17 ms·

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it.

Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. A bunch of tax law changes would do it. And that's a lot more passable than killing a bunch of people.

JTbane 8y ago
The problem with that is people are really attached to their cars and beef.
coldtea 8y ago
>Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. For one, beef's not that much of a problem: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi... But second, all kinds of systems we have have been premised on economic growth year after year. When we hit some harder limits, we'll hit them hard.
- iN7h33nD 8y ago
  Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg (Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite) So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)
    - osense 8y ago
      > "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. > "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat" Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 58% of agriculture-produced greenhouse gases and takes up a whopping 83% of currently farmed land, compared to overall agriculture [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.
        osense 8y ago
        Unfortunately, this is not the case: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor... Note that the year of publication is 2010.
    - losteric 8y ago
      Meat is not inherently bad, but there is clear scientific consensus that the world's current meat consumption is unsustainable. Here's a list of problems with 105 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... At this point, denial is willful ignorance of evidence... falling in the same vein as antivaxxers and climate change denialists.
deialtrous 8y ago
Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from cars here is the mining, which is worse with an electric vehicle. Nothing you suggested even attempts to address the issue at all.
- GVIrish 8y ago
  The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable. Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock. Not saying we need to stop eating beef completely, but if diets shifted away from beef it would have a number of positive environmental impacts.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.
    - wiz21c 8y ago
      for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.
      - 8y ago
belorn 8y ago
Freshwater habitats are the worst hit according to the article with populations having collapsed by 83%. To that we have several major causes with one being acidification from CO2, eutrophication, fresh water usage/water treatment, waste management and electrical dams. Beef and internal-combustion are part of the issue of C02, but we need to also start addressing the other issues if we want to see the trend change.

JTbane 8y ago

The problem with that is people are really attached to their cars and beef.

coldtea 8y ago

>Basically stop eating beef and using internal-combustion cars, and the situation is vastly improved. Not impossible. For one, beef's not that much of a problem: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envi... But second, all kinds of systems we have have been premised on economic growth year after year. When we hit some harder limits, we'll hit them hard.

iN7h33nD 8y ago
Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg (Sources: https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite https://sites.google.com/view/kgssourcesmeat/startseite) So even if FAO got it wrong, I just don't see beef not being a problem.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Many sources would beg to differ about meat not being a problem. The "sources" in the link either reference to mistaken FAO stats, or give some numbers out of context and with no argument (e.g. "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" -- ok, but what's that compared to other consumers of such resources? Or "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat", ok so?)
  - osense 8y ago
    > "One kilogram of steak needs up to 25 kilos of grain and 15,000 liters of water" The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. > "Meat just makes up 18% of our calories humans eat" Same argument: even though meat makes up only 18% of calories in our diets, it produces 58% of agriculture-produced greenhouse gases and takes up a whopping 83% of currently farmed land, compared to overall agriculture [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >The argument is that in order to produce 1000 calories worth of meat, more resources (e.g. land, water, greenhouse emissions) are needed than to produce 1000 calories worth of plant-based food. Sure, but either quantity might not be the real issue on the grand scheme of things, if it's just eg. 5% of resource use or pollution.
      - osense 8y ago
        Unfortunately, this is not the case: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-repor... Note that the year of publication is 2010.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Meat is not inherently bad, but there is clear scientific consensus that the world's current meat consumption is unsustainable. Here's a list of problems with 105 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... At this point, denial is willful ignorance of evidence... falling in the same vein as antivaxxers and climate change denialists.

deialtrous 8y ago

Except that my diet and car have absolutely nothing to do with the problem. You're fixating on CO2 when the problem the article talks about is clearly environmental destruction. Canada and the US produce all of our own beef. There is no environmental destruction happening here for beef production. We can in fact produce much more beef using the existing idle grasslands we have now. And the only relevant problem from cars here is the mining, which is worse with an electric vehicle. Nothing you suggested even attempts to address the issue at all.

GVIrish 8y ago
The energy, land, and water required to produce 1 lb of beef is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of chicken, which in turn is several times greater than the resources required to produce 1 lb of the average vegetable. Not only that, but methane emissions from cattle contribute to climate change. About a third of anthropogenic methane emissions in the US are from livestock. Not saying we need to stop eating beef completely, but if diets shifted away from beef it would have a number of positive environmental impacts.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  None of those things have anything to do with the discussion though, which is developing nations torching natural ecosystems. Neither my beef nor my car is in any way a factor in this. Also, your comparison is disingenuous. A pound of beef or chicken contains far more calories and protein than a pound of any vegetable. And grass fed beef actually requires less energy to produce than vegetables.
  - wiz21c 8y ago
    for the beef : https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/is-grass-fed-beef-bette... for the car : just stop using a car, that'll be better for the environment.
    - 8y ago

belorn 8y ago

Freshwater habitats are the worst hit according to the article with populations having collapsed by 83%. To that we have several major causes with one being acidification from CO2, eutrophication, fresh water usage/water treatment, waste management and electrical dams. Beef and internal-combustion are part of the issue of C02, but we need to also start addressing the other issues if we want to see the trend change.