Petrolheads seeking greater power output from their vehicles were, for a long time, divided into two camps. One camp held to the belief that simply enlarging the engine capacity was the way to go - a concept exemplified in the immortal words of Tim-the-toolman-Taylor - "More Power!" Other petrolheads argued that increasing horsepower through improved design elements is a smarter way to go. Car manufacturers have consistently shown that a prudent application of thought and modern technology can reduce the weight and fuel consumption of a vehicle, while still maintaining or increasing power output. Similarly, arguments over population growth, deforestation, and global warming can come down to similar principles. Efficient systems within populations can increase output and yet decrease impacts on the environment.

Those of us that live in the 'developed world', and have taken a moment to contemplate, know that the lifestyle we enjoy is only possible if it is not shared with the rest of the world. If China, Africa, India, South America, etc. all follow our example - it all becomes impossible to support. Furthermore, more recently we've become increasingly conscious that even without the developing nations following our lead, the impact of just our own lifestyles is driving catastrophic changes in world climate. Please note that this is despite our being (by far) the lesser in population. How can the minority have the greatest negative effect on the world? There are many areas we can examine in regards to our lifestyle, but today we'll look at food! Does what we eat contribute to global warming? Does our over-abundant lifestyle impact on the environment? The answer is emphatically "Yes!", and probably far more than you realise. Read on:

• Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
• Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million
• Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
• Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80
• Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
• Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
• How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds
• Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
• Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
• Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
• Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16

Even the most conservative figures state that a meat-based diet gives at least 7:1 inefficiency ratio for land-use. The land required to grow 1 pound of beef would provide at least 7 pounds of corn for example. A quick Google search will keep you occupied for hours on this topic alone.

• Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
• Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
• Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more
• Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
• Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
• Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
• Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds
• Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
• Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
• Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year

Bulleted points sourced from the book Diet for a New America, by John Robbins (son of the Baskin-Robbins icecream mogul) It's distressing enough to think that South American rainforests (along with their diverse inhabitants) are being destroyed and turned into pastureland, but especially so when you realise how inefficient that land usage actually is. It doesn't stop there, either. Livestock production alone consumes 50% of all water used in the U.S. (this includes watering crops that are subsequently fed to livestock, watering livestock themselves, washing down stalls, etc.). Now you may say that we've eaten meat for millennia. Well, yes, some of us have. Historically, though, very few have ever been able to afford to eat meat as much or as often as we do today. Killing one of the village pigs or goats was not an everyday affair. Also keep in mind that large parts of the world have been and still are vegetarian or semi-vegetarian (consider India, large parts of Asia, Africa, and Central and South America). When we consider the wide-ranging global topic of climate change, in many areas we should begin to look for solutions that are a little closer to home. It is said that even by just "replacing one beef meal each week will, on average, save more than 40,000 gallons of water and some 70 tons of grain, and keep 300 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year." (Conservation International). This topic is broad-reaching, and, if taken to its logical conclusion, will cover many inter-related areas including: water shortages, water contamination, soil health and topsoil loss, human physical and mental health, deforestation, global warming, just to name a few. Further Reading:

• The Cow - Public Enemy Number One
• What the Meat Industry Doesn't Want you to See
• E-Magazine.com
• E-Magazine.com 2
• Anniston Star
• University of Chicago
• Cornell University
• Earthsave
• Earthsave 2
• Earthsave Canada (150kb PDF)
• Veg for Earth
• The Food Revolution
• Vegan - The New Ethics of Eating
• The World's Healthiest Foods
• CFAN - Deforestation (see 5.9)
• GoVeg
• Vegetarismus Switzerland
• Beyond Beef
• etc....