9 ms·

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 con

by 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.
      - gdubs 8y ago
        The problem here is that a huge amount of the plants grown go towards feeding animals. [1] That’s probably one explanation for why estimates regarding the carbon impact of meat production vary widely. 1: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...
  - bargl 8y ago
    Yes, based on the research being quoted by anyone stating that plant based products produce less green house gases.
- Nextgrid 8y ago
  But wouldn't the same argument apply for vegetables?
  - bargl 8y ago
    Yes to this as well. They found a variation of +/- 50% of gasses produced based on the individual practices.
  - hjek 8y ago
    Exactly. Locally grown veg are better than imported veg as well. Go for that whenever possible. But using this to present some false dilemma between a chicken raised on your own land and imported vegetables is just nonsense.
    - Fezzik 8y ago
      Obviously it was a cherry picked example, but to me the falsity is in the claim that “if you are eating vegetables you are necessarily more environmentally conscious than those who eat meat”. There are degrees of environmental friendliness on both sides and, certainly, I think most people would agree that most meat-eaters do not appropriately weigh the effects of their consumption. But I think the same is true of many vegetarians who just assume because they are eating vegetables they are definitely making more environmentally aware choices than all omnivores. That was my only attempted point.
- mises 8y ago
  I have neighbors that used to raise chickens. When they went on vacation, I used to care for them for a week or so at a time. It's a lot easier than you might think. They are fairly low-maintenance, as animals go. And if you just eat eggs, it keeps things simple. Also, the eggs were way better than anything you get from a supermarket.
bunderbunder 8y ago
> 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? Out of the universe of possible alternatives one could present, this pair seems rather carefully chosen.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bargl 8y ago
  If you read the research that indicates that climate change is conributed to by eating meat there is a very wide variation in the contribution within each industry. Most of them had a +/- of 50% based on the individual practices of the farmer, and butcher/processing plant. It is a contrived example but also a realistic example. While there was no situation in the article I can remember where the best farming practices produced less green house gases than plant based food, it was a pretty wide spectrum.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Not really. I live in a temperate zone. During the colder months there are not a lot of options for local plant based foods. They are for the most part shipped long distance from somewhere else. Local animals are available year round though.
  - markstos 8y ago
    I attended year round "local food" potlucks in Indiana. People had local food available year around. During the winter it kept in cool storage (like onions), or had been frozen, dehydrated, canned, or grown in a greenhouse. If year-round local plant-food was more of a priority for people, more could be produced. Besides, where are the local animals getting their food during the winter? The options are basically the same: either they have local food that's been preserved or their food is getting shipped in too, making a rather inefficient way to deliver calories to humans.
    - 8y ago
markstos 8y ago
Someone concerned about the environment can consider both plant-based food and more local, seasonal foods. There's no need for the two approaches to be considered at odds. But if you care to, you can check out a ranked order of top solutions to climate change. We need to work all items on the list, not just the top ones, but you'll find "Plant-Rich Diet" as #4 on the list: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank Improving transportation doesn't even show up until #25 on the list. Consider that 3% of calories that go into beef production end up as calories that a human consumes. The practice is so inefficient that about 50% of the land in the US is devoted to grazing cows: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/img/2018-us-land-use_facebook.png https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/img/2018... Imagine how much more local food we could grow across the country if we weren't so inefficiently filtering our calories through cows, adding cholesterol and saturated fat in the process.

by Fezzik 8y ago

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.
    - gdubs 8y ago
      The problem here is that a huge amount of the plants grown go towards feeding animals. [1] That’s probably one explanation for why estimates regarding the carbon impact of meat production vary widely. 1: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...
- bargl 8y ago
  Yes, based on the research being quoted by anyone stating that plant based products produce less green house gases.
Nextgrid 8y ago
But wouldn't the same argument apply for vegetables?
- bargl 8y ago
  Yes to this as well. They found a variation of +/- 50% of gasses produced based on the individual practices.
- hjek 8y ago
  Exactly. Locally grown veg are better than imported veg as well. Go for that whenever possible. But using this to present some false dilemma between a chicken raised on your own land and imported vegetables is just nonsense.
  - Fezzik 8y ago
    Obviously it was a cherry picked example, but to me the falsity is in the claim that “if you are eating vegetables you are necessarily more environmentally conscious than those who eat meat”. There are degrees of environmental friendliness on both sides and, certainly, I think most people would agree that most meat-eaters do not appropriately weigh the effects of their consumption. But I think the same is true of many vegetarians who just assume because they are eating vegetables they are definitely making more environmentally aware choices than all omnivores. That was my only attempted point.
mises 8y ago
I have neighbors that used to raise chickens. When they went on vacation, I used to care for them for a week or so at a time. It's a lot easier than you might think. They are fairly low-maintenance, as animals go. And if you just eat eggs, it keeps things simple. Also, the eggs were way better than anything you get from a supermarket.

bunderbunder 8y ago

> 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? Out of the universe of possible alternatives one could present, this pair seems rather carefully chosen.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bargl 8y ago
If you read the research that indicates that climate change is conributed to by eating meat there is a very wide variation in the contribution within each industry. Most of them had a +/- of 50% based on the individual practices of the farmer, and butcher/processing plant. It is a contrived example but also a realistic example. While there was no situation in the article I can remember where the best farming practices produced less green house gases than plant based food, it was a pretty wide spectrum.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Not really. I live in a temperate zone. During the colder months there are not a lot of options for local plant based foods. They are for the most part shipped long distance from somewhere else. Local animals are available year round though.
- markstos 8y ago
  I attended year round "local food" potlucks in Indiana. People had local food available year around. During the winter it kept in cool storage (like onions), or had been frozen, dehydrated, canned, or grown in a greenhouse. If year-round local plant-food was more of a priority for people, more could be produced. Besides, where are the local animals getting their food during the winter? The options are basically the same: either they have local food that's been preserved or their food is getting shipped in too, making a rather inefficient way to deliver calories to humans.
  - 8y ago

markstos 8y ago

Someone concerned about the environment can consider both plant-based food and more local, seasonal foods. There's no need for the two approaches to be considered at odds. But if you care to, you can check out a ranked order of top solutions to climate change. We need to work all items on the list, not just the top ones, but you'll find "Plant-Rich Diet" as #4 on the list: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank Improving transportation doesn't even show up until #25 on the list. Consider that 3% of calories that go into beef production end up as calories that a human consumes. The practice is so inefficient that about 50% of the land in the US is devoted to grazing cows: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/img/2018-us-land-use_facebook.png https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/img/2018... Imagine how much more local food we could grow across the country if we weren't so inefficiently filtering our calories through cows, adding cholesterol and saturated fat in the process.