<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>LAist: Comment of the (Earth) Day: Vegetarian = Less Pollution</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php</link>
<description>All comments for Comment of the (Earth) Day: Vegetarian = Less Pollution</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2008 la_jeremy</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>jeremy.oberstein@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>jeremy.oberstein@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>samkim</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1345168</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1345168</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:32:29 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;nuts and meat use the most water per pound to sustain. i think meat was at 20,000 or so. it was ridiculous. besides, less meat is healthier.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>charmon</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1344720</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1344720</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:31:56 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Kokrra (and the New Yorker) is absolutely right, but I think the more important point is that every person should be more aware of the impact of their food choices. One can&apos;t deny the detrimental effects of agribusiness (meat or veg) and I don&apos;t think a lot of people are aware of them. So having the discussion and making food choices that at least *try* to minimize your impact is worthwhile. Although, if you&apos;re choosing to go veg for environmental reasons, then buying beans that have traveled half the planet may defeat the purpose.

And about clearing forests to graze cattle - I think everyone should be eating less meat anyway so we should be raising less cattle and hopefully it would kinda even out. Of course, that&apos;s easy for me to say since I don&apos;t eat meat :P&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Kokrra</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1344670</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://laist.com/2008/04/22/comment_of_the_1.php#comment-1344670</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:11:22 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;An Excerpt from &quot;new Yorker&quot; some months ago



&quot;Does producing a pound of lentils involve burning less fossil fuel than producing a pound of hamburger meat, or more? How many square miles of forest are cleared to graze cattle? How much biodiversity is lost both in grazing livestock and in raising the corn and soybeans to fatten them?&quot;


Yet the energy-cost argument is formidably complicated and cannot by itself support refusing all forms of meat in favor of all forms of plant matter: shooting and eating the deer chewing up the tulips in your garden may turn out to be more environmentally virtuous than dining on tofu manufactured from Chinese soybeans, and walking to the local supermarket for a nice hanger steak cut from a grass-fed New Zealand steer may be kinder to the planet than getting into your Toyota Prius to drive five miles for some organic Zambian green beans. 



http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/01/22/070122crbo_books_shapin?currentPage=all
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>