Eat Less or None at All?

Someone suggested I read this article from Audubon Magazine about the effects of meat eating on global warming. The article describes the parts of the meat-raising process that increases green-house gasses. It also compares free-range and caged meat, and finds that free-range is not better for mitigating global warming (an interesting finding, but not the reason people turn to free-range).

In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:

We could also, as a nation, just eat a lot less meat as an alternative to full vegetarianism. Anthony McMichael, a leading Australia-based expert on climate change and health issues, has crunched the numbers. He estimates that per capita daily meat consumption would need to drop from about 12 ounces per day in America to 3.1 ounces (with less than half of it red meat) in order to protect the climate.

I suppose I could measure out 3.1 ounces of meat per day, cook it, eat it, and still feel morally okay. But frankly I’d rather just go without. I’d rather be a vegetarian. It’s easier to explain. It’s easier to defend. And I just plain like it.

While I can understand his decision, I don't think being a vegetarian is easier to explain or defend. And although he does not get to this point, it certainly is not easier to encourage people to become vegetarians then to encourage them to eat less meat.

A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.