TomOver wrote >>
Manatee wrote >>
Ooooweee, there has been a lot of discussion here roundabout this topic, it's a real hot-button issue.
As for my part, not trying to be a smartass, but I call vegans "city environmentalists". It's the kind of environmentalism that looks good on paper. But I'll say it again: animals and plants raised together on smaller farms is my pick for environmental responsibility.
ETA: TomOver, I think you get the prize for most ambitious new poster!!
Manatee, I am glad you responded. Greetings. But is there enough land, water, and other resources for more than 300 million people to eat the free-range meat products? Say more please, if you have the time, about what you mean by "city environmentalists" and it "looking good on paper."
You need to account for the roughly 50 or so percent of food waste that occurs during all stages food production (harvest, processing, transportation, in-store, and at home). If we could more efficiently harvest and utilize our food before it goes to waste, we would and could feed more people using less resources.
Local food production through coops and community supported agriculture is a viable option to satisfy both vegans and omnivores in an environmentally friendly manner. Likewise, eating seasonally would help as well. Do I really need tomatoes grown in Mexico over winter when I could have canned some nice Ohio tomatoes when in season?
Edit: Since we are in the Midwest, what about recouping good farmland used to build homes and subdivisions? As land owners, could we not devote a few square feet to grow vegetables, raise chickens, and etc? Or, container gardening in the city? I know Cafe Bella grows indoor produce in its spare dining area!
So, essentially, I do not think being a vegan will be the biggest benefit from an environmental standpoint, it is how food is produced, how efficient it is used and conserved, and people contributing at the local level to food production.