7/10    Wanted to revive this:
        \_ Why??!!

        No it's not, it tells us how much water beef takes.  It also takes
        more of many other resources such as fuel and space. Why is
        disingenuous to look at the amount of resources a certain diet
        takes?  Meat eating simply uses way more resources. Now whether or
        not that matters to you is a different issue, isn't it?
        \_ The point here is that water usage is not defined in a
           vacuum. Looking at how much water a cow drinks versus how much
           water a tree needs is not too informative in itself. So much more
           is involved in growing, preparing, transporting, and storing the
           foods. Is that gallons/pound number derived by adding in how many
           gallons it takes to grow feed or is it just what the cow drinks?
           How much of that water is taken of the water cycle and in what
        No it's not, it tells us how much water
        beef takes.  It also takes more of many
        other resources such as fuel and space.
        Why is disingenuous to look at the amount
        of resources a certain diet takes?  Meat
        eating simply uses way more resources.
        Now whether or not that matters to you
        is a different issue, isn't it?
        \_ The point here is that water
           usage is not defined in a vacuum.
           Looking at how much water a cow
           drinks versus how much water a tree
           needs is not too informative in
           itself. So much more is involved in
           growing, preparing, transporting,
           and storing the foods. Is that
           gallons/pound number derived by adding
           in how many gallons it takes to grow
           feed or is it just what the cow
           drinks? How much of that water is
           taken of the water cycle and in what
           way? What other factors are involved?
           \_ Instead of feeding the grain to a cow for 4 years, you could
              feed it to a person.  Thus you can either feed a bunch of cows
              \_ Yes and you could take all the rich peoples' money and give it
                 to the poor and everybody would be equal and happy and all
                 inequality in the world would be done away with.  That said, I
                 was under the strong impression that there was more than
                 enough food to go around, but that idiotic trade policies
                 and distribution inefficiencies kept it from even going on the
                 market.  Anyway, just kill yourself and stop wasting natural
                 resources--we'll see to it that you're composted in an eco-
                 friendly manner.  Remember to not use a gun, though--lead is
                 a pollutant.  -John
              or a bunch of people, or feed some cows to a few people.  I
              cannot believe anyone is actually challenging these common sense
              results.  Of course the amount of water used to grow the feed
              is added to the final tally.  Your tone reminds me of President
              Bush and "climate change" ... No matter how many peer reviewed
              studies come out, we need to do more research to be absolutely
              sure our decision are based on "science"
              \_ I personally am not sure human activity is the chief cause
                 of global warming. -- ilyas
                 \_ What is your alternative hypothesis?
                    \_ The chief cause could be the natural climate cycle,
                       which is still fairly poorly understood.  -- ilyas
                       \_ And purple-haired monkeys could fly out of your butt,
                          but it's probably not very likely.
                       \_ Thank you for totally proving my point.
                          \_ "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's
                              atmosphere as a result of human activities,
                              causing surface air temperatures and subsurface
                              ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,
                              in fact, rising. The changes observed over the
                              last several decades are likely mostly due to
                              human activities, but we cannot rule out that
                              some significant part of these changes are also
                              a reflection of natural variability."  See, eric,
                              a real scientist states things very carefully,
                              because he is interested in the truth.
                              You are just interested in scoring political
                              points on the motd. -- ilyas
                                \_ "Real scientists" agree that global warming
                                   is most likely caused by human activities,
                                   yes.  There is no 100% certainty.  The
                                   problem arrives when people say "well since
                                   we can't know for sure we better just not
                                   do anything about it" -- while the planet
                                   slowly turns into Venus.
                                   \_ See, I think you are overstating your
                                      case.  There may be consensus that
                                      warming within the last X years was,
                                      more likely than not, caused more by
                                      human activity than anything else, but
                                      the
                                   \_ I think you are overstating your
                                      case.  There is also another matter.
                                      Even if it is in fact the case that
                                      human activity is the major cause of
                                      global warming, and even if global
                                      warming is difficult to reverse and
                                      dangerous, and even if the natural
                                      cooling cycle will not come to our
                                      rescue, it _still_ does not necessarily
                                      imply we ought to drastically reduce
                                      green house gas emissions.  This is
                                      simply because we are cutting into
                                      industrial and economic development,
                                      which may lead to a better solution
                                      to the problem.  This is similar to the
                                      proverbial 'horse shit choking London'
                                      problem.  I would be curious to hear
                                      from motd environmentalists on what
                                      their ideal approach to dealing with
                                      global warming (assuming worst case
                                      scenario about its causes and effects)
                                      would be (if they were king of the
                                      world, etc). -- ilyas
                                      \_ really, solo commute driving
                                         may lead to a better solution to
                                         global warming?
                                         \_ I think it was obvious I was
                                            talking about Kyoto, but thanks
                                            for the red herring anyways.
                                              -- ilyas