4 ms·

That’s a fairly strange reading of the US data. It’s only true because of the USA’s massive use of emissions in other parts of their lives. In non-relative term

That’s a fairly strange reading of the US data. It’s only true because of the USA’s massive use of emissions in other parts of their lives. In non-relative terms it’s still a huge reduction & if we can get in front of developing nations eating of ruminants it would pay large dividends.

rayiner 8y ago
I don't know what's "fairly strange" about it. Meat consumption, for Americans, does not make up a big fraction of our CO2 footprint. Globally it's quite significant, but "get[ting] in front of developing nations eating of ruminants" is a much more politically fraught issue than doing the same in the U.S. My brother and I are 3-4 inches taller than my dad, because we grew up on a meat and dairy rich American diet, versus the rice and lentil-based diet my dad grew up with in his village in Bangladesh. Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it. As to the other components of GHG emissions--those are ramping up outside the U.S. as well, explosively so. Food delivery services are becoming quite popular in Dhaka. Help me figure out the messaging for how we tell Bangladeshis they can't have drive-through Starbucks and avocado toast like western people.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Directly from your link “Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons. Most of America’s emissions come from power plants and transportation, with each accounting for a third of the total.” We emit 3x the emissions as everyone else. The fact that relatively meat is smaller than other places isn’t interesting. It’s lost in the statistical wash of our extreme usage but accounts for a large portion in real terms. There is virtually no evidence that suggests calories from meat are better for your health than other protein but ruminant protein especially is carbon intensive. So the message is straightforward western countries moving to plant based protein decreases inequality in comparison.
- djakjxnanjak 8y ago
  > Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it. Are you trying to say we shouldn’t save the world from environmental destruction because it might be awkward to ask some people to switch to fake meat? How about this messaging: “we are destroying the world, we need to stop”
  - rayiner 8y ago
    You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat, because as India and China (not to mention Africa) develop, meat will become a minor component of their CO2 footprint just as it is in the United States. The anti-meat messaging will be seen as both stupid (because it won't help) and hypocritical ("how about we continue to eat meat, and Americans take their turn living the way Bangladeshi subsistence farmers used to live").
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      Your final point is the big deal. If western countries largely move to vegetable based meat, not only do we win in real terms we get a huge moral argument. Which is worth a lot.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I feel like you and Rayiner might be talking past each other. I read him to be saying that the moral argument you'd get from cutting meat wouldn't be worth much, either, because the US would still be emitting multiples more GHG than developing countries, even if they drove overhead from meat farming to zero.
        kasey_junk 8y ago
        But that’s the thing, if that’s his argument I disagree as well. Simply put no matter what the reason to oppose meat consumption in the US still holds up. It’s a great improvement in real terms & it provides a stronger moral argument.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  There's a huge argument for how worldwide culture is influenced by what's trendy and popular in Europe and NA. For a heartbreaking example, see the state of the Ganges river, in India— millions of kg of plastic, all of which looks awful and eventually washes into the ocean: https://www.google.com/search?q=ganges+river+plastic https://www.google.com/search?q=ganges+river+plastic Historically when the people disposed of their waste into the river, it was feeding the ecosystem, but that's not the case any more now that they've inherited disposable plastic everything from the West. It's easy to turn a blind eye and say "yeah well, our plastic trash in North America is being properly land filled, so who cares— this is a problem for India to solve." But it's not that simple, of course: we exported the problem to India, and I think it's on us to figure out what the solution looks like too, and model it in our daily use so that it's reflected in the cultural exports (TV, movies, etc). You see this same basic pattern for a lot of things, where the emerging middle class in a growth economy looks at their English-language media/entertainment for cues on what their next life upgrade should be, and some is mostly good (cell phones, clean water, organic food), but a lot is bad-to-horrible, at least from an ecological standpoint (single use plastic, personal automobiles, overseas vacations).
- yawaramin 8y ago
  I'm Bangladeshi, from Dhaka. Trust me, no one is interested in getting drive-through. Dhaka is the traffic capital of the world, it's always a cost-benefit calculation to go out onto the road because you'll be spending extreme amounts of time stuck in traffic, inching along, burning gas. To get a Starbucks or a sandwich? Forget that. What is becoming popular in Dhaka is, as you said, food delivery services which are mostly by scooter because of obvious reasons. For delivery, you're not going to order a sandwich, again for obvious reasons.
- turtlesdown 8y ago
  >My brother and I are 3-4 inches taller than my dad, because we grew up on a meat and dairy rich American diet, versus the rice and lentil-based diet my dad grew up with in his village in Bangladesh. No, your dad is likely shorter due to basic malnutrition. Malnutrition is caused by lack of appropriate macro and micro nutrients, irrespective of their source. Studies have shown that properly nourished vegetarians, vegans and meat eaters grow to the same height. As for what to tell Bangladeshi's, maybe try "Bangladesh’s population at risk of sea level rise is predicted to grow to 27 million by 2050" http://icccad.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IPCC-Briefing-for-Bangladesh.pdf http://icccad.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IPCC-Briefing-f...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Studies show that children who don't drink animal milk are shorter: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/milk-children-height-1.4149832; https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/milk-children-height-1.414983... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15981182; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15981182; https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/80/4/1088/4690374 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/80/4/1088/4690374 Also, "properly nourished" is a weasel phrase here. You see the exact same phenomenon among the U.S.-raised kids of Bangladeshis/Indians/Pakistanis from very comfortable families. The kids are way taller than parents who did not suffer any malnourishment back home. Just because it is theoretically possible to construct a vegan diet that results in the same growth as a diet including meat and dairy doesn't mean it's easy to do so with the kinds of foods readily available in the developing world.
    - turtlesdown 8y ago
      First, you originally claimed meat as a factor (apparently still after an edit). Second, a vegetarian can eat dairy products. Finally, the only working link above is pretty much worthless (122 participants who were asked questions, measured, and checked again in 3 years) as it does not capture final adult height. >Also, "properly nourished" is a weasel phrase here. For sure, just like debating about meat consumption and pivoting to just dairy consumption as proof...

rayiner 8y ago

I don't know what's "fairly strange" about it. Meat consumption, for Americans, does not make up a big fraction of our CO2 footprint. Globally it's quite significant, but "get[ting] in front of developing nations eating of ruminants" is a much more politically fraught issue than doing the same in the U.S. My brother and I are 3-4 inches taller than my dad, because we grew up on a meat and dairy rich American diet, versus the rice and lentil-based diet my dad grew up with in his village in Bangladesh. Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it. As to the other components of GHG emissions--those are ramping up outside the U.S. as well, explosively so. Food delivery services are becoming quite popular in Dhaka. Help me figure out the messaging for how we tell Bangladeshis they can't have drive-through Starbucks and avocado toast like western people.

kasey_junk 8y ago
Directly from your link “Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons. Most of America’s emissions come from power plants and transportation, with each accounting for a third of the total.” We emit 3x the emissions as everyone else. The fact that relatively meat is smaller than other places isn’t interesting. It’s lost in the statistical wash of our extreme usage but accounts for a large portion in real terms. There is virtually no evidence that suggests calories from meat are better for your health than other protein but ruminant protein especially is carbon intensive. So the message is straightforward western countries moving to plant based protein decreases inequality in comparison.
djakjxnanjak 8y ago
> Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it. Are you trying to say we shouldn’t save the world from environmental destruction because it might be awkward to ask some people to switch to fake meat? How about this messaging: “we are destroying the world, we need to stop”
- rayiner 8y ago
  You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat, because as India and China (not to mention Africa) develop, meat will become a minor component of their CO2 footprint just as it is in the United States. The anti-meat messaging will be seen as both stupid (because it won't help) and hypocritical ("how about we continue to eat meat, and Americans take their turn living the way Bangladeshi subsistence farmers used to live").
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    Your final point is the big deal. If western countries largely move to vegetable based meat, not only do we win in real terms we get a huge moral argument. Which is worth a lot.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I feel like you and Rayiner might be talking past each other. I read him to be saying that the moral argument you'd get from cutting meat wouldn't be worth much, either, because the US would still be emitting multiples more GHG than developing countries, even if they drove overhead from meat farming to zero.
      - kasey_junk 8y ago
        But that’s the thing, if that’s his argument I disagree as well. Simply put no matter what the reason to oppose meat consumption in the US still holds up. It’s a great improvement in real terms & it provides a stronger moral argument.
mikepurvis 8y ago
There's a huge argument for how worldwide culture is influenced by what's trendy and popular in Europe and NA. For a heartbreaking example, see the state of the Ganges river, in India— millions of kg of plastic, all of which looks awful and eventually washes into the ocean: https://www.google.com/search?q=ganges+river+plastic https://www.google.com/search?q=ganges+river+plastic Historically when the people disposed of their waste into the river, it was feeding the ecosystem, but that's not the case any more now that they've inherited disposable plastic everything from the West. It's easy to turn a blind eye and say "yeah well, our plastic trash in North America is being properly land filled, so who cares— this is a problem for India to solve." But it's not that simple, of course: we exported the problem to India, and I think it's on us to figure out what the solution looks like too, and model it in our daily use so that it's reflected in the cultural exports (TV, movies, etc). You see this same basic pattern for a lot of things, where the emerging middle class in a growth economy looks at their English-language media/entertainment for cues on what their next life upgrade should be, and some is mostly good (cell phones, clean water, organic food), but a lot is bad-to-horrible, at least from an ecological standpoint (single use plastic, personal automobiles, overseas vacations).
yawaramin 8y ago
I'm Bangladeshi, from Dhaka. Trust me, no one is interested in getting drive-through. Dhaka is the traffic capital of the world, it's always a cost-benefit calculation to go out onto the road because you'll be spending extreme amounts of time stuck in traffic, inching along, burning gas. To get a Starbucks or a sandwich? Forget that. What is becoming popular in Dhaka is, as you said, food delivery services which are mostly by scooter because of obvious reasons. For delivery, you're not going to order a sandwich, again for obvious reasons.
turtlesdown 8y ago
>My brother and I are 3-4 inches taller than my dad, because we grew up on a meat and dairy rich American diet, versus the rice and lentil-based diet my dad grew up with in his village in Bangladesh. No, your dad is likely shorter due to basic malnutrition. Malnutrition is caused by lack of appropriate macro and micro nutrients, irrespective of their source. Studies have shown that properly nourished vegetarians, vegans and meat eaters grow to the same height. As for what to tell Bangladeshi's, maybe try "Bangladesh’s population at risk of sea level rise is predicted to grow to 27 million by 2050" http://icccad.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IPCC-Briefing-for-Bangladesh.pdf http://icccad.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IPCC-Briefing-f...
- rayiner 8y ago
  Studies show that children who don't drink animal milk are shorter: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/milk-children-height-1.4149832; https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/milk-children-height-1.414983... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15981182; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15981182; https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/80/4/1088/4690374 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/80/4/1088/4690374 Also, "properly nourished" is a weasel phrase here. You see the exact same phenomenon among the U.S.-raised kids of Bangladeshis/Indians/Pakistanis from very comfortable families. The kids are way taller than parents who did not suffer any malnourishment back home. Just because it is theoretically possible to construct a vegan diet that results in the same growth as a diet including meat and dairy doesn't mean it's easy to do so with the kinds of foods readily available in the developing world.
  - turtlesdown 8y ago
    First, you originally claimed meat as a factor (apparently still after an edit). Second, a vegetarian can eat dairy products. Finally, the only working link above is pretty much worthless (122 participants who were asked questions, measured, and checked again in 3 years) as it does not capture final adult height. >Also, "properly nourished" is a weasel phrase here. For sure, just like debating about meat consumption and pivoting to just dairy consumption as proof...