3 ms·

Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? For example Denmark imports huge amounts of soybean from Brazil, China and USA. So, bunch of these first

by pitchka 11y ago

Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? For example Denmark imports huge amounts of soybean from Brazil, China and USA. So, bunch of these first world countries are delegating their carbon footprint to others. When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? USA is a net exporter of meat. > When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere. But the contributions are different. USA needs to burn less oil and coal, tropical countries need to stop cutting natural forests, China and India need fewer pig farms. You won't fix it by having less livestock in the US and burning less oil in Africa and not cutting forests in Russia.
- pitchka 11y ago
  How can we expect that tropical countries stop cutting rainforests if USA, Australia, Denmark and others want to continue exporting meat? Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem is global, not local. The main exporters are the main problem. It might be that Brazil has a huge footprint regarding forest cuts but it is not doing that for themselves but for others. So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. Not to mention that 50 billion chickens yearly thrive mostly on soybean.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause. > So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places. Not all countries are the same.

by pitchka 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Why do you think that the USA eats only its own meat? USA is a net exporter of meat. > When you look at global warming you do not state is as a problem happening in the US. It's happening everywhere. But the contributions are different. USA needs to burn less oil and coal, tropical countries need to stop cutting natural forests, China and India need fewer pig farms. You won't fix it by having less livestock in the US and burning less oil in Africa and not cutting forests in Russia.

pitchka 11y ago
How can we expect that tropical countries stop cutting rainforests if USA, Australia, Denmark and others want to continue exporting meat? Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem is global, not local. The main exporters are the main problem. It might be that Brazil has a huge footprint regarding forest cuts but it is not doing that for themselves but for others. So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. Not to mention that 50 billion chickens yearly thrive mostly on soybean.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Brazil is meeting the demand for soybean by cutting the rainforest and selling it to USA. The problem isn't demand for soybeans. If there was less demand for soybeans then they would be producing palm kernel oil or something else. And there is nothing wrong with soybeans grown on land that wasn't previously rainforest. What is necessary is a law against cutting down the rainforest which is actually enforced. The result of that law may be that the US will have to get its soybeans from somewhere else or will have to buy something else instead of soybeans, but that is a consequence not a cause. > So yes, USA needs to stop producing that much of livestock. It probably doesn't. Agricultural practices are more advanced in the US and the land is already converted. If livestock is to be raised anywhere it is more sensible to do it there than most other places. Not all countries are the same.