Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Norway's Army Battles Global Warming By Going Vegetarian

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the Erik-the-red-meatless dept.

Earth 495

cold fjord writes "It looks like no more spam, spam, spam for Norway's warriors... at least on Mondays. The Daily Caller reports, 'Norway's military is taking drastic steps to ramp up its war against global warming. The Scandinavian country announced its soldiers would be put on a vegetarian diet once a week to reduce the military's carbon footprint. "Meatless Monday's" has already been introduced at one of Norway's main military bases and will soon be rolled out to others, including overseas bases. It is estimated that the new vegetarian diet will cut meat consumption by 150 tons per year. "It's a step to protect our climate," military spokesman Eystein Kvarving told AFP. "The idea is to serve food that's respectful of the environment." ... The United Nations says that livestock farming is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting meat consumption, environmentalists argue, would help stem global warming and improve the environment." — The Manchester Journal reports, "The meatless Monday campaign launched in 2003 as a global non-profit initiative in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University to promote personal and environmental health by reducing meat consumption.'"

cancel ×

495 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488699)

If Norway was really going to make a dent in Global Warming, they would stop pumping up oil.

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (5, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45488721)

but that's the money they use to import thai spices for their veggie foods for their hipster mondays.

Re: Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488737)

Hipster mondays lol.

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (0)

threaded (89367) | about 9 months ago | (#45489003)

undoing mouse jump moderation problem.

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (1)

mriswith (797850) | about 9 months ago | (#45488761)

If you stop coal burning, oil sand or whatever equally damaging thing your country does first? :P

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488773)

If we stopped pumping up oil then prices would rise and tar sands would get stripped...

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (3, Insightful)

Jakosa (667951) | about 9 months ago | (#45488811)

The classical pusher-argument. If I didn't sell smack someone way more evil than me would.

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488827)

Almost as good as the old "At least I'm not as bad as the North Koreans"

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (1, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45489035)

The classical pusher-argument. If I didn't sell smack someone way more evil than me would.

Except in this case its true. If Western countries stopped pumping oil then prices would rise and Muslim countries would have more money to support terrorism. I don't like it, but its a fact. The best thing would be to switch as much energy production as possible to nuclear and renewables and make up the rest from Western sources,

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (2)

Jakosa (667951) | about 9 months ago | (#45489061)

Who said that the pusher wasn't telling the truth? You are just elaborating my point.

Re:Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488897)

How about a meatless Monday for the oil industry? They're only allowed to export salad oil on Mondays, that'll show 'em!

Re: Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489117)

No don't you get it? The greenhouse effect is caused by farts not oil. We all need to start farting less, start with the cows.

Re: Stop Pumping up OIL!!! (4, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | about 9 months ago | (#45489319)

Cows rarely ever fart. It's their belching that is the problem. I think most posters here have never been around cattle.

An example to follow (2, Interesting)

Camembert (2891457) | about 9 months ago | (#45488709)

I wonder what the impact would be if everyone in the world would have a meatless monday. Of course, in some regions in the world not that much meat is eaten already now, but I expect that the total would be a significant difference.

Re:An example to follow (5, Funny)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about 9 months ago | (#45488727)

cannibalism

Re:An example to follow (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 9 months ago | (#45489271)

thats also meat

Re:An example to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489331)

But it is better for the climate.

Re:An example to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489337)

He didn't say it would occur on Mondays

Re:An example to follow (5, Interesting)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45488743)

:) I wonder what the impact would be if everyone in the world stopped pumping up oil and stopped burning coal in power plants.

Maybe just on Monday...

Re:An example to follow (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488957)

People would starve. Mostly the poor in "rich" countries, though.

Recall that there is a bit of distance between where the food comes from and where it is eaten, and how it bridges that gap.

Re:An example to follow (0)

umghhh (965931) | about 9 months ago | (#45488899)

in these places where there is no much meat consumed it is indeed not much meat consumed per person which because these places are crowded means that they consume quite a lot of meat. There is also another factor at work there - the poor people on the way to become middle income increase their meat consumption much more than their income hike would indicate. The proof of that may be in their waist lines.

Other than that I'd say that this practice of Norwegian army is going only to help their warriors keep healthy. Unless of course they go to nearby mcdonalds (admit almost no wesern army goes anywhere where there are no mcdonalds nearby) to supply 'missing' 'vitamins'.

Re:An example to follow (3, Informative)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 9 months ago | (#45489053)

Norway doesn't have any warriors. That was a long time ago in the age of blood and glory. Today Norway's army consists of young boys, bored out of there minds [youtube.com] that can't wait to get back home, sit in the couch to play Call of Duty and enjoy the highest standard of living in the world.

Re:An example to follow (3, Funny)

belmolis (702863) | about 9 months ago | (#45488905)

Mass release of methane from eating all those beans.

Re:An example to follow (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 9 months ago | (#45488927)

Cows produce 100 litres of methane every day so that's a lot of farting.

Re:An example to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489079)

Would it be more efficient to grow crops for bio-fuel or make a Matrix type scenario for cows and collect their precious methane?

Re:An example to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488929)

At the parental home we already did this for years. But for health reasons, not out of a desire to hug trees. It isn't a bad idea, though I wouldn't do it for the reasons given.

But consider that we're seeing "developing" nations getting more developed, especially the BRICS countries, meaning an emerging middle class, and now that they have money to burn they want to eat well, too. That is going to mean lots more meat, since meat equals wealth.

And that's some 2.9e9 people, on top of the 8.6e8 people making up the "western" world (taken as NA+EU) that're eating the bulk of the industrially produced food (and thus meat) now. So even if it wasn't just Norway but all of the EU and all of North America cutting their meat use with around one seventh, we're still going to have a bit of a problem.

Actually, the problems aren't even with the meat yet. Most of the cooking globally is still being done on hopelessly inefficient wood fires. Burning all the wood means bye bye fertile soil means not even veggies to eat, n'mind the meat.

Re: An example to follow (2)

divec (48748) | about 9 months ago | (#45489189)

India, he "I" in BRICS, has a high proportion of vegetarians. This is true in the prosperous areas as well as the poorest.

Re:An example to follow (1, Insightful)

Bongo (13261) | about 9 months ago | (#45489129)

Food can be controversial, but I'll just chip in that all those fields of wheat and soya rely on intensive agriculture, stripping the diversity, excluding many species, and is heavily reliant on oil.

There is just a meme that veganism is good, CO2 is bad, therefore veganism is an answer to global warming.

Anyone interested in questioning this can read The Vegetarian Myth by a ex-long term vegan lady, as she explored whether veganism actually means less killing in practice, and whether it actually means better health in practice. Also, in Sweden you have the LCHF movement. So I wonder if the army is just trying to save money.

Re:An example to follow (5, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 9 months ago | (#45489333)

Yeah, but most of the soya is fed to animals. 70% of corn grown in the USA is fed to animals. For every kilo of meat you eat, 10 kilos of feedstock went into an animal.

So you could eat less meat, and devote more land to growing plants, which is the essence of carbon capture. And all those animal farts contribute to global warming as well (methane is a greenhouse gas).

Regardless of whether vegetarianism / veganism is better for animals or your health, they require less energy and produce less CO2.

Re:An example to follow (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 9 months ago | (#45489185)

People would respond with meat-packed Tuesday.

Re:An example to follow (2)

HnT (306652) | about 9 months ago | (#45489327)

No, it absolutely would not. All those vegetables and other ingredients had to come from somewhere and our food industry just throws things away when they are expired and then they make just as much as before. A "meatless" day per week is ridiculous and useless, all it will do is slightly increase the amount of meat that gets thrown out on this day.

Well (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 9 months ago | (#45488715)

I typically down a few Cheezburgers over the weekend so I think I can live through a Meatless Monday.

Kardashev scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488725)

This is getting ridiculous.
Lets just switch to nuclear power and be done with it.

After all, it's the only realistic way to become a Type I civilization...

AC because I don't have an account.
Long time lurker, firs time poster.

Re:Kardashev scale (0)

cyborg_zx (893396) | about 9 months ago | (#45488801)

But scary radiation!

Three Mile!

Chernobyl!

Fukishima!

Despite those showing how the worst disasters aren't that bad!

Re:Kardashev scale (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 9 months ago | (#45489137)

Just use the radiation equivalent of the Drake equation, fill it full of made up numbers, and calculate how many are going to die.

Re:Kardashev scale (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#45488833)

Lets just switch to nuclear power and be done with it. After all, it's the only realistic way to become a Type I civilization...

Yes, because there are zero downsides to nuclear power... Compared to fossil fuel it is sort of clean, to be sure, but the byproducts have to be managed for decades or more and if something does go wrong it tends to go wrong rather badly. So yes, it may be not quite as obviously horrible as fossil fuel.

Personally, I would rather current research focus more on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal -- rather than to continue to rely nuclear power.

Oh, and while they make a show of "green research" it's probably not such a great good idea to rely on the current suppliers of oil, gas, coal, etc. to actually do this. For instance, imagine my complete lack of surprise that they would much prefer hydrogen-fueled cars over battery-powered. There may actually be valid arguments for this, but from their point of view it is just too convenient that they already own all infrastructure for distribution and supply of gas/liquids to vehicles whereas they typically have no stake in the electrity grid.

Re:Kardashev scale (1)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 9 months ago | (#45488933)

Personally, I would rather current research focus more on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal -- rather than to continue to rely nuclear power.

The problem with all of those is that there are a limited number of locales where they can work well, and all of them except for geothermal are transient. That means power storage, which means batteries, which means toxic chemical waste. It may or may not be as dangerous on a per-volume basis as nuclear waste (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to answer that), but there would certainly be a hell of a lot more of it.

Re:Kardashev scale (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489019)

Nitpick: power storage does not necessarily mean batteries. Flywheels can also store energy (especially with magnetic bearings and using carbon fiber in a vacuum - eg, a 600 kg flywheel, with a diameter of 50cm, turning at 30,000 rpm, can store 92 MJ - 26 kWh - of energy.) So can pumped storage (pump water up a hill, run it down again when you need the energy.) Or you could use a large thermal mass (eg: solar thermal: the sun heats a substance of some sort, which in turn boils water to generate steam, which is used to drive the generator - the substance can be designed in such a way as to store enough heat to last through the night.)

Whether these are practical or not is another question entirely, and not one I'm going to try to answer here with five minutes' research.

Also: not all batteries necessarily generate toxic waste. A lead acid battery (for example) can be almost completely recycled at the end of its useful life - the only component that can't be recycled is the paper separators wrapped around the lead plates (the fibers are reduced in size so much by the acid, they can't be reused.) Of course, there's the minor issue of getting everybody to get off their backsides and actually recycle the batteries, but in an industrial setting, this shouldn't be too hard...

Re:Kardashev scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489111)

Chemical waste is preferable to nuclear waste because it can be processed, whereas nuclear waste becomes safe only through time.

Re: Kardashev scale (2)

Alex Cane (3296683) | about 9 months ago | (#45489045)

Thorium can help.

Tomorrow in the news: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488733)

Sweden annexed Norway without fighting after shelling Norwegian formations with cans of corned beef.

Re:Tomorrow in the news: (1)

Sique (173459) | about 9 months ago | (#45489207)

Sweden had annexed Norway several times in history, and Norway was part of Sweden until 1905. I guess, both nations know better now.

ridiculous... (3, Insightful)

Maimun (631984) | about 9 months ago | (#45488753)

The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)

Re:ridiculous... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488781)

The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)

Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...

Just run around waving your arms in panic (1)

rve (4436) | about 9 months ago | (#45489209)

Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...

Or you could stop complaining and adapt to a slightly warmer world.

Re:Just run around waving your arms in panic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489309)

Sure, but it's not the "slightly warmer world" - it is the things following from the "slightly warmer world".

Let's adapt by drowning all major cities which lie on the sea shore.
Let's adapt by getting new pests up north.
Let's adapt with problems in food production driving up prices and causing empty shelves.
Let's adapt to extreme weather.
Let's adapt to a potentially global and humankind-annihiliating catastrophy once the methane under ice in Siberia starts to melt and gets released to the atmosphere. It's already bubbling out, you can see it with your eyes.

Earth will go on, some life possibly will also go on but humans are facing the business end of a shotgun at the moment.

There is no lawyer, Hollywood happy ending or a sudden intervention from God which can save us from this, we have to take responsibility and act.

Re:ridiculous... (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 9 months ago | (#45489311)

Or you know we could look for solutions that don't require reduction of carbon emmisions. We could work on atmospheric scrubbing, or other climate engineering technology.

The omg china and the bricks won't cut so we can't do anything crowd is wrong.

The lets cut emissions and slit our economic wrist crowd even though china and the bricks won't are also wrong?

A large portion of the world can't or won't reduce emmisions is simply one of the constraints on the problem a real solution just needs to accommodate it. The current debate would be like if all the people who drempt of flight said, well the universe won't shut of gravity so screw it.

Re:ridiculous... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 9 months ago | (#45489329)

Things can be done. But if we're going to do them we should stop wasting time on token efforts and start making a difference. The net effect from switching to vegetarian diets isn't that great. Farming vegetables like farming cows still has an incredible carbon footprint if for not other reason than the transportation costs. Just less methane producing cows.

This story is cute but it has about the same effect as organising a rally in the name of climate change.

Re:ridiculous... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488787)

Even if I stop killing people at my usual rate of one per week it will make no difference because of the huge number of people being killed by other "so called" things.

Small numbers of people doing stuff is obviously not going to make any difference but small numbers of people start doing anything before large numbers of people do it. Somebody has to be first.

Re:ridiculous... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488795)

Only a drop in the ocean, eh? They did something. What did you do? They found one thing that they CAN do, and did it. Maybe some day the chinese will do one thing also. Or several. I'm sure the US is never going to do a damn thing. They seem selfish assholes.

Re:ridiculous... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45488841)

a tankless monday would do a lot more(or apc'less monday since they have a lot more of those).
a shipless monday would do ten times as more.

Re:ridiculous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488877)

So, the impact on Norway could be significant. Reducing local environmental impact could bring nice health benefits.
Norway have something like 98% of their electricity production from hydroelectric so things that would be insignificant in other nations actually matters in Norway. If 10% of the population started to use electric vehicles then their reduction of carbon emission would be pretty large and with their economy they could easily afford multiple vehicles per family.

Re:ridiculous... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488901)

I agree, the problem should be solved in a different way. did you know that an average USian uses double the energy than an average German (with similar living standards). Maybe it is time that you start having proper insulation in your homes and start investing in quality public transport. I understand that the distances in US are very big (I also come from a very big country), so the contamination associated to the transport is also higher, but if you do proper urban planification those things can be mitigated.

Re:ridiculous... (5, Insightful)

renzhi (2216300) | about 9 months ago | (#45488917)

Per capita wise, we probably should start with the USA. If the Americans eat less meat, drive less and consume less resources, I'm sure that's going to have a very positive impact on their health too, not just the environment of this planet.

Unfortunately, the american lifestyle is a model that most Chinese dream of right now. So this trend is a terrible one. But what do you expect people in other countries to do, when the Americans export their movies in which people are living in big houses, with gigantic backyard, and there are more cars than persons in a family, have a fun life with a lot of meat (fill in your favorite resources)? When people in other countries have the means, they will want the same thing. And they emulate. This is totally normal. That means, in China, people also want a big house, at least a car, or preferably, one car per person, and all the comfort in life that the Americans have been enjoying for so long.

I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort. We watch our carbon footprint carefully. But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots. The planet belongs to everyone, if the Americans/Europeans can enjoy the resources, why can't we?

It would interesting if there was some kind of quota system on all countries in the world, based on the population size. And it would be even more interesting if we can control it at the individual level. You want to enjoy more resources? Pay for it. That money will go to those who have left over. So the rich people can have all the shit they want, as long as they pay for it.

Re:ridiculous... (2)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45488977)

I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort.

That's nice, shame it wouldn't work here... there is no mass transit here and things are too far to walk/bike. It is 105 in the summer and 20 in the winter and everything from the kid's school to the stores are all beyond walking/biking distance.

But more power to you. :) I would never dare to tell you to stop, I only ask that you return the favor. :)

Re:ridiculous... (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45488987)

But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots.

That is because if your stated goal is to "save the planet" then you are indeed idiots.

If your goal is to feel good about yourself and do something that is important to you, then you are not an idiot, you're just you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

There simply aren't enough of "you" and way too many of "me" for your efforts to amount to anything.

It is a simple numbers game, one that you will lose... if your goal of course is to "save the planet".

Re:ridiculous... (1)

renzhi (2216300) | about 9 months ago | (#45489147)

I never tried to convince anyone to save the planet. My arguments have always been it's good for your health, and it saves you a tons of money too. But when people have a "dream", they don't give a shit about other things, they "need" to fullfill their dream first, which is to live the american life.

Re:ridiculous... (3, Informative)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#45489009)

In China, people want to breathe and see across the street.
Most have realized that the American way doesn't apply to their density. Individually, they want it, but collectively they are a lot smarter.

It's gonna get worse for them before it gets better. But they already they kick ass on trains, wind and solar (when the sun can make it to the panels), and their government will do anything that promotes stability. If they keep having these smogs which cause unrest (because the rich have filters), they will look for solutions, and they will invest as much as it takes.

And we'll still be arguing whether 1% or 3% is worth debating.

Several years ago - how about now? (4, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#45488955)

Several years ago I read ...

You may want to try reading this year :)
You must have missed it but China recently made an announcement about not building any more coal fired power stations. That's a very major change and completely pulls the rug out from under your argument - so what may have been a good point in July just makes no sense at all now.

Re:ridiculous... (4, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | about 9 months ago | (#45488971)

The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever

Ah, the good old "It ain't perfect, so I won't have it" fallacy. I can't imagine anybody thinking that this in itself has a significant impact, but that isn't the purpose - it is about starting on the journey. It may be a ten thousand mile journey, but if you don't take the first step, you will never start moving. And unless your body is of a somewhat unusual configuration, you will not be able to do it in one, easy stride. So, get off your backside and start moving forward.

Re:ridiculous... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489099)

I don't know about your claim but China are also planning AND building very many nuclear power stations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Future_projects [wikipedia.org]

The one I could find says 363 coal plants and they might not all be built: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/20/1200-coal-are-plants-being-planned-worldwide-what-happens-if-they-all-get-built/ [washingtonpost.com]

Re:ridiculous... (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 9 months ago | (#45489157)

It has become a "moral" issue, numbers don't matter. Unless you're talking carbon trading, in which case made up numbers and made up money matter a lot. Or would if they could. Who cares if Africa can't turn the lights on? I hope China continues to build infrastructure in Africa, because the West isn't going to help them. Not far from where I used to live in Africa, in a small town, there is now a football stadium, built by the Chinese. I saw it on Google Earth and was like, what the heck is that?

Re:ridiculous... (1)

xelah (176252) | about 9 months ago | (#45489297)

Any individual in China can also make that argument (even more so than a Norweigan, I'd guess). You don't suddenly become relieved of responsibility for your effect on others just because there are fewer people who identify with your country than with that big dirty nasty one over there.

Meatless sunday, monday, tuesday.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488767)

Seriously, who can afford meat every day anymore?
Sounds like serious 20th century first world problems when you have to create a campaign to restrain yourself on only --ONE FUCKING DAY A WEEK-- from buying and eating meat.

Re:Meatless sunday, monday, tuesday.... (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45488803)

almost everyone apart from the poorest in countries where its common to be a vegetarian anyways?

I'm in thailand. pretty much everyone eats meat. sure, it might be just chicken livers bbq'd and bought from a street stall but I'd count that as meat.

of course if they adjust rest of the days so that the average meat protein for week/month/year stays the same it will not make any difference whatsoever to anything.

y@uo 7ail it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488853)

they are Come on AAl; in order to go Little-known Raymond in his

Re:y@uo 7ail it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488869)

they are Come on AAl; in order to go Little-known Raymond in his

My thoughts exactly, could you elaborate further?

Re:y@uo 7ail it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489253)

And on the fourth day, god decided to really get that shit up. She pissed and shat and from this, there came the first man. And she saw this, and decided to obliterate everything and start again. She then fucked her sister, and gave birth to the unvierse awe see today. Just aa5g minatugs agoag.rg5g a;a gs;kjf *LIST* *CARRIER* #LOST#

Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488903)

Vegetarianism is a great threat to the environment precisely because it is more efficient at providing food. The argument is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me.
Being more efficient, it allows to feed more people with the same land. Alternatively, one could feed the same number of people with less land.
The problem is that in whole human history, any increase in efficiency has not been used to reduce the human footprint, but simply to increase the number of people until any advantage created by the increased efficiency is lost. A larger number of people don't just need the same land as before, but, they also need more water, more metals, cause more emissions and generally consume a lot more. Therefore, the final effect, just for the increase of people, will be a worsening of environmental conditions.
This is exactly what has happened quite recently. The book "The population bomb" is often derided for inaccurately predicting mass starvation.
This wasn't so much because the calculations were wrong but, rather, because a massive increase in efficiency of food production, the so called Green Revolution.
The Green Revolution would have allowed the same number of people to live with a much smaller footprint but, guess what happened ?
The population grew instead to match the new capability and the environment is in more in trouble than ever. Plus we now have a much bigger population to maintain, with ever growing expectations.
This is applies to any increase in efficiency, not just food and vegetarianism. When you are urged to save more water, food or energy, whatever is saved never goes to a better environment (it might, temporarily, until the population grows to match the new limit), it just goes to grow more people and make matter worse.
So, please, waste more, it is very damaging to the environment, but the alternative is far worse.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (5, Insightful)

trynis (208765) | about 9 months ago | (#45489135)

But the population isn't really increasing in the western world where we have all the food we can eat. By your reasoning western populations should be increasing a lot. The number of people will stop increasing when also poor countries have enough food and good health care so that parents are confident that the children they get will reach adulthood.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489227)

Before Green revolution, world population 3.5 B. After 7 B. Before the Green Revolution there were forecasts of mass starvation.
But now double the people exist. This means that more than twice the food is produced now than then. This means, according to your
theory, the world population should have stopped growing because heaps more food was becoming available.
Instead, the population doubled.

Population in the Western World is increasing by migration from other areas. US population grows faster (in %) than China. Australia is
faster (in %) than India or Bangladesh. In some places due to religion etc., the population keeps growing.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489191)

...Tea Party logic? This is absolutely just about the most inane thing I've ever come across.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489279)

Write a counterargument instead of blabbing insults then.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (1)

kieran (20691) | about 9 months ago | (#45489213)

So your answer is to live more luxuriously in the aim of causing starvation. Nice.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489237)

Yours instead is doing business as usual so you have a worse problem in the future and hence, more starvation when exponential growth eventually reaches some fundamental limit.
Your non solution will cause even more starvation. Very clever.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489257)

Your non solution is instead business as usual which will result in even more starvation when eventually the exponential growth reaches some fundamental limit.
Very nice.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 9 months ago | (#45489221)

Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world population will peak at 9-10 billion. There's a fill-up effect but we're not in a boom anymore, if we don't run into other issues like resource exhaustion, global warming or whatever it looks like we won't have any problems feeding the whole world population. The roughly 0,1% of the world population that will starve to death this year do so because of civil war and chaos, not because we can't increase food production another 0,1%. If it was possible to safely deliver aid nobody would need to starve.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (4, Informative)

jhol13 (1087781) | about 9 months ago | (#45489223)

Utter bullshit.

The fertility rate in Norway is below two, has been since 1970s and is likely to stay for the foreseeable future.

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489315)

Who cares about Norway : the world went from 3.5 B to 7 B in 35 years!

Re:Vegetarianism makes it a lot worse (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 9 months ago | (#45489235)

So let me see if I understand you. It is far better to dedicate living space, vegs and medicines to cattle than humans?

But... but... (1)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 9 months ago | (#45488941)

How will the troops live without lutefisk [wikipedia.org] ?

Math (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 9 months ago | (#45488983)

Decrease of 150 tons of meat. Global production of meat 180 million tons. 150/180,000,000 - 0.00005%. Decrease in greenhouse gasses: 0.00005*.18 =0.000009%. Get a million of those together and you would have something.

how to piss off an alien/human hybrid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488985)

The 'beasts' share the same scent - how to piss off an alien/human hybrid

the hybrids carrying filthy spawn (like in the days of Noah) are easy to SNIFF out, literally, they all smell the same when you're in the proper state of mind.

some of them have eyes which appear to be bugging out of their face.

even if you can't detect the scent of the hybrids, or 'beasts', inhale deeply whenever the hybrids are close, don't express any emotion, just keep inhaling deeply and make your facial expression be that of deep contemplation.

when you do this, they know that you know what their true reality is - it's like the movie THEY LIVE where Nada sees the truth through the glasses and confronts them.

don't confront, just inhale deeply. maybe shake your head and laugh, mumble about stupid aliens but nothing deep.

Re:how to piss off an alien/human hybrid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489287)

The easiest way is to look at them. If their noses are abnormally narrow, their skin pale whitish and slightly multicolored (reddish is the main other color, but blues and browns may also be observed), and often their eyes are not brown, then it's quite possible you've got a stinking hybrid.

They claim to come from Europe, but we know the truth. The fucking scum need to be exterminated.

In favor of what? (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 9 months ago | (#45488993)

Off the top of my head I can't think of a whole lot of options for locally-produced protein in Norway. If you eliminate the animal proteins, what's left? How much carbon is Norway saving if they have to ship more nuts and beans in from overseas, particularly if the alternative is wild-caught fish?

Re:In favor of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489317)

Fungus-based protein, hemp-based protein, other vegetable-based protein, such as beans.

Now I understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489023)

...why Garfield hates Monday.

even better, why don't they (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489041)

just eat each other every other week? oh wait...

Sounds more like they're battling feelings (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 9 months ago | (#45489145)

of responsibility

They need to formulate graphene into a device for ultradense storage of hydrogen. Then they could use their hydro-electric to separate the hydrogen from the carbon, make graphene gas (hydrogen gas) tanks from the carbon, put the hydrogen in it an sell 'em pre-filled to owners of Toyota fuel cell cars. That would help cut down on the feelings of responsibility for global warming.

Indians are not a model (-1, Flamebait)

moerre (2948541) | about 9 months ago | (#45489199)

A (very well educated) Indian friend of mine, when their food came up in an aside in a conversation between us, dryly commented that Indians haven't done well at any major sports. You just can't build your body very well without animal protein. That is why veganism, the extreme form, is - to put it mildly - not recommended for children.

SORRY (1)

moerre (2948541) | about 9 months ago | (#45489201)

Completely messed up that reply, was meant for a completely different guy. Why can't I delete or edit anything here????

Re:SORRY (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 9 months ago | (#45489291)

Because /. hates you. I can edit posts.

Edit: see?! It's easy if you know how.

Re:Indians are not a model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489263)

"You just can't build your body very well without animal protein". Could you give any evidence to back that up?

Evidence, from the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada [1]: This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein [...]. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients.

Vegetarians cannot do well at any major sports? Well go tell Carl Lewis, who won a few gold medals in athleticism being not vegetarian, but vegan!

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12778049
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lewis

What a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489163)

I can't believe a country other then the USA actually take this hoax as real. Too bad there are less sun spots then expected that are preventing the temp to go up. Norway is just finding a way to save money I think at the expense of the soldiers.

Just one day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489165)

Meatless Monday?

In India, meat eaters typically only eat meat ONCE a week. That's not one day a week - just ONE meal a week. And then there are crores of vegans, lacto-vegetarians and lacto-ovo-vegetarians.

We're always astonished how westerners start their day with meat.

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489171)

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Why does Slashdot keep repeating this ridiculous meme, over and over and over?

Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' (4, Funny)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 9 months ago | (#45489243)

How did you get to be so shit at trolling?

I am a vegetarian and find this idiocy (0, Troll)

slashbart (316113) | about 9 months ago | (#45489251)

Typical meaningless symbolism to appease the members of the Green church.

Pure greenwash (1, Informative)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 9 months ago | (#45489289)

This has nothing to do with global warming. Its an excuse to change diet of people who can't object to something less natural than eating meat or fish.

I predict a revolt amongst the ranks

Religious choice (-1, Troll)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 9 months ago | (#45489323)

Vegetarianism is a religious choice and it is horrible to see that choice foisted upon people. Usually it is weirdo movie stars or musicians trying to force the crew working on their productions to do this crap; not sensible countries and their militaries. The furthest this should go is to give the soldiers a Vegetarian option and go no further.

This would make sense if Norway wasn't one of the larger oil producers in the world or was suffering from an inability to obtain meat.

Think how far this would fly if they started using Sharia Law in the Military?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>