I've been saying this (and pissing people off) for years: if you eat a meat-based diet then deal's off - just shut your yap about being an enviromentalist. You do NOT need to eat meat. It's a choice, just like the car you drive or how many lights are on in your house.

Yeah, you'd piss me off too with that arrogant, self-righteous crap.

I think that the thing that most ardent advocates of vegetarianism/veganism for the environment's sake completely (and foolishly) ignore is that food is an intrinsic part of culture. If you're dedicated to doing everything that you can to reduce your impact on your environment, it's a great thing to completely switch over to tofu or tempura or algae or soylent green or whatever. Knock yourself out.

But what would we really be giving up with a large-scale switch over to a completely plant-based diet? Our recipes, the food we enjoy, is no less important to our cultures than language or any other tradition. I'm not one to defend the cheeseburger as a daily meal, but why cast stones at a family that enjoys a turkey at Thanksgiving? Why look down upon anyone that would want to enjoy BBQ chicken or roast duck from an old recipe handed down from one's grandmother? And why would anyone suggest that eating meat as part of a local diet would be any worse than eating a plant-based diet consisting of apples from New Zealand, strawberries from Chile, and other foods shipped in from across the world?

Furthermore, there are (pardon the pun) bigger fish to fry. Eliminating one plane trip that some household would take to Europe for vacation, for example, *completely* overpowers any change to diet. (About five tons per round trip!) Reducing our household electricity use in half? Same effect. And this is nothing when compared to the changes that could be made if many of our industrial (including agro-industrial) processes and commercial operations are fundamentally restructured.

So... change the structure of the underlying systems. Work to make things local and/or sustainable in food production. Try to make wise choices in food selection. Reduce waste. And yes, reduce meat consumption! (Who really needs to eat a large steak for every meal, anyway?) But looking down upon anyone because of their food choices? Idiotic. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face, and a demonstration of class-based environmental elitism at its worst. It alienates most of the people that are needed to actually make an effective change, without actually making a large change in environmental impacts.

And in the end, that kind of arrogance does *nothing* to save the planet.

And yes, as many of the commenters have said before me, overpopulation is far worse of an environmental issue than whether we enjoy a hamburger on occasion.

...no one cares that retail campaigning is cheaper in Iowa and New Hampshire, allowing for a competitive nominating process less dependent on big-market media buys.

Defending this party nomination system simply because the candidates won't need to buy TV spots in major urban markets is, for a lack of a better term, idiotic. This system is undemocratic, pure and simple, and as long as New Hampshire and Iowa have a stranglehold on the process, we can't claim that this primary system adequately reflects the will of the people.

I could play with Google Trends for hours. (And have!)

Look, for example, at the fact that people search for "sex" on weekends:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=sex&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2006-12&sort=0

Rum and whiskey are popular for Christmas, but for New Year's, it's all about the vodka and tequila...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=rum%2C+tequila%2C+vodka%2C+gin%2C+whiskey&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2006&sort=0

There's been a slow decline in inquiries about universities...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=university+of+washington%2C+university+of+california%2C+university+of+michigan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

But interest in green buildings has increased:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=LEED%2C+green+building&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Which is the most green Christmas present? If you picked *none* of these, you're absolutely correct.

It's a pretty misguided idea to think that *more* consumption will actually help the environment, and most of these just seem like greenwashing to sooth guilty consciences instead of actual techniques to solve environmental problems. For example, even recycled paper requires energy to produce, ship, and dispose, no matter how hip and glamorous the end result is. And just because something is made out of organic hemp and cotton doesn't mean that it has no impact on natural resources.

Why don't we actually try looking to vintage stores or thrift shops for presents? Donate your time and money to worthwhile causes? Build a composter? True environmentalism requires real change, not just superficial fixes.