No matter where you stand (some meat eaters tend to become extremely emotional on this):
The fact that the scientific results and recommendations get utterly censored like this before publication makes me really angry.
It’s somewhat fine for me if people/governments choose to ignore or argue against these results after publication, but this is just absurd… and is then used from people all over the world to point to „see, even scientists say it’s fine!“!
We must find a way to eliminate this lobbying/corruption, rather soon! Meanwhile, of course a vegan diet is better for the environment and renewables/green energy should be a top priority, and yes every bit counts, and if everyone would agree and do this instead of arguing we would have solved the issue already.
Well, speaking on the report, you'll find that all these bodies and their reports are written by committees of special interests in their entirety. There wasn't some report of substance here that was muddied and made less truthful by the meat industry. It had always been this way, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights was written so as to ensure membership in the UN by the big states of the time, and not principled based on some understanding of human rights. Theyre always statements and decisions of convenience for the interests of the attendant parties.
> We must find a way to eliminate this lobbying/corruption, rather soon!
Who is the person who is caving to pressure or accepting bribes and making changes to scientific results? We could start by finding names and calling for them to become unemployable anywhere they could cause further damage.
No matter where you stand, these type naive recommandations are responsible for some of the greatest enviornmental dissasters of the last century. "Bio"-Fuels being one of the main culprits of deforestation that has created way bigger problems than the ones they were trying to fix.
In this case a Plant based Diet would require much more agricultural land for the same calorie intake than a balanced meat and plant one. And guess where that land will come from? guess how much more automation will be needed to take care of that extra agriculture, so more machinery, more pesticides, more transport etc. There is nothing scientific about a recomandation. it's a hypotesis that until gets implemented can not be called scientific. Like the the implementation of BioFules showed, that recommandation was not scentific at all. And by definition can not be scientific.
There's an inflation of the word "scientific" nowadays that is beinng used for any study that makes it almost a religion. the core concept of Scientific it is always to question and especially can not be applied to new un-tested procedures that however rigorous they might have been on planning phase, can not by definition account for all variables. Something that is un-tested by definition can not be scientific.
The problem here is, that the giant corporations can pollute the environment (eg. coca cola in a plastic bottle, with a plastic cap, with a plastic label, wrapped in a plastic 6-pack, with a plastic handle, on a plastic pallet wrapped in plastic foil), and rich environmentalists then fly their private jets to some 'green' conference and tell an 'average joe' that he shouldn't drive his car and eat meat, and should pay for plastic bags.
Those in power both in government and in the private sector seem to have completely lost interest in the bigger picture and are optimising for short-term personal wealth at pretty much any cost. Perhaps a benevolent AI is the only way forward.
This was an ideological recommendation, not a scientific one. It's fine for scientists to also engage in political advocacy but we should be clear about which role they're playing at the time.
> Meanwhile, of course a vegan diet is better for the environment
This is not a matter of course. Humans are part of the environment, and it is not a matter of course that a vegan diet is healthy for humans. The idea (I don't want to say fact, but I believe it) that meat and dairy consumption/industry are currently happening at a scale that is harmful does not mean that meat and dairy are bad for the environment.
"It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.
Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially
biased? If not, how can we deal with this? How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest.
All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
"Equity remains a central element in the UN climate regime ... Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can
enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development ... cash transfers and public works programs [are] highly feasible and increase
resilience to climate change"
"these choices need to be rooted in our diverse values, worldviews and knowledges,
including scientific knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge and local knowledge"
Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
It really does feel like we’re living in bizzaro world. If you want to make recommendations based on evidence, make sure it doesn’t impact the profits of powerful groups.
Many negative things we see in public policy stem from this fact. Lack of right to repair, lack of broadband in America, lack of cyber security in corporations, US tax law.
Maybe you like your meat. That’s fine. You can make decisions for your self, but we should at least be able to acknowledge the impacts of those decisions.
I think the solution is to blanket ban corporate speech. It really is different than individuals speaking and we need to acknowledge that.
You know, I'm also fine with people eating meat. I just would like them to pay for the damage they cause, and would not like to subsidise their consumption with my tax money.
The discussion around plants, meat and dairy need to become much more nuanced.
Let's take dairy as an example - has a great effect in boosting mTORC1 activity which causes better growth in children. Now, a non-insignificant set of people who have bought into zealous veganry are raising children who will be physically more fragile just because they've been marketed with the idea that dairy == bad.
On the other hand, overactivation of mTORC1 is a driver of "growth-related diseases" like cancer, which suggests you should limit it post-adolescence.
In conclusion, I think it is right for us not to listen to political panels who are sticking their finger up in the air to measure what is the politically correct thing to say today and prescribe policies based on that. People should have the freedom to research and choose.
I am a layman on this topic; feel free to correct any errors in my claims.
You should note that large parts of the world's population have never consumed dairy throughout their history (except as infants, of course), and are still doing very well today (China being the largest such group). I don't think this is a good line of argument.
What you say about mTORC1 is not supported by the leading academic researcher organizations in the field of nutrition.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
If you think you have greater scientific expertize about this then I urge you to pursue a career in the related fields, publish your scientific evidence in the top journals and eventually change the recommendations. Until you accomplish that me and everyone else reading this should rely on the position cited above.
> political panels who are sticking their finger up in the air ...
That is not the situation here. The climate policy recommendations on eating are based on the best current scientific evidence. See https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/
I have no idea what mTORC1, but this post is in bad faith.
> Now, a non-insignificant set of people who have bought into zealous veganry are raising children who will be physically more fragile just because they've been marketed with the idea that dairy == bad.
> It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
mTOR makes children grow faster, but everything I've heard suggests that it doesn't make them any taller as adults. Meanwhile, obesity rates in children keep growing, and atherogenesis doesn't wait until adulthood.
Heart disease and cancer are still the leading causes of death in America. COVID's taken the #3 spot, which affected those with obesity and diabetes much more than those without, but I don't expect it to stick around on this list. Somehow, frailty due to not eating meat didn't make the top 10.
If we want kids to be strong and healthy, get them outside and get them moving. No diet will see them healthy if they're sedentary.
I have looked extensively for this and there is no study that shows that vegan children will be more fragile. Often they boast healthier cholesterol levels and body fat and better nutrient levels.
And then, if that were true, is it better to be bigger? Dairy and meat increase the risk of developing cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Is it worth it?
You concede being a layman yet lay out a conclusion as though you are not. Was there any real point to your comment beyond taking a stab at 'zealous vegans'?
By cattle, on the same grass lands (no land use change - important), the impact on climate change would be exactly zero vs pre industrial levels.
We could probable have some quantity of near CO2 neutral meat if we wanted to.
When I want beef I buy from a local farmer (grass fed 10km from my home), I don't think removing it would really help the climate vs things I've done like insulating my house, switching to heat pump, remote work, and switching to EV.
If they really read both pieces of papers, they'd read the footnote 53 in the final draft, detailing what the IPCC is calling a "sustainable healthy diet".
"53 ‘Sustainable healthy diets’ promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and well-being; have low environmental pressure and impact;
are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable, as described in FAO and WHO. The related concept of
‘balanced diets’ refers to diets that feature plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts
and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, as described in SRCCL"
Is Scientist Rebellion a lobby ? Who's pushing an agenda here ?
I suppose theoretically optimal diet would have to be some flavour of vegan, plus maybe some fish if available. In practice, a major reduction of meat and dairy would probably be enough to make a difference.
I find it bad that scientific results get censored, and I am also wondering if there is proof that a plant-based diet is more healthy. My suspicion is it might be for the average American, but it is based on gut feeling (pun intended).
I remember margarine (plant-based) was all the rage too and IIRC it was much less healthy than butter (animal-based).
Margarine is a synthetic product, with the oil created in complex refineries then hydrogenated. You can't compare this to something like lentil stew or a salad.
If the recommendation is that eating anything you want as long as the origin can be traced back to plants, then I agree, plant based diets aren't necessarily healthier. A WFPB (whole foods plant based) diet is undeniably healthy though.
The problem with margarine is orthogonal - it's due to processing. Processing has been shown to be very unhealthy whether with plant based products like margarine, or animal based products like hot dogs.
In any case the IPCC's recommendation is about the environment, and there is no doubt that animal foods are far worse for the environment.
Were these the same people who told us the glaciers would be melted and the Maldives under water by 2000?
How narcissistic do you have to be to believe the world is going to end in your little eye blink of a lifetime?
Look, the West can go carbon negative, but it makes no difference at all if China and India just use the West's carbon virtue to increase their own carbon consumption (that the West isn't using).
We really should be thinking about next generation nuclear and mitigation as first tier strategies and not attempting to remake human nature in a few generations time.
Do official recommendations like this really influence people's food choices? There have been calls for plant based diets for a long time and yet meat eating has been increasing.
Well no report by itself has a big impact. It is a matter of incremental change over time. Like with anything some people are early and they've already switched to plant based eating. Others move later. Like with any commercial sector with interest misaligned with the needed climate policy there is a lot of lobbying and greenwashing going on. This piece covers that well https://newrepublic.com/article/168766/meat-industry-lobbyin...
Interestingly, if you eat a diet of ONLY beef, as I do, then you will find that your health and fitness improve dramatically and that you spend dramatically less time preparing, cooking, and eating food.
Also, if you eat only beef then you completely stop farting (and the volume of your poop falls by 80%).
I've often wondered why "cow farts" are considered such a terrible climate change concern but "human farts" aren't.
What a baseless, fearmongering comment that isn't even relevant to the post. There are plenty of arguments for why our future may be leading to what you describe, but less meat in your diet is not one of them...
> Hardly anything the IPCC says seems to translate into policy.
Following their reports multiple countries have adopted measures directly citing those reports, with targets based on those reports. E.g. to maintain warming below X C, we'll have to reduce by Y our annual CO2 emissions, so we'll ban new internal combustion engine cars sales starting 20ZZ, while also doing this and that.
These are the same people who fly on commercial planes to beautiful destinations to then lecture me about the food I eat and the cars I drive. I guarantee none of the people authoring the IPCC report are eating bugs or lab grown meat steaks at these fancy conferences.
[+] [-] anonyfox|3 years ago|reply
The fact that the scientific results and recommendations get utterly censored like this before publication makes me really angry.
It’s somewhat fine for me if people/governments choose to ignore or argue against these results after publication, but this is just absurd… and is then used from people all over the world to point to „see, even scientists say it’s fine!“!
We must find a way to eliminate this lobbying/corruption, rather soon! Meanwhile, of course a vegan diet is better for the environment and renewables/green energy should be a top priority, and yes every bit counts, and if everyone would agree and do this instead of arguing we would have solved the issue already.
[+] [-] roenxi|3 years ago|reply
Whether they are helping or hindering is only a question of what your political leanings are.
[+] [-] friend_and_foe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autoexec|3 years ago|reply
Who is the person who is caving to pressure or accepting bribes and making changes to scientific results? We could start by finding names and calling for them to become unemployable anywhere they could cause further damage.
[+] [-] cowl|3 years ago|reply
There's an inflation of the word "scientific" nowadays that is beinng used for any study that makes it almost a religion. the core concept of Scientific it is always to question and especially can not be applied to new un-tested procedures that however rigorous they might have been on planning phase, can not by definition account for all variables. Something that is un-tested by definition can not be scientific.
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnd999|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrootabega|3 years ago|reply
This is not a matter of course. Humans are part of the environment, and it is not a matter of course that a vegan diet is healthy for humans. The idea (I don't want to say fact, but I believe it) that meat and dairy consumption/industry are currently happening at a scale that is harmful does not mean that meat and dairy are bad for the environment.
[+] [-] revelio|3 years ago|reply
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Im...
Climatologist: "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period"
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...
Climategate emails (IPCC):
"It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.
Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this? How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest.
All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
IPCC report:
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
"Equity remains a central element in the UN climate regime ... Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development ... cash transfers and public works programs [are] highly feasible and increase resilience to climate change"
IPCC press release:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2023/03/IPCC_AR6_SYR...
"these choices need to be rooted in our diverse values, worldviews and knowledges, including scientific knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge and local knowledge"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e...
Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
[+] [-] GoblinSlayer|3 years ago|reply
Doesn't agriculture cause deforestation? That said what is better for environment?
[+] [-] realworldperson|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Sapere_Aude|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vegetablepotpie|3 years ago|reply
Many negative things we see in public policy stem from this fact. Lack of right to repair, lack of broadband in America, lack of cyber security in corporations, US tax law.
Maybe you like your meat. That’s fine. You can make decisions for your self, but we should at least be able to acknowledge the impacts of those decisions.
I think the solution is to blanket ban corporate speech. It really is different than individuals speaking and we need to acknowledge that.
[+] [-] karmakurtisaani|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incone123|3 years ago|reply
How will you ban corporate shills?
[+] [-] revelio|3 years ago|reply
Does that apply to universities, government employees and claims about the "consensus" too? Or are they all individuals?
[+] [-] waihtis|3 years ago|reply
Let's take dairy as an example - has a great effect in boosting mTORC1 activity which causes better growth in children. Now, a non-insignificant set of people who have bought into zealous veganry are raising children who will be physically more fragile just because they've been marketed with the idea that dairy == bad.
On the other hand, overactivation of mTORC1 is a driver of "growth-related diseases" like cancer, which suggests you should limit it post-adolescence.
In conclusion, I think it is right for us not to listen to political panels who are sticking their finger up in the air to measure what is the politically correct thing to say today and prescribe policies based on that. People should have the freedom to research and choose.
I am a layman on this topic; feel free to correct any errors in my claims.
[+] [-] tsimionescu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cinntaile|3 years ago|reply
This isn't how this works. You should back up your own claims with sources.
[+] [-] sprucevoid|3 years ago|reply
What you say about mTORC1 is not supported by the leading academic researcher organizations in the field of nutrition.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
If you think you have greater scientific expertize about this then I urge you to pursue a career in the related fields, publish your scientific evidence in the top journals and eventually change the recommendations. Until you accomplish that me and everyone else reading this should rely on the position cited above.
> political panels who are sticking their finger up in the air ...
That is not the situation here. The climate policy recommendations on eating are based on the best current scientific evidence. See https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/
[+] [-] jmkr|3 years ago|reply
> Now, a non-insignificant set of people who have bought into zealous veganry are raising children who will be physically more fragile just because they've been marketed with the idea that dairy == bad.
> It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
There's plenty of sources saying a properly planned vegan diet is fine. Lots of vegans take supplements, and lots of food is fortified.
[+] [-] at_compile_time|3 years ago|reply
Heart disease and cancer are still the leading causes of death in America. COVID's taken the #3 spot, which affected those with obesity and diabetes much more than those without, but I don't expect it to stick around on this list. Somehow, frailty due to not eating meat didn't make the top 10.
If we want kids to be strong and healthy, get them outside and get them moving. No diet will see them healthy if they're sedentary.
[+] [-] asterix_pano|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 000ooo000|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guerby|3 years ago|reply
To take beef for example (since it usually tops the kgCO2/unit food charts) if we just replaced the millions of bisons exterminated in the USA:
https://theconversation.com/historical-photo-of-mountain-of-...
(30-60 millions bisons to ... about 500).
By cattle, on the same grass lands (no land use change - important), the impact on climate change would be exactly zero vs pre industrial levels.
We could probable have some quantity of near CO2 neutral meat if we wanted to.
When I want beef I buy from a local farmer (grass fed 10km from my home), I don't think removing it would really help the climate vs things I've done like insulating my house, switching to heat pump, remote work, and switching to EV.
[+] [-] lexa1979|3 years ago|reply
"53 ‘Sustainable healthy diets’ promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and well-being; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable, as described in FAO and WHO. The related concept of ‘balanced diets’ refers to diets that feature plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, as described in SRCCL"
Is Scientist Rebellion a lobby ? Who's pushing an agenda here ?
[+] [-] alphabetatheta|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmakurtisaani|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mejutoco|3 years ago|reply
I remember margarine (plant-based) was all the rage too and IIRC it was much less healthy than butter (animal-based).
My guess is it depends on the specific meals.
[+] [-] colordrops|3 years ago|reply
If the recommendation is that eating anything you want as long as the origin can be traced back to plants, then I agree, plant based diets aren't necessarily healthier. A WFPB (whole foods plant based) diet is undeniably healthy though.
The problem with margarine is orthogonal - it's due to processing. Processing has been shown to be very unhealthy whether with plant based products like margarine, or animal based products like hot dogs.
In any case the IPCC's recommendation is about the environment, and there is no doubt that animal foods are far worse for the environment.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|3 years ago|reply
https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/
The results are pretty much what you'd think.
[+] [-] mft_|3 years ago|reply
This is a good place to start: https://nutritionfacts.org/
[+] [-] fwungy|3 years ago|reply
How narcissistic do you have to be to believe the world is going to end in your little eye blink of a lifetime?
Look, the West can go carbon negative, but it makes no difference at all if China and India just use the West's carbon virtue to increase their own carbon consumption (that the West isn't using).
We really should be thinking about next generation nuclear and mitigation as first tier strategies and not attempting to remake human nature in a few generations time.
[+] [-] leethargo|3 years ago|reply
I'm guessing their impact is mostly from deforestation. Does somebody know more?
[+] [-] m0llusk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sprucevoid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway22032|2 years ago|reply
I will do what is necessary in order to do so.
This is generally how I operate. I also want to drive a car, own a house (not an apartment), have children, etcetera.
It strictly benefits me to recommend that you (as a stranger) don't do any of this. I'd rather have less competition.
That's all this stuff comes down to, to me. Convince everyone else to reduce their standard of living.
I'm just not going to eat the bugs, sorry. Try as hard as you like.
[+] [-] jononomo|3 years ago|reply
Also, if you eat only beef then you completely stop farting (and the volume of your poop falls by 80%).
I've often wondered why "cow farts" are considered such a terrible climate change concern but "human farts" aren't.
[+] [-] postdb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] exfatloss|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hdhrufjdi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boesboes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnsru|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bobs_salsa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calgarymicro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdeck|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sofixa|3 years ago|reply
Following their reports multiple countries have adopted measures directly citing those reports, with targets based on those reports. E.g. to maintain warming below X C, we'll have to reduce by Y our annual CO2 emissions, so we'll ban new internal combustion engine cars sales starting 20ZZ, while also doing this and that.
Seen across the EU and the US btw.
[+] [-] bigtex|3 years ago|reply