Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth The Military

Norway's Army Battles Global Warming By Going Vegetarian 495

Posted by samzenpus
from the Erik-the-red-meatless dept.
cold fjord writes "It looks like no more spam, spam, spam for Norway's warriors... at least on Mondays. The Daily Caller reports, 'Norway's military is taking drastic steps to ramp up its war against global warming. The Scandinavian country announced its soldiers would be put on a vegetarian diet once a week to reduce the military's carbon footprint. "Meatless Monday's" has already been introduced at one of Norway's main military bases and will soon be rolled out to others, including overseas bases. It is estimated that the new vegetarian diet will cut meat consumption by 150 tons per year. "It's a step to protect our climate," military spokesman Eystein Kvarving told AFP. "The idea is to serve food that's respectful of the environment." ... The United Nations says that livestock farming is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting meat consumption, environmentalists argue, would help stem global warming and improve the environment." — The Manchester Journal reports, "The meatless Monday campaign launched in 2003 as a global non-profit initiative in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University to promote personal and environmental health by reducing meat consumption.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Norway's Army Battles Global Warming By Going Vegetarian

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:02AM (#45488699)

    If Norway was really going to make a dent in Global Warming, they would stop pumping up oil.

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:09AM (#45488721) Homepage Journal

      but that's the money they use to import thai spices for their veggie foods for their hipster mondays.

  • An example to follow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Camembert (2891457) on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:05AM (#45488709)
    I wonder what the impact would be if everyone in the world would have a meatless monday. Of course, in some regions in the world not that much meat is eaten already now, but I expect that the total would be a significant difference.
    • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:12AM (#45488727) Homepage Journal

      cannibalism

    • by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:15AM (#45488743)
      :) I wonder what the impact would be if everyone in the world stopped pumping up oil and stopped burning coal in power plants.

      Maybe just on Monday...

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        People would starve. Mostly the poor in "rich" countries, though.

        Recall that there is a bit of distance between where the food comes from and where it is eaten, and how it bridges that gap.

        • Yes, that is a point lost on many people...

          Every time you try to hurt the rich, you may well succeed, but you'll hurt the poor far more.

      • by stenvar (2789879)

        :) I wonder what the impact would be if everyone in the world stopped pumping up oil and stopped burning coal in power plants.

        An economic melt-down.

    • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@a l u m . m i t .edu> on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:04AM (#45488905) Homepage
      Mass release of methane from eating all those beans.
    • People would respond with meat-packed Tuesday.

    • by HnT (306652)

      No, it absolutely would not. All those vegetables and other ingredients had to come from somewhere and our food industry just throws things away when they are expired and then they make just as much as before. A "meatless" day per week is ridiculous and useless, all it will do is slightly increase the amount of meat that gets thrown out on this day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jarik C-Bol (894741)
      Mondays are terrible enough already, there is no reason to make them worse by removing my comfort steak from them.
    • Would insects count as meat?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:14AM (#45488733)

    Sweden annexed Norway without fighting after shelling Norwegian formations with cans of corned beef.

    • by Sique (173459)
      Sweden had annexed Norway several times in history, and Norway was part of Sweden until 1905. I guess, both nations know better now.
      • by dbc (135354)

        Wait.... I thought Norway was part of Denmark before independence in 1905...

    • Sweden annexed Norway without fighting after shelling Norwegian formations with cans of corned beef.

      I believe the most successful tactic the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces could have used to invade Western Europe would have been to make their first echelon forces to be thousands of snack & ice cream trucks. That would have quickly rendered the Western defences helpless for the following tanks.

  • ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Maimun (631984) on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:18AM (#45488753)
    The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)
    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:26AM (#45488781)

      The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)

      Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...

      • Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...

        Or you could stop complaining and adapt to a slightly warmer world.

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        Or you know we could look for solutions that don't require reduction of carbon emmisions. We could work on atmospheric scrubbing, or other climate engineering technology.

        The omg china and the bricks won't cut so we can't do anything crowd is wrong.

        The lets cut emissions and slit our economic wrist crowd even though china and the bricks won't are also wrong?

        A large portion of the world can't or won't reduce emmisions is simply one of the constraints on the problem a real solution just needs to accommodate i

      • by thegarbz (1787294)

        Things can be done. But if we're going to do them we should stop wasting time on token efforts and start making a difference. The net effect from switching to vegetarian diets isn't that great. Farming vegetables like farming cows still has an incredible carbon footprint if for not other reason than the transportation costs. Just less methane producing cows.

        This story is cute but it has about the same effect as organising a rally in the name of climate change.

    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:27AM (#45488787)

      Even if I stop killing people at my usual rate of one per week it will make no difference because of the huge number of people being killed by other "so called" things.

      Small numbers of people doing stuff is obviously not going to make any difference but small numbers of people start doing anything before large numbers of people do it. Somebody has to be first.

    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @04:30AM (#45488795)

      Only a drop in the ocean, eh? They did something. What did you do? They found one thing that they CAN do, and did it. Maybe some day the chinese will do one thing also. Or several. I'm sure the US is never going to do a damn thing. They seem selfish assholes.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        a tankless monday would do a lot more(or apc'less monday since they have a lot more of those).
        a shipless monday would do ten times as more.

      • by abies (607076)

        No, it is useless and actually degrading to people who do real things. Imagine neighbour getting ill and having to raise $100k for live saving treatment. They found $20k after going through all the family and friends and now only people living around are left. They come to you house (and let's assume your are filthy rich) and you give them one cent. After that, you go to other poor family who has not chipped in at all and gloat your moral superiority - "I do CARE, 1 cent might be just a drop in the ocean, b

    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:03AM (#45488901)

      I agree, the problem should be solved in a different way. did you know that an average USian uses double the energy than an average German (with similar living standards). Maybe it is time that you start having proper insulation in your homes and start investing in quality public transport. I understand that the distances in US are very big (I also come from a very big country), so the contamination associated to the transport is also higher, but if you do proper urban planification those things can be mitigated.

    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by renzhi (2216300) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:07AM (#45488917)

      Per capita wise, we probably should start with the USA. If the Americans eat less meat, drive less and consume less resources, I'm sure that's going to have a very positive impact on their health too, not just the environment of this planet.

      Unfortunately, the american lifestyle is a model that most Chinese dream of right now. So this trend is a terrible one. But what do you expect people in other countries to do, when the Americans export their movies in which people are living in big houses, with gigantic backyard, and there are more cars than persons in a family, have a fun life with a lot of meat (fill in your favorite resources)? When people in other countries have the means, they will want the same thing. And they emulate. This is totally normal. That means, in China, people also want a big house, at least a car, or preferably, one car per person, and all the comfort in life that the Americans have been enjoying for so long.

      I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort. We watch our carbon footprint carefully. But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots. The planet belongs to everyone, if the Americans/Europeans can enjoy the resources, why can't we?

      It would interesting if there was some kind of quota system on all countries in the world, based on the population size. And it would be even more interesting if we can control it at the individual level. You want to enjoy more resources? Pay for it. That money will go to those who have left over. So the rich people can have all the shit they want, as long as they pay for it.

      • I gave up driving 10 years ago, my wife and I each have a bike. We ride or take the public transit, set a quota on our own diet, watch closely our AC and heater to just have a minimum of comfort.

        That's nice, shame it wouldn't work here... there is no mass transit here and things are too far to walk/bike. It is 105 in the summer and 20 in the winter and everything from the kid's school to the stores are all beyond walking/biking distance.

        But more power to you. :) I would never dare to tell you to stop, I only ask that you return the favor. :)

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Are you not able to vote in local elections?
          Are you not able to campaign for improvements to local services?
          Do you not have the power to improve your community?

          • Re:ridiculous... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Friday November 22, 2013 @01:43PM (#45492731)
            Sure, but there is a reason we don't have mass transit.

            It keeps the riff raff out. By having everything spread out, thus making owning cars a requirement, then only having large houses here, plus no mass transit (they city buss system stops a few miles south of my area), it keeps poor people away.

            That isn't very PC to say, but it is the truth of why the city bus system skips this area, even if it runs both east and west of here.

      • But when we try to convince other people to at least try to do something, people think we are idiots.

        That is because if your stated goal is to "save the planet" then you are indeed idiots.

        If your goal is to feel good about yourself and do something that is important to you, then you are not an idiot, you're just you, and there is nothing wrong with that.

        There simply aren't enough of "you" and way too many of "me" for your efforts to amount to anything.

        It is a simple numbers game, one that you will lose... if your goal of course is to "save the planet".

      • Re:ridiculous... (Score:4, Informative)

        by bob_super (3391281) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:30AM (#45489009)

        In China, people want to breathe and see across the street.
        Most have realized that the American way doesn't apply to their density. Individually, they want it, but collectively they are a lot smarter.

        It's gonna get worse for them before it gets better. But they already they kick ass on trains, wind and solar (when the sun can make it to the panels), and their government will do anything that promotes stability. If they keep having these smogs which cause unrest (because the rich have filters), they will look for solutions, and they will invest as much as it takes.

        And we'll still be arguing whether 1% or 3% is worth debating.

      • Any solution to global warming, or any movement to combat an issue affecting humanity should involve the following three countries...China, India and USA...these are the three biggest countries as far as population goes and can have the most impact - right now or in immediate future.
        What Norway or other smaller Scandinavian countries propose and follows is commendable...but its nothing more than good PR.
        As far as vegetarian / vegan goes, India is more or less "Shuddh Shakahari" - Hindi/Sanskrit for "Pur
    • by dbIII (701233) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:18AM (#45488955)

      Several years ago I read ...

      You may want to try reading this year :)
      You must have missed it but China recently made an announcement about not building any more coal fired power stations. That's a very major change and completely pulls the rug out from under your argument - so what may have been a good point in July just makes no sense at all now.

    • Re:ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jandersen (462034) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:22AM (#45488971)

      The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever

      Ah, the good old "It ain't perfect, so I won't have it" fallacy. I can't imagine anybody thinking that this in itself has a significant impact, but that isn't the purpose - it is about starting on the journey. It may be a ten thousand mile journey, but if you don't take the first step, you will never start moving. And unless your body is of a somewhat unusual configuration, you will not be able to do it in one, easy stride. So, get off your backside and start moving forward.

    • by Bongo (13261)

      It has become a "moral" issue, numbers don't matter. Unless you're talking carbon trading, in which case made up numbers and made up money matter a lot. Or would if they could. Who cares if Africa can't turn the lights on? I hope China continues to build infrastructure in Africa, because the West isn't going to help them. Not far from where I used to live in Africa, in a small town, there is now a football stadium, built by the Chinese. I saw it on Google Earth and was like, what the heck is that?

    • by xelah (176252)
      Any individual in China can also make that argument (even more so than a Norweigan, I'd guess). You don't suddenly become relieved of responsibility for your effect on others just because there are fewer people who identify with your country than with that big dirty nasty one over there.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      China actually leads the world in renewable energy. I don't know where the 700+ figure comes from because that's what, 3-4TW of capacity?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:03AM (#45488903)

    Vegetarianism is a great threat to the environment precisely because it is more efficient at providing food. The argument is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me.
    Being more efficient, it allows to feed more people with the same land. Alternatively, one could feed the same number of people with less land.
    The problem is that in whole human history, any increase in efficiency has not been used to reduce the human footprint, but simply to increase the number of people until any advantage created by the increased efficiency is lost. A larger number of people don't just need the same land as before, but, they also need more water, more metals, cause more emissions and generally consume a lot more. Therefore, the final effect, just for the increase of people, will be a worsening of environmental conditions.
    This is exactly what has happened quite recently. The book "The population bomb" is often derided for inaccurately predicting mass starvation.
    This wasn't so much because the calculations were wrong but, rather, because a massive increase in efficiency of food production, the so called Green Revolution.
    The Green Revolution would have allowed the same number of people to live with a much smaller footprint but, guess what happened ?
    The population grew instead to match the new capability and the environment is in more in trouble than ever. Plus we now have a much bigger population to maintain, with ever growing expectations.
    This is applies to any increase in efficiency, not just food and vegetarianism. When you are urged to save more water, food or energy, whatever is saved never goes to a better environment (it might, temporarily, until the population grows to match the new limit), it just goes to grow more people and make matter worse.
    So, please, waste more, it is very damaging to the environment, but the alternative is far worse.

    • by trynis (208765) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:55AM (#45489135)

      But the population isn't really increasing in the western world where we have all the food we can eat. By your reasoning western populations should be increasing a lot. The number of people will stop increasing when also poor countries have enough food and good health care so that parents are confident that the children they get will reach adulthood.

    • by kieran (20691)

      So your answer is to live more luxuriously in the aim of causing starvation. Nice.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world

    • by jhol13 (1087781) on Friday November 22, 2013 @06:24AM (#45489223)

      Utter bullshit.

      The fertility rate in Norway is below two, has been since 1970s and is likely to stay for the foreseeable future.

    • by ruir (2709173)
      So let me see if I understand you. It is far better to dedicate living space, vegs and medicines to cattle than humans?
    • by Alioth (221270)

      I don't buy that argument. We have hugely excessive amounts of food in the west (not to mention hugely cheap food in comparison to income). Yet the cheaper and more plentiful food is, the lower the birth rate.

      For example, compare Germany which is a wealthy country with plenty of food to an African country on the brink of food shortage. Germany's population is actually decreasing (despite immigration), but the African country with low GDP and a food shortage has a very high population growth rate.

    • by leathered (780018)

      What you are describing is the Jevons paradox [wikipedia.org]

  • How will the troops live without lutefisk [wikipedia.org]?
  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:24AM (#45488983)

    Decrease of 150 tons of meat. Global production of meat 180 million tons. 150/180,000,000 - 0.00005%. Decrease in greenhouse gasses: 0.00005*.18 =0.000009%. Get a million of those together and you would have something.

  • In favor of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Friday November 22, 2013 @05:27AM (#45488993)

    Off the top of my head I can't think of a whole lot of options for locally-produced protein in Norway. If you eliminate the animal proteins, what's left? How much carbon is Norway saving if they have to ship more nuts and beans in from overseas, particularly if the alternative is wild-caught fish?

  • of responsibility

    They need to formulate graphene into a device for ultradense storage of hydrogen. Then they could use their hydro-electric to separate the hydrogen from the carbon, make graphene gas (hydrogen gas) tanks from the carbon, put the hydrogen in it an sell 'em pre-filled to owners of Toyota fuel cell cars. That would help cut down on the feelings of responsibility for global warming.
  • Pure greenwash (Score:2, Informative)

    by DiamondGeezer (872237)

    This has nothing to do with global warming. Its an excuse to change diet of people who can't object to something less natural than eating meat or fish.

    I predict a revolt amongst the ranks

  • by evilviper (135110) on Friday November 22, 2013 @08:59AM (#45489847) Journal

    How much outrage would there be if this were reversed, and perhaps for health reasons, the Norwegian Army would force vegetarians/vegans to eat meat once a week?

    And nobody is pretending there is a good reason like health concerns behind this move. They're saving some money feeding their soldiers cheaper foods, while others have no such requirements.

    Let's see all the politicians strictly holding themselves to Meatless Mondays first. Then we'll talk.

  • by VortexCortex (1117377) <`VortexCortex' ` ... -retrograde.com'> on Friday November 22, 2013 @10:09AM (#45490369) Homepage

    That is the WORST day to enforce this on. The only thing that prevents me from aborting the Monday morning mission is Bacon.

    In a pinch, a fried Spam sandwich will do. No meat at all on Mondays? They are trying to start World War 3!

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...