Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits. Enough with the green consumerist bullshit that only serve as neoliberal justifications for inaction.
If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.
The problem is not that the method that meat is produced, it is that it is produced at high levels at all. The inefficiencies don’t go away by changing regulations. We are going to have to have changes in production and thus consumption levels. It’s going to be difficult politically to get any policy like that through if people are unwilling to reduce any on there own as well
Do I think systematic actions are needed, yes, but if we’re going to get there we’ll have to start with some degree of individual action before any of it is paltable to the larger society
I don’t think it’s worth fighting the meat industry when the other big Corp companies are harming the ecosystem far heavier. The Argicultural industry is 4th largest, so I think main efforts should be regulating big power, manufactoring sector or the oil sector honestly.
If you want to hit climate targets, it’s extremely important
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
you misunderstand, what I’m saying is I think that it’s a wasted effort to split your concentration the way it is being done, the agricultural industry is going to be one of the most resistant changes out there, the other Industries such as manufacturing and oil, you have your lesser groups that are not going to be impacted so it’s going to be fairly easy to gain support for those groups, however with the agriculture industry there is a vast more people that are going to be out to disregard the entire study because they won’t want to change their lifestyle. You can have all the statistics in the world however at the end of the day those deciding actors are generally decided by the general public who isn’t going to bother looking at complicated statistics. So therefore it would be a better move to go towards the path of least resistance which is going to be the other top emitters. My opinion is that if reducing the top three emitters somehow makes it so you don’t hit your climate goal, the climate goal isn’t going to be feasible to hit in the first place.
This isn’t me saying that it shouldn’t happen I’m just saying that the changes posted won’t happen all at once and likely won’t happen at all if too many Focus points are attempted at once.
I don’t think the goal is feasible, but I would love to be proven wrong
There already is momentum in the right direction in many countries such as Germany. I don’t think it’s a hopeless fight at all
In 2011, Germans ate 138 pounds of meat each year. Today, it’s 121 pounds — a 12.3 percent decline. And much of that decline took place in the last few years, a time period when grocery sales of plant-based food nearly doubled.
The global food systems biggest carbon source is from fertiliser production
In order for regulations to stick, they should come from the people. If you try to regulate meat consumption without convincing people that it’s good, it will just not stick. It needs to be a consolidated effort, and guilting regular people into better choices is a big part of it
Guilting people makes them dig their heels in. Especially when bacon is on the line. There is no good vegan bacon substitute
Right because capitalism is bad we should all feel free to never care about our choices
You’ve got some downvotes … and there’s a pretty strong “don’t be obnoxious to people if you want to persuade them to do something” attitude here … which I generally agree with.
Just to provide my own sentiment here … at a broad, like “historical” level … it does bother me that it seems like we’ve kinda become this coddled culture. Yes, we can be obnoxious about how our choices are better than someone else’s bad choices.
But having frank discussions about what choices and actions are good and bad without getting stuck into ego shit fights is not only healthy but I’d argue pretty fundamental. And that includes whether it makes sense for an issue to be elevated to the government/regulatory level … and then … how we as the electorate are going effect that (because in the end, leadership from government these days isn’t really a thing … which is also part of the this coddled “make every feel good about themselves” culture I feel).
I recently started calling this something like “secondary climate denial” (which I got from somewhere I can’t remember). The idea being that a fair amount of people (myself included I’d say) have acquired a sort of learnt helplessness and passiveness about the climate crisis … have learnt to deny the possibility of there being things that they can actually do and that are actually worth doing. Sometimes we expect things to be more effective and more quickly than is reasonable, so we do nothing. Sometimes we think the world is too big and powerful for us to move it, so we give up.
Sometimes we get worried about letting perfect be the enemy of good and so we give up. And what have we all got to show for it … what have we actually done?!
If/when it goes to shit and we’re sitting grand-children who are asking us why we didn’t stop it from happening and what we actually did … are we really going to be satisfied that, well, we had some arguments online about it and tried to eat vegan as much as possible? Won’t the grand-children then say “I’m vegan too, but what did you do to stop it? Didn’t you do anything?”
>If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.
i’d say “attack it”. i don’t care to ask people in the seats of power to pwease pwease hewp.
You can’t even get people to oppose livestock subsidies, and you’re talking about proactive blocks? The action you propose has the least chance of success. Individuals with self-control is the only certain action you can count on.
You know who opposes livestock subsidies? Cattle ranchers. You know why? Because they pay for most of them.
A lot of people don’t realize what’s up with the livestock subsidies, and just treat them as a boogeyman. The biggest monsters are usually the feed subsidy and the LIP. The LIP is just like FEMA for food, and it applies to all farms to prevent disasters cutting off our food supply. The feed subsidy, otoh, is truly a monster. It’s mostly funded by a tax levied on farmers when they put their livestock up for wholesale. Think of it as an “origination fee” or a VAT tax. For red tape reasons, virtually all of it goes to providing discounted or free feed to a few large corporations. You know, like Tyson.
Ask any farmer who owns a few cows. Killing the feed subsidy would be a massive windfall for local animal agriculture.
Of course, since they’re the ones paying for it, people who discover it’s not really hitting their own tax dollars stop complaining about it and that’s why it never changes.
>Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits.
💯
Vegans love to conflate all meat into one big group because their goal is to make veganism look good in comparison.
In reality, beef is the main problem.
It would be a lot more environmentally effective to convince people to reduce beef consumption and replace it with chicken/pork instead, but vegans aren’t interested in that because for them it’s not really about the climate - it’s about reducing animal suffering and death.
This duplicity muddies the waters and makes getting real actual change that would benefit the climate harder to achieve and less likely to happen.
I would hazard saying “environmentally effective” here unless we are willing to ignore some of the other large environmental issues with meat production outside of just green house gases emission. Plant-based foods are lower not just on GHG emissions, but water usage, land usage, eutrophication, fertilizer usage1, etc.
There’s all kinds of other pollutants such as Nitrogen runoff. The rise of the pig farming is has helped fueled a crisis in Nitrogen runoff in the Netherlands for instance
There’s the high level of antibiotic usage to maintaining the high levels of production fueling antibiotic resistance.
And so on.
If we do want to look at the suffering, we should also note that chicken farming does not just keep things the same, but actually makes it worse with more chickens required than other creatures due to their smaller size.
1 Even less synthetic fertilizer even compared to the maximal usage of manure per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528
EDIT: I should also mention that land use change (deforestation) factor can change as you rapidly increase these industries size. Deforestation makes up a large portion of beef’s current emissions. Plant-based foods require overall less cropland due to not needing to grow any feed and removing that energy loss. This is not the case for chicken production. Currently beef does make up the majority of Amazonian deforestation, however, the second largest portion is growing animal feed primary for chickens. Switch from beef to chickens and you might risk just moving around where the deforestation comes from
Yes. Sloppy choice of words on my part but this is a climate change topic, here.
Chicken meat uses 4x less water than beef. I’m not disputing your point, just firming up the perspective for anyone lurking.
Clearly, vegetables are way way better. But in terms of what kind of behavior change people are willing to consider, cutting out beef is a way way easier sell than cutting out all meat.
I tell people to try going without beef temporarily. What often happens is in doing so they learn to cook a bit and cut it out (maybe not fully but mostly) long term. Then they go after pork, chicken, etc. You’re right that beef is the worst offender, but we want to be careful not to overemphasise and make it seem like its the only offender. I think a lot of it is setting a tone. I’m veg not vegan but pick vegan options when available. I think the more we can normalise ‘eat less meat’ the better as that’s pretty hard to argue with
IMHO, the workable solution is to get people to eat vegetarian once in a while, eat less meat in general (which is even good for one’s health, as at least in the West people eat way more meat per-day than recommended) and turn eating beef (and, to a lesser extent, pork) into something that is more unusual than usual.
Reduction and more climate-friendly meat consumption is way easier to sell as an idea to beings who are omnivore (so have a natural desire for the stuff) than full vegetarianism (or, worse, full veganism) and I’m pretty sure some of those people will end up mainly or even totally vegetarian and even vegan, as they get used to and appreciate meat-free meals.
However the Moralists are as usually abusing and distorting a genuine concern to push an absolutist view (as it’s anchored above all on a Moral viewpoint on meat consumption, so Environmentalist objectives are at best secondary), damaging the actual Environmentalist outcomes since it’s a lot easier to both convince people to slowly rebalance their meat-consumption and have it happen in a safe way for even the less informed than it is to do it with sudden total abstinence.
Exactly. Don’t make it a religion, just ask people to give vegetarian food a try until they crave meat. At least that approach worked for me - I could never see myself be a vegetarian. Turned out I am happy with eating meat twice a year.
I mean, if we’re looking at the graphs, beef really is the only “offender” (if you can call it that) and only in the current consumed amounts. If people ate a lot more chicken and less beef, the GHG effect from animals would be lower than the same number 500 years ago due to animal population culling and advancements in agricultural methane reduction.
At that point, the term “negligible effect” becomes unreasonably harsh. Even with the worst claims against the effect of livestock on the environment (many of which we might not see eye to eye on), it’s simply objectively not an environmental issue if people are eating chicken and some pork as their staple proteins. You can call it an animal rights issue if you want. Considering chicken is almost objectively a correct and healthy food to eat, two thirds of the diet triforce (health, environment, animal rights) become non-issues.
And the cool thing, even if I disagree with the outcomes it’s healthier for us to eat a bit less red meat as long as our meat protein intake stays reasonable from white meat and seafood.
What’s the impact, if any, of any of these crops/livestock in non-water-short areas? Do other areas thousands of miles away cannibalize excess water if available to prevent draught, or are these numbers sometimes meaningless in the medium-term?
Yes. Sloppy choice of words on my part but this is a climate change topic, here.
Chicken meat uses 4x less water than beef. I’m not disputing your point, just firming up the perspective for anyone lurking.
Clearly, vegetables are way way better. But in terms of what kind of behavior change people are willing to consider, cutting out beef is a way way easier sell than cutting out all meat.
one aspect of this is that many vegans care about the environment and the victims of animal agriculture. Things are so bad for the animals (we kill trillions per year. That’s insane.) that people are desperate to do or say anything to get people to stop supporting it.
Clearly not, as, humans being as humans are, merelly getting people to just start having vegetarian meals once in a while, reducing meat consumption (which is even a good thing healthwise) and eating more of the less environmentally harmful meats and less of the worst ones, is a far faster path to reduce the Environmental problem and avoiding the kind of push-back reaction that will put many people altogether against the idea.
The genuine, pragmatic approach to maximizing the Environmental outcomes both on the long- and short-term is the very opposite of how Moralists, driven by their own Moral standpoint and self-righteousness, are abusing broader Environmental concerns to push their morals.
People putting Environmentalism first aren’t pushing for absolutist “abide by my Morals” pseudo-“solutions”.
Then keep beef. One cow is a hundred meals, one chicken is two. 50 chickens die to save one cow.
And chickens don’t give milk
If tofu is still ten times better for the planet than cheese I don’t think it’s “mostly beef” that’s the problem.
Given cheese is a beef-related product I don’t see the issue with the reasoning
It would be a lot more environmentally effective to convince people to reduce beef consumption and replace it with chicken/pork instead,
Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans. Beef is the worst for climate while chickens get the least ethical treatment.
This duplicity muddies the waters and makes getting real actual change that would benefit the climate harder to achieve and less likely to happen.
Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change. Non-beef meats still shadow plant-based food in terms of their climate harm.
Your pic was too big for me to download but if it’s the same data I’ve seen, then beef is the worst and lamb is 2nd at about ½ the emissions of beef, and all the meats are substantially more harmful than plant based options.
Honestly this whole argument reminds me of the importance of intersectionality. Yes different groups have different forms, levels and styles of oppression, but there is still a joint cause for dismantling oppression as a whole.
To summarize his infographic. Pork, Chicken, and farmed seafood are better than some plant-based options, and worse than some other plant-based options. The graph seems to leave off some of the famous outliers (like wild-caught seafood).
Unfortunately the graph leaves out a lot of important variables, like the usability of the land (whether growing corn on an acre that can support a forest is better or worse than having pork on an acre that cannot support much plantlife). It also uses global averages, which leaves out situations where many regions may be looking at entirely different calculations.
Coffee and chocolate are not substitutes for animal meat though. If you look at the chart and compare animal proteins to substitutes like tofu, beans, peas, and nuts the plant based options win every time.
Coffee and chocolate are not substitutes for animal meat though. If you look at the chart and compare animal proteins to substitutes like tofu, beans, peas, and nuts the plant based options win every time.
You came so close to the answer, and then fell away. Factory farming as a process is what jacks up those numbers dramatically, not the thing that’s being farmed. A few large corporations have seized the cattle and chicken industries, so their numbers would be far lower if regulations reversed that horrific trend (with a few caveats regarding methane in cattle, but I’m trying to stick to the topic). Remember how I mentioned “leaves out a lot of important variables”? That’s another of them. Nobody cares that Tyson collects a feed subsidy that’s paid for by small-scale farmers, or that small-scale farmers’ animal products are 100% environmentally sustainable in most countries. There’s nothing inherent about animal agriculture that means it NEEDS to be factory-farmed, or that we need to penalize small farmers so we can kick money over to Purdue.
But even in the current graph, poultry, pork, and seafood are in the same realm as most crops and are dramatically more usable calories. Several things that are not on the chart (wild-caught seafood, animals raised with certain processes, the influence of the symbiotic relationship between animals and crops) put most animals comfortably in with plants.
As for beef, that would deserve it’s own entire conversation because those numbers misrepresent a lot of the reality. But that’s another topic and I’m starting to tire of having 10+ people reply to me every hour on this topic, most of whom are angry at or belittling me (not you, just in general)
Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans
Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat, then eco-vegans aren’t eco at all (and should admit it to themselves) if they can’t embrace that fact. The willful oversimplification of the environmental impacts of meat-eating is a Tell that a given vegan couldn’t care less about the environment.
Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change
I’m an environmental activist that the vegans try to burn because I’m also an advocate for small aggriculture and local rancher protections. How is that not “dividing an already tiny population”? You should let the eco-vegans join our team for a while, too, if the environmental side matters to you.
You know who the eco-vegans would have marching side-by-side with them if they focused on the environmental impact instead of the animal rights side? BLOODY FREAKING RANCHERS . There’d be 10x the people fighting for the environment. Get us all hugging fluffy bunnies after we save the world. Seems reasonable enough for me.
EDIT: Whoops. Double-post unintended. Just ignore one or both or reply to both or whatever.
Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat,
First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy. I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.
But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern. Maybe there are some rare fruits that get shipped all over the world. It certainly does not make sense to divide, disempower, and diffuse the vegan movement in order to make exotic fruit/veg X the enemy of climate action in favor of preserving chicken factory-farming. Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:
“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation at the cost of neutering an otherwise strong movement – or in the very least failed to exploit an important asset we need for climate action. This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.
The wise move is to consider action timing more tactfully. That is, push the simple vegan narrative for all it’s worth to shrink the whole livestock industry (extra emphasis on beef is fine but beyond that complexity works against you). No meat would be entirely eliminated of course (extinction mitigation is part of the cause anyway), but when a certain amount of progress is made only then does it make sense to go on the attack on whatever veg can really be justified as a worthy new top offender. The optimum tactful sequence of attack is not the order that appears on whatever chart you found.
The somewhat simplified take is: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, then beat ’em”. Vegans are united and it’s foolish to disrupt that at this stage.
And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers. This has been linked to diseases. Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics. And indeed, that same political party in the US who fought masks and vaccines happens to be the same group of people who deny climate change.
And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers
Good news. Much of the livestock industry is incredibly incentivized to keep livestock stress levels down because it is the cheapest way to include meat quality and (as you say) keep disease down.
Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics
Couldn’t agree more. Nobody with a brain is trying to deregulate the agricultural industry.
First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy
Because its results disagree with your opinion? I’m not sure what constructive can come in any discussion after a line like that.
I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.
So evidence that concludes anything other than “everyone has to stop eating meat now” is immediately untrustworthy. Understood.
But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern
Let’s say someone made the brash presupposition that the only way to show eating meat isn’t destroying the environment is cherry-picking corner cases.
Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:
“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation
I agree with your statement about as much as I agree with Ronald Reagan. Like many Republicans, he was a fan of the tactic of oversimplifying an issue until it was easy enough to pretend to fix it with a trivial solution. Economy? Trickle-down! Anything more than saying “trickle-down” is adding counter-productive completixy to the equation.
The problem here, specifically, is that there are more farmers in the US than vegans in the US. You might have a point in that many farmers are already working towards improving the environment and most vegans tend to have such a shallow view of the issue that you need to reconcile veganism with the environment to get them to help the environment. But in the process you’re losing environmentally conscious educated people who are in a position to take action, which most vegans are not.
This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.
And here is the problem. You just did it. You just told me I’m not allwoed to be an environmental activist because I support ethical meat-eating. Another guy (well I assume it’s someone else) was attacking UC Davis, a reputable college.
I came to say that. Not everyone has to change completely, reducing meat intake a little, eating meat with less emissions and even different beef farms haslve large range of emissions. There are different ways of raising beef.
So for sustainability there are multiple solutions.
For promoting veganism and reduce animal suffering only one, which I do support, but don’t put them together. It will only pusg people away from any improvement.
Wow. I didn’t know chocolate was so bad.
Note as well that if the chocolate comes from:
- #Nestlé
- #HaagenDazs or
- #Hershey’s
then the supply chain has child slaves as well.
Coffee too
Note that there are developments in reducing the methane production of cattle. Supplementing their food with seaweed lets the bacteria in their gut fully digest the grass, breaking the methane to CO2
As it is if you removed the cattle and re-wilded the land they were on, that land would produce as much methane and CO2 as the cows did, as the same bacteria would break down fallen grass, or work in deer guts and no one will feed the wild land and deer seaweed
This is sometimes true, sometimes false. In areas where forests are cut down for cattle, the carbon offset of the forest “just wins”.
But in marginal land, the cattle are arguably a net gain in greenhouse gasses over leaving the land untouched
Do you eat beef?
I feel like it’s so unfair that there’s so many people in the world we need to stop eating our favorite foods. How about reduce the human population instead? Such that we could all sustain an enjoyable existence where we don’t have to worry about what we eat…
I’ll double down. In reality, beef in Africa, India, and China are the problem (except agriculture isn’t a significant enough problem to call “the problem”). In most countries, the climate impact of beef is low for the number of people fed by it.
And even in a full vacuum, plant-based food STILL accounts for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by agriculture/horticulture.
who tf is eating beef in India?
Not nearly as many people as in the US. But between ranching and leaving them in the wild, about 1/3 of all cows in the world are in India. As you might have caught, most of the cows in India are actually used for milk… which is a real problem because the lower tech means they get dramatically less milk per cow than we get in the US. As in, 1/4 as much.
The environmental impact of the Indian cow population is non-trivial, both because of how many cows are not used for food and how inefficient their food processes are with cows. In comparison, the environmental impact of the US cow population is arguably quite trivial. Ditto with the other large beef/milk consumers of the western world like Spain.
Also, in general, eating no or less meat and dairy can be a healthier diet https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/6nh87mb/vegans-are-they-right
But cheese is so good…
I’ve already swapped to oat milk, but cheese…
I used to love cheese and ate a lot of it but after foregoing for a while now I find it revolting. One thing I feel that doesn’t get talked about a lot among vegans is that after you break out of the habit of eating something you realise it was never that important.
FYI, if they can produce plant based burgers that have the texture & tastes like beef, then l see no reason why they can’t do the same with a plant based cheese.
Food is chemicals (chemistry)
They haven’t succeeded yet. No good fake cheese, no good fake yoghurt, no good fake bacon
We haven’t even done the much simpler chemistry of replicating photosynthesis (sunlight and CO2 to sugar)
Well then, if they can’t make plant based cheese that tastes exactly like dairy cheese we’re doomed (FFS)
Don’t believe the losers that say science is impossible
https://impossiblefoods.com/products/burger“Photosynthesis”
Plants have evolved to do that already! That’s also why it’s far better for the environment to eat plant & fungi based diets. Less energy (fewer resources) is lost (used) by eating the plants inc. the milks that are made from plants. Compared to eating the animals that eat the plants
Eggs and parmigiano reggiano were the last thing I gave up before changing. It took the environment + health + morality arguments to cement it for me.
I hear you!
Whilst I’ve tried some plant based cheese they haven’t been comparably to dairy cheese.
I live with few people that, whilst they generally eat a 90% vegan diet, drink dairy milk & eat cheese (so kept in the fridge)
The only food l used to eat that l sometimes ‘crave’ is cheese & fried eggs. So yea, l still occasionally eat a vegy & cheese pizza & have the odd fried egg
I’m not religious about my diet. But, I don’t miss meat at all - the alternatives are satisfying
I wouldn’t eat anything invented in the last hundred years. Who knows whether oat milk is safe?
I’m allergic to cow dairy, I wouldn’t touch plant “milk”
Well, good news for you! Soy milk dates all the way back to 1300’s and almond milk to the 1700’s! However, almond milk is awful for environmental reasons, such as too much land and water use. But oat milk is just water and enzymes. We have enzymes in our body and have utilized them in cooking for centuries (like pineapple tenderizing meat).
But also, you’re using things invented in the last hundred years. You’ve been vaccinated for at least a few things. You’re using the internet. You’ve even eaten sliced bread (1928). Stop being obtuse with the whole “last hundred years” crap.
The majority of corn beans and a lot of grain all go to feeding livestock. You could be a lot more efficient growing the food directly.
Corn isn’t very sweet (read energy rich). It’s ridiculous to farm it for fuel. There are crops that are good, but they don’t grow well in the continental US.
Feed/residual doesn’t that include running sheep on harvested fields to eat the stubble and turn it into fertiliser?
I don’t think so, since that wouldn’t be counted in the bushel yield.
ITT people do all sorts of gymnastics instead of saying “I know but I just don’t care enough”
Just be honest with yourself, if the emissions, pollution, land useage, and staggering cruelty don’t bother you more than the 15 minutes of pleasure you get from a Burger pleases you just say it.
If it does, and you feel the need to defend yourself because of it just change. I promise you it’s less difficult than you think and there are millions of people waiting to help you learn new delicious and nutritious methods of preparing food. Remember basically all vegans were raised carnist and most of us are complete garbage fires (as the internet so loves to point out (-; ) I promise you that you can do it and you won’t even really miss meat after a few months.
People want to change nothing and point at corporations or billionaires like their own choices couldn’t reduce suffering and emissions.
And some people will point at people individual choices rather than the corporations and states who promoted this lifestyle.
What pisses me the most about ecologists nowadays is how liberals they are. If you want to feel good about yourself, feel free, but don’t pretend all people are responsible for climate change by themselves because they’re eating meat.
Systems can be broken and incentivise poor behaviour while individual actions also make a difference.
Besides, where will your political change come from? people who wont even change their diet? Just like how all those environmental protections were brought into being by people who criticised the people chaining themselves to trees for thinking individual actions mattered?
The meat industry is terrified of vegans, they spend millions rewriting laws and producing propaganda to limit us. maybe they have reasons why.
One place individual action worked was when people started making a thing of divesting from coal power plants. It worked because the pension funds followed the popular lead. With investors fleeing it is hard for coal power plants to maintain themselves, jars to get loans. It shortened many power plants’ lives significantly
Where it hasn’t worked: recycling
The industry loves vegans. It is an extremely profitable industry because those people are wealthier than average and already fanatised for their products. You’re a fool if you think you’re fighting the industry. You merely fight one industry for the benefit of another one.
The meat industry is fine. The terrified ones are the stupid conservative. But are they stupid or terrified? They’re merely using the vegan propaganda against them.
And oh boy is it easy to do! Vegans are already full fanatics about their ideology. It’s a full blown religion at this point : either you are vegan or a heretic causing the end of the world. If you’re not vegan, you are personally responsible for the climate change. Isn’t this the point of this article?
Conservative have nothing to do to make propaganda against this. Ecologists are as fascists as the fascists themselves, but in a green color.
Well I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for whatever change you’re willing into being by tweeting about how nobody should do anything until somebody starts the glorious revolution.
ITT people do all sorts of gymnastics instead of saying “I know but I just don’t care enough”
Because the reality is that there’s more than two people in the world. Most people are neither vegans nor assholes who don’t care enough. There’s those of us who think vegans are wrong. It’s funny how many environmental scientists are not in support of a world exodus towards veganism and yet my choice are “stop eating meat or admit you just don’t care”
How about “having spent my life around cattle farms, I know more than the person talking to me on this topic so they can go fly a kite”? Or “I have cattle specialists with advanced degrees in my family and after long discussion with them, I see all the gaps that these half-ass arguments online are missing”
…no, you’re right. We just don’t care enough. Oh look, I just found a study that shows that eating vegetables might be bad for the climate. Stop eating vegetables too, or you “just don’t care enough”
Ok I’ll humour you: what are vegans wrong about?
Land usage?
water usage?
Fertiliser usage?
That animal farms are hubs of disease outbreaks?
Thermodynamics?
Where the Amazon is going?
That killing/branding/doing surgery/forced impregnation etc when you don’t have to is wrong?
My one rule on this topic is never getting into a gishgallop. Vegan advocates love to play the roulette of swapping topics every time they lose ground on one, until they manage to win the argument having lost every piece of it by just tiring the other side out. You pick one of those topics, and I will field that topic only with you. It might surprise you, I will agree with you on some of them (like saving the Amazon).
But if you make me choose, I will choose land use because it’s a slam-dunk. 2/3 of agriculture uses marginal land that cannot (and I believe should not) be made arable. If resources were spent changing that instead of vegans fighting with farmers, that number could approach 100%. There’s important asterisks about that (both crops and livestock become more environmentally friendly if done close to each other due to their symbiotic relationship) that need to be kept up. But reducing livestock population directly WRT marginal land is wasteful.
If you want to discuss this you’re going to have to get more specific. What agriculture, where in the world, are feedlots used etc You’re obviously excluding aquaculture, and non grazing animals like pigs, I suspect you’re also excluding egg production since that is almost monolithically cage farming.
Like you can’t really say “oh these pigs are on non arable land” if that merely refers to their physical location and not where their food is grown.
So could you please drill down a bit? what specifically are you referencing?
If you want to discuss this you’re going to have to get more specific
Which part of this? Marginal land? That’s a very specific topic. Why should we bring in 100 different variables unless you can show those variables matter to marginal land.
Or are you sayign there’s some prima facie point I’m missing where “nothing but wild animals on marginal land” will produce more sustainable food than “cattle on marginal land”?
Or are you just trying to get me to provide enough information to overspecialize my rebuttal so that your side need only say “ok, everything but that”?
Relax I want to talk this out.
I just need to know where you’re pulling that from and how it was calculated. Otherwise we’re just going “tis!” “tisn’t!” till one of us gets bored.
Like are you referring to cattle farming in Botswana? global stats? all animal ag including fishing in Japan?
I can’t discuss a magic number, I have to know how it was derived and under what assumptions. Then we can examine the assumptions and methods of derivation and determine whether or not we agree it to be true and why or why not.
My argument on marginal land is prima facie so far. I picked it because it seems obviously true on the surface, so I can let you provide your points to try to blow it up. I’m referring to the land use problem, which is the often-cited vegan argument that livestock land could be instead used as forests or croplands to sequester carbon.
If you want to contest the 2/3 marginal land number, I’ll cite a few references, but it seems an odd number to consider “magic”
He chose gymnastics he just doesn’t realise it lmao
Reminder that good is not the enemy of perfect. It is much easier to convince 100 people to eat 10% less meat than to convince 10 people to become vegetarian.
I’ve started eating vegetarian several days a week and all it’s done is introduce me to some amazing tasting food that I haven’t tried before because of the dumb stigma that vegetarian means not tasty. I find that I enjoy some of these vegetarian dishes more than it’s meat counterpart because it’s not ruined by tough overcooked tasteless meat.
Substituting some of your mince for plant based alternatives is something I highly recommend everyone does.
You’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference because you still get all the oils and flavours from the meat, and the substitutes have a nearly identical texture. It’s a super easy way to reduce your meat intake without changing your food much.
I’ve been vegan for a week now, shits hard - snacks suck but Oreos are on the menu.
Good job! Snacks do suck, nowadays I usually forego snacks entirely but fruit is always ol reliable for quick and easy.
How do you not snack? What do I do with my hands during my finite spare time?
Futile vegan activism on the internet lmao
Remember to supplement the missing vitamins. I think B12 is the big one, but also about 40% of people can’t turn beta carotene into vitamin A (retinol) and need to supplement it. If you run into odd vision problems, try vitamin A - the first sign of a deficiency is night blindness
(Hardly a full diet when one supplement is needed for everyone, and several more for some)
I take a multivitamin just for the hell of it, figure I’ll piss out what’s not needed and take what is.
It’s the specific proteins I’m worried about missing out, though macros weren’t a concern when I ate meat so seems silly to care now.
I thought the proteins thing was a myth. If you have a diverse enough diet, you should be fine. Just make sure you’re getting nuts, beans, etc.
All worth it to punch a heart on moon for your SO.
I’m in the process of going vegan. It’s taught me how to cook and how to appreciate food more. Veganism is awesome. You should try it.
Massively agree, it’s made me get into food science and it’s just so cool
Same, meat is just something you don’t need in life. The satisfaction I get from a nice delicious meal is no different than it was before I was vegan just now it is better for the environment, my health and animal welfare.
it would be better for the environment and animal welfare of it diminished the effects of the industry. it doesn’t. production continues to grow year over year.
Production keeps growing because there is still a demand for meat. The demand for meat isn’t coming from vegans btw. ie more vegans less demand, less climate impact.
even with more vegans, we have seen production increase. it’s not as simple as you make it sound.
It is
The great thing about meat and dairy consumption is that it is linear; if you eat 50% less you cause 50% less pain. Instead of trying to go full vegan, go half-vegetarian first. The next step can be taken later.
China’s world wide illegal fishing operations begs to differ with their blue ranking.
The above map doesn’t include fishing, it’s showing land use. This shows fishing:
Here is another one about land animals:
Meat, fish from overfished oceans, plantations from pesticides and deforestation.
Guess ill starve
OK, well tax everything that harms the environment equally and appropriately, and I’ll choose if I want to carry on eating it.
The biggest polluters are
- Transport 28%
- Electricity 25%
- Industry 23%
- Commercial & residential 13%
- Agriculture 10%
Agriculture (fertiliser, wild rodents, diesel, animals, rotting plants, not including plants wasted by consumers) is only 10%
We’re making the best inroads into electricity. It is clearly possible and economical to convert all electrical grids to carbon neutral technology
We’re starting to convert residential and commercial to entirely electric (except for the carbon and methane emissions from humans and pets, especially ones that eat beans) so that 13% is solvable
So at the moment 38% of greenhouse gases are easy, just needing political will
Another 23% is harder, industry needs some inventions, especially a green steel making process, and a green concrete making process. Both are years away and probably possible
Transport is hard. 6% is personal transport. That’s easy to electrify. Trucking is harder, planes are harder still. I don’t know how feasible wind power is for shipping, at least the trade winds blow the right way for Asia to America
The best bet for transport was a green liquid fuel, but the company trying to grow diesel from bacteria folded several years ago.
We are never going to decarbonise agriculture by abandoning any part of it. We can do a bit by practicing permaculture - that keeps more carbon in the ground; we can clean up animal agriculture by not feeding cattle human food, let them eat grass, and there is promising technology for reducing their (and other ruminants’) methane emissions by feeding them seaweed
If we waved a wand and removed all farm animals from the world it wouldn’t make a dent in carbon emissions or methane, cows would be replaced by deer which also make methane in exactly the same way cows do, but with no one feeding them seaweed
Uneaten grass would rot and be turned into methane (it’s the same bacteria that work in cow and deer guts to break down grass). No one’s treating rotting grass with seaweed.
Our best bet is to keep the marginal lands occupied by cattle and regulating people running cattle, requiring them to minimise their animals’ emissions, or offset them
*Edited to fix typos
It looks like you’re citing the EPA estimates for US GHG emissions by sector: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Unfortunately this is only a small part of the overall picture. For instance, it notably doesn’t include carbon sinks (areas that have a net reduction of GHG) like protected wild lands. One of the biggest climate issues is deforestation, since it not only produces emissions, but also damages the earth’s ability to sequester CO2. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/meat-industry-deforestation-cop26
In fact, if you look at total land use, an alarming percentage of habitable land is being used to produce meat and dairy, accounting for a relatively small percentage of protein and calorie consumption.
You also have to be careful using GHG emissions as your only metric. Animal agriculture is a major contributor to many of the environmental issues we face:
Biodiversity loss and mass extinction attributed to deforestation and use of land for agriculture.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria resulting from overuse of antibiotics to promote livestock growth.
Eutrophication and dead zones from fertilizers used to produce animal feed and runoff from farms.
Zoonotic diseases which very often originate in livestock before jumping to humans: see swine flu, avian flu, etc.
Additionally, the claim that eliminating livestock would result in a 1:1 replacement in wild mammals is patently false. Livestock is farmed intensively, whereas wild animals live in areas that are, again, carbon sinks. Just looking at the numbers, wild mammals are only a tiny fraction of mammalian biomass, with the vast majority being humans and livestock.
Considering the greater picture, the best bet is for those who are able to eliminate their consumption of animal products to do so.
He was actually unfairly charitable be looking at global figures. Unfortunately, the “meat problem” is largely Africa, India, and China. Yes, about 20% of US meat comes from those regions because it is cheaper. But it is entirely sustainable for countries like the US, one of the largest meat consumers, to produce all the meat we consume and stay well within reasonable greenhouse gas footprints.
Your reply to him unfaortunately made the same mistakes his statements did. If you laser-focus at the countries where most vegans are pushing to make changes, it takes bad-faith analysis of figures to see the meat industry as anything but entirely sustainable.
People who want meat-eating to stop have an agenda. People who want to farm meat have an agenda. You have to look through TWO agendas, not just one, to find the real answers.
I’m baffled as to why you would say this after a comment that is literally just objective truths
I answered how I would say that by actually describing my criticisms in some detail.
The problem is only 9% of the beef production and 30% of global sheep and goat production are feed using grazing. The rest so most of them are feed using some form of human edible plants and they would not be replaced by wild animals. Furthermore it is something, which can be easily done today. We would still be able to produce enough food for every human on the planet and it would even be easier, as all the feedstock for animals would no longer be needed. So it really is a nice and easy few percent to get, which pretty much everybody can easily do themself.
https://www.fao.org/3/X5303E/x5303e05.htm#chapter 2: livestock grazing systems & the environment
The problem is only 9% of the beef production and 30% of global sheep and goat production are feed using grazing
The rest so most of them are feed using some form of human edible plants and they would not be replaced by wild animals
These two statements exclude the middle. There is grazing. There is feeding animal edible foods. And then there is feeding animals inedible waste. Your same source organization (FAO) points out that 86% of animal feed is inedible by humans. Realistically, a very high percent of that would be destroyed in a landfill or in burning if they were not being fed to animals.
Of the remaining 14% of feed that is edible to humans, they are the worst sorts of calories, empty and non-nutritious carbohydrates. And they are largely fed to the animal intentionally at certain parts of the feeding process (the end) to produce the highest quality of meat. Why? Because it’s a waste of money to give animals feed that you could sell to humans if you have no good reason.
Grazing is terrible for the environment and crops are specifically grown as animal feed. It wouldn’t be destroyed or burned because it wouldn’t be grown at all. Additionally there are plenty of other uses for inedible plant waste other than feeding to animals.
Grazing is terrible for the environment
Why do you say this?
and crops are specifically grown as animal feed
Generally speaking, this is untrue. A small number of crops are grown as animal feed, but it’s a waste of money to grow human edible crops for a majority of the animal feed cycle. As I said above, 86% of animal feed is inedible to humans, and a majority of the remaining 14% are dead calories.
It wouldn’t be destroyed or burned because it wouldn’t be grown at all
I guarantee nobody is backing off on growing corn, wheat, rice, or soy right now, even if we suddenly stopped letting anyone eat meat.
Additionally there are plenty of other uses for inedible plant waste other than feeding to animals
Are there? Care to cite which uses exist for feed that are better than the efficient process of using livestock to create some of the objectively highest-quality human-edible calories that exist in nature?
Devastates local ecosystems
It’s not untrue food is literally grown to feed animals
Yes but I’m talking about the food grown to feed animals
Biofuel and compost
Devastates local ecosystems
Nope
It’s not untrue food is literally grown to feed animals
Actual nope.
Yes but I’m talking about the food grown to feed animals
So, you’re talking about fiction
Biofuel and compost
Whatever that means.
Lol
- Transport 28%
- Electricity 25%
- Industry 23%
- Commercial & residential 13%
- Agriculture 10%
I can opt to significantly reduce my impact for no extra money in one of these sectors.
Self reply. I wonder what the climate impact of my compost pile is. Should I add seaweed? I live a long way from the sea, is the pile worse than a 400km round trip (presuming the right weed grows in the nearest bit of sea).
I hope fixing electricity, residential, commercial, transport, and industry is enough. The world could handle the carbon load of the same sort of biomass as we have now before we started burning all the oil
Usually compost is made from stuff that would otherwise be waste. The stuff in your compost would rot and off-gas anyways. I think intentionally composting actually results in less emissions than what would happen naturally or in a landfill. I wouldn’t buy stuff just to compost it (I’d just buy compost, which, in my area, is usually made from yard waste collected by local municipalities). If you need a lot of compost you can usually intercept quite a bit of material from the normal waste streams for free. I.e. you can usually get arborists to dump tons of woodchips in your yard, talk to coffee shops to see if they’ll give you their spent coffee grounds, etc.
I get that tons of folks just don’t want to stop eating meat. I’m the same. I cut out red meat because it’s very much the worst offender. It was much easier than I thought to do, and I can’t say I miss it or even really think about it aside from months like this.
Give it a shot. Nothing to lose except a little weight maybe.
I cut out red meat because it’s very much the worst offender
Have you ever mathed out your actual carbon footprint, or exactly how your carbon footprint changed by cutting out red meat? Do you even know where your meat comes from to figure out if it’s environmentally friendly beef or unfriendly? You might be surprised either that you did more than you think to help… or absolutely nothing.
Do you drive an electric car and charge it on solar or wind? Or an ICE car and run it on alcohol?
Personal transport is about the same as red meat emissions-wise. Red meat is getting better though, because farm animals are in the control of farmers (unlike wild animals that might replace them) the farmers can try different things to reduce the cow’s emissions. So far they have had success, with fairly light public pressure the good practices will spread.
Now replace the cows with wild deer. Try to fix their methane emissions. All ruminants make methane in their fore gut.
Incidentally I lost the most weight on a very low carb diet. Lower carb, better weight loss (and weight gain – muscle). You can go low carb as a vegan, but not very.
It comes across like you’re implying that if someone doesn’t drive a more eco friendly car, then making other eco friendly decisions is wasted.
People love to imply a zero sum game if it provides copium. It is what it is.
No, I think he’s implying that he thinks people are doing things that DON’T help to feel good while failing to make changes that DO help.
Gasoline isn’t getting more environmentally friendly, but meat in many areas is already fairly environmentally friendly, and constantly improving.
Not sure what point you’re even trying to make…
Stop telling me what to do and get the corporations to oblige with laws. Oh wait! No one gives a shit because the corpos are running the world now? Oh no, guess i gotta eat shit to make up for their mistakes :(((
As someone who makes delicious plant based foods from inexpensive and available ingredients, I take a lot of issue with the idea that plant based food is “shit”.
Yeah, vegetables and legumes and grains. Horrible, horrible. Woe is you.
Climate change isn’t my fault! It’s those corporations that I refuse to stop buying from fault!
🙄
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable. Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture. As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable, whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable
The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:
- pointing out that the “eat less meat” conclusions are fraudulent misrepresentations of the facts
- pointing out that only way cutting out meat in most developed countries would be good for the environment is if we also start ecologically re-engineering for a lower natural footprint than our regions ever had, since the livestock footprint nearly resembles that of pre-colonial days (here in the US, methane emission is within 20%)
- pointing out that most attacks on meat-eating make the mistake of mathematically treating marginal land as if it could support a forest, when it cannot
- And finally, pointing out that improvements in cattle diet shows dramatically more real-world promise than this contrived idea of forcing or coercing all humans to stop eating meat, with far fewer risks and side-effects to availability of balanced nutrition
Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture
…in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
No. Whataboutism doesn’t change the facts. On that, we can agree.
experts denying them
It’s kinda wild to post “it’s not that bad… studies" funded by corporate interests in /climate. It’s always the same old denial lines served from the same ole’ boiler plate. Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too? Are the innovations of” clean coal" going to revive the industry so nothing has to change?
if that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
The wildly ineffecient ineffecient industry has long been supported by goverment subsides.
If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them. Their numbers are this high because they are treated as a commodity.
As I said to the other guy, accusing the large percent of studies that disagree with you of being false is bad-faith far-right bullshit, and we had enough of that in 2020 with the anti-vaxxers. I have sworn off EVER giving that style of bullshit any more respect than it deserves.
Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too?
I never said “benefit of the doubt”. You’re the one picking research based on whether you like its results. I’m the one reading the articles and studies on both sides.
Actually, let me use your reference to show my point. Do you know who the BIGGEST opponent of farm subsidies is? FARMERS.
You tell me why, and we’ll continue this discussion. Otherwise, you just showed your hand, and it’s a 2-7 off-suit high card.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them
Till when? In my country, the total methane impact from agriculture is only 20% higher than pre-colonial ecostasis. We will reach those numbers in 10 years. Are you saying my country needs to have LOWER methane emissions than it had 500 years ago all so we can support BP continuing to do whatever the fuck they want and still have a global temperature continue to rise? Because if the worst GHG footprint was my home country’s agricultural industry, global warming wouldn’t be a problem.
Which one of us is giving BP the benefit of the doubt, now? What percent of environmental spending are you really willing to do to reduce GHG emissions <5%?
The studies have studies and experts denying them…
Studies and experts funded by the livestock industry, yes. Why are the studies and experts always Mitloehner, I swear…
You understand the problem with “studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong”, do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.
And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you’re only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn’t making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you’re going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.
This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I’m not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
Here is UC Davis ASI’s Funding year by year. They publish it. They’re PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950’s.
But taking a step back. It’s best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of “antivax movement” to me.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment? Like this isn’t me bringing up criticism of some random researcher, it’s specifically related to the “studies and experts” you referred to. And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
In case you were unable to read the article due to the paywall, this is the most pertinent part:
According to internal University of California documents reviewed by The New York Times, Dr. Mitloehner’s academic group, the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns.
The documents show that the center, which has become a leading institution in the field of agriculture and climate, was set up in 2019 with a $2.9 million gift to be paid out over several years from the Institute for Feed Education and Research, or IFeeder, the nonprofit arm of the American Feed Industry Association, a livestock industry group that represents major agricultural companies like Cargill and Tyson.
As of April 2022, the Clear Center had also received more than $350,000 from other industry or corporate sources, the documents show, including nearly $200,000 from the California Cattle Council, a regional livestock industry group.
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University.
“Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock,” he said. “His communications are discordant from the scientific consensus, and the evidence that he has brought to bear against that consensus has not been, in my eyes, sufficient to challenge it.”
The argument leans on a method developed by scientists that aims to better account for the global-warming effects of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell, professor of earth science at Duke University and the lead author of a landmark United Nations report on methane emissions.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment?
You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.
And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
As I mentioned, I couldn’t see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I’d get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It’s primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.
Here’s the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He’s an air quality specialist by background. Here’s a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it’s important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.
As he says in his penultimate line: “I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet.”
As you quote:
Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock
I do not get that conclusion from what I’ve read of him. I’m sorry, I just don’t. Yes, it’s not fair that I say “the people I know who have been involved with him think he’s on the up-and-up”, but it’s also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.
And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in “However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell”. Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are “high current emissions”. Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He’s literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I’m sorry, I’m not ok with that.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there’s a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).
I’m sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it’s starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.
Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise, and if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying, they are not going to publish anything that would sour relations with their main source of funding.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
I disagree because their research is largely about improving sustainability, not about proving to vegans (who will never win anyway if we’re honest) that meat is okay.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise
For that to be meaningful to a discussion about UC Davis’ research, there needs to be a meaningful possibility that humanity is doomed without everyone going vegan. No matter how we coerce numbers, that’s simply not the reality. If and when there is reputable research showing that meat is unsalvageable, then we can start the hard discussions. Until then, the idea that the industry that most benefits from research would be unable to ethically fund said research is just silly. Please check out the chain that led to an essay from one of the senior researchers of UC Davis’ CLEAR center for more context.
if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying
None of UC Davis is dependent upon the meat industry. They receive some funding for some of their research from it. Because sustainability means lower cost and the meat industry likes lower cost. It’s the same reason solar has started to win in the business sector. Better environment is good business. Yes, if there’s a secret gotcha where the 1 millionth cow will suddenly explode with anthrax, there might be an argument. But despite some mild disagreements with “how much GHG is bad”, there’s not really much to criticize them for. And as a reminder, ALL food sources hit the environment in various ways, and many plants do the same worse than many animals. There’s no smoking gun, so I would be incredibly hesitant to disqualify reputable science over it.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
What about studies paid for largely by sustainability groups, but backed by businesses because the outcome isn’t “positive” as much as “here’s how you can reduce the methane impact of your livestock allowing you to efficiently scale your operations and produce more food for less money”? You can understand why the latter, far more common in research, is worth it to everyone.
Who is telling you what to do?
We grow our own vegetables, raise our own meat, hunt, fish, forage, buy used everything with a few exceptions and we live on much less than most. Our house is appropriately sized but we drive a truck out of necessity. It’s our one vehicle, 16 years old and works every day. We take so much shit over that damn truck from folks who “know better”. How about we fuck up the trillion dollar capitalist corpos who rape and pillage the people, land and sea for God’s Almighty Profits instead of judging our neighbors whom we don’t even know many whom are struggling to even exist.
Stop absolving yourself of responsibility by claiming that the decisions you make are inconsequential. The reason things don’t get better is because people don’t make them better ffs.
That’s exactly the problem is they aren’t on this crusade because it’s the #1 cause. If they can tie their crusade to a bigger problem then it gains them more traction. Even though it’s a drop in the bucket compared to corporate effects on the environment. the idea that it’s anything but a power move to convert more people to their life choices is hilarious at best. Not to mention the ableist BS that it is to believe everyone can stop eating meat, but I’m not explaining that to the 20 internet doctors that will message me after this like last time I brought it up.
Exactly. Why do these articles also act like the consumer is at fault and not the giant corporations selling these things?
bad for climate change? good! i hate climate change!
well bad in the way that it makes climate change worse… not that it’s detrimental to entity of climate change…
I think the comment was a joke lol
correct
oh bother! i was thinking it was finally some good news.
really it would be bad news because then we’d be obligated to eat more meat…
