Become a vegetarian and 'save the planet'

Usually when someone in 'authority' says something as stupid as discouraging meat eaters/milk drinkers
because cows breathe in CO2, and fart out H2S,
and some methane {CH4} as natural gas used by billions of households to cook food and heat their homes,{because of undigested vegetative fodder}
not counting the manure used in "organic farming"
his or her country, sic. the U.K. has nothing to contribute at the December 2009 Copenhagen Summit, except monies to help 2nd. and 3rd. World indigenous natives like in water-refluxing rain- forest rejuvenation in drought stricken Africa,
which lost 50 per cent of its rain-making tightly
woven high lush green canopied rain-forests over the last 4 Centuries of colonialism, for commercial constructions timbers, and paper-pulp!

The British already drive high mpg. econoboxes,
so hardly the 6% to 8% CO2/ exhaust heat reductions
the U.S. can do 'til 2020/2024, in terms of redu-cing engine sizes, and making cars/trucks/buses
more lightweight! Their coal fired power plants
albeit state-of-the art clean CO2/steam {carbonic
acid white plumes}, and other fossil fueled plants emitting the same harmless vapors we breathe out
ourselves, from metabolic processes {CO2 and lung
moisture} are so few because of the U.K.'s small size, which can plug into the mostly nuclear power grid European sources!
So what can England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland {with the latter 2 using vast reserves of peat} do, except contribute funds to the IMF/World Bank bodies in helping other ex.colonies help themselves, and perhaps as quid-pro-quo { a
British pound is a quid} grant themselves a depletion tax allowance on their own fossil fuel
depletions???
F.M.
F.M.

The ironic part is vegetarians require more CO2 production to feed than the average omnivore. Since they are stuck with obtaining protiens from plant life like soybeans it requires more prime farmland to make up what you could get from animals such as sheep or cows grazing on a grass covered hill side. The increased amount would be from running the farm equiptment to raise and harvest the crop plus processing it into something human body can easily digest compared to meat which is self propelled for most of it's life and requires much less to render it ready for market.

This is nothing more than the former AGW types switching from CO2 to methane as they realize that the facts really do not support CO2 as being the culprit for warming. Since they need something to blame while not ranchers and farmers.

Plus if you noticed they mention that this would drive up the cost of food in the UK. Same would be true around the planet. Not to mention it would harm the enviroment even more since an increase in tilled farmland would be needed.

All things in moderation. Including immoderation.

I'm not in favor of strict vegetarianism because:

1) like any other strict "ism" it's idiocy (common sense taken to extremes always becomes idiocy)

2) It's difficult to eat meat after giving it up altogether, which seriously limits your options.

I am very much in favor of eating small amounts of meat, as a treat a couple of times a week for example. Excessive meat consumption strain the environment and our health, but I seriously doubt that limited consumption is a problem for either.