Al Gore Approved of my Lunch
May 22, 2007 12:12 PM Subscribe
Did you know you can save the world by eating my favorite lunch?
Muffleuppa globba dupp!
I'm eating a PBJ with bananas right now. It's great. Use a good quality whole grain bread, toast lightly, and spread on locally produced jam. De-lish.Achewood's take on the matter.
posted by boo_radley at 12:22 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 12:22 PM on May 22, 2007
Quick, guys! Wendell's on to us!
posted by NationalKato at 12:25 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by NationalKato at 12:25 PM on May 22, 2007
Three acres of grain tastes terrible with a baked potato.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:26 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:26 PM on May 22, 2007
Muffleuppa globba dupp!
Sure, that's easy for you to say!
posted by malocchio at 12:29 PM on May 22, 2007
Sure, that's easy for you to say!
posted by malocchio at 12:29 PM on May 22, 2007
Excuse me, the spread I'm enjoying is not jam, but peach preserves. I apologize for the inaccuracy.
posted by boo_radley at 12:30 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 12:30 PM on May 22, 2007
The hardcore know the score - and it's almond butter and raw honey on toasted, sprouted 12 grain.
posted by loquacious at 12:37 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by loquacious at 12:37 PM on May 22, 2007
Cashew/macadamia nut butter kicks peanut butter's ass.
posted by doctor_negative at 12:39 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by doctor_negative at 12:39 PM on May 22, 2007
Or PBJ on white, with potato chips comprising a crunchy middle layer! Booyeah!
posted by scratch at 12:40 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by scratch at 12:40 PM on May 22, 2007
You goddamn commies. Jif on Wonder is good enough for honest Americans. Plus you get all sorts of extra chemicals while saving money.
posted by maxwelton at 12:40 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by maxwelton at 12:40 PM on May 22, 2007
Someone finally got sick about their friends belittling their lunch choices and rather than mention his/her inherent cheapness and/or laziness, they made a website.
God Bless That Person.
posted by Stynxno at 12:42 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
God Bless That Person.
posted by Stynxno at 12:42 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
doesn't this work under the assumption that everyone eating pbj instead of meat would eliminate the farming of livestock for slaughter? so isn't it really just kind of bullshit? i never thought a sandwhich would annoy me this much.
posted by shmegegge at 12:43 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by shmegegge at 12:43 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Peanut butter with, AND GO WITH ME HERE PEOPLE, Hellman's Mayonnaise and crispy Iceberg lettuce.
There. I said it.
posted by Jofus at 12:45 PM on May 22, 2007
There. I said it.
posted by Jofus at 12:45 PM on May 22, 2007
Peanut butter and (locally raised, free range, organic) warm, crispy bacon.
'Nuff said.
posted by rtha at 12:47 PM on May 22, 2007
'Nuff said.
posted by rtha at 12:47 PM on May 22, 2007
The number of PB&Js it takes to save a chicken came from the weight of an eviscerated broiler chicken, 2.5 to 4.5 pounds, divided by the weight of six chicken nuggets.
What? Get this legumist propaganda out of my face!
posted by prostyle at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2007
What? Get this legumist propaganda out of my face!
posted by prostyle at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2007
Jofus, you've made me just a little queasy.
The jam, at any rate, should be raspberry. And sprouted grain bread makes Baby Jesus cry. Or at least pick at His teeth with a toothpick and wish someone'd had the decency to pick up an Italian loaf or something.
On preview: Your recipe gets even more nausea-inducing, Jofus.
posted by gompa at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
The jam, at any rate, should be raspberry. And sprouted grain bread makes Baby Jesus cry. Or at least pick at His teeth with a toothpick and wish someone'd had the decency to pick up an Italian loaf or something.
On preview: Your recipe gets even more nausea-inducing, Jofus.
posted by gompa at 12:49 PM on May 22, 2007 [3 favorites]
Say, does anyone remember that garage rock song from the 60s whose chorus goes "We all love peanut butter"? Because it's certainly apropos here.
posted by scratch at 12:51 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by scratch at 12:51 PM on May 22, 2007
How to eat a peanut butter sandwich in an environmentally unfriendly way: the story of the King and the Fool's Gold Loaf.
posted by darksasami at 12:52 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by darksasami at 12:52 PM on May 22, 2007
Outing time: peanut butter and honey is my faveorite. Especially when the honey crystalizes with the bread. MMMM...crystal.
posted by valentinepig at 12:52 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by valentinepig at 12:52 PM on May 22, 2007
The peanut butter, bacon & banana sandwich lovers will show up in 3... 2... 1...
posted by miss lynnster at 1:06 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by miss lynnster at 1:06 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh, actually darksasami beat me to it.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:07 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 1:07 PM on May 22, 2007
PB, mayo, bananas. There is no finger sandwich on this earth.
posted by cortex at 1:08 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by cortex at 1:08 PM on May 22, 2007
ColdChef: Alternatively, and derivatively, It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time. Or better yet. [YouTube results!]
posted by kosem at 1:08 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by kosem at 1:08 PM on May 22, 2007
doesn't this work under the assumption that everyone eating pbj instead of meat would eliminate the farming of livestock for slaughter?
No. It never suggests it would eliminate it. It suggests instead that a reduced demand for meat would result in reduced production and that resources presently used for meat production could be devoted to other uses.
so isn't it really just kind of bullshit?
No.
posted by Miko at 1:14 PM on May 22, 2007
No. It never suggests it would eliminate it. It suggests instead that a reduced demand for meat would result in reduced production and that resources presently used for meat production could be devoted to other uses.
so isn't it really just kind of bullshit?
No.
posted by Miko at 1:14 PM on May 22, 2007
There is no finger sandwich on this earth.
Alas, just when I was thinking I could do with a cucumber and cream cheese dainty.
posted by darksasami at 1:17 PM on May 22, 2007
Alas, just when I was thinking I could do with a cucumber and cream cheese dainty.
posted by darksasami at 1:17 PM on May 22, 2007
There is no finger sandwich on this earth.
Gasp! I had finger sandwiches at Mrs. Bresselthwaite's Junior Club luncheon just this Sunday!
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on May 22, 2007
Gasp! I had finger sandwiches at Mrs. Bresselthwaite's Junior Club luncheon just this Sunday!
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on May 22, 2007
Goddammit.
posted by cortex at 1:30 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 1:30 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
It never suggests it would eliminate it. It suggests instead that a reduced demand for meat would result in reduced production and that resources presently used for meat production could be devoted to other uses.
Since it's using specific figures, can you enlighten me as to what percentage of meat production it's basing its figures on? further, i'd like to know whether those figures reflect the effect of growth in peanut and grape planting necessary for a parallel reduction in meat production.
so isn't it really just kind of bullshit?
No.
or rather, yes, completely. it is, in fact, little more than a misrepresented and myopic collection of figures to promote vegetarianism.
posted by shmegegge at 1:33 PM on May 22, 2007
Since it's using specific figures, can you enlighten me as to what percentage of meat production it's basing its figures on? further, i'd like to know whether those figures reflect the effect of growth in peanut and grape planting necessary for a parallel reduction in meat production.
so isn't it really just kind of bullshit?
No.
or rather, yes, completely. it is, in fact, little more than a misrepresented and myopic collection of figures to promote vegetarianism.
posted by shmegegge at 1:33 PM on May 22, 2007
Don't do it for the planet, guys. Do it for the nummy.
posted by tastybrains at 1:35 PM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by tastybrains at 1:35 PM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Peanut (or Almond) Butter, Bananas, and Nutella on lightly toasted bread.
THAT may or may not save the world, but it will most certainly save my soul.
Suddenly the sushi I am eating seems less appetizing somehow...
posted by davejay at 1:42 PM on May 22, 2007
THAT may or may not save the world, but it will most certainly save my soul.
Suddenly the sushi I am eating seems less appetizing somehow...
posted by davejay at 1:42 PM on May 22, 2007
The authors calculated the greenhouse gas emissions produced by various diets and compared the environmental benefits to driving hybrid versus standard cars. We figured out the daily greenhouse gas outputs from the authors' yearly figures on animal-product-based and animal-product-free diets and then assumed that the average lunch would be about 28% of the daily figures.
So they based these "figures" on other "figures" from another one of their earth shattering comparisons? I'm shocked!
It all just seems like a lot of fuzzy logic to reach the assertion that: ...you'll reduce your carbon footprint by saving the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over an average animal-based lunch like a hamburger, a tuna sandwich, grilled cheese, or chicken nuggets.
Really? Because there aren't enormous mechanized tools such as peanut diggers, combines and other processing equipment used in the product cycle at any point in time? I'm thinking Carver would be rolling in his grave...
...three PB&Js a month instead of hamburgers will save about as much water as switching to a low-flow showerhead.
Heh, fucking bulletproof. Take a look at their "alternatives" page and it's clear shmegegge nailed it.
posted by prostyle at 1:43 PM on May 22, 2007
So they based these "figures" on other "figures" from another one of their earth shattering comparisons? I'm shocked!
It all just seems like a lot of fuzzy logic to reach the assertion that: ...you'll reduce your carbon footprint by saving the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over an average animal-based lunch like a hamburger, a tuna sandwich, grilled cheese, or chicken nuggets.
Really? Because there aren't enormous mechanized tools such as peanut diggers, combines and other processing equipment used in the product cycle at any point in time? I'm thinking Carver would be rolling in his grave...
...three PB&Js a month instead of hamburgers will save about as much water as switching to a low-flow showerhead.
Heh, fucking bulletproof. Take a look at their "alternatives" page and it's clear shmegegge nailed it.
posted by prostyle at 1:43 PM on May 22, 2007
Regarding the bullshit/not bullshit thing: if I eat a 1/4lb of beef for lunch every day for a year, that's over 91 pounds of cow. If I eat PB&J instead, how many years will it take to save a single cow? Anyone know?
posted by davejay at 1:46 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by davejay at 1:46 PM on May 22, 2007
I'm currently living in France where pb&j sandwiches are quite rare. I had my favorite peanut butter (Adam's All Natural Smooth) imported from the states by my very loving parents.
I then I made a few sandwhiches for a French co-worker who swore peanut butter was not as good as Nutella. Now he is hopelessly addicted (muhaha!)
posted by heatherbeth at 1:52 PM on May 22, 2007
I then I made a few sandwhiches for a French co-worker who swore peanut butter was not as good as Nutella. Now he is hopelessly addicted (muhaha!)
posted by heatherbeth at 1:52 PM on May 22, 2007
Peanut butter with, AND GO WITH ME HERE PEOPLE, Hellman's Mayonnaise and crispy Iceberg lettuce.
I'm right there with you, Jofus. My Mom taught me that one, and it's a keeper.
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:12 PM on May 22, 2007
I'm right there with you, Jofus. My Mom taught me that one, and it's a keeper.
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:12 PM on May 22, 2007
Hey, anyone who's read anything about carbon emissions and agricultural resource waste can recognize that replacing a meat meal with a plant meal will have beneficial effects on the environment if taken in the aggregate. No one's asking you to become a vegetarian. There are staggering amounts of information demonstrating that a meat-based diet presents greater environmental and health costs than a plant-based one. You don't need to rely on this advocacy site and its admittedly lighthearted and gimmicky approach to know that the basic suggestion they're making -- that if everyone who eats a meat-based meal for lunch every day replaced it once a week with a plant-based meal, overall resource use would diminish -- is not insane, and would very likely have a positive cumulative effect.
Or maybe you just like being a curmudgeon. In that case, carry on.
posted by Miko at 2:15 PM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Or maybe you just like being a curmudgeon. In that case, carry on.
posted by Miko at 2:15 PM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Regarding the bullshit/not bullshit thing: if I eat a 1/4lb of beef for lunch every day for a year, that's over 91 pounds of cow. If I eat PB&J instead, how many years will it take to save a single cow? Anyone know? --davejay
Heh. Why do I even bother searching the rest of Internet for answers anymore? ...
How much meat is there on a cow?
posted by Bugg at 2:29 PM on May 22, 2007
Heh. Why do I even bother searching the rest of Internet for answers anymore? ...
How much meat is there on a cow?
posted by Bugg at 2:29 PM on May 22, 2007
Man, if you eat a quarter-pound of beef every day for lunch, you're going to die soon, at which point your carbon footprint becomes zero, plus you offer up your corpse as mulch.
The real heroes.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:46 PM on May 22, 2007
The real heroes.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:46 PM on May 22, 2007
One word: Fluffernutter.
Not available in the 'People's Republic of Cambridge' schools, if state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios has his way.
BTW -- today he announced his resignation to start a new job as president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation.
posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on May 22, 2007
Not available in the 'People's Republic of Cambridge' schools, if state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios has his way.
BTW -- today he announced his resignation to start a new job as president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation.
posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on May 22, 2007
After having faced public outcry and ridicule Barrios later signed on to a bill by state Rep. Kathi-Ann Reinstein, D-Revere, to make the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich.
posted by ericb at 2:57 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by ericb at 2:57 PM on May 22, 2007
Cashew/macadamia nut butter kicks peanut butter's ass.
Do the carbon miles on this trump the amazing taste? (Oh well, back to ham and cheese)
posted by nax at 3:11 PM on May 22, 2007
Do the carbon miles on this trump the amazing taste? (Oh well, back to ham and cheese)
posted by nax at 3:11 PM on May 22, 2007
All natural peanut butter & honey on toasted homebaked white bread made with my grandmother's recipe, which employs lard.
posted by longsleeves at 3:35 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by longsleeves at 3:35 PM on May 22, 2007
Miko is right on the money, IMHO. I'm no vegetarian, but let's save the backlash for the next PETA campaign that actually is stupid and annoying (you'll only have to wait, like, 10 seconds). This site was cute, they didn't demand that people stop eating all meat or get all up in your face with pictures of animals being slaughtered or something. They just made a reasonable point that there are clear environmental benefits to eating a little bit less meat. Let's not get overly defensive. Or go out of our way to overthink this plate of beans peanut butter sandwich.
posted by snofoam at 3:39 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 3:39 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
also, i'm not sure if i should be posting this comment to this thread, but I often accidentally type meatfilter.com into my browser and it redirects to a vegan books amazon affiliate site.
posted by snofoam at 3:42 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by snofoam at 3:42 PM on May 22, 2007
I really want to make an eponysterical comment, but I'm drawling a blank.
posted by the jam at 4:18 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by the jam at 4:18 PM on May 22, 2007
Peanut butter, chopped almonds and cinnamon sandwiches are beyond awesome.
posted by maudlin at 4:25 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by maudlin at 4:25 PM on May 22, 2007
I have not had a PB&J in years and now I really want one. Damn you MeFi! Daaaaaaamn yoooooooouuuu!
posted by Pallas Athena at 4:30 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by Pallas Athena at 4:30 PM on May 22, 2007
Today, while walking down the supermarket aisle, I saw that they had finally restocked the peanut butter. For at least two months or so the area that might have held it was crowded out by Nutella and knockoff chocohazelnut spreads.
I have to say, I was tempted. Really, really tempted. The thought of a delicious PB&J made me nearly consider purchasing a jar. But 28.50LE? That's more than I'm willing to spend, at least until my cravings get really bad. Plus it's so hard to find normal sandwich bread, and while pita is find for some things, for PB&J you can't be a nice simple white bread.
It's hard to be motivated to spend almost 40LE ($6, assuming a couple bucks extra for the crappy yet deluxe-priced white and the jelly ) just to make a few PB&J sandwiches when I can buy 70 felafel sandwiches for the same price (or, if I'm feeling swanky, 46 cheese sandwiches).
Oh, Egypt.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:14 PM on May 22, 2007
I have to say, I was tempted. Really, really tempted. The thought of a delicious PB&J made me nearly consider purchasing a jar. But 28.50LE? That's more than I'm willing to spend, at least until my cravings get really bad. Plus it's so hard to find normal sandwich bread, and while pita is find for some things, for PB&J you can't be a nice simple white bread.
It's hard to be motivated to spend almost 40LE ($6, assuming a couple bucks extra for the crappy yet deluxe-priced white and the jelly ) just to make a few PB&J sandwiches when I can buy 70 felafel sandwiches for the same price (or, if I'm feeling swanky, 46 cheese sandwiches).
Oh, Egypt.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:14 PM on May 22, 2007
Oh, wow, So cucumbers? Yogurt?
posted by longsleeves at 9:34 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by longsleeves at 9:34 PM on May 22, 2007
Sorry. all.
posted by longsleeves at 9:35 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by longsleeves at 9:35 PM on May 22, 2007
So trucking all those peanuts to a processing plant, processing them into peanut butter, placing the butter into plastic jars and then trucking them to my local store where they will meet their counterparts, Chilean grapes shipped to a plant, pressed and processed into jelly, jarred and trucked uses less energy than chicken salad made from the meat of locally raised, free range chickens and mayo made from their eggs?
Also these photos make the diet look really appetizing.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:57 AM on May 23, 2007
Also these photos make the diet look really appetizing.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:57 AM on May 23, 2007
I like my whole grain bread, just not with Pb on it. Gotta be Bunny Giant Roundtop for a decent PB&J sammich. My kids and I love them, the wife, not so much.
Make it white, make it Jif and make it Welch's Concorde Grape!
In other words...make it RIGHT DAMMIT!
Rookies!
posted by winks007 at 7:26 AM on May 23, 2007
Make it white, make it Jif and make it Welch's Concorde Grape!
In other words...make it RIGHT DAMMIT!
Rookies!
posted by winks007 at 7:26 AM on May 23, 2007
Pollomacho: To make that comparison fair, you'd have to juxtapose the locally raised chicken to locally raised peanuts and jelly ingredients. You'd also have to process the chicken somehow, since the peanuts are processed and not eaten as a whole food. Most people's chicken is traveling just as far as their peanuts, and it's heavier, so if you're sourcing at the grocery store the peanuts will come out ahead. Only by sourcing locally could you make a case that the chicken is less wasteful.
And even then, without making it an obssessive project it's hard to weigh the cost/benefit on local chicken vs. trucked peanuts. Chickens, after all, have to eat many times their weight in feed, which may or may not be local, and of course they drink water and produce a treeeemendous amount of waste -- which can sometimes be recycled into fertilizer, but is prone to runoff and the excess nitrogen has been blamed in a lot of riverine fish kills. They also have to be slaughtered, and slaughterhouses have to be cleaned with lots of water (hot = heated = fuel) and chemicals, and have to have power, climate control and refrigeration. So, you know.
I'm for honoring the spirit of the thing. There are no perfect choices; life feeds on life on this planet. But there are better choices, small easy changes, and other little things that can make a difference. Generally I feel better when I'm eating less meat overall -- then I can really, really enjoy my medium rare Angus burger with little compunction every so often.
posted by Miko at 7:39 AM on May 23, 2007
And even then, without making it an obssessive project it's hard to weigh the cost/benefit on local chicken vs. trucked peanuts. Chickens, after all, have to eat many times their weight in feed, which may or may not be local, and of course they drink water and produce a treeeemendous amount of waste -- which can sometimes be recycled into fertilizer, but is prone to runoff and the excess nitrogen has been blamed in a lot of riverine fish kills. They also have to be slaughtered, and slaughterhouses have to be cleaned with lots of water (hot = heated = fuel) and chemicals, and have to have power, climate control and refrigeration. So, you know.
I'm for honoring the spirit of the thing. There are no perfect choices; life feeds on life on this planet. But there are better choices, small easy changes, and other little things that can make a difference. Generally I feel better when I'm eating less meat overall -- then I can really, really enjoy my medium rare Angus burger with little compunction every so often.
posted by Miko at 7:39 AM on May 23, 2007
Reminds me of a line from the really horrible SF film "Judge Dredd":
"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment, and okay for you."
posted by bshock at 8:11 AM on May 23, 2007
"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment, and okay for you."
posted by bshock at 8:11 AM on May 23, 2007
that if everyone who eats a meat-based meal for lunch every day replaced it once a week with a plant-based meal, overall resource use would diminish
Look, if everyone ate plants for the rest of their lives, the only reason that would reduce the footprint involved in RAISING the cattle is if we stopped raising them. So what happens to the cattle?
It's not saving the world. That's why it's bullshit. It's a rose-colored, selective viewpoint purporting to be science but ignoring the practical applications and consequences of what they're advocating. I'm all for pbjs, and I'm all for saving the environment. I am against evangelism of any kind, especially based on misinformation.
posted by shmegegge at 8:13 AM on May 23, 2007
Look, if everyone ate plants for the rest of their lives, the only reason that would reduce the footprint involved in RAISING the cattle is if we stopped raising them. So what happens to the cattle?
It's not saving the world. That's why it's bullshit. It's a rose-colored, selective viewpoint purporting to be science but ignoring the practical applications and consequences of what they're advocating. I'm all for pbjs, and I'm all for saving the environment. I am against evangelism of any kind, especially based on misinformation.
posted by shmegegge at 8:13 AM on May 23, 2007
you'd have to juxtapose the locally raised chicken to locally raised peanuts and jelly ingredients
Not at these prices I don't!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:42 AM on May 23, 2007
Not at these prices I don't!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:42 AM on May 23, 2007
So what happens to the cattle?
There are less of them. Meat is manufactured.
posted by Miko at 9:06 AM on May 23, 2007
There are less of them. Meat is manufactured.
posted by Miko at 9:06 AM on May 23, 2007
so then this is a plan that depends on the slaugher of cattle for meat?
and then, down the line, when people want to do EVEN MORE for the environment, they eat more vegetarian food, and raise even less cattle, but still eat enough meat to slaughter the fewer cattle that are already alive, right?
and eventually, do we all get together and make one last meal of hamburgers with the last of the cattle and do a little celebratory dance that we finally eradicated that real threat to the environment, the cow?
posted by shmegegge at 9:10 AM on May 23, 2007
and then, down the line, when people want to do EVEN MORE for the environment, they eat more vegetarian food, and raise even less cattle, but still eat enough meat to slaughter the fewer cattle that are already alive, right?
and eventually, do we all get together and make one last meal of hamburgers with the last of the cattle and do a little celebratory dance that we finally eradicated that real threat to the environment, the cow?
posted by shmegegge at 9:10 AM on May 23, 2007
You've lost me. What are you talking about?
You're fantasizing about some world of cow overpopulation, cows standing about uneaten. Do you know that most cattle killed for meat are under two years old?
That a gradually diminishing market for meat will reduce the willingness of new people to enter the livestock business, and in the meantime, force existing owners of such businesses to diversify?
That a market for premium, higher-quality, better tasting and more responsibly raised meat is growing substantially, replacing old models of volume with newer ones in which there's less meat but far better, and can command a much higher price?
You're arguing from a ridiculous extreme that nobody suggested. Less meat doesn't mean no meat. And yes, our present system of agriculture, livestock included, is a threat to the environment.
You need more information.
posted by Miko at 9:22 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
You're fantasizing about some world of cow overpopulation, cows standing about uneaten. Do you know that most cattle killed for meat are under two years old?
That a gradually diminishing market for meat will reduce the willingness of new people to enter the livestock business, and in the meantime, force existing owners of such businesses to diversify?
That a market for premium, higher-quality, better tasting and more responsibly raised meat is growing substantially, replacing old models of volume with newer ones in which there's less meat but far better, and can command a much higher price?
You're arguing from a ridiculous extreme that nobody suggested. Less meat doesn't mean no meat. And yes, our present system of agriculture, livestock included, is a threat to the environment.
You need more information.
posted by Miko at 9:22 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
no, you need to read more carefully. I never said that the raising of livestock didn't have a negative effect on the environment. I said that the pbj page is misleading and willfully ignoring things like the effect of growing peanuts on the environment, and pulling its figures from a practically untenable standpoint such as a direct correlation between number of hamburgers eaten and the amount of rainforest we have.
for example: The result is that it takes several pounds of corn and soy to produce one pound of beef, or one pound of eggs, one pound of milk, etc. The same goes for protein, calories, or other nutrients.
so what is the effect of reducing the demand for the corn and soy used to raise the cattle while increasing the demand for peanuts and grapes? what effect will this have on the farming companies involved and how will that cause their policies and the environments they work with to change? oh shit! that's not covered on this site, because they didn't bother to think about that because they're just trying to convert people to vegetarianism by being cute instead of being honest.
what you're forgetting is that I'm criticising the site. You're criticising what I can only assume you perceive as some kind of anti-vegetarian standpoint on my part. there are good sources of information and ideas on dealing with the environmental issues of raising cattle. getting everyone to eat pbjs or become vegetarian is not one of them.
and yes, I pushed the idea to a ridiculous extreme. I did that on purpose. It's meant to point out the absurdity of evangelism of this kind, because it doesn't care about the practical consequences of what it's preaching. No matter what you believe will happen if everyone ate more peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches, so long as someone's eating meat veggie missionaries will be trying to stop it. So if we have a positive impact by cutting down on meat consumption, we'll have even MORE of a positive impact by cutting down even FURTHER! and then we'll be almost PERFECT when we eliminate it altogether! sites like this are stupid and advocacy of this kind is a joke.
posted by shmegegge at 10:09 AM on May 23, 2007
for example: The result is that it takes several pounds of corn and soy to produce one pound of beef, or one pound of eggs, one pound of milk, etc. The same goes for protein, calories, or other nutrients.
so what is the effect of reducing the demand for the corn and soy used to raise the cattle while increasing the demand for peanuts and grapes? what effect will this have on the farming companies involved and how will that cause their policies and the environments they work with to change? oh shit! that's not covered on this site, because they didn't bother to think about that because they're just trying to convert people to vegetarianism by being cute instead of being honest.
what you're forgetting is that I'm criticising the site. You're criticising what I can only assume you perceive as some kind of anti-vegetarian standpoint on my part. there are good sources of information and ideas on dealing with the environmental issues of raising cattle. getting everyone to eat pbjs or become vegetarian is not one of them.
and yes, I pushed the idea to a ridiculous extreme. I did that on purpose. It's meant to point out the absurdity of evangelism of this kind, because it doesn't care about the practical consequences of what it's preaching. No matter what you believe will happen if everyone ate more peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches, so long as someone's eating meat veggie missionaries will be trying to stop it. So if we have a positive impact by cutting down on meat consumption, we'll have even MORE of a positive impact by cutting down even FURTHER! and then we'll be almost PERFECT when we eliminate it altogether! sites like this are stupid and advocacy of this kind is a joke.
posted by shmegegge at 10:09 AM on May 23, 2007
ahh. so you're advocating that we destroy all CAFOs, then. i see. very wise.
posted by eustatic at 10:43 AM on May 23, 2007
posted by eustatic at 10:43 AM on May 23, 2007
I think you're being purposely disingenuous, so there you are. Sorry you fear that the "veggie missionaries" are comin' to getcha.
so what is the effect of reducing the demand for the corn and soy used to raise the cattle while increasing the demand for peanuts and grapes?
Think about thisjust a little bit. It takes only a handful of peanuts to grind into a couple tablespoons of peanut butter, providing a substantial amount of proteins and fats to create your meal. It takes much, much more corn or soy or feed grain to create the same amount of animal protein -- gallons and gallons of it, daily, over months or years. Creating animal protein requires not just the same amount of acreage, water, time, and labor as creating plant protein, but many, many times that amount. Creating animal protein uses more resources, plain and simple.
what effect will this have on the farming companies involved and how will that cause their policies and the environments they work with to change?
Glad you brought that up, because there's a political cost and a community cost to devoting acreage to commodity crops that become animal feed. Corn, soy, and wheat are all commodity crops, heavily subsidized and supported by the US government (and your tax dollars) to generate income and suppress prices. These crops are largely produced by enormous industrial agriculture concerns - the 'factory farms'. There is so much of this material in production, protected by corporate investment and political lobbying and pork deals, that food companies are strongly encouraged to incoporate and push the excess produce at a consumer populace that is speedily growing far more unhealthy by ingesting a less-than-nutritious diet based on animal products and processed corn and grain products. They've invested a lot more in growing and maintaining this present system than in exploring the potential to organize our national agriculture in another way. Present methods are not environmentally sustainable, reduce biodiversity, and contribute to the growing income disparity between officers and shareholders and labor. The funding that goes to subsidize and push these crops comes directly out of the same pool that could otherwise go to supporting more small-scale produce and livestock farms that are closer in location to their consumer markets, reducing overall fuel miles and preserving open space in your community. That money could also improve the environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture by being devoted more to grant programs that support greener practices and reduce the incidence of agricultural chemicals and the use of hormones.
oh shit! that's not covered on this site, because they didn't bother to think about that because they're just trying to convert people to vegetarianism by being cute instead of being honest.
I don't see the dishonesty, and I don't see them trying to convert anyone -- you've leapt to that in a defensive manner. If you choose to eat meat, you choose to eat meat. Why let it bother you that others advocate avoiding it now and then? They obviously support the idea of vegetarianism, based on their links and mentions of animal welfare, but they aren't stating that it's the only possible response, and are using the site to get you to think about making simple changes that could have an overall effect which is very positive.
Basically, a person has to work very hard to find fault with the idea that our agricultural system has negative effects and that those negative effects could be reduced by eating less meat.
there are good sources of information and ideas on dealing with the environmental issues of raising cattle.
And you should go read some of them.
getting everyone to eat pbjs or become vegetarian is not one of them.
Well, "getting everyone to eat PBJs" isn't a "source of information", it's a suggestion for action. This site, in particular, is a self-described campaign. They're trying to raise awareness. Hey! They're succeeding! How about that.
posted by Miko at 11:09 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
so what is the effect of reducing the demand for the corn and soy used to raise the cattle while increasing the demand for peanuts and grapes?
Think about thisjust a little bit. It takes only a handful of peanuts to grind into a couple tablespoons of peanut butter, providing a substantial amount of proteins and fats to create your meal. It takes much, much more corn or soy or feed grain to create the same amount of animal protein -- gallons and gallons of it, daily, over months or years. Creating animal protein requires not just the same amount of acreage, water, time, and labor as creating plant protein, but many, many times that amount. Creating animal protein uses more resources, plain and simple.
what effect will this have on the farming companies involved and how will that cause their policies and the environments they work with to change?
Glad you brought that up, because there's a political cost and a community cost to devoting acreage to commodity crops that become animal feed. Corn, soy, and wheat are all commodity crops, heavily subsidized and supported by the US government (and your tax dollars) to generate income and suppress prices. These crops are largely produced by enormous industrial agriculture concerns - the 'factory farms'. There is so much of this material in production, protected by corporate investment and political lobbying and pork deals, that food companies are strongly encouraged to incoporate and push the excess produce at a consumer populace that is speedily growing far more unhealthy by ingesting a less-than-nutritious diet based on animal products and processed corn and grain products. They've invested a lot more in growing and maintaining this present system than in exploring the potential to organize our national agriculture in another way. Present methods are not environmentally sustainable, reduce biodiversity, and contribute to the growing income disparity between officers and shareholders and labor. The funding that goes to subsidize and push these crops comes directly out of the same pool that could otherwise go to supporting more small-scale produce and livestock farms that are closer in location to their consumer markets, reducing overall fuel miles and preserving open space in your community. That money could also improve the environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture by being devoted more to grant programs that support greener practices and reduce the incidence of agricultural chemicals and the use of hormones.
oh shit! that's not covered on this site, because they didn't bother to think about that because they're just trying to convert people to vegetarianism by being cute instead of being honest.
I don't see the dishonesty, and I don't see them trying to convert anyone -- you've leapt to that in a defensive manner. If you choose to eat meat, you choose to eat meat. Why let it bother you that others advocate avoiding it now and then? They obviously support the idea of vegetarianism, based on their links and mentions of animal welfare, but they aren't stating that it's the only possible response, and are using the site to get you to think about making simple changes that could have an overall effect which is very positive.
Basically, a person has to work very hard to find fault with the idea that our agricultural system has negative effects and that those negative effects could be reduced by eating less meat.
there are good sources of information and ideas on dealing with the environmental issues of raising cattle.
And you should go read some of them.
getting everyone to eat pbjs or become vegetarian is not one of them.
Well, "getting everyone to eat PBJs" isn't a "source of information", it's a suggestion for action. This site, in particular, is a self-described campaign. They're trying to raise awareness. Hey! They're succeeding! How about that.
posted by Miko at 11:09 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think you're being purposely disingenuous, so there you are.
I think you're being an asshole, so there you are. Here's an idea: Go reread what I said, and you'll see that from comment 1, I have been talking about the myopic evangelism of the site itself.
Think about thisjust a little bit.
Holy shit, your reading comprehension is fucking terrible. I already told you, I don't dispute the evironmental impact of raising cattle, nor the fact that it would be wise to take action to curtail that impact. How many times do I have to tell you this?
I don't see the dishonesty, and I don't see them trying to convert anyone -- you've leapt to that in a defensive manner.
You're choosing not to see it. The issue isn't as simple as just eating more peanut butter and jelly, and the site's pages all talk about individuals cutting meat and fish out of their diet. It's supposed to be a cute page about pbj, but it's really just vegetarian advocacy.
but they aren't stating that it's the only possible response
it's the only response they mention.
Basically, a person has to work very hard to find fault with the idea that our agricultural system has negative effects and that those negative effects could be reduced by eating less meat.
basically, a person doesn't have to work very hard to realize that (one more time, now) I never said that.
you've stopped even remotely resembling civility. You're leaping to conclusions about me and my motivations, you're barely even reading what I say, and you're being inordinately defensive of something that I have every right to dislike. You should strongly consider just walking away, because the most you're doing right now is acting like a zealot and kind of a dick to boot.
posted by shmegegge at 11:26 AM on May 23, 2007
I think you're being an asshole, so there you are. Here's an idea: Go reread what I said, and you'll see that from comment 1, I have been talking about the myopic evangelism of the site itself.
Think about thisjust a little bit.
Holy shit, your reading comprehension is fucking terrible. I already told you, I don't dispute the evironmental impact of raising cattle, nor the fact that it would be wise to take action to curtail that impact. How many times do I have to tell you this?
I don't see the dishonesty, and I don't see them trying to convert anyone -- you've leapt to that in a defensive manner.
You're choosing not to see it. The issue isn't as simple as just eating more peanut butter and jelly, and the site's pages all talk about individuals cutting meat and fish out of their diet. It's supposed to be a cute page about pbj, but it's really just vegetarian advocacy.
but they aren't stating that it's the only possible response
it's the only response they mention.
Basically, a person has to work very hard to find fault with the idea that our agricultural system has negative effects and that those negative effects could be reduced by eating less meat.
basically, a person doesn't have to work very hard to realize that (one more time, now) I never said that.
you've stopped even remotely resembling civility. You're leaping to conclusions about me and my motivations, you're barely even reading what I say, and you're being inordinately defensive of something that I have every right to dislike. You should strongly consider just walking away, because the most you're doing right now is acting like a zealot and kind of a dick to boot.
posted by shmegegge at 11:26 AM on May 23, 2007
I think I found the problem:
This site was cute, they didn't demand that people stop eating all meat or get all up in your face with pictures of animals being slaughtered or something. They just made areasonable obfuscated point asserition that there are clear environmental benefits to eating a little bit less meat peanut butter. Let's not get overly defensive skeptical. Or go out of our way to overthink this plate of beans peanut butter sandwich steaming pile of disingenuous bullshit.
Obviously we are hopeless curmudgeons because the warm fuzzy cute brigade has failed to paralyze our cognitive functions. Don't you feel ashamed? I'm simply flush with revelation!
posted by prostyle at 12:26 PM on May 23, 2007
This site was cute, they didn't demand that people stop eating all meat or get all up in your face with pictures of animals being slaughtered or something. They just made a
Obviously we are hopeless curmudgeons because the warm fuzzy cute brigade has failed to paralyze our cognitive functions. Don't you feel ashamed? I'm simply flush with revelation!
posted by prostyle at 12:26 PM on May 23, 2007
Uncivil? This is me being polite. I haven't called you any names ("dick," "asshole") nor used any obscenity.
Listen, you can feel about the site any way you want, and that's always fine. But you didn't confine your comments to deploring evangelism: you tried to call the logic of the site into question, suggesting that it was presenting 'misinformation' and that the site organizers had not thought out the 'practical applications' of what they're proposing. You asked a lot of poorly constructed questions which you thought might undermine the site's argument, but instead serve to show that you haven't got much information on the topic and that you haven't thought it out. The questions you pose about the ramifications of a changed agricultural system aren't hypothetical, and you're not the first person to ask them; those questions form the foundation of agricultural reform. They have answers, and those answers are readily available. You can begin to work toward some of them by reading some of the sites I linked above.
The thing is, if you're going to call something "bullshit," which you did, you're going to have to show why it's bullshit. You haven't done that, and that's why I keep asking what you're trying to say. Now I understand that what you're really trying to say is that you don't like people advocating for vegetarianism. All right then. You may not like a position, but that doesn't make it bullshit. The site may be silly, poorly organized, and inadequately sourced (it is), but its basic assumptions are not bullshit.
posted by Miko at 12:27 PM on May 23, 2007
Listen, you can feel about the site any way you want, and that's always fine. But you didn't confine your comments to deploring evangelism: you tried to call the logic of the site into question, suggesting that it was presenting 'misinformation' and that the site organizers had not thought out the 'practical applications' of what they're proposing. You asked a lot of poorly constructed questions which you thought might undermine the site's argument, but instead serve to show that you haven't got much information on the topic and that you haven't thought it out. The questions you pose about the ramifications of a changed agricultural system aren't hypothetical, and you're not the first person to ask them; those questions form the foundation of agricultural reform. They have answers, and those answers are readily available. You can begin to work toward some of them by reading some of the sites I linked above.
The thing is, if you're going to call something "bullshit," which you did, you're going to have to show why it's bullshit. You haven't done that, and that's why I keep asking what you're trying to say. Now I understand that what you're really trying to say is that you don't like people advocating for vegetarianism. All right then. You may not like a position, but that doesn't make it bullshit. The site may be silly, poorly organized, and inadequately sourced (it is), but its basic assumptions are not bullshit.
posted by Miko at 12:27 PM on May 23, 2007
« Older So do we "look like" our online handles, too? | Balloon popping photography at the Maker Faire Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by wendell at 12:19 PM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]