Dave J. > writes
>15:52:34 +0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Oz' wrote:

>>
>>That depends. If you are talking about most of upland britain, its
>>impossible to grow arable crops there so the ONLY resource is grazing by
>>livestock. In this case of course its NOT an inefficient use of
>>resources.
>
>Yes, that makes a good justification for minor meat consumption. Though
>not for the American style gullet stuffing that's threatening to infect
>the globe.

Yes, to an extent. Mind you, outside southern india 'the rest of the
globe' has tended to eat as much meat as it can afford, and always has
done. Its perhaps the total quantity eaten which many find offensive in
the US.

>>Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>>fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>>topsoils worldwide.
>
>I've always figured though that the emissions from decaying vegetable
>matter are more easily either controlled, reduced, or harnessed for
>burning than those from animals.

Maybe, it would be nice to have decaying biomass of all sorts to help
power the wildlife in the world. From earthworms mighty lions feed (via
a few steps, its true).

>Make no mistake, I'm in no way an advocate of humanity turning vegetarian,
>I just see both sides of the debate and accept that we're swinging too far
>into rain forest destroying hamburger-gulping greed that caries a massive,
>almost karmic, future health cost.

Mostly its because the world population is way to big, and growing
bigger. Religions don't in general help, I note.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.