The argument is not just fossil fuels vs. deforestation. The initial statement was , "By avoiding meat you can solve 99% of the environment related problems." The waters were immediately muddied by the next sentence which said, "All other things like fossil fuels are excuses to avoid the guilt feelings by the Meat eaters."
Really, fossil fuels are part of the problem with eating meat. Most meat is raised on grain (talking about how things really are, not how things could be). That grain is raised w/ petrochemicals, and fossil fuel-burning farm equipment. The grain is then transported, using fossil fuels, to the cattle. Eventually the cattle are transported to market. If you eliminate the meat, you eliminate a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use. Yes, the grain is still raised and transported, but you get a whole lot more calories of food per gallon of fuel used, because it takes so many pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. Meat also requires much more refrigeration at all times, from slaughter until cooking. Meat eating is just not nearly as energy-efficient as being vegan.
And, of course, there are other environmental concerns stemming from meat eating, like water use. Remember, the original discussion was about environmental problems in general, not just global warming.
Shoot, I had something SR related to say, too, and now I've forgotten it.
|