New Scientist Goes Veg-ish

With so much published I want to read I confess to reading often the end first. Conclusions quickly let you know what the rest of the article says and how the author is saying it. Then I decide if I want to bother with the rest of it. Take, for example, the New Scientist and its article, “Veggieworld: Why eating greens won’t save the planet.” Here’s how Bob Holmes concludes the cover feature.

Would people really accept pricey free-range beef and scrawny barnyard chickens perhaps once or twice a week? Certainly most do not today, opting for price and abundance over environmental impact. But change happens. Given the deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that will result if worldwide meat production continues to rise, some people are already choosing to eat less meat. And the message is definitely less, not none. For best results, meat should be medium-rare.

Reading this paragraph didn’t inspire me to want to read the rest. And, so, I didn’t. I quickly scanned it, which confirmed an expectation that it was too much to expect the New Scientist to publish an article that would have been a thoughtful consideration. There’s some nice graphics, however. What did you think?