I must disagree.

The American Dietetic Assosciation has said that vegan diets are perfectly healthy for all life stages (including children)

Vegans have significantly lower obesity rates that meat-eaters.

Additionally, there are a lot of professional athletes who are vegan or vegetarian- and they aren't "unhealthy"; rather, they're performing at peak health.

And how much of the above-named gases does the human body itself produce, either directly of indirectly?

I'm ready to go vegetarian to fight global warming. I will pass the word on to my cubical-mates as well!

I think people and the planet would both be much healthier if everyone gave up meat (or cut their consumption drastically). I agree it's not likely to happen though.

Tom, human health suffers because humans eat meat. Going to a pure vegetarian diet is a triple win: it's good for your health, good for the environment, and good for preventing suffering and cruelty.

You would have a real hard time to not get enough protein. Most Americans get twice the recommended amount. Nobody needs to eat any meat. That’s not just my opinion either it’s a fact. Meat eating is a terrible addiction but one that can be beaten. We are now faced with a choice of giving up meat or letting millions of people die because of the effects of global warming. That’s the choice you have. Go vegetarian or kill people with your meat eating habit.

This just makes me wonder, how much greenhouse gasses are our pets emiting? Should we all give up our pets for the good of humanity? Personally, I'll have a large dog as a house pet until the day that I die.

I continually want to question the scientists on the very basic "controllable" aspects of global warming. How much additional fuel must be burned daily to provide the increased lighting in our cities to combat crime; would we be better off building more prisons and giving out tougher sentences? How much extra fuel is burned producing and fueling the police cars used to combat this high crime rate? Perhaps there is a global reason to confront the Baltimore crime problem!

Shifting gears slightly along the same lines, should childless couples be given carbon credits which they can sell on the open market? After all, look at how many carbon dioxide exhaling people they have prevented from populating the planet!

So many thoughts, so little space.

Tom, Let's hear some more information about the CAFO business going on over the MD./PA. line. I think your readers would be interested in knowing how much swine manure they will be digesting every time they eat a crab or a rock fish. Pennsylvania is failing to hold up their end of the bargain in regards to the Chesapeake Bay initiatve as Department of Environmental Protection rubber stamps at least 6 or more Concentrated Animal Feeding operations every week. Marylanders better get used to the taste of manure because we all know that it flows down stream. I find it unbelievable how little concern Maryland has for what is going on right over their border to the north and right under their noses as well. Mega meat producers could care less about our personal health or the health of the Bay and until someone opens the eyes of the general public and consumers who buy factory farm meats we are all headed for a "world of s---. I'll let you fill in the blank. contact pbccg@hotmail.com for more information on the Gemmill cafo of peach bottom and the rest of the story on Pennsylvania's DEP (otherwise known as Don't Expect Protection)

Great comments from Pasadena Roy.

"My personal reaction: forget about the politics of the idea (this would be about as popular as outlawing more than one child as a method of fighting global warming)."
It's hard to forget politics, we all live in a political world, our actions and choices effect those around us and the environment. The idea that food is merely a personal choice is false one. However, there is no need to legislate anything upon anybody. Never mind if Global Warming is real or not, animal food industries pollute and damage the environment, even pastured animals. The logical reasons to opt out of animal food are there. The nutrition science to support a plant based diet is available in your local library or on the Internet.

Education solves human population growth, educated people breed less, no need for laws. However, the fastest way to reduce unsustainable populations of the billions of domesticated land animals used for food is to stop creating demand (and no, not all at once in one day, but gradually over ten or twenty years time). These animal would never exist in these number naturally and land is finite. Less space for domestic animals means more space for wild species that are crucial to maintain the Earths decreasing bio-diversity. By eschewing fish, their populations would increase before they are fished out and to help return the oceans to a more healthy state.

"Would human health suffer if everyone gave up meat?"
Aside from other issues that effect health, like poverty and disease, regions of India and China that follow a more plant based diet do okay. There are so many plant based health books and gurus and cook books on the market it's bizarre that this is even a question.

"Especially the health of children, who might have a hard time getting enough protein?"
Protein deficiency of a plant based diet is a myth. It happens to people who are staving, not because they haven't eaten meat. The 1970s concept of protein combining in plant based meals turned out to be misleading and unnecessary. So long as a child or anyone on a plant based diet gets enough calories and decent variety of plant food it's not hard at all. Arguably it's easier for children since they eat why you give them. If the concern is the matter of smaller stomach volume for a child, than feed them less junk food and more nutrient dense food like peanut butter, hummus, guacamole, lentil salads and spreads, or nuts like cashews, hazelnuts and almonds. That's some yummy kid snack food right there, packed with protein, healthy fats and other good stuff.

"Would obesity rates increase even more if people abandoned meats and consumed more carbohydrates?"
Obesity rates are highest in countries that consume the most meat. I'm not saying that this is a cause and effect relationship, but the association is there. Also, those on a plant based diet tend to be slimmer than average. Again, may or may not not be due to the diet, but the data is there. Whether or not a plant based diet is healthier than an animal based diet it moot in this context. We know that people do fine on a plant based diet, assuming that health outcomes and disease risks are identical to a animal based diet the plant based one wins out overall on environmental sustainability. The concerns of humane treatment, inspections, parasites, and recalls that are associated with animal food is bypassed entirely.

The assumed dichotomy between protein and carbohydrates underlines the problem in our culture in relearning how to eat in order to adopt a plant based diet. It's not a choice between a steak or pasta, hamburgers or french fires, bacon or cornflakes, there's an abundance of whole food vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds and fruits. If people were eating these as they should be in the first place, the exclusion of meat would not be such a big deal.

My personal reaction: Stop subsidizing animal feed crops and stop subsidizing the production of meat, eggs, dairy and fishing. Let the actual costs be reflected to consumers. Prices will go up, or more accurately, prices will be what they should be. Demand will go down. The rich can continue eating meat and sushi the same way they buy fur coats and fuel-inefficient cars. There's no Constitutional entitlement to meat. If a person wants animal products, they are free to pay it's true costs. Whole food fruit and vegetable that don't get subsidized will be quickly adopted for the values that they truely are. The environmental damage caused by domesticated food animals and the rapid depletion of fisheries will decrease. Plant agriculture makes waste too, but not nearly to the degree of animal agriculture and fishing industries.

This is entirely fair and reasonable. Those already on plant based diets should not be forced to pay for luxury foods of others along with being burdened with environmental and other unseen costs.

Wait a second here. What are we trying to achieve? Lower global temperatures? Have we decided now as a group of strong intelligent citizens what that is? That is assuming that we can. Someone with a calculator ought to be able to do a little multiplication and tell the world how much or how little meat I must or must not eat in order to lower the temperature a half degree. So are we actually trying to lower temperatures a half degree here because I'm for that, I guess?? How much should I eat and how long? And I really like the crime person. Now cleaning up the streets of crime will lower global warming? Gosh folks
next it'll be dental caries. Maybe then we'll all go to the dentist more often by bus of course or bike. I haven't come up with a behavior change that I feel everyone should do but when I do, I will be sure to tie it to Global Warming for maximum impact.

http://ournearlyperfectearth.typepad.com/my_nearly_perfect_earth/