Not to mention the plagues of zombies that the research for higher beef production and more easily controlled cows have unleashed upon society. Who could forget the tragedy of Willamette?
(more) On Topic, while forcing everyone in the world to be a vegetarian would certainly slow down perhaps one aspect of man-contributed global warming, it is not that simple. You would have to successfully educate every person you changed to a vegetarian on what constitutes a sustainable vegetarian diet and slowly phase out cattle breeding, replacing the land currently allocated to it with land suitable for the production of friable vegetable matter. You would also have to find a way to completely neutralize the meat industry and its inevitable counter-movement to save itself. Not to mention convincing hundreds of millions of people that vegetables should be eaten instead of meat.
There would have to be some sort of substantial benefit to becoming a vegetarian to convince the masses to do so. Making a governmental mandate that says, 'you eat vegetables, it is the law,' would be both immoral and irresponsible and objected to in a degree that would likely topple the movement itself.
All in all it would have to be a gradual thing. There would have to be a system in place that rewards ranchers who reallocate their resources to the production of vegetable foodstuffs and/or sell their land to people who will. There would also have to be a system in place that rewards consumers for making vegetarian choices. Alongside a massive education campaign teaching people the principals of a responsible vegetarian lifestyle. It's absolutely unrealistic to assume that people will just convert to vegetarianism, 'because global warming.' Commercials are a step in the right direction, but the overall tone needs to change and a great deal of infrastructure needs to be built in order to make any kind of headway whatsoever.
Even then meat would not see a 100% removal, nor should it. People will still want to eat it, albeit less often, and that desire could be used to fund the governmental departments necessary to facilitate the switch. I would suggest a gradually increased taxation on the more damaging meat markets alongside a subsidization of the vegetable and grains industries along with tax credits for people who frequently purchase non-meat foodstuffs.
(more) On Topic, while forcing everyone in the world to be a vegetarian would certainly slow down perhaps one aspect of man-contributed global warming, it is not that simple. You would have to successfully educate every person you changed to a vegetarian on what constitutes a sustainable vegetarian diet and slowly phase out cattle breeding, replacing the land currently allocated to it with land suitable for the production of friable vegetable matter. You would also have to find a way to completely neutralize the meat industry and its inevitable counter-movement to save itself. Not to mention convincing hundreds of millions of people that vegetables should be eaten instead of meat.
There would have to be some sort of substantial benefit to becoming a vegetarian to convince the masses to do so. Making a governmental mandate that says, 'you eat vegetables, it is the law,' would be both immoral and irresponsible and objected to in a degree that would likely topple the movement itself.
All in all it would have to be a gradual thing. There would have to be a system in place that rewards ranchers who reallocate their resources to the production of vegetable foodstuffs and/or sell their land to people who will. There would also have to be a system in place that rewards consumers for making vegetarian choices. Alongside a massive education campaign teaching people the principals of a responsible vegetarian lifestyle. It's absolutely unrealistic to assume that people will just convert to vegetarianism, 'because global warming.' Commercials are a step in the right direction, but the overall tone needs to change and a great deal of infrastructure needs to be built in order to make any kind of headway whatsoever.
Even then meat would not see a 100% removal, nor should it. People will still want to eat it, albeit less often, and that desire could be used to fund the governmental departments necessary to facilitate the switch. I would suggest a gradually increased taxation on the more damaging meat markets alongside a subsidization of the vegetable and grains industries along with tax credits for people who frequently purchase non-meat foodstuffs.
