World Wildlife Fund says eating meat is greener than vegetarian
 

At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported
meat substitutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532

World Wildlife Fund says eating meat is greener than vegetarian
 

On Feb 12, 10:58*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported
> meat substitutes.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532

That's the UK for ya!

World Wildlife Fund says eating meat is greener than vegetarian
 

On Feb 12, 12:05*pm, Wim van Bemmel > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:12:08 -0800, Chemo the Clown wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 10:58*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >> At least in the UK, they say meat is better than imported meat
> >> substitutes.
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532
>
> > That's the UK for ya!
>
> The best we can do is stop eating altogether. Totally.
> The earth will be saved within weeks.
>
> --
> Groet, salut, Wim.

You go first.

World Wildlife Fund says eating meat is greener than vegetarian
 

I'm not sure WWF is regarded as authoritative on this sort
of thing.

The United Kingdom, unlike the Republic of Ireland or the
United States, is a net meat importer. Therefore, when
a UK person consumes meat, they are adding to demand thus
adding to meat imports, even if the exact meat they are
consuming is local. So I would say it's bogus to conclude
that eating meat in the UK is resource-conserving.

Steve

World Wildlife Fund says eating meat is greener than vegetarian
 

Steve Pope wrote:
> I'm not sure WWF is regarded as authoritative on this sort
> of thing.
>
> The United Kingdom, unlike the Republic of Ireland or the
> United States, is a net meat importer. Therefore, when
> a UK person consumes meat, they are adding to demand thus
> adding to meat imports, even if the exact meat they are
> consuming is local. So I would say it's bogus to conclude
> that eating meat in the UK is resource-conserving.

Does lead to an interesting question though. Usually the efficiency of
agriculture is based in energy per unit area, and on that basis
vegetarianism is a clear winner. But humans don't just need energy--if that
was all we needed we could survive fine on a diet of pure sugar. On that
basis, which is more efficient in producing complete protein, plants or cows
eating plants?