7 ms·

Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019

ikeyany 8y ago
I didn't see the author prove the actual point made in the title. I'd like to see a list of the average person's effect on the environment. What's the effect of one egg a day? What's the effect of taking mass transit vs driving each say? I'm a bit surprised such numbers aren't used as the main talking points.
- berbec 8y ago
  In New York City, there is an ad campaign about not wasting food. One tag line is "Wasting one egg wastes 55 gallons of water".
  - goldfeld 8y ago
    Surprise, eating one egg also wastes 55 gallons of water.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      Well no it might spend that much water, but if the egg is eaten then the water is not wasted. Also where is this water coming from and going to? It's not a zero sum. The chicken may need this much water to produce an egg but the water doesn't disappear. It goes back into the same system it came from.
  - chewz 8y ago
    I like the Brazilian ad campaign better. The one that pissing while showering saves many liters of water on not flushing the toilet...
QuantumAphid 8y ago
Not impressed by their logic. This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And they proceed boil this complex problem down into an anti-meat soundbite. I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda. Breakdown of sources of greenhouse gas emissions: How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming? https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  > I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda. To follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion: "committing suicide is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019." I'm really not a fan of the misanthropic philosophy around many of the proposed solutions. Not only is it, you know, anti-people.... Not only is it unnecessary considering the role than innovation and adaption can play... ...but it's also a complete dead-end politically. And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political support. Forcing people to decide between say, kids or pets on the one hand and fighting climate change on the other, most people are going to choose their kids or pets every time. So making that kind of argument is highly counter-productive.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    Pol Pot for environmentalist of the year.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - QuantumAphid 8y ago
    I avoided making that Swiftian satire of a conclusion, but it did occur to me. I think it makes sense to push for changes to the production of livestock as well as agriculture, to aggressively combat deforestation, and of course reduce emissions of road transportation, which is 10% of total emissions.
open-source-ux 8y ago
I also recommend this excellent 2011 article by a committed carnivore who drastically reduced his meat consumption: British chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. The joy of veg https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-fearnley-whittingstall-vegetables https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-fe...
- QuantumAphid 8y ago
  I'm not familiar with this chef, but if somone is a "carnivore" that typically means that meat/fish/eggs compose most if not all of their diet. That's an extreme diet. At least in the US, the percentage of calories of a typical diet is 70% plant-based (including nut/vegetable oils) vs 30% animal, and I believe red meat has been on the decline for years, whereas consumption of chicken has risen. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at-calorie-sources-in-the-american-diet/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...
Proven 8y ago
Nonsense. One should look what's best for her, not for "the planet". If it doesn't violate another person's property rights, who are we to object or judge?
justtopost 8y ago
Oh wow, new year, new vegan crusade. At least post an article that tries to support its claim with... anything. This is how you alienate normal people from your movement. Everyone agrees factory farming sucks, why not push sustainable agriculture instead if childing peole to change their personal diets?
- vegannet 8y ago
  > Everyone agrees factory farming sucks Not enough to change their diet though. > why not push sustainable agriculture instead Because factory farming _is_ the most environmentally sustainable form of animal agriculture. Environmental sustainability and animal welfare are in competition with each other, to give to one you have to take from the other, so the obvious choice is to simply reduce animal agriculture.
tareqak 8y ago
For those questioning the impact of meat, this picture https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/_104544284_climate_change_food_v3-nc.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/... from this previously submitted article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565) has a chart showing the impact of animal products versus plant products.
- vibrato 8y ago
  And even if americans ate 0 food whatsoever, our greenhouse gas production would drop about 10%. Diet is not a low hanging fruit in this fight. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
scythe 8y ago
I really dislike the political fatalism that hides behind individual-action climate engineering. The argument says we can't convince our leaders to tax carbon emissions or invest in green technologies, we have to push feebly against the 9% of US carbon emissions which are related to agriculture while the world ignores us and burns to death. This is not the way. The way forward requires democratic, organized, serious reforms of many areas of life. Individuals can't do it. Political participation, communication, compromise, honesty, and skepticism are necessary. Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics. The fact is that I can't do anything for the planet. My suicide would save nobody. We can stop global warming by working together.
- jly 8y ago
  Any organized reforms requires enough of the population to agree to substantial lifestyle changes and sacrifice, and that starts at the individual level. How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it willingly? Green technologies and innovations will certainly help but I'm not happy just waiting for some breakthrough and throwing money at it in the meantime. Arguing that individuals can't make any meaningful difference is also a cop out - if my small sacrifice won't help, then why bother? This seems like a terrible perspective. > Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics. What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? It's also worth pointing out that many (maybe most?) who choose to forgo meat do it primarily for ethical reasons.
  - scythe 8y ago
    > How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it willingly? 40% of the United States does not believe the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming. Two out of every five people do not actually believe there is a problem to be solved! Start there! Most of the behaviors that need to be changed will come as a significant disadvantage to any individual who undertakes the change unilaterally. You're going to have a hard time competing in the job market if you're one of a very few who won't drive. You won't be out of a job if everyone is in it together. Everyone will think you're a weirdo if you're the only person who doesn't heat their house. Your parents will be very unhappy if you're the only child who doesn't fly home every year. Your HOA will object if you incinerate your own trash instead of sending it to a land-fill. So on, and so forth: no man is an island. And of course, what's particularly inappropriate is that so many vegans like being contrarians, prefer feeling morally superior to those around them, etc. Contrarianism and vanity will never motivate the unwashed masses to do what is necessary. Your virtues are a sand-castle beneath a waterfall. >What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? Because they're putting the majority of their efforts into things that make them feel good! Look at you: "I'm not happy just waiting". I'm not interested in being happy, I'm interested in stopping a catastrophe. You don't like arguing with conservatives. You like feeling good about what you eat. Stop doing what you like. It's not about what you like. You probably really won't like forging a compromise with people who couldn't care less about animal rights or agricultural land use or nitrosamines, but you will have to do it anyway. You won't like trying to appeal to their beliefs so you can make them do what you want, but you have to do it or they won't do what you want. Climate activism is a political quest, not a personal one. The bottom line is that we must win. Feeling good is useless.
anarchimedes 8y ago
I'm curios how this compares to what Bjorn Lomborg [1] (with a longer explanation [2]) and other researchers found that going completely vegetarian accounted for a modest decrease (-2%) in energy consumption and (-4%) carbon footprint [3]. I keep seeing articles like this one and wondering if collectively we are low on ideas of how to effectively tackle climate change when the focus turns to exaggerating the effects at the margins. [1] https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770 [2] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-production-overstated-effect-on-climate-change-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-11 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-production... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002153 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091...
nkurz 8y ago
To put this in perspective, changing your diet from omnivore to vegetarian appears to have about the same effect on greenhouse gas production as a roundtrip flight across the United States (5000 mi / 8000 km total distance). Here are approximate figures for CO2-equivalent emissions different diets: Omnivore: 6500 lbs/year (3000 kg/year) Vegetarian: 5300 lbs/year (2400 kg/year) Vegan: 4500 lbs/year (2000 kg/year) http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf And here's data for a round trip flight from JFK-SFO (New York to San Francisco): JFK-SFO: 700 lbs (300 kg) (each way) https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P... The savings of going from omnivore to vegetarian is thus slightly less than avoiding the cross-continent flight, and the savings from going from omnivore to vegan is slightly greater. This doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't change your diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if you are flying more than one long haul flight per year, I think it does mean that there might be more benefit to reducing your travel than changing your diet.
- QuantumAphid 8y ago
  One should also note that a vegetarian diet may not be optimal for your individual health profile. People with colitis, diversticulitis, chron's disease / IBS or other allergies might not do well on a high fiber diet. In other words, there's a lot of debate still about which diets are optimal for humans. Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual.
  - wtmt 8y ago
    > Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual. Your comment would've been comprehensive if you'd also said that a meat based diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual. Without that, it's just one sided argument for your preferences, the exact notion that you seem to be against (in all your comments) with respect to the article's author.
    - 8y ago

I didn't see the author prove the actual point made in the title. I'd like to see a list of the average person's effect on the environment. What's the effect of one egg a day? What's the effect of taking mass transit vs driving each say? I'm a bit surprised such numbers aren't used as the main talking points.

berbec 8y ago
In New York City, there is an ad campaign about not wasting food. One tag line is "Wasting one egg wastes 55 gallons of water".
- goldfeld 8y ago
  Surprise, eating one egg also wastes 55 gallons of water.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    Well no it might spend that much water, but if the egg is eaten then the water is not wasted. Also where is this water coming from and going to? It's not a zero sum. The chicken may need this much water to produce an egg but the water doesn't disappear. It goes back into the same system it came from.
- chewz 8y ago
  I like the Brazilian ad campaign better. The one that pissing while showering saves many liters of water on not flushing the toilet...

QuantumAphid 8y ago

Not impressed by their logic. This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And they proceed boil this complex problem down into an anti-meat soundbite. I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda. Breakdown of sources of greenhouse gas emissions: How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming? https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...

Robotbeat 8y ago
> I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda. To follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion: "committing suicide is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019." I'm really not a fan of the misanthropic philosophy around many of the proposed solutions. Not only is it, you know, anti-people.... Not only is it unnecessary considering the role than innovation and adaption can play... ...but it's also a complete dead-end politically. And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political support. Forcing people to decide between say, kids or pets on the one hand and fighting climate change on the other, most people are going to choose their kids or pets every time. So making that kind of argument is highly counter-productive.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  Pol Pot for environmentalist of the year.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- QuantumAphid 8y ago
  I avoided making that Swiftian satire of a conclusion, but it did occur to me. I think it makes sense to push for changes to the production of livestock as well as agriculture, to aggressively combat deforestation, and of course reduce emissions of road transportation, which is 10% of total emissions.

open-source-ux 8y ago

I also recommend this excellent 2011 article by a committed carnivore who drastically reduced his meat consumption: British chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. The joy of veg https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-fearnley-whittingstall-vegetables https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-fe...

QuantumAphid 8y ago
I'm not familiar with this chef, but if somone is a "carnivore" that typically means that meat/fish/eggs compose most if not all of their diet. That's an extreme diet. At least in the US, the percentage of calories of a typical diet is 70% plant-based (including nut/vegetable oils) vs 30% animal, and I believe red meat has been on the decline for years, whereas consumption of chicken has risen. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at-calorie-sources-in-the-american-diet/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...

Proven 8y ago

Nonsense. One should look what's best for her, not for "the planet". If it doesn't violate another person's property rights, who are we to object or judge?

justtopost 8y ago

Oh wow, new year, new vegan crusade. At least post an article that tries to support its claim with... anything. This is how you alienate normal people from your movement. Everyone agrees factory farming sucks, why not push sustainable agriculture instead if childing peole to change their personal diets?

vegannet 8y ago
> Everyone agrees factory farming sucks Not enough to change their diet though. > why not push sustainable agriculture instead Because factory farming _is_ the most environmentally sustainable form of animal agriculture. Environmental sustainability and animal welfare are in competition with each other, to give to one you have to take from the other, so the obvious choice is to simply reduce animal agriculture.

tareqak 8y ago

For those questioning the impact of meat, this picture https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/_104544284_climate_change_food_v3-nc.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/... from this previously submitted article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565) has a chart showing the impact of animal products versus plant products.

vibrato 8y ago
And even if americans ate 0 food whatsoever, our greenhouse gas production would drop about 10%. Diet is not a low hanging fruit in this fight. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

scythe 8y ago

I really dislike the political fatalism that hides behind individual-action climate engineering. The argument says we can't convince our leaders to tax carbon emissions or invest in green technologies, we have to push feebly against the 9% of US carbon emissions which are related to agriculture while the world ignores us and burns to death. This is not the way. The way forward requires democratic, organized, serious reforms of many areas of life. Individuals can't do it. Political participation, communication, compromise, honesty, and skepticism are necessary. Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics. The fact is that I can't do anything for the planet. My suicide would save nobody. We can stop global warming by working together.

jly 8y ago
Any organized reforms requires enough of the population to agree to substantial lifestyle changes and sacrifice, and that starts at the individual level. How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it willingly? Green technologies and innovations will certainly help but I'm not happy just waiting for some breakthrough and throwing money at it in the meantime. Arguing that individuals can't make any meaningful difference is also a cop out - if my small sacrifice won't help, then why bother? This seems like a terrible perspective. > Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics. What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? It's also worth pointing out that many (maybe most?) who choose to forgo meat do it primarily for ethical reasons.
- scythe 8y ago
  > How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it willingly? 40% of the United States does not believe the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming. Two out of every five people do not actually believe there is a problem to be solved! Start there! Most of the behaviors that need to be changed will come as a significant disadvantage to any individual who undertakes the change unilaterally. You're going to have a hard time competing in the job market if you're one of a very few who won't drive. You won't be out of a job if everyone is in it together. Everyone will think you're a weirdo if you're the only person who doesn't heat their house. Your parents will be very unhappy if you're the only child who doesn't fly home every year. Your HOA will object if you incinerate your own trash instead of sending it to a land-fill. So on, and so forth: no man is an island. And of course, what's particularly inappropriate is that so many vegans like being contrarians, prefer feeling morally superior to those around them, etc. Contrarianism and vanity will never motivate the unwashed masses to do what is necessary. Your virtues are a sand-castle beneath a waterfall. >What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? Because they're putting the majority of their efforts into things that make them feel good! Look at you: "I'm not happy just waiting". I'm not interested in being happy, I'm interested in stopping a catastrophe. You don't like arguing with conservatives. You like feeling good about what you eat. Stop doing what you like. It's not about what you like. You probably really won't like forging a compromise with people who couldn't care less about animal rights or agricultural land use or nitrosamines, but you will have to do it anyway. You won't like trying to appeal to their beliefs so you can make them do what you want, but you have to do it or they won't do what you want. Climate activism is a political quest, not a personal one. The bottom line is that we must win. Feeling good is useless.

anarchimedes 8y ago

I'm curios how this compares to what Bjorn Lomborg [1] (with a longer explanation [2]) and other researchers found that going completely vegetarian accounted for a modest decrease (-2%) in energy consumption and (-4%) carbon footprint [3]. I keep seeing articles like this one and wondering if collectively we are low on ideas of how to effectively tackle climate change when the focus turns to exaggerating the effects at the margins. [1] https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770 [2] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-production-overstated-effect-on-climate-change-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-11 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-production... [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002153 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091...

nkurz 8y ago

To put this in perspective, changing your diet from omnivore to vegetarian appears to have about the same effect on greenhouse gas production as a roundtrip flight across the United States (5000 mi / 8000 km total distance). Here are approximate figures for CO2-equivalent emissions different diets: Omnivore: 6500 lbs/year (3000 kg/year) Vegetarian: 5300 lbs/year (2400 kg/year) Vegan: 4500 lbs/year (2000 kg/year) http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf And here's data for a round trip flight from JFK-SFO (New York to San Francisco): JFK-SFO: 700 lbs (300 kg) (each way) https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P... The savings of going from omnivore to vegetarian is thus slightly less than avoiding the cross-continent flight, and the savings from going from omnivore to vegan is slightly greater. This doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't change your diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if you are flying more than one long haul flight per year, I think it does mean that there might be more benefit to reducing your travel than changing your diet.

QuantumAphid 8y ago
One should also note that a vegetarian diet may not be optimal for your individual health profile. People with colitis, diversticulitis, chron's disease / IBS or other allergies might not do well on a high fiber diet. In other words, there's a lot of debate still about which diets are optimal for humans. Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual.
- wtmt 8y ago
  > Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual. Your comment would've been comprehensive if you'd also said that a meat based diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual. Without that, it's just one sided argument for your preferences, the exact notion that you seem to be against (in all your comments) with respect to the article's author.
  - 8y ago