Paul McCartney Has A Beef With You If You Eat Meat On Mondays

In addition to a good invention, the internet, Al Gore also gave us an evil one — global warming. Luckily Paul McCartney has come to the rescue, using one to defeat the other. He’s asking fans to go meatless on Mondays for now on, in sort of a modified old-school Lent, in order to slow global warming by reducing emissions of farm animals.

The Kansas City Star on the matter:

Cows, pigs and sheep bred for human consumption discharge millions of tons of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Livestock accounts for about 18 percent of greenhouse gases, more than all the world’s cars, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has said.

Supported in his cause by celebrity chefs and Hollywood actors, McCartney said in a statement Monday that skipping meat a day a week is a “meaningful” change everyone can make to their lifestyles to help the environment. Less consumption may lead to fewer animals reared, and so emissions would fall.

McCartney is working under the assumption that less demand for meat will lead to fewer farm animals, overlooking the inconvenient truth that if we don’t keep eating meat seven days a week, the populations of flatulent farm animals will surely explode unchecked and thus hasten the destruction of the environment.

But the man did rock us senseless with Wings (which will heretofore be remembered on Mondays as “Celery Sticks”) so who are we to question his wisdom?

The Consumer Memo, 6/15: Paul McCartney backs meatless Mondays [Kansas City Star]
(Photo: u2acro)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Courteous_Gentleman says:

    A wise man once said “For every animal you don’t eat, I’ll eat three.”

  2. Alex Grueneberg says:

    Why dont they instead try to get the cattle off corn feed (which makes the poop a lot more) and standing in their own waste at factory farms and back on grass where their poop is fertilizer.

    • JeanStork says:

      “He wants to ‘rear’ your children”

    • HIV 2 Elway says:

      @Alex Grueneberg: Grass fed beef tastes like shit.

    • greenunicorns says:

      @Alex Grueneberg:

      Grass or corn, I have a suspicion that the herbivores we like to eat are probably better at converting plants into energy than we are, and that we are better at converting their tissue into energy than we are at turning plants into energy. Of course, I don’t know that much about this kind of biology. Then again, I’ll bet I know as much as Paul McCartney!

      • subtlefrog says:

        @greenunicorns: Cows are better at digesting grass than they are corn / feedlot food. Feedlot food tends to make them gassy, hence the concern about increased climate change issues due to cattle. Cows and other ruminants have 4 stomachs – they evolved eating grass and are good at digesting this – so they do ok on grass. But people use corn because it bulks them up faster and cheaper.

        About them doing a better job – it depends on how you define this. They can break down the tough cell walls on plants better than we can, because of those 4 stomachs,so in that sense, they are better at extracting nutrients.

        However, the energy & resources required to bring a cow from birth to market is substantial. The estimates vary widely, so here’s a link from a veg-friendly source, but which also cites estimates from beef-friendly sources:

        (Biologists tend to believe the number is more close to the veg-friendly sources, but I thought it best to present both sides, since I don’t have hard data to show).

    • HIV 2 Elway says:

      @Alex Grueneberg: I take it you haven’t seen many farms. At the ones around KC, the cows kick in huge grass fields and eat grains from troughs. There is no standing in their own waste as they shit in the vast grass fields.

      • floraposte says:

        @HIV 2 Elway: Sure, that’s always going to be true of cows in open pasture (many of which are milk cows, and thus less relevant to the discussion), but there are also plenty of feedlots around KC and elsewhere, and that’s a whole ‘nother pile of cow plop.

  3. Saboth says:

    I’ve got news for Mr. McCartney. If I avoid eating meat, I’ll have to eat a ton of high protein vegetables to satiate my hunger, so that means lots of beans. The methane output from myself would put the cow to shame.

    • mariospants says:

      @Saboth: DAMN, bet he never thought of that, or rather he has and expects us all to die in an accidental methane-induced societal conflagration.

    • rudeskata says:

      @Saboth: You don’t have to eat a ton of beans to get your daily protein. Cows are much larger than you and thus produce greater amounts of methane.

      • BertMask says:

        @rudeskata: For someone who takes things so literally, it’s kind of surprising you’d miss a fart joke.

      • English, MF, do you speak it? says:

        @rudeskata: That only makes sense if you’re eating one cow per day. Less than that and you have to sum up the methane output of the number of people who would have munched on a given cow.

        • rudeskata says:

          @English, MF, do you speak it?: Methane output from humans isn’t something that we can stop but consuming animals that produce large amounts of methane is something that we can. I was just stating a fact that a cow is larger than a human and therefore their methane is relative to their size. I’m sure Saboth’s claim that he would “put the cow to shame” was playful banter but my response was meant to point out that being veg*n doesn’t necessarily mean you only have to consume soybeans to get your daily protein, it is a common misconception.

          Bottom line, methane is a serious issue related to global warming and is directly cased by the rise of animal agriculture. Buying hybrid cars isn’t going to fix the earth, and it will take decades before all vehicles are environmental friendly but changing your diet can be instant.

  4. downwithmonstercable says:

    I dunno about anybody else, but I’m really sick of celebrities getting behind causes and hawking their beliefs on everybody. Especially when there is little evidence or research that it will make a difference. Not McCartney specifically, but just in general. Celebrities are overstepping their bounds. Act in a movie, play in a band, whatever. I’m paying you to entertain me, not get all preachy.

    Jenny McCarthy comes to mind right now.

    • Odiase says:
      • Odiase says:

        @Odiase: It’s just annoying to have vegetarians get on a soap box and preach from on high about the evils of eating meat. Sorry, but anyone who has not had BBQ Ribs and a cold one for dinner cant tell me anything.

        • edsobo says:

          As a former frequent flier on Ribs and a Cold One Airlines, I can tell you that there has been research that connects livestock with greenhouse gases. I’m not at home at the moment, so I can’t provide you with citations from my own reading material, but a quick search of the inter-Google should provide you with a decent starting point.

        • DoubleBaconVeggieBurger says:

          @Odiase: @downwithmonstercable: You don’t pay me, and I’m not a vegetarian, so I assume that I’m allowed to share an opinion with you: We need to start eating less meat. The amount of meat most Americans eat is unsustainable. Animals take many times the amount of energy to raise as vegetables and grains do. It’s unhealthy to your body, the environment, and your pocketbook to eat meat-centered meals 3 times a day, 7 days a week. Why don’t you consider cutting back on the meat just a little? Try a black bean burrito, a falafel, or some eggplant parmesan. It can be on a Monday or not, I don’t care. Just try it. It’s good for us, it’s good for you.

    • chocogray says:


      Oh no, heaven forbid that celebrities have brains and champion a cause! Just because you pay them to entertain you doesn’t mean they are forbidden to also be activist.

      • Odiase says:

        @chocogray: It’s not McCartney being an activist that’s the problem. It’s him spouting these “facts” to the public like he’s some kind of authority on the matter and then telling people how to lead their lives…that’s the problem.

        I’m sure you don’t take your medical advice from your mechanic, so why take advice on this topic from a singer?

        • chocogray says:


          you assume that just because McCartney is a singer he has little or no interest in other things. for all you know (especially with his celeb status) he may have access to some of the world’s brightest scientists. I would let my mechanic operate on me you’re right. But if one day I was suffering from some medical problem and he said “hey man you should go get that checked out, I think you have the same thing I had back in ’02,” then I would definitely give it a listen and pursue a solution. I like your rhetoric though I’m sure all the village idiots read your comments and that’s all they needed to see to make the decision to stay ignorant and bliss. so +1 for you and ignorance.

          • BertMask says:

            @chocogray: Typical overreaction. What is so bad and appalling and ignorant about NOT wanting to hear an entertainer talk about politics? For fuck’s sake, no one is talking about McCartney losing his right to speak freely. We just disagree with how he is using his fame to promote his causes.

            I want to hear Green Day spew their crap about as much as I want to hear Jon Voight say Obama is a “false prophet.” Regardless of liberal/conservative leanings. I DO NOT CARE. YOU ARE AN ACTOR. Sure, support whatever you want – no one is stopping you. But don’t tell ME what I should and shouldn’t do. Believe it or not, I don’t look to actors or musicians for guidance.

            The Fred Thompson and Charlton Heston comparisons are not applicable. One was a former presidential candidate, the other the former head of the NRA.

          • Odiase says:

            @chocogray: So if other people don’t agree with your opinions they are idiots or ignorant…wow. Just wow.

            +1 for your “oh so eloquent” argument

      • Canino says:

        @chocogray: Just because you pay them to entertain you doesn’t mean they are forbidden to also be activist.

        Once they start with the causes they very, very rarely get any more of my money.

        • chocogray says:


          you are absolutely right, and that’s all everyone that doesn’t like his new cause needs to do.

          • downwithmonstercable says:

            Wow I should’ve known I’d get beaten down over this. I enver said anything about freedom of speech or whatever, you guys railing on me have too much time on your hands. I’m talking about how celebrities become activists on some stupid topic without any real prior knowledge or research on it, and hawk it everywhere they go. Let me lay it out real clear so there are no more misunderstandings:

            Jenny McCarthy says vaccinations are bad for kids because they can cause autism and she says the vaccines caused autism in her kid. Meanwhile, the ENTIRE MEDICAL BODY has said there is absolutely no evidence backing her claims. Lawsuits are being thrown out left and right because of no evidence. And yet here she is, trucking along spreading this misinformation that’s getting people riled up and refusing vaccines that keep their kids healthy.

            Oprah is all over the place with naturpath doctors giving medical advice that has no basis to stand up on. It’s hearsay medical theories with no scientific testing, but HOLY CRAP IT’S ALL NATURAL AND ORGANIC SO IT MUST BE BETTER THAN MODERN MEDICINE!

            So here we are, another celebrity getting into a cause using misinformation and no research. There are plenty of celebrities that get into causes but don’t push their agenda down your throat. George Clooney, Bono, etc.

            I don’t know how to wrap this post up, so I guess this is the end here.

            • HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave says:

              @downwithmonstercable: You forget that she and her whipped boy toy, the guy who got famous making his but talk, USED to claim that the mercury in the vaccines, caused Autism, and anyone who gave their kids shots were treating them worse than dogs. After it was removed from the few vaccines that DID contain it, and rates of Autism still rose, they moved their goalposts and said it was aluminum. Then when that was shown wrong, the new one is the viruses in the vaccine cause Autism.

              • downwithmonstercable says:

                @HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave: See, that proves my point. McCarthy isn’t saying anything logical. She’s convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines are causing autism. And when each one of her theories gets shot down, she changes to something else to support it. Now she’s golden, because she’s saying it’s the viruses that cause it. Well we can’t very well remove the virsues, so she can rally against that all she wants and she’ll never lose.

                On another note, celebrities seriously live in another universe. A universe without law or reason or rationale. It’s amazing to me the things they do and say and that’s totally accepted among the general public. Mel Gibson’s a good example. He goes from badass actor, to a mouthpiece for Jesus Christ and christianity and denouncing his previous ways, to an anti-semitic wack job, to divorcing his long-time wife, to hooking up with some chick and getting her knocked up. And all the while he seems like everything’s totally cool. I want to slap him around a bit and just be like WTF! Look at what’s happened to you!

                Anyway, yeah. Celebrities are weird.

                • HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave says:

                  @downwithmonstercable: You forgot she also CURED her own child of Autism. I think the following passage sums her up:

                  The day I found out I was an adult Indigo will stay with me forever. I was walking hand in hand with my son down a Los Angeles street when this women approached me and said, “You’re an Indigo and your son is a Crystal.” I immediately replied, “Yes!” and the woman smiled at me and walked away. I stood there for a moment, because I had no idea what the heck an Indigo and Crystal was, but I seemed so sure of it when I had blurted out “Yes!” After doing some of my own research on the word Indigo, I realized not only was I an early Indigo but my son was in fact a Crystal child.


                  So because some person who randomly walks down the street told her something, she immedialty believed it. Then she went online and used the Internet which never gives you “crazy” or “off” facts, or stuff based on the authors belief(well, except []), and from all that she read, enough was vague enough to apply to her, which PROVES it! And then she WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT!

                • dragonfire81 says:

                  @downwithmonstercable:20+ replies on celebrities supporting causes and not a SINGLE mention of Bono?

                  Apparently the man doesn’t have the rep he once did.

                  • downwithmonstercable says:

                    @dragonfire81: I mentioned Bono. But given the topic, McCarthy and Oprah got the attention

                  • pecan 3.14159265 says:

                    @dragonfire81: Bono’s untouchable. You can’t make fun of Bono. He’s just too cool.

                    And his causes don’t exactly incite rage in people. Cause you know…world hunger is a problem everyone can agree exists.

                  • Trai_Dep says:

                    @dragonfire81: Trying to get impoverished African nations out from under the yoke of crippling loans so they have a chance at becoming self-sustaining has more merit than the hysterical anti-vaccine crusaders, I’d bet. I don’t agree with Bono, but I can see where he’s coming from, and it’s a valid argument to discuss. Some blond chick blathering her anti-science, on the other hand…

                • Plorry says:

                  @downwithmonstercable: Hey dude, just wanna say, there is actually plenty of evidence suggesting that our livestock-raising culture is contributing in a big way to environmental damage. I wrote a final paper on it for a university geophysics course, and the FACTS convinced me to become vegetarian, which I am to this day.
                  You’re free to eat meat; I’m not telling you not to. You’re free to disagree with Paul McCartney (or any other Beatle). But don’t pretend there is no evidence here just because you don’t want to look it up, or just because you read something by another staunch omnivore who is offended by the very idea that vegetarians exist. To me, that reads like the arguments those climate-change deniers made: “There’s just not enough evidence” – Translation: “I don’t want to give up any part of my lifestyle, so I’ll look for evidence that supports me and ignore the rest.”

                  Oprah, on the other hand…

                  • downwithmonstercable says:

                    @Plorry: I’m not saying there no evidence that livestock cause these types of issues. McCartney unfortunately has been mixed into my other arguments here such as Oprah and Jenny McCarthy. This story though was just a reminder of how I feel overall about celebs and political stuff. I have nothing against vegetarians or animal rights. Although I do have issues with PETA, because of the way they do things and what they believe, etc. That’s a different story though

                    • Plorry says:

                      @downwithmonstercable: Word. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. What I was mostly responding to was this: “Especially when there is little evidence or research that it will make a difference.” I just wanted to say that from my understanding, there’s a good amount of it. I have no idea what facts or research McCartney’s using (if any), so right now I’m neither opposed or in favour of this specific campaign. But I do agree with the conclusion.

                      I know where you’re coming from about celebrities and causes and that, but if a team of qualified atmospheric physicists came out and said the same thing, you’d never hear about it.

                    • downwithmonstercable says:

                      @Plorry: That is the catch 22 of my argument. But if those psysicists teamed up with a celeb that’s legitimately involved and cares, that’s a different story. Just like Bono and world hunger, Clooney and Darfur, heck even Paul Newman and all the stuff he did. They genuinely care about their cause and are deeply rooted in it. I know Paul McCartney is a vegan, and I’m really not particularly irritated with him. But I already explained that.

            • giggitygoo says:


              Completely agree with you. Too many people have knee-jerk reactions to such criticisms when they happen to agree with what is being said. This is not a freedom of speech issue, as no one is advocating the jailing of celebrities for their speech. Far too often celebrities use the fame they gained via acting/singing talents to preach their beliefs on topics unrelated to such talents. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing this practice, as their opinions are often uneducated and sometimes dangerous. (e.g. The vaccination example you cited)

            • subtlefrog says:

              @downwithmonstercable: Exactly. I am so tired of people saying vaccines cause autism. I can completely understand the desire to blame something, anything, if your kid were diagnosed with autism, but frankly, there is NOTHING leading to vaccines as a cause. LOADS of science -independent of the drug companies – saying it isn’t caused by the drug. So then all these parents freak out and don’t vaccinate their kids, and then all these diseases which WERE eradicated in the US suddenly have a window to pop back up. Brilliant parenting.

              I’ll probably get flamed for this, but Downwithmonstercable, I’m behind you here. In some cases, there aren’t any data, and sure, people have a right to be skeptical. This is not one of those cases. I’ve never watched Jenny McCarthy, but jeezus, if this is what she’s all about, then I’m glad I haven’t – and I never will. This is flat out irresponsible. But then, when has the public really cared about real science if it’s not dramatic?

    • takes_so_little says:

      @downwithmonstercable: I know! It’s almost as if they feel they have some kind of freedom of speech or something! Gawd!

    • februarymakeup says:

      @downwithmonstercable: So at what point does a famous person lose their right to promote their beliefs?

      You’ve just done it, here, for example, so we can assume that it’s somewhere between, say, you and Paul McCartney. You’re here, reading this website, and not complaining about Mr. Villareal, so we can assume that it’s ACTUALLY somewhere between “Phil Villareal” and “Paul McCartney” which is still a pretty wide swath of ground.

      Since you seem to believe yourself to arbitrate such things, where is it? Evan Dando? Heather Matarazzo? Anthony Bourdain?

    • diasdiem says:

      @downwithmonstercable: I bet you’re also one of those thoughtless people who puts their children at risk for autism by getting them vaccinated.

      • downwithmonstercable says:

        @diasdiem: I bet he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. This reverses everything I’ve said about him. He is a noble man, we must listen to what he says!

      • TripleTheOrder_GitEmSteveDave says:

        @diasdiem: And what in vaccines causes Autism, a condition which has no real confirmed “causes”?

    • HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @downwithmonstercable: Jenny McCarthy is different. She is part of a group I call “Science Tits”. They are women who spew “knowledge” based on things such as “Mommy Sense” and people believe them, mainly b/c they have mamories. Oprah is another. She gets on the stage and has these idiots with fringe ideas that border either border on bad science or ARE pure pseudo-science, and people believe it, and she never points out when things are wrong.

      Now, to be fair, Jenny McCarthy is not anti-vaccine. She just says not to vaccinate your kids until they take all the harmful things out of the vaccines. Things such as the viruses in them. Until then, it’s OK for kids to get things like Polio. It’s sad when people actually die b/c someone who stuck their finger up their nose to be famous, and believes it’s OK to shoot a neuro-toxin into her own face, tells them to.

    • diasdiem says:

      @downwithmonstercable: Well, maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Did you ever consider that?

    • Cupajo says:

      “I dunno about anybody else, but I’m really sick of ANONYMOUS INTERNET ASSHOLES getting behind causes and hawking their beliefs on everybody. Especially when there is little evidence or research that THEY ARE CITIZENS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Not McCartney specifically, but just in general. ANONYMOUS INTERNET ASSHOLES are overstepping their bounds. COMMENTS ON THE INTERWEBS AND POST FUNNY PICTURES OF CATS. I’m paying you to entertain me, not get all preachy.

      DOWNWITHMONSTERCABLE comes to mind right now.”

      • downwithmonstercable says:

        @Cupajo: Ouch that hurt. Attacks from anonymous internet assholes are my kryptonite. I’ll go hang myself now.

        Why do you guys keep saying I’m talking about ending first amendment rights?

        • Cupajo says:

          @downwithmonstercable: “Why do you guys keep saying I’m talking about ending first amendment rights?”

          Gosh, I don’t know. Maybe it was this little gem:

          “Celebrities are overstepping their bounds.”

          Apparently, a celebrities “bounds” do not include using the pulpit they are provided to express their opinions. Look, I don’t piss and moan when Ted Nugent expresses his pro-beef and pro-gun opinion. He’s an American citizen and is perfectly within his “bounds” to do so. So, why all the ire for McCartney?

          • downwithmonstercable says:

            @Cupajo: Ok – I’ll give you that, I can see how that sounds like what you’re saying. What I meant by that, is that in general, a celebrity acts in films or plays in a band, or whatever. That is their job. But what I”m saying, is that I, personally, can’t stand it when celebs start getting political. So for example, I like Pearl Jam or Dixie Chicks or something. I pay to go to a show and listen to them perform. But then, they start going off on George Bush and the Iraq War. I, personally, hate this. I don’t go to a concert to listen to some half baked argument about a political issue. To me, if you’re going to be arguing something, you need to have some cold hard facts to back it up, and you need to have some relevence in the area your’e talking about. Jenny McCarthy has no facts, no evidence, and is a washed up actress/model. She is not a scientist, any type of doctor, or anybody even remotely justifiable in giving medical advice. McCartney is a different story. I wasn’t specifically harping on him – this story in general brought the subject up to me about how it’s irritating that celebs get behind a cause and start preaching.

            Hopefully that clarifies?

            • Cupajo says:

              @downwithmonstercable: I’ll agree with you there. I’m no fan of any celebrity using the *stage* to promote their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. I’m not a fan of the Dixie Chicks, but if I were and I had been at the concert where they made their infamous statements, I imagine I would be mildly irritated, even though I agree with the statements. I didn’t pay a ticket price to go see them pontificate.

              But if they use the pulpit provided by the fame and celebrity to do the same thing, I have no problem with that. The exposure and attention is just a by-product of their celebrity status. It’s not the “what you’re paying them for” part of who they are. And if they want to use it to promote their beliefs, more power to them. It seems to me that that’s what McCartney did here. As far as I can tell, he didn’t make these statements on stage. He made them in an interview. The paper (or TV station or whatever) could just as easily not print (or run) the interview or the part where he’s talking about vegetarianism.

    • HogwartsAlum says:


      I don’t mind if they know what they are talking about, if they took the time to find out about the issue that concerns them. But Jenny McCarthy doesn’t.

      I wouldn’t mind not eating meat one day a week. I don’t eat it that much anyway, so it’s no skin off my nose.

  5. I Love New Jersey says:

    Nothing like ageing rockstars plus some nonsense science for a healthy dose of idiocy.

  6. humphrmi says:

    This is the same logic as those loonies who say “don’t buy gas on THIS DAY and we’ll force the oil companies to lower their prices!” and even “Don’t drive on THIS DAY and we’ll reduce fuel consumption!” The trouble is, it doesn’t work.

    Few people, even amongst hard core meat-eaters, eat meat every single day of the week anyway. Even if you got them on board, they’d just all eat meat on other days.

    My mantra: you can’t reduce consumption with a calendar.

    • winshape says:

      @humphrmi: This is a little different. With gas it doesn’t work, since people are probably going to drive like they normally do and will just adjust their fill up to the next day. People who choose to skip meat on monday aren’t going to eat two steaks on Tuesday to make up for it.

      They’ll have to pry the bacon from my cold dead fingers on Monday.

      • humphrmi says:

        @winshape: But people who normally eat meat five or six days a week are just going to adjust their non-meat day to Monday. It’s the same.

      • HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave says:

        @winshape: Most people do not buy their meals the day they eat them. They buy what’s on sale once a week, and plan their meals around what they buy. The meat is still in the freezer/fridge if I eat it today or not.

      • zonk7ate9 says:

        @winshape: I don’t consider myself a “hardcore” meat eater, but I’m pretty sure I eat a delicious animal atleast once a day. What else is there? Vegetables

        • humphrmi says:

          @zonk7ate9: @Underpants Gnome: Well, in my post, the point I was making was that people who want to eat meat every day are probably not going to change just because Paul McCartney told them to, and the people who don’t eat meat every day but maybe a few times a week will just adjust their schedules, which doesn’t help anything.

          Then there’s the preachy bit, and it’s the reason why I don’t like today’s entertainment media. Ed Begley, Paul Newman (who I loved anyway as an actor), Bob Barker – all of them try to parlay the fame that we’ve given them to try to change our behaviors. And we get flamed when we push back because “it’s for a good cause”.

          Well folks, here’s a news flash: You don’t need to have these people tell you to do something good. You’re human, and you will either do good or not, depending on a lot more variables – like genetics, upbringing, etc. – than whether a “star” tells you to do it.

          I guess what I’m trying to say is, we shouldn’t be sheep.

    • RStui says:

      @humphrmi: How long would it really take to impact the “supply” with our “demand” on this? If I DO give up my steak on Monday (mmmmm steak) how many fewer cows will the meat industry really get rid of?

      These hare-brained get-green-quick schemes are ridiculous. Also, EVERYONE DON’T BUY GAS ON MONDAYS!!1! We’ll take OPEC out of business and that will show them!!!1!111!

    • downwithmonstercable says:

      @humphrmi: Oh man, the “great american gas out” or whatever those stupid hippies keep doing is the dumbest thing ever. I’ve never wanted to punch someone in the face so badly. Don’t buy gas on monday! But we’re all gonna keep driving like normal, so the people who didn’t buy on monday now flood the gas stations on tuesday along with everybody else.

      • HasADealForYou_GitEmSteveDave says:

        @downwithmonstercable: Or how about:

        Reporter: Gas prices have gone up $.50 since last year. We asked consumers how this will affect them.

        Person at pump:”We can’t afford to go on vacation this year! It’s just too expensive!”

        Reporter: When asked how how on a 2,000 mile car trip each way, the extra $100.00 on gas they would spend would make it impossible to travel, the producer smacked me for asking the question.

      • craptastico says:

        @downwithmonstercable: no gas on mondays was a great idea. it let me take advantage of shorter lines on monday@JuliB: if only the catholic church took child molestation as seriously as they do meat consumption on fridays. then maybe i’d give them some credence

  7. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    But only on Monday? I mean, would it really make that much of a difference? I say this is symbolic at best, but maybe there will be more sales on beef on Monday.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      @pecan 3.14159265: You ever been Catholic? Meatless Fridays suck BALLS because that’s going-out night. Meatless Mondays would be so much easier. Mondays suck anyway, so it’d just a little extra suck. Whereas meatless Fridays are, “Chicken Caesar Salad — no chicken, please.”

      (Well, these days everywhere has vegetarian options. But I remember going out in high school on Fridays after basketball games and having to order moronic things.)

      • downwithmonstercable says:

        @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): My brother was a vegetarian for a while, he had to ask the servers what type of oil french fries were fried in, and if it was used to fry any meat. And he had to ask if a grilled cheese sandwich was cooked on the same skillet as a burger or something. We made fun of him a lot, but only because he’s my little brother. I fully respect anyone who chooses to not eat meat. But it was easy fodder for siblings.

  8. ekthesy says:

    Geez, such cynics. McCartney is just trying to get people to think about lowering their meat consumption, which is a good idea anyway.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @ekthesy: Though to be fair, Paul McCartney couldn’t care less whether meat consumption kills you, but he probably does kind of hope a little that it does cause then you’ll permanently stop consuming meat, which leads to emissions, which leads to the end of the world.

      • downwithmonstercable says:

        @pecan 3.14159265: I doubt he cares about emissions. He’s a PETA hippy. He wants to end meat consumption for that reason alone, I’d bet.

      • ekthesy says:

        @pecan 3.14159265:

        I support him, then, in his hope that people eat less meat. The large-scale production of meat is not only consumer-unfriendly, it’s environmentally unfriendly. Also, the manufacturing process tortures animals on its way to killing them, so there’s the trifecta.

        Nobody is suggesting that eating meat is “the end of the world,” but if people got off their high horse and realized that it’s actually a worthy suggestion, we collectively might do some good in this world.

    • HiPwr says:

      @ekthesy: It’s easy to be cynical when a multi-millionare celebrity preaches about us reducing our carbon footprint while the man flies in private jets and lives in mansions.

      • ekthesy says:


        This is true, but one can still be a hypocrite and tell the truth about something, no?

      • takes_so_little says:

        @HiPwr: “It’s easy to be cynical…” period. It’s easy to sneer. It’s also easy to hate rich people. But what good does it do? McCartney may be flawed, but what the hell, he;s trying to be positive, at least. You should give it a shot yourself.

        • HiPwr says:

          @takes_so_little: @ekthesy: He thinks it’s positive; I don’t. We are both free to feel the way we do without demonizing each other. I certainly don’t hate McCartney, I just disagree with him. Some people can’t see the difference.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @HiPwr: True, and we’re in similar places on this (I don’t eat much meat, but it’s a taste thing, and, I wonder how effective these celebrity-driven things are). But hey, if it has an incremental effect, less meat is better for the American diet, so let a thousand flowers bloom.
            But you don’t see me bringing up mansions and jets. Your argument is stronger without them as well, I’d suspect.

            • HiPwr says:

              @Trai_Dep: My point was that the words of hypocrites have very little credibility in my book. I actually think that McCartney has earned every penny of his lavish wealth and I applaud him for it. I just can’t give him any serious consideration on this matter when he’s telling a peasant like myself that I need to cut back while he lives high on the hog.

              The man eats no meat. Good for him, that’s his choice and his lifestyle. I’m sure he’s saved generations of cute little penguins as well by not encouraging cow farts. However, countless cuddly polar bear cubs are meeting horrible deaths because of the amount of electricity he generates every day to support his existance and if I eat meat every day for the rest of my life, I bet I come no where near the polar bear armageddon that McCartney has caused.

              • Trai_Dep says:

                @HiPwr: Sure, but there’s one of him (or the Pope, who makes moral statements yet has quite the carbon footprint as a result of who he is). If the Pope can get 100m people to be just a *bit* kinder, that’s a larger impact than if he, say, gave up his jet.
                Same principle with Paul: if he can make people think about things just a *bit* differently, it could deliver larger dividends than if he used Amtrak on his next US tour. Especially because, in this case, there’s more to his argument than simply methane.
                Incremental change doesn’t sizzle, but it sometimes delivers a bigger bank for the buck.

                • HiPwr says:

                  @Trai_Dep: I see your point, but I just can’t get past the hypocricy. Take someone like Ed Begly Jr., for example. The guy is a die-hard environmentalist. I’m sure there are issues where he and I are in total agreement, but mostly I would say that we are on the opposite ends. Or at least I would be of the opinion that his views are a bit on the extreme.

                  However, the man “walks the walk”. He lives the lifestyle that he preaches to others. So while I may not agree with everything he says and may even think he is a little kooky, I have respect for him and his convictions. I can’t say the same about Sir Paul.

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @HiPwr: So does the Pope.
        If you’re against air travel and homes larger than 2 bedroom, isn’t that, well, rather Communist?

    • humphrmi says:

      @ekthesy: Then instead of suggesting stupid calendar tricks that never work, why doesn’t he just say “Hey folks, please think about lowering your meat consumption.”

      • ekthesy says:


        Because people are more inclined to take collective action if it’s a scheduled thing, rather than an amorphous construct that one needs to “get around to.” Things like “Meatless Mondays” and Twitter’s “Follow Fridays” catch on quicker than “Oh, one day this week try not to eat meat.” It ties in to psychology and decision-making by taking one step out of the decision process; i.e. if one chooses to follow McCartney’s initiative here, the decision not to eat meat has already been made for them.

        I’m sure Macca didn’t take psychology into account; he probably just liked the alliteration, but there you go.

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @humphrmi: I’m ambivalent about this. But to be fair, you need a Call to Action in situations like these.
        And, unlike filling your gas tank on Tuesday instead of Monday, it’s not like you’ll eat twice as much beef the next day. Plus people may find they don’t need as much meat as they thought they did, once they do meatless Mondays.
        I’m disappointed he didn’t suggest substituting protein sources on Monday: instead of beef, beetles! Crispy, crunchy, deep-fried beetles! (Yup: everything tastes better if dipped in Bourbon and egg whites, then deep-fried!)

    • takes_so_little says:

      @ekthesy: Exactly. However, he’s bound to touch the huge “You’re not the boos of ME!” nerve in many Americans.

  9. Heather Dianne Pencil says:

    Honestly, I don’t really care about the not eating meat part. It’s the sentence that states “Livestock accounts for about 18 percent of greenhouse gases” That’s poppycock! If you include water vapor into the equation of green house gasses (which it is one) that only leaves room for 5% of other gasses. If you decide to leave water vapor out of the equation (for convenience purposes) Then almost 100% of the gasses are CO2 and about 90 of that is produced by the earth (volcanoes and the like)


  10. tungstencoil says:

    Why do people continue to pay attention to celebrities when they do non-celebrity things? It’s like karaoke in reverse… a singer trying to say something meaningful and intelligent, rather than sing.

    Seriously… assuming people did it, and it did what people wanted, and assuming it actually had the desired effect on greenhouse gases (and those are big assumptions), what about unintended side effects:

    1. Less sales, so less income to these farmers.
    2. Fewer farm jobs.
    3. Reduced production.
    4. Higher prices.
    5. Less jobs in related industry, such as processing plants.
    6. Higher consumption of alternatives.
    7. Greater demand for alternatives.
    8. Short-term spike in alternatives’ prices.

    Like him, I’m kind of making it up on the cuff, but it totally cracks me up when some celebrity makes some inane statement about what “everyone” should do to help or solve some “problem”.

    Go back to singing please.

  11. Snarkysnake says:

    No , Sir Paul. I’ll eat meat when I damn well please and you warble your silly love songs when you please.

    The scary thing is that there is a fairly large slice of the population that look to celebrities for guidance to live their miserable lives.

    Look , we have already been through all of this. Wasn’t it just last week that three or four Burger Kings declared unequivocally that global warming is BALONEY ?
    I mean , if you can’t trust the poorly spelled grammatically incorrect political advice that you get from the sign at Burger King , then just who the hell ARE you supposed to trust ?

  12. ptkdude says:

    I’m going to start eating extra meat on Mondays.

  13. HiPwr says:

    I wonder if he and his celebrity friends considered a meatless Friday but rejected it because it might be considered religious.

  14. zibby says:

    I’m backing Fried Fridays.

  15. Underpants Gnome says:

    @humphrmi: “Few people, even amongst hard core meat-eaters, eat meat every single day of the week anyway”

    Really? I’d be hard pressed to remember the last time I went an entire day without eating meat. Maybe I hang out in a carnivorous crowd, but i’d think it would be harder to find (non-vegetarian) people who routinely have meatless days.

    • BigPapaCherry says:

      @Underpants Gnome: Glad to know I’m not alone. I eat meat at least once daily, usually twice. Turkey sandwich lunch and chicken/beef for dinner.

      • edsobo says:

        @OMG? BigPapaCherry doesn’t get it?: I’m vegan now, but back when I was still eating meat, it was a once-or-twice-daily thing for me, as well.

      • Nick Wright says:

        @OMG? BigPapaCherry doesn’t get it?: When I wasn’t trying to reduce my amounts, it was pretty much every meal. In North America we get the idea that if we don’t get meat with our meal, we’re being cheated.

        • ludwigk says:

          @AbsurdHero: I don’t know why it is, but if I eat a meal without animal proteins and fats, I get really hungry about 30 minutes – 1 hr later. It must be some kind of ‘nutritional conditioning’, or some sort of craving, but I can’t seem to shake it.

          I can literally eat a massive pile of quinoa and beans and tofu and it still happens. and feel famished right afterward, but a few oz. of meat will clear it up. It’s like I’m some sort of meat vampire.

    • Nick Wright says:

      @Underpants Gnome: Agreed. I’m consciously reducing the amount of meat I eat and I still only manage 2 or 3 days out of the week without it.

  16. takes_so_little says:

    @takes_so_little: “boss”

  17. RevRagnarok says:

    My ancestors didn’t take millions of years clamoring their way up the food chain for tofu, Sir Paul.

    • rudeskata says:

      @RevRagnarok: They also didn’t eat for every meal either. Your ancestors didn’t have the population growth that we’re seeing either, do you really think a meatcentric diet is sustainable? BTW there’s soy in your precious fast food meat products, corn too but I guess it’s okay if the King says so, right?

  18. ngc6027 says:

    I don’t think that global warming is completely ludicrous, however it’s not quite as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Solar activity has been a giant factor in the weather on Earth since its inception. The sun is going through quite a range of activity at the moment that could explain some of the climate change. I think we’re putting too much stake in global warming, when it’s not all our fault.

    • chocogray says:


      That’s funny, so you are saying that since it isn’t “all our fault” we should try to make any corrections on our end? I guess we should just send the sun a petition that he needs to get his act together.

      • HiPwr says:

        @chocogray: Do you rule out the possibility that whatever action we take to change the temperature of the Earth will not have unintended consequences and actually make things worse?

      • ngc6027 says:

        @chocogray: What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t be going crazy to try to totally fix “global warming”. Our attempts aren’t working and we just blame it on the fact that we’re not doing enough. Conservation of resources (recycling, not leaving lights on, etc.) are all good ideas, but in the end it will not end “global warming”.

  19. korybing says:

    Eating less meat is a great idea, but this doesn’t really do anything to solve the problem it’s trying to fix. It’s a nice gesture, I guess, but my concern are the people who go “I’M HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT, I DON’T EAT MEAT ON MONDAY” and then go to the store to buy a ton of processed meat for Tuesday’s Beef-a-Thon with a smug look on their face.

  20. Anonymous says:

    “McCartney is working under the assumption that less demand for meat will lead to fewer farm animals, overlooking the inconvenient truth that if we don’t keep eating meat seven days a week, the populations of flatulent farm animals will surely explode unchecked and thus hasten the destruction of the environment. ”

    riiiight, except for the part where in the long term it will reduce the supply of animals. It’s not like farm animals go around procreating for fun. Almost all farm breeding is undertaken by farmers matching up animals or even through artificial insemination. Where is less demand there is less supply. The only reason we have so many farm animals at the moment is that we have bred that many!

  21. JuliB says:

    As a devout Catholic, I try to avoid meat on Fridays (some weeks I forget what day it is, but that’s rare) and am usually pretty successful. Do I eat seafood> Yes, but sometimes we go vegetarian.

    Note to all US Catholics – unless you actively and consciously do another penance, meatless Fridays are still in effect per the USCCB (US Bishops).

  22. junkmail says:

    @chocogray: Do you feel the same about Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Kelsey Grammar, Charles Barkley, etc.? Or just the ones you agree with?

  23. dave23 says:

    I would think that we should all eat MORE meat and reduce the number of livestock that produce these gasses….

    please realize that I am kidding before responding

  24. chocogray says:

    You guys and this website have become a joke. I have never seen such a fake bunch of consumerists. I’m not going to do the no meat on mondays thing (I already have a routine that has reduced my meat consumption), but I have never seen you guys go so crazy with negative comments simply because someone has an idea about trying to fix the planet we inhabit!?! I don’t think anyone has the perfect idea to fix the problem (and if you don’t think global warming is a problem you are in denial) but I’m guessing that sitting around shrugging our shoulders will lead to sure disaster. I apologize because there are some great posters on this site and normally some very good articles but as of late it seems Dick Cheney has been doing all the editorial, while Limbaugh lights up the message boards. I guess we should just drill baby drill, or in this case steak baby steak!

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      @chocogray: No one is going crazy because someone wants to be positive, and “fix the planet” – it’s that Paul McCartney is hardly an expert on anything, and he’s really not someone who should necessarily be trusted to have “the facts.” There are plenty of card-toting Blue Staters on this website (I mention this because you deliberately point out Cheney and Limbaugh) who dislike Sir Paul’s espousing of what he thinks are facts, and who dislike it when a celebrity wants to use their name and public image to try to educate others on things they don’t know much about. Celebrities know they will end up in the news, and people will listen, which is why it’s especially important for people such as Paul McCartney to get his facts straight, and cite scientists and journals, and real evidence and real scientific findings. If he isn’t doing that, he’s just another guy who has a soapbox, and it’s not responsible education.

      • chocogray says:

        @pecan 3.14159265:

        you are right, but do you have to be an expert on global warming to contribute to the think tank that want’s to correct it? Celebrities know people will listen, and that’s the point. Some people on this planet wouldn’t think past Wednesday if a celebrity didn’t influence them (sad I know). Again, I don’t think Paul’s idea will work, but I’m damn happy that people’s awareness of the issue and possibly curiosity will be peaked because of his involvement. Others act like he just deface a church or something.

      • Darklighter says:

        @pecan 3.14159265: What do you mean “what he thinks are facts”? McCartney is referring to a widely publicized UN report on the emissions produced by livestock farming. From there, it’s just a simple application of the laws of supply and demand.

      • Darklighter says:

        @pecan 3.14159265: Furthermore, the campaign’s citations explaining the benefits of reducing meat consumption, and even explains why they chose Monday.

    • HiPwr says:

      @chocogray: Why is it that you can’t debate an issue without attempting to marganilize those that disagree with you? You don’t furhter your cause by exclaiming that everyone that doesn’t hold to the orthodoxy is a “joke” and “Limbaugh”. Is there no room for skepticism and critical thinking in your world?

      • BertMask says:

        @HiPwr: Thank you, sir. You and pecan have just both earned a heart. It seems every time there is something remotely political or controversial, both sides belittle the other and nothing is accomplished.

    • downwithmonstercable says:

      @chocogray: You are too sensitive for the internet.

    • takes_so_little says:

      @chocogray: “You guys and this website have become a joke.”

      If you feel that way, why come and comment? Come on, face it… you love us!

      • chocogray says:


        I do love you takes_so! I have just seen some ridiculous posts and articles lately. Did you see that someone took a bite of Jesus’ burger at sonic. Anyway I love reading the comments it just surprises me how people reacted to the article. But I learned a long time ago you can’t get between a man and his beef.

        • downwithmonstercable says:

          @chocogray: Anyway, what I was referring to in my original post – which maybe you missed – is you’re getting offended and worked up over stuff people say on the internet. Chill out, don’t take it so seriously. That’s why I called you too sensitive.

  25. JGKojak says:

    I have no problem with celebrities backing causes.

    We have corporate america with all the money in the world to back their causes/candidates. I feel just about the ONLY justification for the massive salaries celebs and athletes earn is that they can use this money to stick it to the man every once in a while.

    The wonder of it all, baby.

  26. DWalk says:

    I hear that if you play “Maybe I’m Amazed” backwards, you’ll hear a recipe for a really ripping lentil soup.

  27. Yoko Broke Up The Beatles says:

    This reminds me…I’m going to pick up “Let It Roll – Songs of George Harrison” today.

  28. DWalk says:

    What if I only eat animals that are vegetarian?

  29. morlo says:

    McCartney has like 5 kids, which is above average and unsustainable, and will harm the planet more than eating meat, especially as they will all be living lavishly. Maybe a sex-free Monday would be more useful.

  30. You-Me-Us says:

    I’ll stop eating meat when Paul goes back to writing good songs (which he might be able to do if he were spending more time writing songs and less time worrying about what I eat).

    • JGKojak says:

      Have you picked up “Memory Almost Full” from 2007–

      Its a damn good record and has all sorts of good classic-Macca:
      Only Mama Knows– a great Junior’s Farm style rocker
      Mr. Bellamy– close cousin to Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
      House of Wax– great power rocker

      And on his recent Electric Arguments/Fireman, check out:
      Sing the Changes
      Nothing Too Much Just Outta Site

      Then get back to me. You can probably YOUTUBE all of these.

  31. chocogray says:

    first off, I don’t have any “cause” I’m trying to “further.” We know that global warming is a problem, people posting here are saying that we shouldn’t listen to McCartney because he isn’t an expert. that is just nonsense. I’m not a police officer but I advise people that staying off the streets after midnight might reduce their chances of being a crime victim.

    • chocogray says:


      And yes you are right, there is no room for skepticism of global warming in my world!

      • AstroPig7 says:

        @chocogray: That’s just as bad as what you’re criticizing. Science is founded on skepticism, which is why nothing in science is ever proven. Theories and laws are trusted because they are well-supported, since omniscience would be required for proof.

    • Cyberxion101 says:

      @chocogray: Seems to me like you do.

      Furthermore, it seems to me like you’re defending McCarney because he has an opinion you share, which is enforced by the fact that you dismiss his lack of authority on the subject so readily.

      You’re not angry that we’re dismissing him for being a know-nothing blow-hard, you’re angry because doing so suggests that we don’t agree with him, and yourself by extention.

      In essence, you’re one of those folks who gets pissy when he encounters folks who don’t share his opinion. So if you feel that folks aren’t taking you seriously, that would be why.

  32. Big Poppa Pimp says:

    I was cold last night so I decided to eat a Porterhouse.

  33. theblackdog says:

    Just remember kiddies, follow Paul’s Advice and you won’t be winning any friends on Mondays

  34. takes_so_little says:

    @HiPwr: Where do all these poor people get off “expressing their views” on us? Hawk your beliefs someplace else!

  35. veg-o-matic says:

    I’m a vegan and even I find Paulie “Sad Jowls” Mac to be largely irrelevant, however…

    Livestock accounts for about 18 percent of greenhouse gases, more than all the world’s cars, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has said.

    That wasn’t his statement, it was from the UN.

    Really, this kind of awareness tactic is simply meant to get people thinking about reducing consumption. If you do it every Monday, and it’s really easy, and you spend less on your average meal without meat, maybe you consider doing so more frequently.

    These kinds of campaigns have been used before by veg*ns. The suggestion itself isn’t actually intended to immediately alleviate climate change, it’s just to get people to take a small step toward changing their habits.

    I know, I know. It’s like buying a Prius, using it to go buy 5 metric tons of unrecyclable plastics and doing the douche-dance of IM HELPING THE ENVIRO-MUNT! (sorry Prius owners..)

    Even so, I think it’s important to keep in mind that this really just represents one method used by what some of you might call “activist veg*ns” to foster awareness. The “eliminate some animal products gradually and see how easy it is” approach.

    As much as I don’t really like Sir Paul (or PETA for that matter, don’t get me started), this simply isn’t something to get so very worked up over.

  36. CumaeanSibyl says:

    Red/white meat doesn’t make up much of my diet because it’s generally more expensive than poultry. “Meatless Mondays” could save people some money.

    Then again, I don’t know if Sir Paul is including poultry and fish in his edict. I don’t imagine they produce much methane, especially the latter, but the farming/catching thereof comes with its own problems.

  37. Eric Rodriguez says:

    The most ‘potent’ green house gas of them all? Water vapor! So in addition to meatless Mondays, I want you all to avoid soup and coffe &c. on Tuesdays, hot tubbing on Wednesdays…

  38. WelcomeToMyWorld says:

    I don’t doubt his sincerity. Paul McCartney has been a devout vegetarian for almost 40 years.

    Whether this Meatless Monday campaign makes any sense economically or environmentally, remains to be seen. Personally I have cut down my meat consumption the past few years just as a matter of taste & preference, not politics. I never thought to designate a day and call it “meatless” before. It couldn’t hurt to try it.

  39. Max Finkel says:

    But the rabbis say it’s a mitzvah to have meat on holidays. Sorry Paul, you are not a member of the sanhedrin.

  40. tsume says:

    @downwithmonstercable: I agree with OP. If the celebrities actually started to get behind worthy cause with real ideas and real solutions, maybe things would be different.

    For now, I wish they’d shut their yapper and do their job. They get paid too much as it is.

  41. TheBursar says:

    So Mister private jet who lives in his own castle for a family of one (two on weekends??) is teaching us a lesson on limiting consumption.
    Gee thanks!!!

  42. henwy says:


    Screw the environment. We’ll all be long dead before it really goes to pot and then who will give a flying frak then.

  43. dahlink_natasha says:

    If more people keep listening to Jenny McCarthy, then the “herd protection” that these anti vax people keep depending on will thin out and then instead of autism, they will have to start worrying about polio and whooping cough.

    Dr Salk must be rolling around in his grave at this point. Jenny McCarthy has absolutely NO medical credentials whatsoever. She never did any residencies, she never studied at any medical school, she never did anything but have a baby that was diagnosed with autism. All of her theories keep being dubunked by real science, and she keeps having to fall back on something else to support her end hypothesis, because heaven forbid she be wrong and her child just lost out genetically.

    People in the real medical field have absolutely no respect for Ms. McCarthy or her boyfriend whatsoever.

    • TripleTheOrder_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @dahlink_natasha: According to Ms. McCrathy, in response to being told of a recent outbreak:
      “If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back.”

      @downwithmonstercable: Well, I remember the day I became a Star Commenter. I was walking down the street when a disheveled man in a sequined jacket and sweatpants said, “You’re a star and aglets make you angry!”. I immediately replied “Yes!”, and sprayed him w/pepperspray b/c I thought he was trying to steal my essence.

  44. Quilt says:

    Yesterday (Monday) I ate a hotdog for lunch and made some wicked pasta with hot italian sausage in it. NUMMERS!

  45. Nick Wright says:

    “if we don’t keep eating meat seven days a week, the populations of flatulent farm animals will surely explode unchecked and thus hasten the destruction of the environment.”

    This is kind of a ridiculous assumption, isn’t it? Do you really think those farmers are just going to scratch their heads and maintain that high cattle population because, dur hur, that’s how they always did it?

    Less demand, and the supply will level off.

  46. Skin Art Squared says:

    I don’t understand how not eating meat on Mondays is going to change anything.

    What am I doing about the cow methane problem? I’m eating the cows!

    The more cow you eat, the less cows crapping on the planet.

  47. GreatWhiteNorth says:

    Consider the source… As much as I enjoy much of his music and I like that he is trying to do something for all of us and the planet…

    Remember this is the guy who married a few years back, stayed married a few years, then got divorced at the cost of $48.7 million… Now, had he simply hired a personal relaxation professional every night, like Eliot Spitzer did, it would have cost him a tiny fraction of the money and he would have come out far far ahead of the game.

    So take his advice with a grain of salt on your rings and dill pickle on your burger.

  48. Skin Art Squared says:

    Oh, and screw McCartney. I’m a carnivore, not a fucking hippie.

  49. takes_so_little says:

    MAN! These damn rich people! With their fucking MONEY! And some even with their own OPINIONS! What the fuck do they think they ARE!!!?!?! They should shut their stupid rich MOUTHS and go fart up the interior of their fucking MANSIONS! They’re RICH and I HATE THEM!!!!! SO MUCH!!!!!!

  50. Bladefist says:

    I’m proud of all you guys who think this is absolutely insane. Good work.

  51. Mecharine says:

    Mocking the sentiment is about as low as it gets. Sure, having a celebrity tell you is totally hypocritical. But when you have Australia actively trying to replace its cow herds with less flatulent animals, you should see that there may in fact be legitimate concerns.

    • Skin Art Squared says:

      @Mecharine: The cows aren’t the problem.

      Maybe if we humans didn’t breed like fucking rabbits we wouldn’t need to cover the Earth in livestock to feed 6 BILLION fucking people.

      But of course that would be insensitive. People feel they have the RIGHT to keep fucking and breeding no matter what.

      • AstroPig7 says:

        @BZMedia: Even a population like ours could be sustained if responsible living were more common. Since fewer members of our species means less variation and fewer contributors to human knowledge, six billion humans is fine with me if they can live within their means. Do you have a better solution that won’t cause someone to accuse you of supporting eugenics?

  52. Riley T Pacheco says:

    As one of the world’s biggest Beatle’s fans and a former vegetarian, I am going to give this a try. I have been thinking of how to work back into eating less meat and this is a good start.

  53. silentstriderm says:

    some people say they’ve had enough of silly scientific mumbo-jumbo, but I look around and see it isn’t so…

  54. Willmeister says:

    whats the point of removing the virus out of the vaccine .that would make the vaccine totally pointless

  55. H3ion says:

    Actually, all you need is love.

    This is no different than drinking Gatorade because Michael Jordan says he does. McCartney is pushing a product. It happens to be a product that involves action instead of purchase, but it’s no less a product. I have no problem with celebrities pushing whatever they want to push. Whether I choose to accept their expertise is a very different matter.

    Which Pope declared meatless Fridays?

  56. ShariC says:

    Cow farts aren’t the big issue when contributing to global warming. The problem is deforestation which is carried out to both provide pasture for cattle and crops to feed cattle. Deforestation contributes to global warming rather significantly. If you read the book, “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight”, you get a pretty good explanation of such things.

    The higher up you eat on the food chain, the more energy it takes to produce the food you’re eating. This is undeniable. Finding the resources to raise cattle is more costly than eating fish or chicken or a vegetarian diet, for instance. These things are pretty logical, yet people deny them anyway.

    Doing the opposite of what a celebrity tells you to is little different from doing what they tell you today. In both cases, someone else’s actions are controlling yours. People know eating meat is bad for the planet, but they’ll do whatever they can to justify it, including claiming to do the opposite to show how “rebellious” they are or denying the undeniable logic by stating there’s no “proof”.

  57. OrlandoDude says:

    Back before the planet was ruined (before all the evil white men came to America), life and the planet was in perfect balance.

    The earth’s temperature was not raising at the alarming rate that it is now.

    It was a convenient truth that all native peoples lived in harmony with all other living things. When they killed a buffalo, they used every single part, not wasting one bit.

    Which left the other 15 billion buffalo to fart as much as they wanted.

  58. kyle4 says:

    @diasdiem: Please tell me that was sarcasm.

    Jenny McCarthy is an uninformed idiot who spouts false and scientifically proven false beliefs to profit off her kid who probably isn’t even autistic.

  59. greyspot says:

    But why? I’m TRYING to help the environment! Hell, I love mother earth so much that I’m willing to EAT those bastards that fart up the atmosphere! I propose Mondays to be “Double Meat Mondays.” Save our planet, eat the polluters!

  60. Duggert says:

    LOL.. How about No.

  61. Skankingmike says:

    [] coming to the party late but here’s a good reason not to eat our fish.

  62. Black-Cat says:

    Since I drive a hybrid and am helping the environment, does that mean i can eat twice as much meat then? Ha.

  63. Elizabeth Anderson says:

    Pal has a “beef” with anyone who eats meat, including me. I have a “beef” with him for ruining popular music for the last 40+ years. So we’re even.