To the editor: I couldn't agree more that we have to address our diet in order to solve the climate problem. Studies show that animal agriculture creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the transportation sector. ("Latest climate change battle may center on food pyramid," Jan. 18)
Animal agriculture is causing devastating resource depletion. Water is one example.
A milking dairy cow drinks at least 30 gallons of water a day. We drink half a gallon a day. The meat in one hamburger requires more than 600 gallons of water. Not eating animal products has immediate results for helping to save our planet.
The article quotes Daren Bakst from the Heritage Foundation as saying there's an anti-meat agenda. It seems to me there's an anti-truth agenda about meat and the climate.
Louise Russell, San Diego
To the editor: So the nutritional standards for meat may change to account for greenhouse gases even though the reason for doing so has nothing to do with the effect of beef on my body.
OK, why stop there? According to the Economist, China's one-child policy has been the fourth most significant greenhouse gas reduction "policy." Let's have a government initiative to limit the number of children Americans can have so as to reduce greenhouse gases.
Rather than compromising nutritional standards, let's change our existing federal policies that subsidize meat production by underpricing grazing rights and providing essentially free water for growing alfalfa. Better yet, impose an across-the-board per-ton carbon fee (also applicable to livestock) and let the market sort out the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
Norm King, Palm Springs
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion