3 ms·

That statistic only true when looking globally. If you look at U.S. statistics, greenhouse gasses from meat is only 3% of total. Plant farming represents 6%.

That statistic only true when looking globally. If you look at U.S. statistics, greenhouse gasses from meat is only 3% of total. Plant farming represents 6%. If you want to make the argument that cows eat plants, while true, often they spend the majority of their lives eating grass. Feed lot stage is generally near slaughter. In addition, many farms use by-products of things such as sugar production to feed animals (molasses, beet pulp pellets, etc...). The only reason corn is used is because it is the single most subsidized crop in America. This is not a clear cut statistic at all.

toasterlovin 8y ago
Not to mention that the thing which really matters is impact per calorie provided and, most importantly, there is a 50x range in the amount of calories that plants provide per unit of input. So the real advice should be: replace high cost/calorie foods with low cost/calorie foods. Which could mean replacing berries and leafy green vegetables with chicken as much as it means replacing filet mignon with sweet potatoes.
gdubs 8y ago
I’ve poured through the EPA tables on the contribution of agriculture production to greenhouse gases, and the high level number is misleading. Typically estimates look at emissions directly contributed from agriculture, but they separate out a ton of linked factors. Like, the production of petrochemical fertilizers are not included in the “agriculture” emissions category; only the emissions that are released in using them to farm. Then there’s transportation emissions, etc, all in their own categories. (It makes sense to look at agriculture as a whole, since so much of it is geared towards feeding animals...) Then there’s the opportunity cost for all the land that is used to farm annual crops for animals. That land could be regenerating healthy soil, and capturing carbon. Bottom line, the official numbers aren’t by far an accurate picture. Animal agriculture, even in America, is a huge piece of the climate puzzle.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

toasterlovin 8y ago

Not to mention that the thing which really matters is impact per calorie provided and, most importantly, there is a 50x range in the amount of calories that plants provide per unit of input. So the real advice should be: replace high cost/calorie foods with low cost/calorie foods. Which could mean replacing berries and leafy green vegetables with chicken as much as it means replacing filet mignon with sweet potatoes.

gdubs 8y ago

I’ve poured through the EPA tables on the contribution of agriculture production to greenhouse gases, and the high level number is misleading. Typically estimates look at emissions directly contributed from agriculture, but they separate out a ton of linked factors. Like, the production of petrochemical fertilizers are not included in the “agriculture” emissions category; only the emissions that are released in using them to farm. Then there’s transportation emissions, etc, all in their own categories. (It makes sense to look at agriculture as a whole, since so much of it is geared towards feeding animals...) Then there’s the opportunity cost for all the land that is used to farm annual crops for animals. That land could be regenerating healthy soil, and capturing carbon. Bottom line, the official numbers aren’t by far an accurate picture. Animal agriculture, even in America, is a huge piece of the climate puzzle.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]