作者：英環境守護者 Lucy Siegle 　2008-05-18

不應吃肉的統計數據堆疊如山，但我們真準備好放棄培根三明治了嗎?

設想世界是一個巨大的冰箱。
上層架（屬於像英美這樣的優勢經濟國家）上塞滿了豬排、豬肋肉、牛排和雞腿。
中層架儲存漢堡包給像中國的新興經濟體。
剩下的底層架，是給孟加拉這些貧窮國家，不只沒肉可存，甚至連維持生命的蛋白質都非常缺乏。然而正是這些貧窮國家的居民，最敏銳地感受全球糧價上漲百分之四十的衝擊，最近達卡糧食暴動就是最好的證明。

大家都認為，生質燃料是頭號元兇。

因此，當幾週前在全球飢餓峰會上，英國財政大臣布朗又提到生質燃料，當然讓善待動物組織主席英格麗 · 紐柯克建議他立即收回這些話並應馬上茹素。事實上，七億六千萬噸穀物是被拿來餵養牧場動物，七倍於用來生產生質燃料的量。

同時，約有百分之三十地球的不凍土，直接或間接地被用作畜牧生產，製造了全球18%的溫室氣體排放量，比所有運輸交通等工具的排放量還高。或許這正是促使美國芝加哥大學的研究人員指出，茹素比切換到新型油電混合車更能有效對抗全球暖化。

我對這有點不安，因為它可能意味著，如果你吃豆腐就可隨意駕駛耗油的保時捷車了。
不是這樣的。應該記住的是，有些無肉飲食者仍食用魚類（拖網漁船每公斤魚獲就耗掉約3.4公升燃油），牛奶製成的乳酪（對環境的負擔是純素乳酪 9到21倍以上），以及空運的水果和蔬菜（長途空運1公斤糧食幾乎等同生產1公斤肉造成的溫室效應）。

因此，這些素食者在生態上，並不比精挑細選只吃有機肉類的肉食者好多少；長途運送的冷凍蔬菜在環境負擔上，比當地有機肉類還糟。但是，支持(好)素食的統計數據確實令人信服：因為平均需要10克的植物蛋白質，才能生產1克的動物蛋白質。所以為何我還覺得需要培根三明治來維生呢？諷刺的是可能有人會這麼說：我喜愛動物，少了肉品行業，將見不著豬，綿羊和牛了。

但除了農場動物，還剩下什麼呢？世界上大多數瀕臨絕種的物種（在世界自然保護聯盟的紅色清單上）牠們的棲地正日益縮小，全拜被聯合國專家施泰因 · 費爾德稱呼的「永無止盡增長的牲畜」之賜。 再加上從現在到2050年，肉量生產還預期會加倍的事實；都使得我吃培根三明治的習慣站不住腳了。所以，是的，現在是該茹素的時候了。至少如果你開始的話，我就會跟進。

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/18/ethicalliving.food

It is time to become a vegetarian?

The statistics are stacked against meat eating, but are we really ready to give up our bacon sandwiches, asks Lucy Siegle, 18 May 2008

Think of the world as a giant fridge. The upper shelves (belonging to economically advantaged nations like ours) are stuffed full of chops, sides of ham, steaks and chicken legs. The middle shelves for emerging economies like China are beginning to stockpile burgers. This leaves the bottom shelves, for poor countries such as Bangladesh, not just meat free but devoid of pretty much any life-sustaining protein.

It's the inhabitants of these countries who feel the 40 per cent rise in global food prices most keenly, as demonstrated by the recent Dhaka food riots. Typically, biofuels are presented as the number-one culprit.

Certainly Gordon Brown spoke of biofuels at a summit on global starvation a couple of weeks ago, prompting Ingrid Newkirk, head of Peta, to suggest that he eat these words and turn veggie without delay. After all, 760m tonnes of grain are used to feed farmed animals, seven times the amount used to produce biofuels.

Meanwhile an estimated 30 per cent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, generating 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport. Perhaps this is what prompted Chicago University researchers to state that going vegan is more effective at combating global warming than switching to a Prius. I'm nervous of this because it might suggest that if you eat tofu you are at liberty to drive a Porsche. Not so. And it should be remembered that some non-meat eaters are feeding their faces with non-sustainable fish (trawler fishing requires about 3.4 litres of fuel oil per kg of fish), cheese from cow's milk (the environmental burden of which is 9-21 times larger than for vegan cheese), and air-freighted fruit and vegetables (long-distance air transportation of 1kg of food has a nearly identical impact as the production of 1kg of meat).

So these veggies are no better eco-wise than careful meat eaters - particularly ones who eat organic meat; and deep-frozen vegetables can score worse (in terms of environmental burden) than organic meat from a local source. But the statistics in favour of (good) vegetarianism are compelling: on average 10g of vegetable protein are needed to generate 1g of animal protein, so why do I still feel I need a bacon sandwich as sustenance? Partly because - oh, the irony - I like animals. Without the meat industry there would be no pigs, sheep and cows around.

But with them, will there be anything else around? Most of the world's threatened species (on the World Conservation Union's Red List) are suffering habitat loss thanks to what UN expert Henning Steinfield calls the 'relentless growth of livestock'. Add to this the fact that the production of meat is set to double from now to 2050 and my bacon-sandwich habit looks indefensible. So yes, now is the time to go vegetarian. At least I will if you will.