This is a great article. Do I have to go vegan? No. But it would have the biggest impact if you did. Is organic farming the answer? No. It tends to use more land for less output (although maybe the health-foodies could get off the No-GMO bandwagon). I also appreciate that the authors recognize that for some people living in certain cultures and climates _have_ to eat meat and there's no shame in that.
The bulk of the reduction can definitely come from rich, affluent nations and have the biggest impact.
Articles like this seem important. Hiding the fact that meat/dairy production is such a huge factor in climate change hurts people more than it helps. When we all start to wonder why it isn't getting any better we need to know that there are ways we can do our part. Even if they're small things!
This is an awful article because it doesn't put numbers on the various alternatives. Without hard numbers, the discussion of alternatives is meaningless. Even going from an average diet to fully vegan will only reduce your food-related emissions by 40%, which only accounts for about 12.5% of your carbon emissions to begin with (in the US): http://www.greeneatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/foods-ca.... Cutting your CO2 footprint 5% is not going to do anything. Cutting it even less than that is utterly pointless.
"Doing your part" and "doing small things" will not have any impact on climate change. It ignores the enormous gap between where our emissions need to be and where they are now. If you could convince everyone in America to become a vegan tomorrow, that would cut global CO2 emissions by about a gigaton. That is how much CO2 emissions went up last year alone, mostly due to China and India. Think about that: the effect of every American undertaking an unprecedented lifestyle change all at the same time would be totally wiped out by a single year's growth globally.
>Is organic farming the answer? No. It tends to use more land for less output
Use of land per unit of output (or vice versa) is not the only important metric though, not by a long chalk. A more holistic approach is needed [1], otherwise it is back to the same as the issues that the OP attempts to address.
[1] An approach that considers equally important things like effects of pesticides, other negative effects of non-organic farming (there are other important ones, and more).
I know this isnt going to be a popular opinion here, but I'm going to say it anyways -- we are simply not going eat our away out of this climate change problem, and we shouldnt even try, we should focus the efforts in other places
Here is the current breakdown of the world's emissions as of 2018:
1. heavy industry (29 percent)
2. buildings (18 percent)
3. transport (15 percent)
4. land-use change (15 percent)
5. the energy needed to supply energy (13 percent).
Livestock is responsible for 5.5 percent, mostly methane rather than CO2, and aviation for 1.5 percent.
Here is the estimated sacrifice needed to bring carbon emissions down by half and then to zero:
It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel, and affordable food and clothing.
Both of these are taken from Enlightenment Now by Pinker, and I have not seen the numbers or his conclusions refuted. I'm open to someone trying to change my mind, but with these numbers, I do not see how that is possible.
Most estimates put it at around 15%, not 5. Stopping climate change is going to require action on all these vectors, and diet is one of the easiest to change. It also has knock on effects like clear cutting rainforest to plant crops to feed to cows.
On top of that it’s just cruel and unnecessary to go on eating so much meat.
Going from the average diet to becoming a vegan would save about 1 ton per person annually: http://www.greeneatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/foods-ca.... The carbon footprint in the U.S. is about 20 tons per capita annually, so going from an average diet to full vegan would save just 5%. (Just cutting out beef would capture most of those gains, reducing CO2 footprint by 0.6 tons, or 3%.) Just eating less meat, or eating organic or whatever will have zero impact. And that's assuming that switching to veganism doesn't alter your other habits. If switching to veganism means you e.g. sign up for a meal delivery service to keep things interesting, or drive to the grocery store more often to get fresh fruits and vegetables (which, unlike meat, you can't freeze in bulk), your gains will be much less.
All of this stuff about "reducing your carbon footprint" is just such a mind-boggling waste of time. To keep the temperature increase to 2C we have to cut CO2 emissions worldwide by 19 gigatons in the next decade. Instead, China added 10 gigatons in the last decade. The U.S. and EU28 together emit just 9 gigatons. In the face of those numbers, all this "turn the lights off when you leave the room" and "try to eat less meat" stuff is pissing in the ocean.
>It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel, and affordable food and clothing.
I think this is where you would get the most disagreement. That is, people are focused on transforming all those listed rather than forgoing them, which is a non-starter. Transformation to emission-reduced or emission-free processes.
I agree with you but I wonder why you discourage changing diet to include less meat. While it has less of an impact it's one of the easier things on that list to directly influence as a single human being. It also has knock on effects and health benefits. We can focus our efforts in multiple places, going vegan won't distract us from the other areas. I won't try to debate you or change your mind however and I agree that the numbers are overwelming, especially when you take into condisderation that carbon emissions are only one part of the planetary boundary system.
Good point. Also keep in mind the 5.5% of livestock emissions simply replaced the emissions by hundreds of millions of bison/buffalo, elk, deer, etc that we wiped out. So the livestock contribution is pretty much zero if you offset it with the loss of bison/buffalo, etc emissions.
And we have been in a global warming trend for thousands of years. Most of north america ( including NYC ) was under a sheet of ice, in some places sheet of ice 2 miles high.
It's disappointing to me that the nytimes would use climate change as a tool to push a highly environmentally and biologically destructive lifestyle like veganism. I wonder how many of the authors of the article has even farmed a day in their lives.
And the article reeks of ideology rather than news. Where is the news in the article? It's just pushing vegan propaganda which harms more young people everyday than nonsense like anti-vax movement. Vegans have starved their babies to death thinking that veganism is a healthy human diet. But I doubt they'd get as much backlash as the netflix '13 steps' producers did. The most environmentally and biologically friendly human diet is the omnivore diet. It has been since humans began and it will be while humans exist.
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is a well established idea. I wish journalists would simply report news rather than pushing destructive ideologies, especially since they haven't a clue what they are talking about most of the time. They aren't an expert in almost anything they write about. So why not stick to reporting? Why give "advice"?
Why are you citing a popular science writer who is a psychologist? Who would bother to refute his numbers in the first place, when he's clearly not a primary source on them?
And that is only a secondary critique. Why should changing diets be mutually exclusive to other approaches? That seems like a false choice.
I switched to a plant based diet last year after reading similar articles on climate change and was surprised to see an additional set of benefits. I feel a lot healthier, my skin is clearer (struggled with frequent untamable breakouts), I save money, etc. Diet is a very individualized thing, so don't dramatically overhaul your entire lifestyle based off what a random stranger says on the Internet but if you haven't tried a plant-based diet you may be pleasantly surprised like I was. I'll still eat meat if it's served to me but when I am eating out and cooking I go veggie.
I first tried eating vegetarian to deal with some digestion issues. It made it worse. Especially spinach, broccoli and other high fiber foods. I switched to a 90% carnivore diet and everything cleared up digestion wise, and I also felt much better, healthier, and my skin cleared up. As you say, diet is very individualized.
This was the clincher for me. I listened to the audiobook "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger and was convinced of the common sense that eating plant based whole foods is the way to be healthier. The lowered cost and lowered impact on the environment are just icing on the cake. If eating meat was better for me, I'd still do it. The science done so far seems to suggest that a whole food plant based diet is the healthiest diet.
I have turned pescatarian a while ago for no other reason because I don't find it very natural to eat large amounts of meat. In the last five years or so I've been strongly of the belief that meat, especially meat like beef, should get taxed so highly that it essentially becomes a luxurious good which families can only enjoy once every so often and not 3-5 times a day. First people will be extremely upset and call it classist, but later (especially new generations) will just get used to the fact and quickly adapt to the new normal where farming beef and eating cows every day is just not a normal way of life.
Ultimately there is no birthright to eating meat every day, there are no health benefits or other benefits of doing so, contrary it;s actually bad for health and our planet and therefore there is nothing classist about taxing beef so high that the average person shouldn't be able to afford it more than a handful of times per month.
We need bold politicians in this world to look at the cost of these things and implement a tax system which incentivise a more balanced lifestyle and also account for the cost/damage that a high consumption of meat causes to society.
I know there will be comments saying that individual action is not enough to combat climate change, or that it's too late for that, but when governments are so slow to act and corporations will only change when their bottom line is at stake, it is left to individuals to take action. Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
Personally I think that individual action is largely futile. I've also stopped eating meat. I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could.
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less.
I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life?
It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
Giving up our growing space to grow lots of monocultured vegetables will be worse for the climate.
The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less.
If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable.
Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition.
The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process.
Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better.
We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims.
These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that.
Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities.
Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account.
Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
A very thought-provoking article, but one that still leaves me with questions.
* The vast agricultural monocultures of the US have changed our climate on their own. Our fields of soy, wheat, and corn have decimated local ecosystems, led to high nitrate levels in the water, changed air temperature and humidity on their own, and encouraged a US diet that is high in processed food, leading to its own set of health problems.
* Yes, these vast monocultures are in a feedback loop with raising animals for meat. Corn-fed cattle and pigs and chickens are part of the reason Iowa is what it is today.
* If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. Is that really that big a win? Curious.
* Vegetables seem to be lacking in the standard American diet, and they're not subsidized by the federal government the way grains/corn/soybeans are, and they're also something a lot of us buy from far away. How can we change all that?
* Many people will still want meat products, some for health reasons -- it can be hard for some folks to be vegetarian or vegan healthfully (I had trouble with fatigue and anemia for instance, and yes I understand that maybe I could have tried harder/eaten more supplements/etc). How can we encourage the shift to animal production on 'waste' land, and decrease the incentives to ship beef from Brazil and Bolivia? Can we make goat meat cool again, for instance? or rabbit?
The alternatives I'm personally more interested in: shifting transportation patterns for US adults (biking and transit). Increasing green space. Re-encouraging locally grown food, where by local I mean the back yard. Rediscovering the foods you never knew you could eat but your great-grandparents did: nettles, dandelions, Virginia waterleaf, garlic mustard, purslane, daylilies, hostas. Many of you could get a whole week's worth of greens, even in May in colder climes, by walking outside -- and how many of us know it? Right now I'm motivated to rediscover these local foods for myself for health reasons, but it helps that they're $0 to grow and $0 to transport, and thus add 0 to my carbon emissions.
this is a great article, both in content and in form.
keep in mind though managing your carbon budget is like managing any other budget, which in turn is like optimizing any other queue. meaning: don't over-optimize the 5th most important thing when you're ignoring the top 2 - 3 most important things.
by which I mean: #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling.
just to put a sortof min-max on it: if you eat vegan but fly to a conference once a quarter and drive to work every day your emissions will be greater than if you eat cheeseburgers for lunch every day but take the subway to work and rarely fly.
which is why imho you should go for the 50 - 80% win (80+% reduction in red meat) in this category (food) instead of going all the way to vegetarian/vegan.
or put another way, being pro video-conference has a better GHG reduction return than being vegan :)
> #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling.
At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global Calculator[1] the food lever appears to have the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions, even more than heating or transport.
For those that would like to hear a mind blowing discussion about climate (and the earth in general), watch all of the podcasts with Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock.
They are three hours each and I promise you will learn many things that give perspective on the repeat arguments and confusion about the climate. There are many other podcasts with these gentlemen, but here are three to start with.
Joe Rogan and Randall Carlson #606 (3 hours) [1]
Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson #725 [2]
I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done by Bjorn Lomberg and team that showed a modest 2% reduction in total CI globally [1] if the entire population switched to a vegetarian diet.
Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and should not be taken earnestly in any way.
This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.
while the world's economy is fueled by adding more people to the mix forever, we're not going to solve any problems. people have to imagine and accept a world where the market might not grow without limit and where outputs decrease from one year to the next without it being a disaster. grey pyramids have to be accepted without righteous outcry to open borders more fully. the population and its demands are the ultimate multiplier for all climate impacting activities.
When talking about the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, lifespan of about 20 years. CO2, on the other hand, has a lifespan of around 100 years.
Interestingly, rice agriculture generates about as much methane as livestock, and burning biomass (wood) and landfills each generate about half as much methane as livestock.
Although this is not made clear in the article, the highest amount of greenhouse gasses are released by energy production and industry, which, combined, account for about half of all emissions [1].
So what this article is saying is that I should consider going vegan or reducing the (already meager) amount of meat in my diet so that fossil fuel companies can keep burning fossil fuels and don't have to get off their butt to develop greener alternatives, and so that industry can continue producing useless capitalist crap that nobody needs.
To take it even further, this article is suggesting I restrict my options so that others can continue profiting from the destruction of the environment.
Personally I don't drive and I don't fly. I don't even own a car. I go everywhere by train or bus and on foot. I contribute to greenhouse gasses much less than many vegans. And I'm very tired of hearing people saying I should reduce the amount of meat I eat because it's destroying the environment. Food is necessary- driving cars is not.
This reminds me of propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter (increased use of disposable packaging) from corporations onto consumers. Yes individuals can take responsibility for their own actions by "voting with their wallet" etc. - not denying that. But in a democracy, if you'd rather fight for greater regulations on Big Ag than give up meat in your diet, that should be your choice and don't feel ashamed about it.
> propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter
Oh really? Keep America Beautiful was conceived, paid for and started by: Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola and others. Then they started shifting blame onto the individual.
That was in reaction to Vermont proposing to require deposit and return bottles for drinks, after a surge in single-use packaging litter.
Life is experiencing an abrupt, widespread global species extinction event. Humans are destroying intricate webs of animals, plants, and microorganisms. These networks supply our food chain and sustain life on Earth; their annihilation from rapid deforestation and climate change is causing grave consequences: droughts, increased heat waves and wildfires, more frequent severe weather events, coastal flooding, food shortages, and water wars.
Earth’s atmosphere was once mostly carbon dioxide. Once life took hold, simple organisms (such as bacteria, algae, and plants) converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen by way of photosynthesis. When those organisms died, natural processes spanning eons changed their remains into carbon-bearing fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
Burning fossil fuels recombines carbon with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the mid-1800s humans have released a stupendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the following graph, average annual atmospheric CO2 measurements in parts per million (PPM) are plotted alongside averaged global ocean and surface temperature readings in degrees Celsius (°C), relative to 1881-1910:
Both atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step.
Bubbles in ice cores drilled from polar glaciers trap historic atmospheric gas ratios. Long-term observations reveal an increasing average warming trend that is distinct from natural short-term fluctuations. Temperatures are climbing in proportion to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution.
Choices
Our past choices have put life on Earth in peril; our children face an immense CO2 cleanup, devastating climate changes, or both. We can curtail the most severe catastrophic outcomes, though time to do so grows alarmingly thin.
If we choose air conditioner and refrigerator coolants based on hydrocarbon refrigerants; if we urge politicians to invest in on-shore wind turbines; if we reduce food waste; if we eat less meat; and if we support restoration of tropical forests. If we choose these, there is hope.
There’s a bunch of good reasons you should reduce or eliminate meat from your diet, including environmental effects but also including your health and mistreating and killing intelligent creatures. If your diet requires people to do things to thinking, feeling animals that would be criminal to do to a dog, maybe having some bacon on your breakfast plate really isn’t that important after all.
[+] [-] agentultra|7 years ago|reply
The bulk of the reduction can definitely come from rich, affluent nations and have the biggest impact.
Articles like this seem important. Hiding the fact that meat/dairy production is such a huge factor in climate change hurts people more than it helps. When we all start to wonder why it isn't getting any better we need to know that there are ways we can do our part. Even if they're small things!
[+] [-] rayiner|7 years ago|reply
"Doing your part" and "doing small things" will not have any impact on climate change. It ignores the enormous gap between where our emissions need to be and where they are now. If you could convince everyone in America to become a vegan tomorrow, that would cut global CO2 emissions by about a gigaton. That is how much CO2 emissions went up last year alone, mostly due to China and India. Think about that: the effect of every American undertaking an unprecedented lifestyle change all at the same time would be totally wiped out by a single year's growth globally.
[+] [-] vram22|7 years ago|reply
Use of land per unit of output (or vice versa) is not the only important metric though, not by a long chalk. A more holistic approach is needed [1], otherwise it is back to the same as the issues that the OP attempts to address.
[1] An approach that considers equally important things like effects of pesticides, other negative effects of non-organic farming (there are other important ones, and more).
[+] [-] lowken10|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] misiti3780|7 years ago|reply
Here is the current breakdown of the world's emissions as of 2018:
1. heavy industry (29 percent)
2. buildings (18 percent)
3. transport (15 percent)
4. land-use change (15 percent)
5. the energy needed to supply energy (13 percent).
Livestock is responsible for 5.5 percent, mostly methane rather than CO2, and aviation for 1.5 percent.
Here is the estimated sacrifice needed to bring carbon emissions down by half and then to zero:
It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel, and affordable food and clothing.
Both of these are taken from Enlightenment Now by Pinker, and I have not seen the numbers or his conclusions refuted. I'm open to someone trying to change my mind, but with these numbers, I do not see how that is possible.
[+] [-] cageface|7 years ago|reply
On top of that it’s just cruel and unnecessary to go on eating so much meat.
[+] [-] rayiner|7 years ago|reply
All of this stuff about "reducing your carbon footprint" is just such a mind-boggling waste of time. To keep the temperature increase to 2C we have to cut CO2 emissions worldwide by 19 gigatons in the next decade. Instead, China added 10 gigatons in the last decade. The U.S. and EU28 together emit just 9 gigatons. In the face of those numbers, all this "turn the lights off when you leave the room" and "try to eat less meat" stuff is pissing in the ocean.
[+] [-] Isamu|7 years ago|reply
I think this is where you would get the most disagreement. That is, people are focused on transforming all those listed rather than forgoing them, which is a non-starter. Transformation to emission-reduced or emission-free processes.
[+] [-] mikestew|7 years ago|reply
Which makes it even worse, by my understanding.
[+] [-] jamil7|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b_tterc_p|7 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire
[+] [-] basetop|7 years ago|reply
And we have been in a global warming trend for thousands of years. Most of north america ( including NYC ) was under a sheet of ice, in some places sheet of ice 2 miles high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
It's disappointing to me that the nytimes would use climate change as a tool to push a highly environmentally and biologically destructive lifestyle like veganism. I wonder how many of the authors of the article has even farmed a day in their lives.
And the article reeks of ideology rather than news. Where is the news in the article? It's just pushing vegan propaganda which harms more young people everyday than nonsense like anti-vax movement. Vegans have starved their babies to death thinking that veganism is a healthy human diet. But I doubt they'd get as much backlash as the netflix '13 steps' producers did. The most environmentally and biologically friendly human diet is the omnivore diet. It has been since humans began and it will be while humans exist.
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is a well established idea. I wish journalists would simply report news rather than pushing destructive ideologies, especially since they haven't a clue what they are talking about most of the time. They aren't an expert in almost anything they write about. So why not stick to reporting? Why give "advice"?
[+] [-] throwaway5752|7 years ago|reply
And that is only a secondary critique. Why should changing diets be mutually exclusive to other approaches? That seems like a false choice.
[+] [-] andbberger|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|7 years ago|reply
Isn't that a rather strange measure to pull out.
Also every source I've seen puts aviation much higher than 1.5%.
[+] [-] yfdrea|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eric_b|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] npsimons|7 years ago|reply
This was the clincher for me. I listened to the audiobook "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger and was convinced of the common sense that eating plant based whole foods is the way to be healthier. The lowered cost and lowered impact on the environment are just icing on the cake. If eating meat was better for me, I'd still do it. The science done so far seems to suggest that a whole food plant based diet is the healthiest diet.
[+] [-] dustinmoris|7 years ago|reply
Ultimately there is no birthright to eating meat every day, there are no health benefits or other benefits of doing so, contrary it;s actually bad for health and our planet and therefore there is nothing classist about taxing beef so high that the average person shouldn't be able to afford it more than a handful of times per month.
We need bold politicians in this world to look at the cost of these things and implement a tax system which incentivise a more balanced lifestyle and also account for the cost/damage that a high consumption of meat causes to society.
[+] [-] fishstick2000|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jamesgagan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jniedrauer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username223|7 years ago|reply
We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less.
I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life?
It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
[+] [-] leekyle333|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vibrato|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalore|7 years ago|reply
The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less.
If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable.
Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition.
The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process.
Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better.
We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims.
These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that.
Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities.
Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account.
Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
[+] [-] kaitai|7 years ago|reply
* The vast agricultural monocultures of the US have changed our climate on their own. Our fields of soy, wheat, and corn have decimated local ecosystems, led to high nitrate levels in the water, changed air temperature and humidity on their own, and encouraged a US diet that is high in processed food, leading to its own set of health problems.
* Yes, these vast monocultures are in a feedback loop with raising animals for meat. Corn-fed cattle and pigs and chickens are part of the reason Iowa is what it is today.
* If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. Is that really that big a win? Curious.
* Vegetables seem to be lacking in the standard American diet, and they're not subsidized by the federal government the way grains/corn/soybeans are, and they're also something a lot of us buy from far away. How can we change all that?
* Many people will still want meat products, some for health reasons -- it can be hard for some folks to be vegetarian or vegan healthfully (I had trouble with fatigue and anemia for instance, and yes I understand that maybe I could have tried harder/eaten more supplements/etc). How can we encourage the shift to animal production on 'waste' land, and decrease the incentives to ship beef from Brazil and Bolivia? Can we make goat meat cool again, for instance? or rabbit?
The alternatives I'm personally more interested in: shifting transportation patterns for US adults (biking and transit). Increasing green space. Re-encouraging locally grown food, where by local I mean the back yard. Rediscovering the foods you never knew you could eat but your great-grandparents did: nettles, dandelions, Virginia waterleaf, garlic mustard, purslane, daylilies, hostas. Many of you could get a whole week's worth of greens, even in May in colder climes, by walking outside -- and how many of us know it? Right now I'm motivated to rediscover these local foods for myself for health reasons, but it helps that they're $0 to grow and $0 to transport, and thus add 0 to my carbon emissions.
(edit for formatting)
[+] [-] cagenut|7 years ago|reply
keep in mind though managing your carbon budget is like managing any other budget, which in turn is like optimizing any other queue. meaning: don't over-optimize the 5th most important thing when you're ignoring the top 2 - 3 most important things.
by which I mean: #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling.
just to put a sortof min-max on it: if you eat vegan but fly to a conference once a quarter and drive to work every day your emissions will be greater than if you eat cheeseburgers for lunch every day but take the subway to work and rarely fly.
which is why imho you should go for the 50 - 80% win (80+% reduction in red meat) in this category (food) instead of going all the way to vegetarian/vegan.
or put another way, being pro video-conference has a better GHG reduction return than being vegan :)
[+] [-] taffer|7 years ago|reply
At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global Calculator[1] the food lever appears to have the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions, even more than heating or transport.
[1] http://tool.globalcalculator.org
[+] [-] LinuxBender|7 years ago|reply
They are three hours each and I promise you will learn many things that give perspective on the repeat arguments and confusion about the climate. There are many other podcasts with these gentlemen, but here are three to start with.
Joe Rogan and Randall Carlson #606 (3 hours) [1]
Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson #725 [2]
Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson #1284 [3]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anarchimedes|7 years ago|reply
[0]https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/2...
[1]https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648
[+] [-] epistasis|7 years ago|reply
This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.
[+] [-] z0r|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptah|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
Interestingly, rice agriculture generates about as much methane as livestock, and burning biomass (wood) and landfills each generate about half as much methane as livestock.
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|7 years ago|reply
So what this article is saying is that I should consider going vegan or reducing the (already meager) amount of meat in my diet so that fossil fuel companies can keep burning fossil fuels and don't have to get off their butt to develop greener alternatives, and so that industry can continue producing useless capitalist crap that nobody needs.
To take it even further, this article is suggesting I restrict my options so that others can continue profiting from the destruction of the environment.
Personally I don't drive and I don't fly. I don't even own a car. I go everywhere by train or bus and on foot. I contribute to greenhouse gasses much less than many vegans. And I'm very tired of hearing people saying I should reduce the amount of meat I eat because it's destroying the environment. Food is necessary- driving cars is not.
___________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Gre...
[+] [-] hammock|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|7 years ago|reply
Oh really? Keep America Beautiful was conceived, paid for and started by: Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola and others. Then they started shifting blame onto the individual.
That was in reaction to Vermont proposing to require deposit and return bottles for drinks, after a surge in single-use packaging litter.
[+] [-] thangalin|7 years ago|reply
---
Life is experiencing an abrupt, widespread global species extinction event. Humans are destroying intricate webs of animals, plants, and microorganisms. These networks supply our food chain and sustain life on Earth; their annihilation from rapid deforestation and climate change is causing grave consequences: droughts, increased heat waves and wildfires, more frequent severe weather events, coastal flooding, food shortages, and water wars.
Earth’s atmosphere was once mostly carbon dioxide. Once life took hold, simple organisms (such as bacteria, algae, and plants) converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen by way of photosynthesis. When those organisms died, natural processes spanning eons changed their remains into carbon-bearing fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
Burning fossil fuels recombines carbon with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the mid-1800s humans have released a stupendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the following graph, average annual atmospheric CO2 measurements in parts per million (PPM) are plotted alongside averaged global ocean and surface temperature readings in degrees Celsius (°C), relative to 1881-1910:
https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png
Both atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step.
Bubbles in ice cores drilled from polar glaciers trap historic atmospheric gas ratios. Long-term observations reveal an increasing average warming trend that is distinct from natural short-term fluctuations. Temperatures are climbing in proportion to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution.
Choices
Our past choices have put life on Earth in peril; our children face an immense CO2 cleanup, devastating climate changes, or both. We can curtail the most severe catastrophic outcomes, though time to do so grows alarmingly thin.
If we choose air conditioner and refrigerator coolants based on hydrocarbon refrigerants; if we urge politicians to invest in on-shore wind turbines; if we reduce food waste; if we eat less meat; and if we support restoration of tropical forests. If we choose these, there is hope.
---
See also:
* https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-cha...
* https://www.drawdown.org/about
* https://igg.me/at/impacts (plug, plug; scroll down for previews)
[+] [-] cageface|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lowken10|7 years ago|reply
If you think otherwise you are an idiot. There is zero scientific evidence that shows a link between farm animals and climate change. Zero!!!
All this reminds me of a great Winston Churchhill quote...
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
[+] [-] temp1831|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] willmacdonald|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willmoss1000|7 years ago|reply
"Does what I eat have an effect on climate change? Yes. The world’s food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming"
What you personally eat will make a tiny percentage of a fraction of 7 billionth difference.
Let's not just wash our hands of the issue and say "it's not my fault" - let's focus on encouraging action at the national and global level.