Liuzhou - Then what is it about meat that these 'experts' seem to think is causing obesity and diabetes? Why is meat the (current) culprit in 'public health'? And why talk about methane if there are few cows (although all animals emit some, cows are the most notorious 'producers' as far as I know). CO2 is probably not a major contributor to 'climate change' (despite 'experts' still spouting that it is) but in any event, plants produce more of that and environmentalists want lots of trees/plants for that very reason and bemoan the razing of the Amazon because millions of trees and jungle plants are being lost every day. Fertilizers and land clearing - well those are more about plants than animals - unless indirectly for animal feed (but those fertilizers may get into the meat too through feed - are they good for any of us?). Water usage, pollution .. serious issues .. the former more in some places than others, the latter everywhere, and especially in Chinese cities from what I understand - and to my mind those are really the issues we should all be addressing. But, those are inconvenient problems to solve because they require a buy-in by powerful corporations and governments, and not much they can directly blame or shame the 'people' for.
Meat is not that caloric in the grand scheme of things - and supplies protein which is good and necessary for life. My thought is that they are feeding these animals corn and soy crops - and those feeds I believe may be contributing to obesity in an indirect form perhaps, and I suppose even to diabetes. However this article does not really say what it is about meat that supposedly is the problem - other than methane, CO2 and fertilizers. But if one reduces the amount of meat people eat they will eat more plants to make up for it. And plants require farming - and water, and land clearing and fertilizers. Merry go round.
This article is just not well written - I think it rambles all over the place and doesn't really provide any proof about one of its leading premises - that obesity and diabetes are being caused by eating meat and that public health can be improved if everyone eats less meat. It is blatantly a propaganda tool for promoting the global warming/climate change 'message' - and more importantly ensuring that commoners know they are responsible for (and need to fix) all that. Nature has nothing to do with it at all of course, despite the fact that climate changes all the time, has since time immemorial and will continue to do so after we are gone. Mantra 'du jour' now is that only 'we' can save the earth (as though we were that powerful) if we eat less meat. Right. It's about money and control. Do you really believe that the powers that be that issue these statements (plans) saying that the people should do this or that, actually follow those 'rules' themselves? No, this is another of those ... do as I say, not as I do .. things.
Maybe people should eat less meat but we need far more information than a general statement that says that the consumption per person is x amount - MANY people in China (and elsewhere) are probably still eating meager amounts of meat ... as you said, meat is status there .. so the more wealthy are probably consuming more of it on balance .. but why is that happening ... they got wealthy in recent years doing what? Reduce their incomes and they will eat less meat. Therefore if eating meat causes climate change, it follows that affluence probably causes climate change. Move them out of the cities and reduce pollution. Stop industry and commerce, ensure people are unemployed. Send them back to farm meager plots of land by hand and make them use handmade tools and no fertilizers and they will get more fit and lose weight. Let's go back in time. Sure, let's go back to primitive times ... without bathrooms they will pollute the waters even more, and with charcoal for cooking they will still pollute the air - but they will consume less meat and there will be fewer animals and less land clearing and .. and ... and ... and ... perhaps they will die off sooner again .. and when they do their carbon footprint goes down considerably. China tried a one child policy to reduce the population growth - now they have other problems as a result of that even if it did reduce growth for a while. And China's industrial growth has been unchecked for years too.
These are complex issues - but commanding the people to eat less meat is probably not going to solve anything for anyone. That is why I said it is a giant experiment.
Yes, I know some (perhaps even many) here will not agree with my view on this subject - but when an article like that is published, it really irks me. It is so illogical, badly written and see-through - and yet people buy it.
