3 ms·

And buy products from where instead? Is everything made in China uniformally disastrous for the environment? I was under the impression the easiest way for pe

And buy products from where instead? Is everything made in China uniformally disastrous for the environment? I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat?

XorNot 8y ago
It's less beef, specifically. On a practical level cutting out meat entirely can actually increase emissions because you can raise farm animals off of human inedible parts of plants like stems and other marginal food (i.e. parts we don't get any nutrition from). Beef however is one of the worst conversion methods in this regard, but animals like chickens and goats are quite efficient.
- est31 8y ago
  Insects are most efficient btw, but there are cultural reservations about them in the west.
  - zcid 8y ago
    I looked into raising crickets, but most of my research suggested that they aren't any more efficient than chickens. It seems that a lot of the studies we currently have are poorly done or not transferable to mass production. In addition, the amount of extra work for processing crickets made the project less than optimal at least for a small operation.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    If Silicon Valley can propel nutrient sludge like Soylent into notoriety, then I'm sure it can do the same for cricket nuggets. :P
    - renholder 8y ago
      >...like Soylent into notoriety... As long as it isn't green. =]
    - benj111 8y ago
      Doesn't require Silicon Valley. Pink slime can now be sold as beef mince in the US. How hard do you think it would be to get powdered cricket labelled as 'protein enhancer' or some such? Plus people will happily eat things with cochineal [1] in it, so I can't see highly processed insect additives being a problem. Won't be called Cricket nuggets though. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    They could grow insects to process into unrecognisable "filler", right?
    - int_19h 8y ago
      It's already done, and has been for ages - dried crickets can be ground into "cricket flour". This takes care of the things crunching while you eat them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_flour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_flour
  - tropo 8y ago
    We have the same cultural reservations about shrimp. We do not normally eat the head, tail, exoskeleton, legs, gills, or poo-filled gut. It's pretty similar for chicken; nobody eats the feathers and beaks and poop. Shrimp is nevertheless popular however. We simply remove the parts for which we have cultural reservations. So, where can I get insects that have been properly prepared, just like shrimp?
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Even in Western countries, this varies. For example, in many European countries, there are various dishes involving small fish that's cooked and eaten basically whole, with intestines and all. Examples include Baltic sprats (usually smoked and then canned in oil), or Bulgarian tsatsa (same fish coated in flour and deep fried). Both are delicious, by the way.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      >nobody eats the feathers and beaks and poop. Well..chicken feathers and poop are fed to cows which are fed to people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_litter#Use_as_cattle_feed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_litter#Use_as_cattle_f...
- dh-g 8y ago
  Composting the waste is more efficient so it would be hard to see a net increase from the elimination of animal production.
hannob 8y ago
> And buy products from where instead? Buy less products overall. > I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat? The most effective thing is probably less carbon intensive transport (that means first and foremost flying). But less meat (or better no meat) is still among the more impactful things.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Airliners get better fuel efficiency per mile per passenger than most single-occupant cars. The majority of people do not fly multiple times per week. Having said that, I do agree with the main thrust of your comment: consume less.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    They also don't drive several thousand or tens of thousand kilometers in one go once or more a year either in addition to the normal driving, so I'd say that argument is not helpful here.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      That’s a good point. I wonder how many people are willing to eat less beef vs how many are willing to give in their once a year or less long-haul-flight holiday.
      - distances 8y ago
        That's not how it'll work though. Do vegans get more flight allowances? Do people with kids have to forgo meat as well as vacations? Obviously no consumer choice driven solution is going to work. The costs have to be included in the goods and services if we want any actual reduction.
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > *Airliners get better fuel efficiency per mile per passenger than most single- http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-travel/ http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-t... seems to disagee. In fact, driving a typical car for one year produces less CO2 than one long-distance flight per passenger.
adrianN 8y ago
Eating less meat is pretty high on the list [1]. But I think that for many people it is easier to buy less crap they don't really need, or to fix things instead of replacing them. Buying used instead of new is also an option. [1] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions
kaybe 8y ago
The worst culprit for many people I know is flying. You can eat a lot of meat for the emissions of just one long-haul flight. (Which is sad because flying is great.)
- fghtr 8y ago
  Reference: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
  - Pelam 8y ago
    Interesting fact, jet powered short haul flights are worse per distance due to the fact that most energy is used in takeoff and landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati... I also read somewhere that propeller based airplanes flying lower in the atmosphere would be better option for short haul flights.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    I wonder what the difference between 'switch electric car to car free' and 'live carfree' is? The effect over time or not using rentals/other people's cars maybe?
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      Manufacturing and maintaining a vehicle produced pollution itself, so not creating demand for one is less polluting than still creating a demand for a vehicle of any type.
  - peanutz454 8y ago
    I find this difficult to believe! One transatlantic round trip flight is about 60% as bad as living car free? Assuming you do not travel at all - right? But you will travel. You will cycle to work, and you will burn more calories, and you will therefore eat more food, ending up contributing just as much too increasing emissions!
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
China is fastracking to being a developed nation faster than anyone before, and missing out many of the developed world's mistakes. They'll have poisonous air for a shorter time than the US or Europe did. They'll have the least obsolete infrastructure of anyone. Making stuff in China isn't necessarily disastrous. Making huge amounts of overly cheap shite that doesn't last, or do the job properly is especially disastrous as it encourages waste. Shipping huge amounts of stuff around the globe is disastrous. Making stuff in places that don't yet have mature and tight environmental protections is disastrous. (Probably a significant reason it moved there in the first place) I'd pay more for a MBP or another Thinkpad made in Greenock (where IBM used to make them), or anywhere in the EU. I'm in a minority so small it may as well not exist in wanting locally made stuff. For most stuff, I try not to buy at all, but I can rarely choose local any more.
- empath75 8y ago
  Even if they assembled them elsewhere, most of the parts and raw materials would have to come from China these days.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    In the early days of Chinese manufacturing they would have been importing most. Suppliers tend to cluster where manufacturers are, and import specialist parts. Of course as you just posted in the other comment, CO2 taxes reflecting the full environmental costs would tend to encourage more clustering, more local production, and generally buying less wastefully. As popular as plague no doubt, but stuff needs to get expensive again. Perhaps better to say "expensive enough".
mazsa 8y ago
FYI: "Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps, research finds" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-metha...
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  But it does hardly anything got the carbon costs of their feed.
  - mazsa 8y ago
    "hardly anything" = 80% of feed crops, foregone absorption of greenhouse gases (i.e. 32% of all of their carbon costs, cf. https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D2913D-11FD-4F76-8E61F6CA3450980D_source.jpg https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D29... )
    - chosenbreed37 8y ago
      Is the sourcing of seaweed in sufficient quantities free of cost?
      - philipkglass 8y ago
        The active anti-methane compound from seaweed is likely bromoform: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7 It would be a cheap food supplement since the methane inhibition required only about 2% seaweed in cattle food, which in turn implies a bromoform feed content of only about 35 parts per million. Though no doubt some farmers would prefer to be able to say that they add seaweed rather than a particular chemical to their cattle feed.
      - mazsa 8y ago
        of course nothing is free but they think it may be feasible: https://www.symbrosiasolutions.com/team https://www.symbrosiasolutions.com/team

XorNot 8y ago

It's less beef, specifically. On a practical level cutting out meat entirely can actually increase emissions because you can raise farm animals off of human inedible parts of plants like stems and other marginal food (i.e. parts we don't get any nutrition from). Beef however is one of the worst conversion methods in this regard, but animals like chickens and goats are quite efficient.

est31 8y ago
Insects are most efficient btw, but there are cultural reservations about them in the west.
- zcid 8y ago
  I looked into raising crickets, but most of my research suggested that they aren't any more efficient than chickens. It seems that a lot of the studies we currently have are poorly done or not transferable to mass production. In addition, the amount of extra work for processing crickets made the project less than optimal at least for a small operation.
- kibwen 8y ago
  If Silicon Valley can propel nutrient sludge like Soylent into notoriety, then I'm sure it can do the same for cricket nuggets. :P
  - renholder 8y ago
    >...like Soylent into notoriety... As long as it isn't green. =]
  - benj111 8y ago
    Doesn't require Silicon Valley. Pink slime can now be sold as beef mince in the US. How hard do you think it would be to get powdered cricket labelled as 'protein enhancer' or some such? Plus people will happily eat things with cochineal [1] in it, so I can't see highly processed insect additives being a problem. Won't be called Cricket nuggets though. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  They could grow insects to process into unrecognisable "filler", right?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    It's already done, and has been for ages - dried crickets can be ground into "cricket flour". This takes care of the things crunching while you eat them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_flour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_flour
- tropo 8y ago
  We have the same cultural reservations about shrimp. We do not normally eat the head, tail, exoskeleton, legs, gills, or poo-filled gut. It's pretty similar for chicken; nobody eats the feathers and beaks and poop. Shrimp is nevertheless popular however. We simply remove the parts for which we have cultural reservations. So, where can I get insects that have been properly prepared, just like shrimp?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Even in Western countries, this varies. For example, in many European countries, there are various dishes involving small fish that's cooked and eaten basically whole, with intestines and all. Examples include Baltic sprats (usually smoked and then canned in oil), or Bulgarian tsatsa (same fish coated in flour and deep fried). Both are delicious, by the way.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    >nobody eats the feathers and beaks and poop. Well..chicken feathers and poop are fed to cows which are fed to people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_litter#Use_as_cattle_feed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_litter#Use_as_cattle_f...
dh-g 8y ago
Composting the waste is more efficient so it would be hard to see a net increase from the elimination of animal production.

hannob 8y ago

> And buy products from where instead? Buy less products overall. > I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat? The most effective thing is probably less carbon intensive transport (that means first and foremost flying). But less meat (or better no meat) is still among the more impactful things.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Airliners get better fuel efficiency per mile per passenger than most single-occupant cars. The majority of people do not fly multiple times per week. Having said that, I do agree with the main thrust of your comment: consume less.
- kaybe 8y ago
  They also don't drive several thousand or tens of thousand kilometers in one go once or more a year either in addition to the normal driving, so I'd say that argument is not helpful here.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    That’s a good point. I wonder how many people are willing to eat less beef vs how many are willing to give in their once a year or less long-haul-flight holiday.
    - distances 8y ago
      That's not how it'll work though. Do vegans get more flight allowances? Do people with kids have to forgo meat as well as vacations? Obviously no consumer choice driven solution is going to work. The costs have to be included in the goods and services if we want any actual reduction.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > *Airliners get better fuel efficiency per mile per passenger than most single- http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-travel/ http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-t... seems to disagee. In fact, driving a typical car for one year produces less CO2 than one long-distance flight per passenger.

adrianN 8y ago

Eating less meat is pretty high on the list [1]. But I think that for many people it is easier to buy less crap they don't really need, or to fix things instead of replacing them. Buying used instead of new is also an option. [1] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions

kaybe 8y ago

The worst culprit for many people I know is flying. You can eat a lot of meat for the emissions of just one long-haul flight. (Which is sad because flying is great.)

fghtr 8y ago
Reference: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
- Pelam 8y ago
  Interesting fact, jet powered short haul flights are worse per distance due to the fact that most energy is used in takeoff and landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati... I also read somewhere that propeller based airplanes flying lower in the atmosphere would be better option for short haul flights.
- kaybe 8y ago
  I wonder what the difference between 'switch electric car to car free' and 'live carfree' is? The effect over time or not using rentals/other people's cars maybe?
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Manufacturing and maintaining a vehicle produced pollution itself, so not creating demand for one is less polluting than still creating a demand for a vehicle of any type.
- peanutz454 8y ago
  I find this difficult to believe! One transatlantic round trip flight is about 60% as bad as living car free? Assuming you do not travel at all - right? But you will travel. You will cycle to work, and you will burn more calories, and you will therefore eat more food, ending up contributing just as much too increasing emissions!

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

China is fastracking to being a developed nation faster than anyone before, and missing out many of the developed world's mistakes. They'll have poisonous air for a shorter time than the US or Europe did. They'll have the least obsolete infrastructure of anyone. Making stuff in China isn't necessarily disastrous. Making huge amounts of overly cheap shite that doesn't last, or do the job properly is especially disastrous as it encourages waste. Shipping huge amounts of stuff around the globe is disastrous. Making stuff in places that don't yet have mature and tight environmental protections is disastrous. (Probably a significant reason it moved there in the first place) I'd pay more for a MBP or another Thinkpad made in Greenock (where IBM used to make them), or anywhere in the EU. I'm in a minority so small it may as well not exist in wanting locally made stuff. For most stuff, I try not to buy at all, but I can rarely choose local any more.

empath75 8y ago
Even if they assembled them elsewhere, most of the parts and raw materials would have to come from China these days.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  In the early days of Chinese manufacturing they would have been importing most. Suppliers tend to cluster where manufacturers are, and import specialist parts. Of course as you just posted in the other comment, CO2 taxes reflecting the full environmental costs would tend to encourage more clustering, more local production, and generally buying less wastefully. As popular as plague no doubt, but stuff needs to get expensive again. Perhaps better to say "expensive enough".

mazsa 8y ago

FYI: "Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps, research finds" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-metha...

kasey_junk 8y ago
But it does hardly anything got the carbon costs of their feed.
- mazsa 8y ago
  "hardly anything" = 80% of feed crops, foregone absorption of greenhouse gases (i.e. 32% of all of their carbon costs, cf. https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D2913D-11FD-4F76-8E61F6CA3450980D_source.jpg https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D29... )
  - chosenbreed37 8y ago
    Is the sourcing of seaweed in sufficient quantities free of cost?
    - philipkglass 8y ago
      The active anti-methane compound from seaweed is likely bromoform: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7 It would be a cheap food supplement since the methane inhibition required only about 2% seaweed in cattle food, which in turn implies a bromoform feed content of only about 35 parts per million. Though no doubt some farmers would prefer to be able to say that they add seaweed rather than a particular chemical to their cattle feed.
    - mazsa 8y ago
      of course nothing is free but they think it may be feasible: https://www.symbrosiasolutions.com/team https://www.symbrosiasolutions.com/team