On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>
>Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>footprint than a meat based one.
>
>but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>
>You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>aspect of their lives
>
>Jim Webster

That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
really struggling.

The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
industry and swapping over to the much more efficient and planet
friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
in other areas of their lives.

Presently we are nearing global capacity for meat production. Much
more and we are in serious, serious trouble. Go veggie and we
instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
in reserve.

The maths are very simple.