8 ms·

Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. But, I also think more people will simply go some form of mo

by gdubs 8y ago

Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. But, I also think more people will simply go some form of mostly vegetarian / vegan in the coming years (optimistically). I stopped eating meat about four years ago. Like cutting out anything, it was hard for a few weeks but no longer. I have no desire for meat anymore and fully enjoy my diet. I’m technically pescatarian, but only very occasionally because overfishing is a huge problem as well. I also have gained muscle, and leaned out at the same time. Lots of factors at play, like exercising more, stressing less, etc — but I mention it because a lot of people think that being vegetarian or vegan means giving up on fitness goals like getting more muscular. If there’s some aspect of you that wants to try cutting down on meat, give it a shot. Give it a few weeks, and go easy on yourself. Addressing climate change will likely involve making personal choices about how best to decrease your footprint. If you can switch to a vegetarian diet, you’ll be making a pretty substantial move towards that goal — and there’s the bonus of not contributing to the morally questionable system of industrial slaughterhouses.

bamboozled 8y ago
I think this is easier to do depending on where you live. For example, being a vegetarian in California is far more practical than in Korea or Vietnam. I say that because your environment depends on how difficult this transition will be, don’t put too much pressure on yourself.
- vichu 8y ago
  Nitpick, but given how widespread Buddhism is in East Asia, I would not be surprised if it were also quite practical to be vegetarian in both Korea and Vietnam. I do agree that there are locations where being vegetarian would be more difficult - more rural, meatcentric towns in America come to mind for me.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    If you care about environment impact, even switching from beef to pork and especially chicken helps a lot. I haven't been in rural American towns but I think both should be available without any difficulties.
    - hjek 8y ago
      Yet if you also care about non-human pain and suffering, then that won't really help.
      - maccard 8y ago
        Yet swapping from factory farmed beef to locally sourced free range chicken will help with both. Neither caring about the environment, nor caring about non-human pain and suffering are binary choices. What is better for animal well being may be worse for the environment (plastics in lieu of leather), and vice versa (forest clearing for Palm oil plantations). It's important to care about both and to do what _you_ believe is the most important. You should strive to make better choices, even if they are imperfect.
        hjek 8y ago
        > You should strive to make better choices, even if they are imperfect. Definitely. If some unachievable ideal of perfectionism is preventing us from doing anything at all, it's quite harmful. > What is better for animal well being may be worse for the environment (plastics in lieu of leather), and vice versa (forest clearing for Palm oil plantations). This claim is often used as an argument to stay away from soy products even though the amounts of (mostly GM) soy used to feed livestock are larger by an order of magnitude.
  - mtalantikite 8y ago
    Buddhists aren’t restricted to vegetarianism. A friend of mine was a monk in Thailand for years and ate what was given during alms rounds. Tibetan monks will often consume meat as well, as the plateau isn’t great for fresh veggies all year round. It’s often just cultural whether the local Buddhist lineage will eat meat or not. My acupuncturist, who is Chinese, always tells me I should eat meat at least occasionally. Personally I have no desire to after going vegetarian and really don’t miss meat at all. The idea of lab grown meat has zero appeal to me, even if it’s ethical and not horrible for the environment. The best place to travel as a vegetarian is India. It’s so nice to have pure veg kitchens and to not have to worry if a restaurant will have an option for me on the menu.
  - bamboozled 8y ago
    It’s more difficult than you might imagine. I find Hindu countries are much easier as like others have suggested, not all Buddhists take vegetarianism as seriously as people think. In Japan there is a type of vegan cuisine which monks eat, however it’s considered a kind of fundamentalist diet and it’s difficult to find outside of certain temples.
- cageface 8y ago
  I’ve lived in Vietnam for nine years. Good Buddhists will forgo meat for at least two days every month so there are loads of vegetarian restaurants around. If you don’t mind cooking at home it’s even easier.
Fezzik 8y ago
I still think meat vs not meat is the wrong approach when addressing the climate: is eating a chicken you raised on your land worse for the environment than consuming the equivalent number of calories from fruits and vegetables imported from another continent? My hunch is no. You can be an environmentally conscious omnivore or an not-so environmentally conscious herbavore. The meatiness of what you eat has absolutely nothing to do, necessarily, with your actual environmental impact. The ethical issues of consuming animals are another can of worms. Exit: spelling.
- gdubs 8y ago
  If everyone raised their own chickens, or bought from a small local farm, then yea, of course. Except that this is objectively not the case for the majority of people in the developed world.
  - Goronmon 8y ago
    If people bought the same number of chickens from separate smaller farms instead of one big farm, would that actually make any difference?
    - gdubs 8y ago
      It’s an interesting question. It’s not only how local the farm is, it’s also the type of farming practices. Not every small farm is going to farm sustainably. However, most big farms today do not farm sustainably. Farming meat at the scale demanded by consumers today means lots of derforestation and soil erosion, which means more carbon in the atmosphere. Of course, there are ranchers out their who farm sustainably — but again, exceptions to the rule. My guess is that this level of consumption can’t be sustained, environmentally. Buying from small farms would likely be more expensive, which would in turn lead to a decrease in consumption.
      - tomp 8y ago
        > However, most big farms today do not farm sustainably Is this true in the West though? It's not like we have a lot more forest to destroy... Soil erosion is definitely an issue, but AFAIK it primarily applies to growing plants (with e.g. artificial, fossil-carbon-based, unsustainable fertilizers), not animals.
bargl 8y ago
I just read an article saying that owning a dog/cat was a huge contributor to climate change as well. My dog died a few months ago and I'm just considering not getting another one. EDIT: I'll take the downvotes on this topic, but it's kinda hypocritcal to go after people for not eating meat because of green house gasses but to ignore the fact that that our pets also contribute.... I don't mind being wrong but I prefer a good discussion to down votes. And yes, my dog of 14 years really did die, and this is a factor in me not having another dog already. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/#464be17d13a6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-yo... EDIT 2: I also want to make clear that eating meat can be more-wrong because it has multiple dings: green houses gases, modern practices, you don't like eating animals, etc. But you shouldn't use that argument in one place while ignoring it in another.
- markstos 8y ago
  That's interesting. When my wife had a smaller dog, she walked it around the neighborhood. Now she has a bigger higher-energy dog, she sometimes drives it to the dog park so it run off leash more. (And still walks around the neighborhood some, too). One thing that ranks even higher than plant-rich diets as a solution is addressing food waste ( https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank ). Solution: Feed fido leftover scraps when you can!
  - bargl 8y ago
    That's a really good solution. Food waste is a huge problem. I think we can all agree that eating food we purchase is way better than wasting that same of food.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. How big is the contribution of meat production on climate change? The following page has a pie chart of global emissions by gas (the site is the US Environmental Protection Agency): https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I don't know when the data is from. Methane, which as I understand it is the primary emission from livestock, makes up 16% of overall emissions (CO2 is, unsurprisingly, the largest contributor with 65%). Another chart a bit further down shows emissions by sector. Agriculture and forestry and other land use takes up 24% of that (another quarter+ is energy production). The text accompanying the graphic states that most of it is from crops and livestock, without further clarifying the contribution of each. I also can't tell how much of the contribution of farming is due to methane produced by livestock and how much from CO2 emitted by transportation etc. Overall, I'm none the wiser about exactly how much meat production contributes to climate change. I have to say I remain very skeptical that farming is a heavier burden on the environment than transportation and energy production, not mention deforestation and desertification by urban sprawl etc.
- gdubs 8y ago
  What the EPA defines as 'agriculture' in that chart isn't really the same as what we'd consider the entire 'food system'. For instance, they include the emissions from ammonia used in farming – but the agriculture sector of that chart doesn't include the emissions that come from producing the ammonia in the first place. That figure is incorporated into the industrial processes and product use category. Ammonia is near the top of that section’s list, which accounts for 5% of emissions, and farming is one of the biggest commercial uses of ammonia. [1] Same with transportation. 28% of the total pie. 23% of that is from medium to heavy duty trucks. How many of those trucks are hauling food? Airplanes bringing cherries from across the world in December? The section on land use and conservation shows our biggest carbon sink. Land that's healthy, not eroded, growing perennial plants, trees, etc. Alternative farming is all about restoring damaged land to be a carbon sink rather than emitter. While that graph shows how much agriculture practices contribute to climate change, it doesn't show how much we would swing things the other direction if instead of growing endless acres of mono-crops – largely to feed animals in industrial feedlots – we transitioned to sustainable farming practices that build and repair soil, and sequester gigatons of carbon in the process. 1: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents...
flukus 8y ago
> Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. But, I also think more people will simply go some form of mostly vegetarian / vegan in the coming years (optimistically). Even with a fairly optimistic time frame, by the time lab grown meat is replacing a significant number animals it will be way to late climate change wise, at least a 3-4 degree rise will locked in by then.

by gdubs 8y ago

bamboozled 8y ago

I think this is easier to do depending on where you live. For example, being a vegetarian in California is far more practical than in Korea or Vietnam. I say that because your environment depends on how difficult this transition will be, don’t put too much pressure on yourself.

vichu 8y ago
Nitpick, but given how widespread Buddhism is in East Asia, I would not be surprised if it were also quite practical to be vegetarian in both Korea and Vietnam. I do agree that there are locations where being vegetarian would be more difficult - more rural, meatcentric towns in America come to mind for me.
- Const-me 8y ago
  If you care about environment impact, even switching from beef to pork and especially chicken helps a lot. I haven't been in rural American towns but I think both should be available without any difficulties.
  - hjek 8y ago
    Yet if you also care about non-human pain and suffering, then that won't really help.
    - maccard 8y ago
      Yet swapping from factory farmed beef to locally sourced free range chicken will help with both. Neither caring about the environment, nor caring about non-human pain and suffering are binary choices. What is better for animal well being may be worse for the environment (plastics in lieu of leather), and vice versa (forest clearing for Palm oil plantations). It's important to care about both and to do what _you_ believe is the most important. You should strive to make better choices, even if they are imperfect.
      - hjek 8y ago
        > You should strive to make better choices, even if they are imperfect. Definitely. If some unachievable ideal of perfectionism is preventing us from doing anything at all, it's quite harmful. > What is better for animal well being may be worse for the environment (plastics in lieu of leather), and vice versa (forest clearing for Palm oil plantations). This claim is often used as an argument to stay away from soy products even though the amounts of (mostly GM) soy used to feed livestock are larger by an order of magnitude.
- mtalantikite 8y ago
  Buddhists aren’t restricted to vegetarianism. A friend of mine was a monk in Thailand for years and ate what was given during alms rounds. Tibetan monks will often consume meat as well, as the plateau isn’t great for fresh veggies all year round. It’s often just cultural whether the local Buddhist lineage will eat meat or not. My acupuncturist, who is Chinese, always tells me I should eat meat at least occasionally. Personally I have no desire to after going vegetarian and really don’t miss meat at all. The idea of lab grown meat has zero appeal to me, even if it’s ethical and not horrible for the environment. The best place to travel as a vegetarian is India. It’s so nice to have pure veg kitchens and to not have to worry if a restaurant will have an option for me on the menu.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  It’s more difficult than you might imagine. I find Hindu countries are much easier as like others have suggested, not all Buddhists take vegetarianism as seriously as people think. In Japan there is a type of vegan cuisine which monks eat, however it’s considered a kind of fundamentalist diet and it’s difficult to find outside of certain temples.
cageface 8y ago
I’ve lived in Vietnam for nine years. Good Buddhists will forgo meat for at least two days every month so there are loads of vegetarian restaurants around. If you don’t mind cooking at home it’s even easier.

Fezzik 8y ago

I still think meat vs not meat is the wrong approach when addressing the climate: is eating a chicken you raised on your land worse for the environment than consuming the equivalent number of calories from fruits and vegetables imported from another continent? My hunch is no. You can be an environmentally conscious omnivore or an not-so environmentally conscious herbavore. The meatiness of what you eat has absolutely nothing to do, necessarily, with your actual environmental impact. The ethical issues of consuming animals are another can of worms. Exit: spelling.

gdubs 8y ago
If everyone raised their own chickens, or bought from a small local farm, then yea, of course. Except that this is objectively not the case for the majority of people in the developed world.
- Goronmon 8y ago
  If people bought the same number of chickens from separate smaller farms instead of one big farm, would that actually make any difference?
  - gdubs 8y ago
    It’s an interesting question. It’s not only how local the farm is, it’s also the type of farming practices. Not every small farm is going to farm sustainably. However, most big farms today do not farm sustainably. Farming meat at the scale demanded by consumers today means lots of derforestation and soil erosion, which means more carbon in the atmosphere. Of course, there are ranchers out their who farm sustainably — but again, exceptions to the rule. My guess is that this level of consumption can’t be sustained, environmentally. Buying from small farms would likely be more expensive, which would in turn lead to a decrease in consumption.
    - tomp 8y ago
      > However, most big farms today do not farm sustainably Is this true in the West though? It's not like we have a lot more forest to destroy... Soil erosion is definitely an issue, but AFAIK it primarily applies to growing plants (with e.g. artificial, fossil-carbon-based, unsustainable fertilizers), not animals.

bargl 8y ago

I just read an article saying that owning a dog/cat was a huge contributor to climate change as well. My dog died a few months ago and I'm just considering not getting another one. EDIT: I'll take the downvotes on this topic, but it's kinda hypocritcal to go after people for not eating meat because of green house gasses but to ignore the fact that that our pets also contribute.... I don't mind being wrong but I prefer a good discussion to down votes. And yes, my dog of 14 years really did die, and this is a factor in me not having another dog already. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/#464be17d13a6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-yo... EDIT 2: I also want to make clear that eating meat can be more-wrong because it has multiple dings: green houses gases, modern practices, you don't like eating animals, etc. But you shouldn't use that argument in one place while ignoring it in another.

markstos 8y ago
That's interesting. When my wife had a smaller dog, she walked it around the neighborhood. Now she has a bigger higher-energy dog, she sometimes drives it to the dog park so it run off leash more. (And still walks around the neighborhood some, too). One thing that ranks even higher than plant-rich diets as a solution is addressing food waste ( https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank ). Solution: Feed fido leftover scraps when you can!
- bargl 8y ago
  That's a really good solution. Food waste is a huge problem. I think we can all agree that eating food we purchase is way better than wasting that same of food.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. How big is the contribution of meat production on climate change? The following page has a pie chart of global emissions by gas (the site is the US Environmental Protection Agency): https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I don't know when the data is from. Methane, which as I understand it is the primary emission from livestock, makes up 16% of overall emissions (CO2 is, unsurprisingly, the largest contributor with 65%). Another chart a bit further down shows emissions by sector. Agriculture and forestry and other land use takes up 24% of that (another quarter+ is energy production). The text accompanying the graphic states that most of it is from crops and livestock, without further clarifying the contribution of each. I also can't tell how much of the contribution of farming is due to methane produced by livestock and how much from CO2 emitted by transportation etc. Overall, I'm none the wiser about exactly how much meat production contributes to climate change. I have to say I remain very skeptical that farming is a heavier burden on the environment than transportation and energy production, not mention deforestation and desertification by urban sprawl etc.

gdubs 8y ago
What the EPA defines as 'agriculture' in that chart isn't really the same as what we'd consider the entire 'food system'. For instance, they include the emissions from ammonia used in farming – but the agriculture sector of that chart doesn't include the emissions that come from producing the ammonia in the first place. That figure is incorporated into the industrial processes and product use category. Ammonia is near the top of that section’s list, which accounts for 5% of emissions, and farming is one of the biggest commercial uses of ammonia. [1] Same with transportation. 28% of the total pie. 23% of that is from medium to heavy duty trucks. How many of those trucks are hauling food? Airplanes bringing cherries from across the world in December? The section on land use and conservation shows our biggest carbon sink. Land that's healthy, not eroded, growing perennial plants, trees, etc. Alternative farming is all about restoring damaged land to be a carbon sink rather than emitter. While that graph shows how much agriculture practices contribute to climate change, it doesn't show how much we would swing things the other direction if instead of growing endless acres of mono-crops – largely to feed animals in industrial feedlots – we transitioned to sustainable farming practices that build and repair soil, and sequester gigatons of carbon in the process. 1: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents...

flukus 8y ago

> Meat production is such a big contributor to climate change that I’m all for this kind of research. But, I also think more people will simply go some form of mostly vegetarian / vegan in the coming years (optimistically). Even with a fairly optimistic time frame, by the time lab grown meat is replacing a significant number animals it will be way to late climate change wise, at least a 3-4 degree rise will locked in by then.