Super Shareware Collection/Super Shareware Collection.iso/info/savewrld.zip/SAVEWRLD.TXT

Text File | 1994-02-01 | 11KB | 141 lines

From "Awaken The Giant Within", by Anthony Robbins


The environment is no longer just a rallying cause for the counterculture, but has come to the
forefront as a major national and international concern.  After four of the hottest consecutive
years ever recorded in history, people have become extremely concerned about global warming -
the phenomenon caused by excess carbon dioxide that is trapped by the ozone layer, resulting
in rising temperatures.  What are the major sources?  One of them is the fluorocarbons found in
air conditioners and spray bottles.  Another major source of the global-warming effect is the
wanton destruction and burning of our Central and South American rainforests.  Rainforests
account for an astounding 80 percent of the earth's vegetation, and care critical to our
ecosystem. 1

Trees absorb the toxic gases of excess carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere, and
convert it to breathable oxygen.  Trees are our ultimate rejuvenators: without them, life on earth
as we know it could not exist.  Rainforest trees also provide an environment for the largest
diversity of animal and insect species in the world. By burning our rainforests, not only do we
destroy the oxygen-producing vegetation and the environment in which the animals and plants
live, but we release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hasten the
deleterious global-warming effect.

With all their importance, why are the rainforests being cleared so relentlessly?  The answer is a
simple matter of pain and pleasure: economics.  Huge tax breaks have been given in these
countries as incentives for ranchers to clear the land.  Is it to make room for more housing?  Of
course not.  It's to clear grazing land for cattle to be exported as beef to the United States.
This nation imports 10 percent of its beef from Central and South America. 1  In order to meet
this need, rainforests are being eliminated at a pace of one acre every five seconds. 2

The inefficiency of the use of this land for grazing is one of the most destructive, short-term
decisions that man can make.  We're bulldozing the source of our survival.  Do you realize that
every time you buy a quarter-pound hamburger using rainforest beef, it represents the destruction
of fifty-five square feet of tropical rainforest? 3  Once destroyed, it can never be replaced.
Further, the current rate of species extinction is 1,000 per year due to the destruction of the
rainforests - an unimaginable assault on our ecosystem.

What's the point of it all?  It's solely for the purpose of cycling more meat through our bodies,
which medical science has already established is directly related to the top killers in this nation:
heart disease and cancer.  The shocking statistic is that one out of two Americans dies of some
form of heart disease - Russian roulette gives you better odds of survival than following the
standard American diet!  Ultimately, we cannot destroy the external environment without
destroying our own internal environment.

Do you want to stop the destruction of our rainforests?  Do you want to help restore the
delicate balance of our ecosystem?  In addition to sending your financial support to
environmental organizations like Greenpeace, the most powerful thing you can do is to link pain
to any of your personal behaviors that perpetuate the ill use of our planet.  Clearly, one step
would be to reduce or eliminate your consumption of hamburger meat.  A boycott worked with
the tuna industry, and it can work here as well.  We're not just talking about dollars and cents.
The earth itself is at stake.  Know that the decisions you make about what to put on your
dinner plate determine, in a small yet undeniable way, such things as how much carbon dioxide
is released into our atmosphere and how many plant and animal species will die each day.

Now let's look at the impact of your dietary decisions on a local level.  Perhaps you live in a
state, like I do, that is experiencing a severe water shortage.  In fact, it's been said that in the
twenty first century water will be the gold of the future, one of our most valuable and scarce
resources.  How can this be true, on a planet that is predominantly covered with water?  The
reason can be found in our incredibly poor management of this vital resource.  Specifically, it's
related to the meat industry.  Consider this:  the amount of water that is used to raise one
single steer is enough to float an American destroyer! 4  In California, we're all working hard to
conserve water, taking steps such as not watering our lawns and installing flow restrictors in our
toilets and shower heads.  All of these actions are important, but did you know that it takes
5,214 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef? 3  This means that you can save more
water by not eating one pound of beef than you could by skipping showers for an entire year! 5
According to Cornell economist David Fields and his associate Robin Hur, "Every dollar that state
governments dole out to livestock producers, in the form of irrigation subsidies, actually costs
taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs, and reduced business income." 6
What can one person do to save more water?  The answer seems obvious to me: cut your
meat consumption.

Here's something else for you to chew on.  Did you know that more energy is consumed by the
beef industry than any other single industry in the United States? 7  The percentage of all raw
materials that the United States devotes to the production of livestock is a staggering one-third of
all energy consumption, and the fossil fuel required to produce one pound of beef is roughly
thirty-nine times that required to produce the equivalent protein value in soybeans.  If you wanted
to save energy, it would be wiser to drive your car to the restaurant down the block than if you
walked there, fueled by the calories you consumed from a quarter-pound of beef or chicken
raised by the energy-inefficient standard of the industry.

Are you concerned about nuclear power plants?  If we were to reduce by 50 percent our meat
consumption, we could totally eliminate our reliance on nuclear power throughout the United
States, as well as significantly or completely reduce our reliance on foreign oil imports. 2  One
final issue we're all concerned about is world hunger.  With 60 million people dying every year of
starvation, clearly it's time for us to examine just how efficiently we're utilizing our resources.
Remember, all decisions have consequences, and unless we have some understanding of the long
term impact on our planet, we will make poor decisions.

The amount of food produced on any prime acre of land is markedly reduced when that food is
beef.  The same acre of land that would produce 250 pounds of beef would produce 40,000
pounds of potatoes - roughly the difference between feeding one person, and 160 persons! 8
The same resources that are used to produce one pound of beef can produce sixteen pounds of
grain. 2  The land required to feed one meat-eater for a year is three and a quarter acres; for a
lacto-ovo-vegetarian, one half acre; and one complete vegetarian, one sixth acre. 9  In other
words, one acre can feed twenty times as many people if they eat a vegetarian diet!  Forty-
thousand children starve every day, yet we clearly have the ability to feed them if we just
manage our resources more effectively.  What's more, if every American were to reduce their
meat intake by just 10 percent, the number of people who could be fed using the resources that
would be freed from growing livestock would be 100 million. 10  This is enough food to feed
every single starving man, woman, and child on earth - and have a surplus.  Obviously, we'd still
have to deal with the political challenge of distribution, but the food would certainly be available.
Finally, one of the most important natural resources that we are depleting as a result of our
meat habit is our topsoil.  It takes nature 500 years to create one inch of topsoil, and we're
currently losing one inch every 16 years!  Two hundred years ago, our country had twenty-one
inches of topsoil, and now we have only six inches. 11  The amount of topsoil loss that is
directly related to livestock production is 85 percent. 12   Without adequate topsoil, our food
chain collapses, and with it our ability to exist.

The decision about what to put on your dinner plate tonight is one that has profound
processional effects.  It sets in motion a whole series of events and activities that are shaping
the quality of life on earth.  You may ask, "How can one person hope to turn the tide of such
an enormous challenge?"  This battle will be won not on Capitol Hill or in the boardrooms, but
by individuals: "the shopper in the supermarket stopping at the meat counter, picking up that
chuck steak marked $3.98 a pound, and realizing that they're holding in their hand a very costly
illusion.  Behind that little price sticker hides the forests that have been cut down, our children's
food and water supply, our children's topsoil, their future environment.  And we have to look at
that steak and say, 'That costs too much.'  Real power lies in the decisions you make in the
supermarket and in restaurants and in your kitchen." 3


1       "Acres, USA," vol 15 #6, June 1985, cited in J. Robbins.
2       Robbins, John, Diet for a New America.
3       "The Fate of Our Planet," Robbins Research Report, Fall 1990, Robbins Research
        International, Inc.
4       "The Browning of America," Newsweek, February 22, 1981, cited in J. Robbins.
5       This figure assumes a total of 5,200 gallons of water used by a person taking 5 showers
        a week, 5 minutes per shower, with a flow rate of 4 gallons per minute.  Robbins, John,
        Diet for a New America.
6       Fields, David, and Robin Hur "America's Appetite for Meat is Ruining Our Water,"
        Vegetarian Times, January 1985.
7       Spencer, Vivian, "Raw Materials in the United States Economy 1900-1977,"Technical Paper
        47, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Mines, cited in J. Robbins.
8       Department of Agriculture, cited in J. Robbins.
9       Lappe, Frances Moore, Diet for a Small Planet.  Ballentine Books. 1982, cited in J.
        Robbins.
10      Lester Brown of the Worldwatch institute, cited by Resenberger, UNICEF, "State of the
        World's Children," adjusted using 1988 figures from the USDA, Agricultural Statistics 1989,
        cited in J. Robbins.
11      Harnack, Curtis, "In Plymouth County, Iowa, the Rich Topsoil's Going Fast, Alas," New
        York Times, July 11, 1980, cited in J. Robbins.
12      Hur, Robbin, Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act - Summary of Appraisal, USDA
        Review Draft, 1980, cited in J. Robbins.