper also impairs thyroid activity and the functioning of the liver.  If severe enough, a person will become an obligatory vegetarian.  This means they are no longer able to digest meat very well.  Conversely, if one becomes a vegetarian for other reasons, most likely one's copper level will increase.  Vegetarian proteins are higher in copper, and lower in zinc.
                        At times, the vegetarian orientation is health-producing.  In many people, however, restricted diets do not work well.  Fatigue, spaciness and other symptoms begin to appear.  Many people, including the author, felt they were becoming more spiritual on a vegetarian diet, when in fact it was just copper poisoning!  The taste for meat often returns when copper is brought into better balance.
                     

 

Joyce

I can remember reading that humans evolution was down to the change of diet to include meat which had the necessary protien in it to allow the brains to develop.

I wonder whether the McCartney family receives any income from the Linda McCartney branded vegetarian foods?

Does the UN report state what the effect of a vegetarian diet would be on the methane production of the human gut?

 

I have pondered this UN/McCartney deal all afternoon as I took care of my stock in the mud.  I think both the UN and  Paul are doing the world a disservice with this propaganda.  Asided from what we rent, 1300 or so acres of the land my family owns could never be arable, under any circumstance, indeed about 80% of our 1200 square mile county is exactly like that.  Last spring, when the wheat froze, those who were smart(I was not amongst them) baled it or chopped it for silage, to feed to cattle.  Every 2 or 3 years we have a drouth, then much of the corn and even some soybeans become silage to feed to cattle.  Yes, the finishing process does take grain that could be used for people, but a huge percentage of beef comes from feed that would be useless otherwise.  McCartney and a number of others don't believe in eating meat because they don't want animals killed.  It is convenient for them to paint the picture especially in this age of hyper awareness and fear about the planet that meat consumption is destroying the earth and contributing to world hunger.

 It seems to me that most world hunger can be traced back to politics.  Except for this year and maybe 1995 and 1996, and a couple years in the 1970s, grain has been a bargain, leading me to believe that if people were going hungry it was not because there wasn't enough food in the world, or too many livestock were eating it, but that they didn't have money, or their governments and perhaps the UN as well were not doing a very good job looking out for their welfare.  If the "feel good" crowd wants to tackle world hunger, rather than make livestock farming the target, maybe they could set their guns on corrupt third world governments and a UN that seems more blow than go. 

Paul McCartney and UN. I have two things to say : The first is that "Ignorance is Bliss" and the second is that the price of Red Wine should quadruple and then a further 200% Tax be added to it. Because drinking this stuff makes the Chattering Classes too vocal as well as pickleing the bit of Brain that they have. Perhaps we could get a Scientist from the Badger Trials to say that he has made a breakthrough in science and that "Man shall not live by Bread alone. "

Paul McCartney stick to music and divorce I think they are your better subjects, and curb your own lifestyle before preaching to others. 

 

 

 

.

kansasfarmer:

 ......1300 or so acres of the land my family owns could never be arable, under any circumstance, indeed about 80% of our 1200 square mile county is exactly like that. 

I looked up the stats to see if what Paul McCartney said was true.  Of the land surface area of the world, 26% is classed as 'permanent grassland'.  Presumably this includes such areas of natural grassland such as the Russian Steppes, South American Pampas. North American Prairies etc.. Not to mention all the thin soiled upland areas etc.  Not exactly prime arable acres!

And another thing, what's all this 'water footprint' that seems to be coming up alongside the 'carbon footprint'?  Apparently agriculture 'uses' more than its fair share of water and we've got to stop it.  Do they mean that rain that falls on our land, sinks through to the aquifers, evaporates into the atmosphere or makes things grow is bad?  How are we supposed to stop it? 

All this because the weather for the last 40 years has been marginally warmer than it was for the previous 400.  If you ask me, there are far too many people with far too little to do drawn like moths to the climate change flame.  All I can say is thank goodness the US government was unwilling to be railroaded in Bali. 

About a month ago I stumbled onto an article on the web from the Sierra club magazine about eating for a healthy planet.  It stated that each pound of beef requires 2500 gallons of water to produce, 6 to 20 pounds of grain, and one gallon of oil.  By their figures,  a fat steer with 700 pounds of retail beef would have required 2.1 million gallons of water to produce, along with 700 gallons of oil.  I can only assume they are using the formula Jacobus brings up, all the water that falls on my farm.  I sent them an email disputing these figures and asking how they arrived at them, to date I have had no response. 

I think if I was a writer and made a statement about another industry that could not be proven, say the rock music industry, I would be called to task.  The fact you cannot get them to respond says to me first they do not care about the opinions of the opposition and second, they do not have facts to back up their figures.  In my opinion, one of our meat industry groups should sue them, but that will not happen. 

Can someone help me out; Both Benn and McCartney say that Agriculture produce huge amounts of Nitrous Oxide, well I know I did my Science a long time ago but I seem to remember Nitrogen has to be heated to about 1200 C before it will combine with anything else.What happens on the Farm to produce this effect.I know this stuff pours out of the back of Petrol car exhausts and goes up into the atmosphere as NO2 and comes back down as dilute Nitric Acid in rain but is that caused by a Farmer?

Help needed.

BB,

To produce in the lab, you rightly say, requires a lot of energy.  However, biological processes typically achieve such feats at lower temperatures and pressures by imposing a suitable catalyst to help the reaction along.  There is a bit more about the agricultural sources of NO2 on this site.

 

 

Seems to me old paul has some pretty compelling arguements rather than the usual half baked lies we get from greenpeace , rspb or wwf .Maybe someone would like to tell us where his figures are seriosly adrift. Not a veggie myself but have far more respect for people  who are veggies because of the above arguements than the fluffy bunny brigade.Particually after spending most of this month gassing rabbits and shooting pigeons so that they can have some vegeterian wheat and osr to eat.

Remember just because Paul is arguing for a principle that isnt in our own self interest doesnt automatically mean hes wrong

 

Thankyou for your reply Townie.McCartney says Agriculture produces 65% of Nitrous Oxides,I remember this as laughing gas at the Dentist not dangerous as intimated.If he means Nitric Oxide if I remember in UV light this breaks down into Nitrogen and Ozone, part of Earths Nitrogen Cycle.If he means Nitrogen Dixode this also reacts and changes to Oxygen and dilute Nitric Acid which falls as rain which reacts with the soil and ends up as Nitrates.So when Benn says that Agriculture produces 60% of Water bourne Nitrates a lot will be due to pollution from burning Fossil Fuels.The Nitrates produced by Agriculture should be in equilibrium as the Oceans use nitrates to produce Algae and other sea life that fish live on and when they die or are eaten return to the Atmosphere as Nitrogen.

Rothmanstead has Trial plots where no Fertiliser whatsoever has been applied to them for over 100 years and the Nitrogen levels in the water in pits under them is rising.These people talk such hogwash its unbelievable that they can look at themselves.

goblin:

 

Seems to me old paul has some pretty compelling arguements rather than the usual half baked lies we get from greenpeace , rspb or wwf .Maybe someone would like to tell us where his figures are seriosly adrift. Not a veggie myself but have far more respect for people  who are veggies because of the above arguements than the fluffy bunny brigade.Particually after spending most of this month gassing rabbits and shooting pigeons so that they can have some vegeterian wheat and osr to eat.

Remember just because Paul is arguing for a principle that isnt in our own self interest doesnt automatically mean hes wrong

 

 

 

<>That's why I posted the link to copper toxicity - vegetarianism is NOT healthy for most people. 

The amino acid taurine, mainly from flesh, and which many of us have trouble synthesising as we age, is essential for heart and eye health 

<> I think it a great pity that there is not a ready market for pigeons and rabbits.

<>Joyce
 

<>

At this point I have to confess a strong preference for the Rolling Stones - no axe to grind, purely hedonistic and can I please be as fit as Mick Jagger at 62 or whatever. (OK forget poor old Keith Richard - but at least he is still going). After a hard day and spending much of my time recycling and all this green stuff, I don't want to be preached at by someone with a few more millions than I have! The man is entitled to his opinion - and I'm entitled to ignore it.

How many miles does Mr McCartney travel by aeroplane each year? Surely he must realise that the planet is being destroyed by consumerism and global industrialisation and not livestock farmers!!! Try getting in a lift with a vegetarian, phew!