Al Gore missing a large portion of the PROBLEM.

I stumbled opon this on Youtube and thought it was pretty interesting, especially coming from the Glenn Beck show. He'll coincide with anything as long as it draws a more defined (imaginary) line between the two major political parties. Being a vegan, I think it sums up our view on being truly ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE.

Glenn Beck and Peta VS. Al Gore

I think he makes perfect point about how easy it would be to eat meat alternatives instead of buying an ugly $40,000 dollar hybrid and still make a substantial difference for our environment.

Sorry about the Hyperlink. I tried to embed it every possible way and it wasn't having it....

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
. Being a vegan, I think it sums up our view on being truly ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE.

please explain how being a vegan makes you truly environmentally aware. i love meat and i hunt and i promise ive done more for conservation than most have dreamed of. and im not talking about protesting or not eating meat. im talking about taking my butt outside and actually doing something to physicaly helping our environment for the future generations...


i dont think i took this out of context but if i did sorry.

[edit on 15amu42007 by DaleGribble]

[edit on 15amu42007 by DaleGribble]

That's cool that you've done a lot for the environment but I think you may have missed the point of the video. Adopting a vegan diet puts less strain on the ecosystem in it's entirety. IF you'd watch through the video, the guy from PETA gets into that...


Sometimes it's not what you do but what you don't do. And I'm not here to preach but I'm interested in the feedback.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


i would have to disagree with that. what puts a strain on the environment is not properly manageing wildlife populations and destroying wetlands and forests. i grew up on a farm in which i particapated in several wild life studies for federal and local natural resource departments, i have a 2 year degree in environmental biology and i was a demonstrator for clemson u's master wildlifer program. i have read many studies that would support the fact that allowing wildlife to reproduce uncontrolled can only lead to the destruction of our environment.

allow me to give you a few links to this effect.
www.dnr.sc.gov...
www.ducks.org...
www.forestry.gov.uk...$FILE/Wildlife.pdf

anyways my point is that i donot condone killing for sport, but for food and ensuring a healthy population of wildlife for the future. so i really dont see how being a vegan makes you truly environmentally aware, to me it would seem just the oppisit.

peta is aginst hunting. is that a fair statement?
so they condone overpopulation inbreeding and starving of animals.
that doesnt seem verry eco-frendly to me. im sorry but my life experinces and schooling has taught me diffrently. i really dont think i missed the point. i have no problem with vegans. i just think anyone who supports and or takes anything they say is supporting a failed logic and needs to be reeduicated...

i really dont want to preach either, and im not out to presuade you to start eating meat.





[edit on 15amu52007 by DaleGribble]

it is not about hunting for food ... it is about cattle, swine, foul, etc. that are raised in masses. The amount of food that goes into raising them to 'eatin' age could feed many more people for a long time versus the fewer people on a one time meal.

I worked in a slaughterhouse (well, the processing side of it). The amount of power and fuel required to run that place is quite a bit.

So, we have ... a massive amount of feed for a lot of animals. The fuel to supply the transportation of the food source. The fuel for transporting the animal. The fuel for the trucks that just move refrigerated trailers around the lot once packed. The energy required to keep those trailers cool, keep the freezers cold (the whole processing side is near freezing), the fuel for electricity for lights, compressors (lots of air powered saws of various sizes), it goes on and on.

When I was there, they weren't at full speed from U.S. meats being banned (mad cow disease) at the time ... still managed a couple thousand a day. That was just one facility and I could see a huge environmental cost.

I am actually a vegetarian after working there, once you see what goes on, it is less appealing, and the smell is never the same.


Some people don't think the Hybrids are ugly, and ... they aren't 40,000. Most can be purchased around 20,000 ... even the Prius, but, once you add options ... the Prius has a 10,000 package, that doesn't include everything. I personally liked the look of the Insight. I drive a Civic Hybrid which I paid under 20,000 for and average around 50 mpg (lowest 36 mpg highest 88 mpg on a tank of fuel heavy city traffic/red lights/steep hills vs open highway). Compare that to most of the vehicles I used to own ... one got 9 mpg (Pontiac 400 ci big block), to 12 mpg (chevy 350), 17 mpg (Mercury 6 cyl), to 21 mpg (Mazda rotary/wankel). I would say, hybrids save me quite a bit of gas over a year.

There is a lot people can do ... reduce consumption on all levels. Just altering the way you drive and proper vehicle maintenance can greatly increase you mileage (less gas, less brake). Using efficient things in your home. Start your own garden and grow your own fruit and veggies can help as well.


Even if we aren't the main cause of the problem, it sure wouldn't hurt to be responsible instead of wasteful. It can save you money ... what better reason than that!


If you use all of what you kill, kudos. If you hunt for sport, well, you are silly IMHO ... how about we play a hunting game ... go to africa without a gun and see which animal wins ... the human or one of the others. Maybe a monkey will use your head as a trophy on its branch. Big difference between being a survivalist and being a moron. Though I don't like hunting at all, if you do it with the proper intentions, then I don't have quarrels.



Al Gore does some things that seem to go against the grain of his statements, but, he thinks he has made up for it by buying those carbon ticket things. I agree though, a smaller house and being more efficient would better suit his cause and look better. Reducing his meat consumption and growing his own food would too. Does he do what is feasible for his lifestyle and not so extreme others in his 'bracket' would find it hard to match? No. It is a start, but it definitely isn't the perfect example. The problem is, the anti-environment people complain he doesn't do enough, yet they do nothing ... if he did more, he would be labeled a extremist ... where is the proper middle ground for him to satisfy each extreme? Rich people are not going to live in poverty, but, they will buy fluorescent bulbs and hybrids. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.


Remember, we are all human. Give people a break sometimes. Consider what you would do in their positions with their passions. This world isn't black and white, and this world isn't meant to cater to any single person in particular ... though we should all consider what we can do to better the world we all share and your children with inherit. Even if the warming is nature not humans ... do you still need to pollute the air and water? I hope not, I like going for a walk and breathing fresh air and taking a sip from a stream. I don't care for seeing or breathing smog and drinking polluted waters.



I do have a question ... wildlife reproduced without our interference for quite some time, why do we now need to control it? Is it because we have taken all the land and put concrete and steel on top of it? So ... by destroying the wetlands and forests, we created the population problem, which isn't really a problem, but, animal refugees that had their homes decimated. I think if we built up and down, more than out and around ... a lot of those problems wouldn't exist.


Most people aren't eating wild animals, so, the whole vegan issue is moot when it comes to the population control which you inferred.


Seems that humans are the problem Maybe we do need to colonize Mars and the Moon ... then we could let this ecosystem repair itself and visit its beauty and appreciated it. Cover the barren rocks in space with cities ... no problems, right? Pollute, destroy, etc. as much as you want, since, they say there is no life out there. The problem is, the life here doesn't have a say ... even the humans if they disagree with pollution and waste.


Remember, blaming the animals for problems we create isn't fair. That is why surfers don't get mad at the sharks for biting them, I have heard them say on the news, they were invading the sharks territory. Just like overpopulation and starvation is our fault ... since we reduced their landspace ... so ... what better way to fix it than to kill them ... well, people are overpopulated and starving (and inbreeding ), why not do the same thing?


You don't have to go overboard to make a difference, just one little step at a time. Do what you can. Don't blame others for being passionate about saving the planet, someone has too. I admire their enthusiasm. I just do what I can personally and within my limits and boundaries. I still have my toys and thrills.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist


I do have a question ... wildlife reproduced without our interference for quite some time, why do we now need to control it? Is it because we have taken all the land and put concrete and steel on top of it? So ... by destroying the wetlands and forests, we created the population problem, which isn't really a problem, but, animal refugees that had their homes decimated. I think if we built up and down, more than out and around ... a lot of those problems wouldn't exist.

good question, actually wildlife has not gone on forever without proper control. all through out history there has been a preditor for every prey, t-rex for what ever sharks for fish, crocks for antilope and so on. but now we are the top predator and its falls on us to control the population. but i agree one hundred % with you on destroying our environment. nothing makes me mader than seing a new walmart going up.stopping that would probably reduce strain on our environment more than not eating meat.

i dont want to be an a$$ but did you check out the links, uncontrolled wildlife refuges are detrimental to an eco system. animals are not much unlike us they spread dease overpopulate to the point of starvation and so on.


you still havent shown me how being a vegan makes you truly environmentaly aware. i was pointing out that im verry environmentaly aware and i will dare say more that most and i eat meat.

[edit on 15pmu12007 by DaleGribble]

I completely understand how local ecosystems can be overwhelmed by a certain species that's not the issue though. I am not here to defend PETA either, being as I'm not a member and don't think I'd associate myself with the organization. My views differ from theirs in a number of issues.

Now that we have that cleared up... The issue here isn't an overwhelming over-population by natural means but exactly the opposite. Beef has become a staple in the American diet. Along with an ever increasing obesity rate due to the biggest beef market in the world; fast food, It's also the reason for a large amount of the new "global warming" phenomenon. The effects of this beef market are more detrimental than all vehicle carbon emissions combined, which is a main arguing point for the "Iconvenient Truth" campaign.

Adopting a vegan lifestyle is helpful in a number of ways. We don't contribute to the beef or poultry industry in a whole, meat, leather, etc.. which does a substantial amount of damage to local eco systems and it's man made strains and pressures. We don't contribute to water pollution, methane production, or the destruction of small eco systems around the world on a scale in which the meat industry does.

You may be a homegrown conservationist but hunting deers isn't going to stop the decay of our ozone, the incredibly damning effect to amazing amounts of land, and the overall annihilation of eco-systems in grazing land. As much as your actions may help on a small scale, your daily actions can be hurting the very same part of nature you're trying to sustain.

I'm not attacking you in the least for eating meat but if you're not part of the overall solution, you're usually contributing to the problem. You may be purifying your local food chain but if you're eating burgers or steaks like most Americans, you're taking part in the very reason why conservation efforts are taking HUGE hits from lobbying by the Meat Companies.For Example.

Here's a few quick comparisons.

I'm not saying "meat is bad" but this current level of meat production is TERRIBLE for us in it's entirety.. There's no real argument for Pro-industry.
It's okay to agree, man.

reply to post by DaleGribble


I forgot another part of your question..

I did GENERALIZE that but usually if you're vegan, you're not driving a hummer, hunting, and eating your 1.6 burgers a day from a fast food restaurant. That sounds condescending but it's not mean't to be.

Our inaction is more productive than the Elk hunters actions in most respects. Get it?

I eat meat, I like to think that I am environmentally aware (yes, I really am starting to get my head round this carbon footprint stuff, if late), and I am particularly proud of myself today because I bought my first ever energy efficient light bulbs. It was really nice, they were in Tescos and I found them no problem. I worry about vegans wanting to own the environment, because they have a tendency to be overly austere and make environmentalism a misery, whereas my new light bulb works, it looks nice, etc. If we make environmentalism a misery, we either need a tyranny to implement it or people won't bother. And I'm going to eat some meat.

well it would seem that we have the same agenda(the environment). my whole point was im extremly eco-aware and im not a vegan. i felt that statement was underminding everything i have done to help our environment. and for the record ive done a lot more than killing a few animals to help the environment. i cant say never but i rarely eat meat that i didnt process my self.

Originally posted by redled
I eat meat, I like to think that I am environmentally aware (yes, I really am starting to get my head round this carbon footprint stuff, if late), and I am particularly proud of myself today because I bought my first ever energy efficient light bulbs. It was really nice, they were in Tescos and I found them no problem. I worry about vegans wanting to own the environment, because they have a tendency to be overly austere and make environmentalism a misery, whereas my new light bulb works, it looks nice, etc. If we make environmentalism a misery, we either need a tyranny to implement it or people won't bother. And I'm going to eat some meat.

Or we could make a big joke about our enviroment falling apart because of our disgretions and continue to perpetuate it's downfall along with a bad joke or two. Non of my comment were "DO THIS OR ELSE." You can lead the sheep to water but you can't make it drink.... So to speak.

Also, I don't think you know how easy it is to be a vegetarian or vegan these days. They have healthfood sections at my mormon owned grocery store 4 blocks away that is packed with good tasting, healthy alternatives. It's not like it's iconvenient to make dietary changes. We all know the only reasons for a meat diet for the average person are all kind of trivial or selfish.... To each their own, I guess.

Originally posted by DaleGribble
well it would seem that we have the same agenda(the environment).

Exactly. Although I would never hunt an animal, I think that's more commendable than 2 number 3's at hugeburger with no regard for anything, you know?

No, I'm not suggesting all vegans are nutters, but having a vegan ownership is dangerous, because then it turns to the contrasts and so the extremities. I know vegans are very environmental on the whole, but can be a little religious, hence the worry of ownership. I'm certainly not trying to do you down over two lightbulbs.......

reply to post by redled


There's a mile wide gap between their extreme views and your apathetic ones. Moderation comes into play in that big grey area you've seemed to overlook. And not just you... The average person seems to believe everything is a "black and white" issue.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


My views on the environment are not apathetic, I'm reasonably aware, and am quite into SWB (Subjective Well Being) as a means of getting round carbon emissions in ways of organising our lives. The whole thing opens up the kettle of fish of organising our behaviour in the face of finite resources and environment. To achieve anything you need good will or bearabilitity for people to comply without coercion. I just worry about veganism being a shout over my views. I'm glad you enjoy vegansim though.

reply to post by redled


Well put. Vegan or not, I think we could ALL be doing quite a bit more than we are now.

First of all, Al Gore is in the green movement for one thing

MONEY

Get ready for the next edition of taking the citizen's money.

Carbon taxing...

I won't go into that, you will be seeing it frequently in the near future.

You will be made to feel guilty and accept this

Back on topic,

I would consider it gluttony

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to eat a meat meal every day,

Let alone 3 times a day.

Once or twice a week is more than sufficient,

At least in my country, US, it has become habit to overindulge in any meal. The bigger the better, look at the burger joints, who in the world would ever need to devour a triple 1/4 pounder?

They sell like hotcakes, why?

Because people buy them.

The only people who would need this type of caloric intake are those involved in constant physical activity, those who burn this amount of calories on a daily basis.

If your arse is planted in an office chair or lounging in the home recliner you would be better of with a lighter menu.

Does this mean you should be a vegan?

Absolutely not,

Adjusting your diet to reduce the daily intake of meat products in proportion to your individual activities will drasticly reduce the consumption and also result in healthier citizens.

For those caught in the trap of the BIG meal,

Don't feel guilty, you are the victim of an agressive marketing campaign which makes this overindulgence appear the norm.

MONEY, it's all about the money......

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


If we try we've all got something to give. Educating moderation with resource expensive meat is good, but the point of getting the coalition that is not just our populations, but something viable world wide means we need our aspirations, safety, support and creature comforts respected. Taking them away would be folly and I know vegans who do precisely that. If you do it for your own beliefs then it is noble, but if the law imposes it, acrimony is bound to ensue. That said, you've rightly pointed out there is a lot more that we could all do.