Originally Posted by GGDub
While I agree with a lot of those points, singling out meat production as the problem is rather silly. All types of agriculture have a negative impact on the environment. Even organic farming is done on land that has been converted from its natural state and causes unbalances in drainage and recharge to aquifers. Groundwater/surface water pollution caused by feedlots is bad but this pollution pales in comparison to pollution caused by mining activities (I'm a hydrogeologist btw). Cyanide, arsenic and other heavy metals are just some of the fun stuff that is released into watersheds. Our bikes are a direct result of mining, so its best to keep that in mind when you point out someone else's bad habits.
Meat production was not singled out as "the" problem. The claim was that eating less meat would probably be among the top five responses to the question, "What are the most important things I can do to help protect the environment?"
To me, the interesting point is not that agriculture also harms the environment, but that meat production can be so much more harmful than crop production: "To produce one calorie of protein from soy takes two calories of fossil fuel. For beef it takes 54 calories."
The mining issue you point out is probably legitimate (I'm not a hydrogeologist btw). However, it seems logical to me that someone who consumes a car is doing much more damage (by supporting mining) than someone who consumes a bicycle instead. (Here's what the NWEI has to say about cars, btw:
http://www.nwei.org/ecotips/CarImpact.pdf)
The section "What You Can Do" looks at multiple ways to address the problem. For example, instead of telling people to stop eating meat completely, it suggests reducing your consumption and/or buying meat from animals raised locally on small farms.
Neither the problem nor the recommendations seem silly to me.