4 ms·

Rephrasing as a bit as I get your point better. It's easier to change eating habits then buying a new car. I've seen discussion about cars to veg comparison an

Rephrasing as a bit as I get your point better. It's easier to change eating habits then buying a new car. I've seen discussion about cars to veg comparison and not hard numbers or citations. When I did the math myself a couple years back I found the GHG emissions saved by going veg was similar to someone switching from driving an semi-efficient SUV to a Prius. Big change, but not as good as switching to biking. I think 10 miles may be undercutting it. Also quoting from a similar thread elsewhere, focusing just on GHG emissions is limiting the scope of impact animal ag causes. > Animal agriculture is a leading cause of deforestation of the amazon[1], species extinction[2] and ocean dead zones[3]. There's so much more than greenhouse gases that going vegan helps with, not even mentioning suffering. [1] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889... [2] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/meat-eaters-may-speed-worldwide-species-extinction-study-warns http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/meat-eaters-may-speed... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-dead-zones/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-dead-zones/ and this article http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80... helps illustrate how much space and time we waste on farm land for animals which causes ocean deadzones

belorn 10y ago
Yes we could look at other effects from animals vs vegetarian, but then all the numbers we use are simplifications. The effect of driving do not consider the drilling, pumping, transporting and refining of oil, only the actually burning of gas. When talking about farming we also need to consider water use, water cleaning, and eutrophication. In some places we even have a harmful effect to biodiversity when previous farm land is reverted back into forests (Sweden is in this situation, where some species that depend on open land is drastically decreasing when animal farms are abandoned and land get grown in). I even know government projects which funded fishers to fish in lakes where eutrophication caused overgrowth of certain fish species that directly threatened extinction of other fish. It is complex system, which is why looking on only greenhouse gases makes for easier for comparing one activity vs an other.
- marricks 10y ago
  I think my extra arguments week pretty self explanatory. Species extinction and deforestation of the Amazon most ecologists would agree are bad. Of course niche cases require niche solutions, but I think considering other huge factors is also important rather than blindly ignoring them to make animal ag look better. As I said, this is the Holocene extinction event, clearly what we're doing needs to change and reduction in land use and species extinction is a good starting point. How we handle reclaimed land is important to consider of course, but honestly seems like a luxury until we get there. Besides saying we should stick to CO2 the main thing I get from your comment is arguing for status quo, which isn't a solution.
  - belorn 10y ago
    My argument, as given above, is that we should have a environment cost table when discussion what action individuals should take to save the environment. Starting by reducing those actions that has highest cost and then go down the list. Status quo it is not, through it is an argument in favor of bikes and remote work rather than diet changes. Amazon deforestation is clearly a problem, and in the same way that IKEA stopped using wood that they got from that deforestation, so too can other markets that benefit from deforestation. There could be national bans or consumer boycotts of beef produced on cost of amazon forests, which would be a niche solution for a niche case.

belorn 10y ago

Yes we could look at other effects from animals vs vegetarian, but then all the numbers we use are simplifications. The effect of driving do not consider the drilling, pumping, transporting and refining of oil, only the actually burning of gas. When talking about farming we also need to consider water use, water cleaning, and eutrophication. In some places we even have a harmful effect to biodiversity when previous farm land is reverted back into forests (Sweden is in this situation, where some species that depend on open land is drastically decreasing when animal farms are abandoned and land get grown in). I even know government projects which funded fishers to fish in lakes where eutrophication caused overgrowth of certain fish species that directly threatened extinction of other fish. It is complex system, which is why looking on only greenhouse gases makes for easier for comparing one activity vs an other.

marricks 10y ago
I think my extra arguments week pretty self explanatory. Species extinction and deforestation of the Amazon most ecologists would agree are bad. Of course niche cases require niche solutions, but I think considering other huge factors is also important rather than blindly ignoring them to make animal ag look better. As I said, this is the Holocene extinction event, clearly what we're doing needs to change and reduction in land use and species extinction is a good starting point. How we handle reclaimed land is important to consider of course, but honestly seems like a luxury until we get there. Besides saying we should stick to CO2 the main thing I get from your comment is arguing for status quo, which isn't a solution.
- belorn 10y ago
  My argument, as given above, is that we should have a environment cost table when discussion what action individuals should take to save the environment. Starting by reducing those actions that has highest cost and then go down the list. Status quo it is not, through it is an argument in favor of bikes and remote work rather than diet changes. Amazon deforestation is clearly a problem, and in the same way that IKEA stopped using wood that they got from that deforestation, so too can other markets that benefit from deforestation. There could be national bans or consumer boycotts of beef produced on cost of amazon forests, which would be a niche solution for a niche case.