10 ms·
The scientific basis for links between red meat production and environmental harm due to greenhouse gases, and between red meat consumption and harm to individu
by adriand 8y ago
The scientific basis for links between red meat production and environmental harm due to greenhouse gases, and between red meat consumption and harm to individual health, is well established.
I’m not here to criticize the choices of one individual - I genuinely don’t care - but civilizationally a reliance on beef for the majority of our protein requirements would be a singularly poor strategy.
- graeme 8y agoThere's one thing I've wondered about beef and greenhouse gases. People say that cows produce co2. They also say that an increase in the human population does not produce co2. It seems that either one claim is wrong, OR cows are somehow different from humans in their effect on the carbon cycle. One notable difference is that cows produce more methane than we do. This has the effect of increasing short term warming as methane has a much more powerful warming effect over 100 years. But other than that, when cow emissions are cited, are people simply adding up the co2 cows breathe? If so, why is this invalid for humans? Or if it is valid for humans, then how are cow emissions determined? I could see land use change being one reason, but that would seem to apply to humans too. Can anyone clarify this? It would seem that either both humans and cows are net co2 contributors, or neither are. (Apart from methane)
- lookACamel 8y agoThey're talking about the methane, and also about using land to grow grain for feeding the cows.
- graeme 8y agoSo in the latter case, more humans do cause co2 to the extent we each need food and land uses changes to provide that food. In the case of cows, it's the same calculus: land use change to feed us. Just, more land use change in the case of cows. So, therefore, a cow raised on pasture that isn't suited for other farming wouldn't be especially co2 producing by that measure, correct? Apart from methane. So, we could reduce cows contributions to: * Eliminating their methane (seaweed experiments, etc) * restricting cattle to land suitable for pasture but not so suitable for crops If cattle were only raised in those cases, that would effectively negate their warming impact? This would still mean a massive reduction in beef and much higher prices of course.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- moltar 8y agoThat is an example of excellent critical thinking skills.
- graeme 8y agoThanks! The cow emissions thing has had me confused for a while. I looked into it a bit further, and it seems cows produce more methane on grass, which is not good. I don't know if those seaweed proposals work on a grass based diet, or if they're only for cows largely fed grain.