Eating meat is as bad as smoking/doing drugs

Plants arent conscious

Lol, I'd love them to back up the claim on their link that that meat production is responsible for 51% of emissions.

Not cars, lorries, shipping, planes, power plants, factories etc.

Plants aren't conscious? So would you eat an embryo? It's not conscious

So, veggies concerned with greenhouse gas emissions - when are you going to stop using electricity and motorised transport?

That is why our ancestors only lived up until they were about 40 years old- they only ate meat.

Cows produce methane, not CO2 (apart from respiring).

Cows produce methane, not CO2 (apart from respiring).

Rice farming produces way more, where is the anti rice thread.

Humans produce methane also.

Meh maybe. I heard soya production harms the environment someway.



Cows produce way more - just pointing out how your graph wasn't really useful.

Here are some articles for you to look at for further reading.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-environment/

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/the-environmental-impact-of-a-meat-based-diet

http://www.evolvingwellness.com/post/15-reasons-why-you-may-want-to-reconsider-eating-meat

https://www.bustle.com/articles/137865-8-reasons-meat-is-bad-for-you-yes-even-chicken

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/10-reasons-to-stop-eating-red-meat

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan

https://nutriciously.com/why-go-vegan/

http://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/going-vegan/

Eating meat isn't the problem here eating ONLY meat is also if you think that the only thing that has changed since that time is our diet you are beyond retarded.

On a cow by cow basis, yes, but the cow population compared to the human population in terms of numbers, means humans produce more collectively.
It's useful because electricity and motorised transport are two of the biggest causes of emissions - if the veggies were really concerned about emissions, would they also not be rallying for us to no longer use these things and abstain from using them themselves?

[video="youtube;v450zJSwVHs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v450zJSwVHs[/video]

Some of the vegans who are environmentalists do.

PDF document from WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) which I think is probably worth reading, it highlight some of the environmental issues that come with being vegetarian / vegan.

My main issue with it is the fact that we'd need far more land space to be able to grow enough produce, which means more forests are likely to be cut down, which would then mean more animals are having their habitats destroyed. The land required for all these crops to replace beef and lamb is about 1,352 kilo hectares (kha), compared with about 135 kha to supply concentrates for ruminant meat now.

Not to mention the fact that the crops will most likely be covered in pesticides which means that any insects once inhabiting the area will inevitably start to decline. I believe you also have the right to shoot animals such as deer if they are causing damage to crops in some places, and other forms of preventing damage caused by these animals are using dogs, and electric and non-electric fences.

As far as I'm concerned, not eating meat is actually doing more harm to animals than if we were to continue eating it.

The idea they wouldn't advertise these 'facts' because some companies would stand to lose money is moronic.

Everyone who agrees with OP or is, in fact, OP should read this article:

https://authoritynutrition.com/8-ridiculous-myths-about-meat-and-health/

Also, next time OP when making an argument where you talk about scientific evidence, please at least show where you're getting your sources from...
The only solid part of your argument is the ethics but even that fails a couple words in when you say that in this era it is cruel.