33 ms·

Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered

82 points by mykowebhn 7y ago

jamesgagan 7y ago
I know there will be comments saying that individual action is not enough to combat climate change, or that it's too late for that, but when governments are so slow to act and corporations will only change when their bottom line is at stake, it is left to individuals to take action. Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
  - jamesgagan 7y ago
    I feel like this attitude is popular because it gives people an excuse to not change their lifestyle.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      I feel like the other attitude is popular because it gives people an excuse not to exercise real activism - propositions, getting out the vote, public education etc. Just eat a veggie-burger now and then and say "well I tried".
      - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
        In addition, it's just not the appropriate or proportional response, considering the contributors [0]. Individual action alone is certainly not enough. Systemic change is crucial. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point. I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that. Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life? It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    > Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that. I guess that depends on how you define personal choice. Climate change has certain changed the calculus, but diet was never merely a personal choice when it required the death of other individuals. As for the shaming, I'm not in favor of that because it does not seem to be an effective way of bringing about change. But simply having these kinds of discussions cannot fairly be called shaming. That's a cop-out to avoid meaningful discourse.
  - jamesgagan 7y ago
    I have been actively trying to reduce my ecological footprint because I believe climate change is real. I don't feel it's a matter of "personal choice" at this point. The way we live has a profound impact on the planet, and we all need to try and reduce that impact in any way we can. I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it. Going vegan and flying less are two of the biggest changes an individual can make.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > I don't feel it's a matter of "personal choice" at this point. Unless you're suggesting forcing people by law to be vegan, then it most definitely is a personal choice. > I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it. It's precisely that attitude that ensures no one will ever listen to what you have to say.
- vibrato 7y ago
  Destroy your health for virtue points trying to tackle the smallest contributor to global warming, sounds right to me /s
  - jamesgagan 7y ago
    All the evidence seems to indicate that the less meat and dairy one eats, the healthier they are. I also used to believe vegans were unhealty until I did some research. As a personal anecdote, I've been vegan for about 4 years now and my health is better than ever.
    - kaitai 7y ago
      As a personal anecdote, vegetarian didn't work for me! Persistent anemia, hair loss, fatigue; adding back some meat just fixed it. Various diets are worth trying -- you never know until you try, and you learn a lot by trying. So for readers out there, try being vegan for a month: you'll learn a lot about what you eat and how to cook and you can observe how you feel. Also worth noting: many traditional cultures embedded food restrictions into calendars and/or religious rules. Being vegan for a while before Easter is more or less a thing in some Christian groups; Ramadan involves fasting as a practice. These cultural practices, combined with the seasons in nature, make me wonder if we were built to be cyclically vegan/omnivore/berry-eater. This may be more sustainable for many.
    - bobajeff 7y ago
      Some evidence seems to suggest that it could negatively affect brain health. (See deficiencies in B12, Iron and Zinc.) I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian. My belief is that our biology is complex and specific to each individual to the point where we can't all share the same diet and expect the same effects on our bodies.
      - jniedrauer 7y ago
        > I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian. There can be a problem with reducing fat and protein significantly while using carbs for the majority of caloric intake. This can lead to diabetes. But you can do this on an omnivore diet as well.
- leekyle333 7y ago
  Or maybe you should just eat properly grazed live stock, might be a lot better than going vegan. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
  - jamesgagan 7y ago
    This is discussed in the article: "Some scientists have suggested that grass-finished beef, if managed properly, can be a more sustainable option: As the cattle graze, they stimulate grass to grow deep roots and pull more carbon into the soil, helping to offset the cows’ climate impact. But, on the flip side, grass-finished cattle also take longer to reach slaughter weight, which means they spend more time burping up methane into the atmosphere. Because of this, some studies have suggested that grass-fed beef can actually be worse for the climate over all, though the debate about this continues to rage. For now, it’s hard to say with confidence that grass-fed beef is consistently more climate-friendly than conventional beef."
    - leekyle333 7y ago
      I'd love to see more research on this, I just wonder who would actually do it.
      - passiveincomelg 7y ago
        Links from the article: http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/grazed-and-confused http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/grazed-and-confused https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494320/
- dalore 7y ago
  Giving up our growing space to grow lots of monocultured vegetables will be worse for the climate. The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less. If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable. Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition. The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process. Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better. We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims. These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that. Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities. Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account. Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
  - hkyeti 7y ago
    This is disproven by Oxford scientists. Grass fed beef is worse for climate change than CAFO beef. Look it up
    - dalore 7y ago
      I looked up the study, first up it wasn't "Oxford scientists" but a University of Oxford think tank called the Food Climate Research Network. Follow the links, Monsanto has deep connection to the University of Oxford, at least £50 million pounds. UO professors routinely get consulting fees from Monsanto. They even have a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship position. There is a massive conflict of interest with Monsanto and the University of Oxford. You find this with most food and nutrition science. Since the funding for such sciences comes from the industry, any science that is critical of it's paymasters soon gets silenced. This article outlines a bit more https://medium.com/@johnroulac/oxford-study-attacks-regenerative-ag-monsanto-ally-2986ee9918c4 https://medium.com/@johnroulac/oxford-study-attacks-regenera...
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  Personally I think that individual action is largely futile. I've also stopped eating meat. I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could. Then it won't have been futile.
- username223 7y ago
  > Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point. We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less. I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.
ptah 7y ago
it's about time this information goes mainstream
temp1831 7y ago
For every 100 people that say we need climate impact labeling on our food, 80 of them are only virtue signaling.
agentultra 7y ago
This is a great article. Do I have to go vegan? No. But it would have the biggest impact if you did. Is organic farming the answer? No. It tends to use more land for less output (although maybe the health-foodies could get off the No-GMO bandwagon). I also appreciate that the authors recognize that for some people living in certain cultures and climates _have_ to eat meat and there's no shame in that. The bulk of the reduction can definitely come from rich, affluent nations and have the biggest impact. Articles like this seem important. Hiding the fact that meat/dairy production is such a huge factor in climate change hurts people more than it helps. When we all start to wonder why it isn't getting any better we need to know that there are ways we can do our part. Even if they're small things!
- lowken10 7y ago
  Except that meat/dairy production have zero effect on climate change. Other then that you are correct.
  - jamil7 7y ago
    Care to provide a source to back up that claim? If you read the article and associated sources you'd find a stack of scientific evidence to confirm that it has quite a large impact.
    - misiti3780 7y ago
      I wouldnt say zero, but not much at a macro level, here are the stats: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799246
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Greenhouse-Emissions.jpg http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Greenhouse... Edit: Downvoted for providing data? A new low.
      - jamil7 7y ago
yfdrea 7y ago
I switched to a plant based diet last year after reading similar articles on climate change and was surprised to see an additional set of benefits. I feel a lot healthier, my skin is clearer (struggled with frequent untamable breakouts), I save money, etc. Diet is a very individualized thing, so don't dramatically overhaul your entire lifestyle based off what a random stranger says on the Internet but if you haven't tried a plant-based diet you may be pleasantly surprised like I was. I'll still eat meat if it's served to me but when I am eating out and cooking I go veggie.
- npsimons 7y ago
  > I feel a lot healthier This was the clincher for me. I listened to the audiobook "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger and was convinced of the common sense that eating plant based whole foods is the way to be healthier. The lowered cost and lowered impact on the environment are just icing on the cake. If eating meat was better for me, I'd still do it. The science done so far seems to suggest that a whole food plant based diet is the healthiest diet.
- eric_b 7y ago
  I first tried eating vegetarian to deal with some digestion issues. It made it worse. Especially spinach, broccoli and other high fiber foods. I switched to a 90% carnivore diet and everything cleared up digestion wise, and I also felt much better, healthier, and my skin cleared up. As you say, diet is very individualized.
  - pureliquidhw 7y ago
    What was your diet before? Anecdotally, most people I know who felt better after going keto-ish had horrible diets to begin with. Dramatic reduction in processed foods, beer, HFCS, etc. Simply preparing food at home with fresher ingredients and being conscious of what you're taking in can account for much of the gains they experienced. The vast majority of people on the planet don't eat 90% meat diets, but if we did it would be a disaster! I'm not saying it isn't the case with you, but anyone who experienced amazing gains shifting their diet to mostly meat should consider survivorship bias, and that the benefits are from cutting other things out, not adding tons of animal protein in.
anarchimedes 7y ago
I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done by Bjorn Lomberg and team that showed a modest 2% reduction in total CI globally [1] if the entire population switched to a vegetarian diet. [0]https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/235c254 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/2... [1]https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648
- epistasis 7y ago
  Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and should not be taken earnestly in any way. This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.
  - anarchimedes 7y ago
    Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA? And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect. I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith
    - epistasis 7y ago
      > much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim? And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism. Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.
hammock 7y ago
This reminds me of propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter (increased use of disposable packaging) from corporations onto consumers. Yes individuals can take responsibility for their own actions by "voting with their wallet" etc. - not denying that. But in a democracy, if you'd rather fight for greater regulations on Big Ag than give up meat in your diet, that should be your choice and don't feel ashamed about it.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  > propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter Oh really? Keep America Beautiful was conceived, paid for and started by: Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola and others. Then they started shifting blame onto the individual. That was in reaction to Vermont proposing to require deposit and return bottles for drinks, after a surge in single-use packaging litter.
  - hammock 7y ago
    Yes that's what I mean. Phillip Morris and the beverage makers you mention were fighting against the threat of regulations that would prevent them from continuing to pump out non-biodegradable filter cigarettes and single-serve drink containers. We could have had filterless cigarettes and returnable glass-bottle Coke. Instead, Keep America Beautiful was their brilliant idea to redirect the focus onto consumers, away from manufacturers. Did you misunderstand me?
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Clearly, yet "propaganda from the environmentalism movement" implies, to me, propaganda from actual environmentalists. I'd call what happened corporate propaganda, "propaganda from the multinationals", or perhaps the first example of greenwashing. I suspect that may explain why you picked up a few downvotes. It certainly distracted me from the real message you were trying to convey. From your second comment, it's clear we are of similar mindset, and your point very valid. The current popular "theme of the moment" around veganism in the media does seem to have the same smell of someone trying to move the gaze away from the places that would move the dial fastest. Which in this case, of course, is constraining the global food players.
kaitai 7y ago
A very thought-provoking article, but one that still leaves me with questions. * The vast agricultural monocultures of the US have changed our climate on their own. Our fields of soy, wheat, and corn have decimated local ecosystems, led to high nitrate levels in the water, changed air temperature and humidity on their own, and encouraged a US diet that is high in processed food, leading to its own set of health problems. * Yes, these vast monocultures are in a feedback loop with raising animals for meat. Corn-fed cattle and pigs and chickens are part of the reason Iowa is what it is today. * If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. Is that really that big a win? Curious. * Vegetables seem to be lacking in the standard American diet, and they're not subsidized by the federal government the way grains/corn/soybeans are, and they're also something a lot of us buy from far away. How can we change all that? * Many people will still want meat products, some for health reasons -- it can be hard for some folks to be vegetarian or vegan healthfully (I had trouble with fatigue and anemia for instance, and yes I understand that maybe I could have tried harder/eaten more supplements/etc). How can we encourage the shift to animal production on 'waste' land, and decrease the incentives to ship beef from Brazil and Bolivia? Can we make goat meat cool again, for instance? or rabbit? The alternatives I'm personally more interested in: shifting transportation patterns for US adults (biking and transit). Increasing green space. Re-encouraging locally grown food, where by local I mean the back yard. Rediscovering the foods you never knew you could eat but your great-grandparents did: nettles, dandelions, Virginia waterleaf, garlic mustard, purslane, daylilies, hostas. Many of you could get a whole week's worth of greens, even in May in colder climes, by walking outside -- and how many of us know it? Right now I'm motivated to rediscover these local foods for myself for health reasons, but it helps that they're $0 to grow and $0 to transport, and thus add 0 to my carbon emissions. (edit for formatting)
- Forbo 7y ago
  > If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. It takes a lot less corn and soy to feed people directly than it does to feed a bunch of cattle. You get a lot of efficiency by skipping the intermediary trophic level.
cagenut 7y ago
this is a great article, both in content and in form. keep in mind though managing your carbon budget is like managing any other budget, which in turn is like optimizing any other queue. meaning: don't over-optimize the 5th most important thing when you're ignoring the top 2 - 3 most important things. by which I mean: #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling. just to put a sortof min-max on it: if you eat vegan but fly to a conference once a quarter and drive to work every day your emissions will be greater than if you eat cheeseburgers for lunch every day but take the subway to work and rarely fly. which is why imho you should go for the 50 - 80% win (80+% reduction in red meat) in this category (food) instead of going all the way to vegetarian/vegan. or put another way, being pro video-conference has a better GHG reduction return than being vegan :)
- taffer 7y ago
  > #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling. At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global Calculator[1] the food lever appears to have the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions, even more than heating or transport. [1] http://tool.globalcalculator.org http://tool.globalcalculator.org
beat 7y ago
When talking about the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, lifespan of about 20 years. CO2, on the other hand, has a lifespan of around 100 years. Interestingly, rice agriculture generates about as much methane as livestock, and burning biomass (wood) and landfills each generate about half as much methane as livestock.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  No one change is going to solve this problem, we are going to have to look at everything.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
Although this is not made clear in the article, the highest amount of greenhouse gasses are released by energy production and industry, which, combined, account for about half of all emissions [1]. So what this article is saying is that I should consider going vegan or reducing the (already meager) amount of meat in my diet so that fossil fuel companies can keep burning fossil fuels and don't have to get off their butt to develop greener alternatives, and so that industry can continue producing useless capitalist crap that nobody needs. To take it even further, this article is suggesting I restrict my options so that others can continue profiting from the destruction of the environment. Personally I don't drive and I don't fly. I don't even own a car. I go everywhere by train or bus and on foot. I contribute to greenhouse gasses much less than many vegans. And I'm very tired of hearing people saying I should reduce the amount of meat I eat because it's destroying the environment. Food is necessary- driving cars is not. ___________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Gre...
belorn 7y ago
It is not as simply to reduce climate impact based on what you eat. The data this article use is based on averages, and as in every industry the lowest standard it drastically different from the top and carry more quantity. On the very top you got meat produced that actively helps the environment. Highland cattle that keeps national reservations open comes to mind. There is also overpopulated and invasive species. At the bottom you got cattle who live their whole life inside a barn and get feed from deforested jungle farms, using unimaginable amount of pesticide and antibiotics. It is also important to remember that diet is far from the most effective personal choice to make when it come to climate change (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-cl...). It is ranked 6th. Driving to buy produce at a farmer several miles out of town is likely to produce more C02 than biking down to eat a burger. An electric car might help, through it depend if the electricity is made from coal or wind. The article gives some averages and for people who don't want to think about the climate and want a simple guide the article provides. However if you care about the topic and can spend the energy to go deeper and consider all facets then it is much better to make informed decision by digging deeper.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Meat is almost perfectly substitutable. So going out of your way to ensure that the beef you eat has low carbon impact isn't really doing much good. All you're doing is ensuring that somebody else won't eat the beef you bought and will eat something with higher carbon impact instead. Where it does matter is when you choose not to eat meat. Less demand for beef means less beef raised, but which cattle are they going to stop raising -- the low carbon or the high carbon ones? My guess is that the high carbon beef is the marginal beef. When you stop eating beef you cause the price to drop, so the ranchers with the highest costs are going to be the first to go out of business. And carbon is one of the main costs of ranching, so I would predict that stopping eating beef would have a greater than average impact on carbon emissions.
  - belorn 7y ago
    Low carbon production has higher marginal costs and tend to be small farmers which is the group that suffer first when prices drops. The high carbon beef is basically all import here in Sweden, and there is no deforestation issue from farming. From a environmental perspective we actually need more open fields to maintain bio diversity. When climate aware people stop buying beef the ratio of imported beef increase. In last few years we have actually seen an decrease in imported beef, which has been attributed to more awareness of low carbon beef vs high carbon beef. People buy more local and significant less imported. Locally produced beef cost between 2-4 times as much as imported, which naturally impact how much people buy.
cageface 7y ago
There’s a bunch of good reasons you should reduce or eliminate meat from your diet, including environmental effects but also including your health and mistreating and killing intelligent creatures. If your diet requires people to do things to thinking, feeling animals that would be criminal to do to a dog, maybe having some bacon on your breakfast plate really isn’t that important after all.
- lovemymeat 7y ago
  Millennials are so freaking obnoxious. You should leave your comfortable 1st world environment and go tell this to someone less privileged to see the reaction you get. Hint: eating domesticated meat has been done for thousands of years and your “think of the pigs!” argument is both laughable and insulting.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  I don't eat bacon. I also don't share your view on the ethics of eating other intelligent beings (from different species). Many other animals eat other animals, and for this they have to kill them and cause them pain. The pain comes from the fact that animals do not easily die, and our death is almost always painful and horrifying. But- why shoud humans be any different than other animals, when it comes to the ethics of killing other animals and causing them pain in order to feed on their meat? Other animals don't have any compunctions about doing the same to humans. Why are humans so special that it is immoral for us to eat meat?
  - cageface 7y ago
    We are special in that we have evolved to be utterly dominant, which gives us privileges and responsibilities other animals don’t share. Also, other animals kill out of necessity. We don’t need to kill to survive at all so why are we justified to do so?
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      I don't see what dominance has to do with privileges and responsibilities. Besides, humans "dominate" only in a very narrow sense. Most of the biomass on the planet is not human. There are many species of insects and microorganisms that are much more "dominant" than we are. Other animals don't necessarily kill out of necessity. For example, many animals perform surplus killing [1] - I personally know of two dogs who, together, entered a coop and killed about 40 chiken without eating any. In the same farm, dogs have often killed chickens and goats, which they just eviscerate without eating them. Then of course there's the killing of young animals by older males- like male cats sometimes kill kittens, etc. Besides, why is "need" to kill the only justification to kill? For example, if it's very difficult to survive without killing an animal, say because you're putting your health and that of your children at risk with a diet poor in animal protein- then why are you not justified to do it? ______________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing
misiti3780 7y ago
I know this isnt going to be a popular opinion here, but I'm going to say it anyways -- we are simply not going eat our away out of this climate change problem, and we shouldnt even try, we should focus the efforts in other places Here is the current breakdown of the world's emissions as of 2018: 1. heavy industry (29 percent) 2. buildings (18 percent) 3. transport (15 percent) 4. land-use change (15 percent) 5. the energy needed to supply energy (13 percent). Livestock is responsible for 5.5 percent, mostly methane rather than CO2, and aviation for 1.5 percent. Here is the estimated sacrifice needed to bring carbon emissions down by half and then to zero: It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel, and affordable food and clothing. Both of these are taken from Enlightenment Now by Pinker, and I have not seen the numbers or his conclusions refuted. I'm open to someone trying to change my mind, but with these numbers, I do not see how that is possible.
- cageface 7y ago
  Most estimates put it at around 15%, not 5. Stopping climate change is going to require action on all these vectors, and diet is one of the easiest to change. It also has knock on effects like clear cutting rainforest to plant crops to feed to cows. On top of that it’s just cruel and unnecessary to go on eating so much meat.
  - TheBeardKing 7y ago
    Also clearing rainforests for palm oil trees.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It's 15% globally, but just 5% in the U.S. That's because eating meat is one of the few things your average Bangladeshi or African does to create CO2 emissions. Those people aren't going to become vegans, and as those economies develop, they'll want more of the things that are responsible for the other 95% of your average American's carbon emissions.
  - mercer 7y ago
    The main argument in favor changing diet, to me, is the potential psychological and social effects. When something you do multiple times a day is different from what you used to do, and what many others around you do, it stays active in your thoughts and might trigger other, more meaningful activity. I don't know if this is actually true, but anecdotally at least it seems to be. The people around me who seem to be most active when it comes to the topic of climate change also tend to be vegetarians or vegans. And many of them started down this path by changing their diets, sometimes even for reasons that weren't ideological.
z0r 7y ago
while the world's economy is fueled by adding more people to the mix forever, we're not going to solve any problems. people have to imagine and accept a world where the market might not grow without limit and where outputs decrease from one year to the next without it being a disaster. grey pyramids have to be accepted without righteous outcry to open borders more fully. the population and its demands are the ultimate multiplier for all climate impacting activities.
thangalin 7y ago
Excerpt from a book I'm writing: --- Life is experiencing an abrupt, widespread global species extinction event. Humans are destroying intricate webs of animals, plants, and microorganisms. These networks supply our food chain and sustain life on Earth; their annihilation from rapid deforestation and climate change is causing grave consequences: droughts, increased heat waves and wildfires, more frequent severe weather events, coastal flooding, food shortages, and water wars. Earth’s atmosphere was once mostly carbon dioxide. Once life took hold, simple organisms (such as bacteria, algae, and plants) converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen by way of photosynthesis. When those organisms died, natural processes spanning eons changed their remains into carbon-bearing fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Burning fossil fuels recombines carbon with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the mid-1800s humans have released a stupendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the following graph, average annual atmospheric CO2 measurements in parts per million (PPM) are plotted alongside averaged global ocean and surface temperature readings in degrees Celsius (°C), relative to 1881-1910: https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png Both atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step. Bubbles in ice cores drilled from polar glaciers trap historic atmospheric gas ratios. Long-term observations reveal an increasing average warming trend that is distinct from natural short-term fluctuations. Temperatures are climbing in proportion to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution. Choices Our past choices have put life on Earth in peril; our children face an immense CO2 cleanup, devastating climate changes, or both. We can curtail the most severe catastrophic outcomes, though time to do so grows alarmingly thin. If we choose air conditioner and refrigerator coolants based on hydrocarbon refrigerants; if we urge politicians to invest in on-shore wind turbines; if we reduce food waste; if we eat less meat; and if we support restoration of tropical forests. If we choose these, there is hope. --- See also: * https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/index.html https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-cha... * https://www.drawdown.org/about https://www.drawdown.org/about * https://igg.me/at/impacts https://igg.me/at/impacts (plug, plug; scroll down for previews)
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  For clarity: your hard scifi novel will include images in its prose?
willmoss1000 7y ago
The very first line in this article is just silly: "Does what I eat have an effect on climate change? Yes. The world’s food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming" What you personally eat will make a tiny percentage of a fraction of 7 billionth difference. Let's not just wash our hands of the issue and say "it's not my fault" - let's focus on encouraging action at the national and global level.
LinuxBender 7y ago
For those that would like to hear a mind blowing discussion about climate (and the earth in general), watch all of the podcasts with Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock. They are three hours each and I promise you will learn many things that give perspective on the repeat arguments and confusion about the climate. There are many other podcasts with these gentlemen, but here are three to start with. Joe Rogan and Randall Carlson #606 (3 hours) [1] Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson #725 [2] Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson #1284 [3] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8 [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ
- throwawaymanbot 7y ago
  Joe Rogan eh.... hmmmm.. dont he have alt-right types on a lot?
- throwawaymanbot 7y ago
  Randall Carlson talks about the "Holy Grail" the actual Holy Grail..... hmmm...
dustinmoris 7y ago
I have turned pescatarian a while ago for no other reason because I don't find it very natural to eat large amounts of meat. In the last five years or so I've been strongly of the belief that meat, especially meat like beef, should get taxed so highly that it essentially becomes a luxurious good which families can only enjoy once every so often and not 3-5 times a day. First people will be extremely upset and call it classist, but later (especially new generations) will just get used to the fact and quickly adapt to the new normal where farming beef and eating cows every day is just not a normal way of life. Ultimately there is no birthright to eating meat every day, there are no health benefits or other benefits of doing so, contrary it;s actually bad for health and our planet and therefore there is nothing classist about taxing beef so high that the average person shouldn't be able to afford it more than a handful of times per month. We need bold politicians in this world to look at the cost of these things and implement a tax system which incentivise a more balanced lifestyle and also account for the cost/damage that a high consumption of meat causes to society.
- fishstick2000 7y ago
  Incredibly disingenuous or just ignorant to claim there are no health benefits to eating meat
lowken10 7y ago
Food production has zero to do with climate change! Cow farts have zero to do with climate change! If you think otherwise you are an idiot. There is zero scientific evidence that shows a link between farm animals and climate change. Zero!!! All this reminds me of a great Winston Churchhill quote... "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
willmacdonald 7y ago
There is no mention of using insects like crickets? They have a VERY low impact on the environment. Lower than nearly all vegetables.

82 points by mykowebhn 7y ago

I know there will be comments saying that individual action is not enough to combat climate change, or that it's too late for that, but when governments are so slow to act and corporations will only change when their bottom line is at stake, it is left to individuals to take action. Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
- jamesgagan 7y ago
  I feel like this attitude is popular because it gives people an excuse to not change their lifestyle.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    I feel like the other attitude is popular because it gives people an excuse not to exercise real activism - propositions, getting out the vote, public education etc. Just eat a veggie-burger now and then and say "well I tried".
    - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
      In addition, it's just not the appropriate or proportional response, considering the contributors [0]. Individual action alone is certainly not enough. Systemic change is crucial. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
malvosenior 7y ago
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point. I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that. Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life? It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
- Falling3 7y ago
  > Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that. I guess that depends on how you define personal choice. Climate change has certain changed the calculus, but diet was never merely a personal choice when it required the death of other individuals. As for the shaming, I'm not in favor of that because it does not seem to be an effective way of bringing about change. But simply having these kinds of discussions cannot fairly be called shaming. That's a cop-out to avoid meaningful discourse.
- jamesgagan 7y ago
  I have been actively trying to reduce my ecological footprint because I believe climate change is real. I don't feel it's a matter of "personal choice" at this point. The way we live has a profound impact on the planet, and we all need to try and reduce that impact in any way we can. I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it. Going vegan and flying less are two of the biggest changes an individual can make.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > I don't feel it's a matter of "personal choice" at this point. Unless you're suggesting forcing people by law to be vegan, then it most definitely is a personal choice. > I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it. It's precisely that attitude that ensures no one will ever listen to what you have to say.
vibrato 7y ago
Destroy your health for virtue points trying to tackle the smallest contributor to global warming, sounds right to me /s
- jamesgagan 7y ago
  All the evidence seems to indicate that the less meat and dairy one eats, the healthier they are. I also used to believe vegans were unhealty until I did some research. As a personal anecdote, I've been vegan for about 4 years now and my health is better than ever.
  - kaitai 7y ago
    As a personal anecdote, vegetarian didn't work for me! Persistent anemia, hair loss, fatigue; adding back some meat just fixed it. Various diets are worth trying -- you never know until you try, and you learn a lot by trying. So for readers out there, try being vegan for a month: you'll learn a lot about what you eat and how to cook and you can observe how you feel. Also worth noting: many traditional cultures embedded food restrictions into calendars and/or religious rules. Being vegan for a while before Easter is more or less a thing in some Christian groups; Ramadan involves fasting as a practice. These cultural practices, combined with the seasons in nature, make me wonder if we were built to be cyclically vegan/omnivore/berry-eater. This may be more sustainable for many.
  - bobajeff 7y ago
    Some evidence seems to suggest that it could negatively affect brain health. (See deficiencies in B12, Iron and Zinc.) I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian. My belief is that our biology is complex and specific to each individual to the point where we can't all share the same diet and expect the same effects on our bodies.
    - jniedrauer 7y ago
      > I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian. There can be a problem with reducing fat and protein significantly while using carbs for the majority of caloric intake. This can lead to diabetes. But you can do this on an omnivore diet as well.
leekyle333 7y ago
Or maybe you should just eat properly grazed live stock, might be a lot better than going vegan. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
- jamesgagan 7y ago
  This is discussed in the article: "Some scientists have suggested that grass-finished beef, if managed properly, can be a more sustainable option: As the cattle graze, they stimulate grass to grow deep roots and pull more carbon into the soil, helping to offset the cows’ climate impact. But, on the flip side, grass-finished cattle also take longer to reach slaughter weight, which means they spend more time burping up methane into the atmosphere. Because of this, some studies have suggested that grass-fed beef can actually be worse for the climate over all, though the debate about this continues to rage. For now, it’s hard to say with confidence that grass-fed beef is consistently more climate-friendly than conventional beef."
  - leekyle333 7y ago
    I'd love to see more research on this, I just wonder who would actually do it.
    - passiveincomelg 7y ago
      Links from the article: http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/grazed-and-confused http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/grazed-and-confused https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494320/
dalore 7y ago
Giving up our growing space to grow lots of monocultured vegetables will be worse for the climate. The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less. If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable. Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition. The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process. Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better. We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims. These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that. Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities. Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account. Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
- hkyeti 7y ago
  This is disproven by Oxford scientists. Grass fed beef is worse for climate change than CAFO beef. Look it up
  - dalore 7y ago
    I looked up the study, first up it wasn't "Oxford scientists" but a University of Oxford think tank called the Food Climate Research Network. Follow the links, Monsanto has deep connection to the University of Oxford, at least £50 million pounds. UO professors routinely get consulting fees from Monsanto. They even have a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship position. There is a massive conflict of interest with Monsanto and the University of Oxford. You find this with most food and nutrition science. Since the funding for such sciences comes from the industry, any science that is critical of it's paymasters soon gets silenced. This article outlines a bit more https://medium.com/@johnroulac/oxford-study-attacks-regenerative-ag-monsanto-ally-2986ee9918c4 https://medium.com/@johnroulac/oxford-study-attacks-regenera...
jniedrauer 7y ago
Personally I think that individual action is largely futile. I've also stopped eating meat. I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could. Then it won't have been futile.
username223 7y ago
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point. We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less. I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.

ptah 7y ago

it's about time this information goes mainstream

temp1831 7y ago

For every 100 people that say we need climate impact labeling on our food, 80 of them are only virtue signaling.

agentultra 7y ago

This is a great article. Do I have to go vegan? No. But it would have the biggest impact if you did. Is organic farming the answer? No. It tends to use more land for less output (although maybe the health-foodies could get off the No-GMO bandwagon). I also appreciate that the authors recognize that for some people living in certain cultures and climates _have_ to eat meat and there's no shame in that. The bulk of the reduction can definitely come from rich, affluent nations and have the biggest impact. Articles like this seem important. Hiding the fact that meat/dairy production is such a huge factor in climate change hurts people more than it helps. When we all start to wonder why it isn't getting any better we need to know that there are ways we can do our part. Even if they're small things!

lowken10 7y ago
Except that meat/dairy production have zero effect on climate change. Other then that you are correct.
- jamil7 7y ago
  Care to provide a source to back up that claim? If you read the article and associated sources you'd find a stack of scientific evidence to confirm that it has quite a large impact.
  - misiti3780 7y ago
    I wouldnt say zero, but not much at a macro level, here are the stats: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799246
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Greenhouse-Emissions.jpg http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Greenhouse... Edit: Downvoted for providing data? A new low.
    - jamil7 7y ago

yfdrea 7y ago

I switched to a plant based diet last year after reading similar articles on climate change and was surprised to see an additional set of benefits. I feel a lot healthier, my skin is clearer (struggled with frequent untamable breakouts), I save money, etc. Diet is a very individualized thing, so don't dramatically overhaul your entire lifestyle based off what a random stranger says on the Internet but if you haven't tried a plant-based diet you may be pleasantly surprised like I was. I'll still eat meat if it's served to me but when I am eating out and cooking I go veggie.

npsimons 7y ago
> I feel a lot healthier This was the clincher for me. I listened to the audiobook "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger and was convinced of the common sense that eating plant based whole foods is the way to be healthier. The lowered cost and lowered impact on the environment are just icing on the cake. If eating meat was better for me, I'd still do it. The science done so far seems to suggest that a whole food plant based diet is the healthiest diet.
eric_b 7y ago
I first tried eating vegetarian to deal with some digestion issues. It made it worse. Especially spinach, broccoli and other high fiber foods. I switched to a 90% carnivore diet and everything cleared up digestion wise, and I also felt much better, healthier, and my skin cleared up. As you say, diet is very individualized.
- pureliquidhw 7y ago
  What was your diet before? Anecdotally, most people I know who felt better after going keto-ish had horrible diets to begin with. Dramatic reduction in processed foods, beer, HFCS, etc. Simply preparing food at home with fresher ingredients and being conscious of what you're taking in can account for much of the gains they experienced. The vast majority of people on the planet don't eat 90% meat diets, but if we did it would be a disaster! I'm not saying it isn't the case with you, but anyone who experienced amazing gains shifting their diet to mostly meat should consider survivorship bias, and that the benefits are from cutting other things out, not adding tons of animal protein in.

anarchimedes 7y ago

I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done by Bjorn Lomberg and team that showed a modest 2% reduction in total CI globally [1] if the entire population switched to a vegetarian diet. [0]https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/235c254 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/2... [1]https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648

epistasis 7y ago
Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and should not be taken earnestly in any way. This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.
- anarchimedes 7y ago
  Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA? And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect. I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith
  - epistasis 7y ago
    > much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim? And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism. Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.

hammock 7y ago

This reminds me of propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter (increased use of disposable packaging) from corporations onto consumers. Yes individuals can take responsibility for their own actions by "voting with their wallet" etc. - not denying that. But in a democracy, if you'd rather fight for greater regulations on Big Ag than give up meat in your diet, that should be your choice and don't feel ashamed about it.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to shift the blame for litter Oh really? Keep America Beautiful was conceived, paid for and started by: Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola and others. Then they started shifting blame onto the individual. That was in reaction to Vermont proposing to require deposit and return bottles for drinks, after a surge in single-use packaging litter.
- hammock 7y ago
  Yes that's what I mean. Phillip Morris and the beverage makers you mention were fighting against the threat of regulations that would prevent them from continuing to pump out non-biodegradable filter cigarettes and single-serve drink containers. We could have had filterless cigarettes and returnable glass-bottle Coke. Instead, Keep America Beautiful was their brilliant idea to redirect the focus onto consumers, away from manufacturers. Did you misunderstand me?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Clearly, yet "propaganda from the environmentalism movement" implies, to me, propaganda from actual environmentalists. I'd call what happened corporate propaganda, "propaganda from the multinationals", or perhaps the first example of greenwashing. I suspect that may explain why you picked up a few downvotes. It certainly distracted me from the real message you were trying to convey. From your second comment, it's clear we are of similar mindset, and your point very valid. The current popular "theme of the moment" around veganism in the media does seem to have the same smell of someone trying to move the gaze away from the places that would move the dial fastest. Which in this case, of course, is constraining the global food players.

kaitai 7y ago

A very thought-provoking article, but one that still leaves me with questions. * The vast agricultural monocultures of the US have changed our climate on their own. Our fields of soy, wheat, and corn have decimated local ecosystems, led to high nitrate levels in the water, changed air temperature and humidity on their own, and encouraged a US diet that is high in processed food, leading to its own set of health problems. * Yes, these vast monocultures are in a feedback loop with raising animals for meat. Corn-fed cattle and pigs and chickens are part of the reason Iowa is what it is today. * If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. Is that really that big a win? Curious. * Vegetables seem to be lacking in the standard American diet, and they're not subsidized by the federal government the way grains/corn/soybeans are, and they're also something a lot of us buy from far away. How can we change all that? * Many people will still want meat products, some for health reasons -- it can be hard for some folks to be vegetarian or vegan healthfully (I had trouble with fatigue and anemia for instance, and yes I understand that maybe I could have tried harder/eaten more supplements/etc). How can we encourage the shift to animal production on 'waste' land, and decrease the incentives to ship beef from Brazil and Bolivia? Can we make goat meat cool again, for instance? or rabbit? The alternatives I'm personally more interested in: shifting transportation patterns for US adults (biking and transit). Increasing green space. Re-encouraging locally grown food, where by local I mean the back yard. Rediscovering the foods you never knew you could eat but your great-grandparents did: nettles, dandelions, Virginia waterleaf, garlic mustard, purslane, daylilies, hostas. Many of you could get a whole week's worth of greens, even in May in colder climes, by walking outside -- and how many of us know it? Right now I'm motivated to rediscover these local foods for myself for health reasons, but it helps that they're $0 to grow and $0 to transport, and thus add 0 to my carbon emissions. (edit for formatting)

Forbo 7y ago
> If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. It takes a lot less corn and soy to feed people directly than it does to feed a bunch of cattle. You get a lot of efficiency by skipping the intermediary trophic level.

cagenut 7y ago

this is a great article, both in content and in form. keep in mind though managing your carbon budget is like managing any other budget, which in turn is like optimizing any other queue. meaning: don't over-optimize the 5th most important thing when you're ignoring the top 2 - 3 most important things. by which I mean: #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling. just to put a sortof min-max on it: if you eat vegan but fly to a conference once a quarter and drive to work every day your emissions will be greater than if you eat cheeseburgers for lunch every day but take the subway to work and rarely fly. which is why imho you should go for the 50 - 80% win (80+% reduction in red meat) in this category (food) instead of going all the way to vegetarian/vegan. or put another way, being pro video-conference has a better GHG reduction return than being vegan :)

taffer 7y ago
> #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling. At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global Calculator[1] the food lever appears to have the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions, even more than heating or transport. [1] http://tool.globalcalculator.org http://tool.globalcalculator.org

beat 7y ago

When talking about the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, lifespan of about 20 years. CO2, on the other hand, has a lifespan of around 100 years. Interestingly, rice agriculture generates about as much methane as livestock, and burning biomass (wood) and landfills each generate about half as much methane as livestock.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
No one change is going to solve this problem, we are going to have to look at everything.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

Although this is not made clear in the article, the highest amount of greenhouse gasses are released by energy production and industry, which, combined, account for about half of all emissions [1]. So what this article is saying is that I should consider going vegan or reducing the (already meager) amount of meat in my diet so that fossil fuel companies can keep burning fossil fuels and don't have to get off their butt to develop greener alternatives, and so that industry can continue producing useless capitalist crap that nobody needs. To take it even further, this article is suggesting I restrict my options so that others can continue profiting from the destruction of the environment. Personally I don't drive and I don't fly. I don't even own a car. I go everywhere by train or bus and on foot. I contribute to greenhouse gasses much less than many vegans. And I'm very tired of hearing people saying I should reduce the amount of meat I eat because it's destroying the environment. Food is necessary- driving cars is not. ___________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Gre...

belorn 7y ago

It is not as simply to reduce climate impact based on what you eat. The data this article use is based on averages, and as in every industry the lowest standard it drastically different from the top and carry more quantity. On the very top you got meat produced that actively helps the environment. Highland cattle that keeps national reservations open comes to mind. There is also overpopulated and invasive species. At the bottom you got cattle who live their whole life inside a barn and get feed from deforested jungle farms, using unimaginable amount of pesticide and antibiotics. It is also important to remember that diet is far from the most effective personal choice to make when it come to climate change (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-cl...). It is ranked 6th. Driving to buy produce at a farmer several miles out of town is likely to produce more C02 than biking down to eat a burger. An electric car might help, through it depend if the electricity is made from coal or wind. The article gives some averages and for people who don't want to think about the climate and want a simple guide the article provides. However if you care about the topic and can spend the energy to go deeper and consider all facets then it is much better to make informed decision by digging deeper.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Meat is almost perfectly substitutable. So going out of your way to ensure that the beef you eat has low carbon impact isn't really doing much good. All you're doing is ensuring that somebody else won't eat the beef you bought and will eat something with higher carbon impact instead. Where it does matter is when you choose not to eat meat. Less demand for beef means less beef raised, but which cattle are they going to stop raising -- the low carbon or the high carbon ones? My guess is that the high carbon beef is the marginal beef. When you stop eating beef you cause the price to drop, so the ranchers with the highest costs are going to be the first to go out of business. And carbon is one of the main costs of ranching, so I would predict that stopping eating beef would have a greater than average impact on carbon emissions.
- belorn 7y ago
  Low carbon production has higher marginal costs and tend to be small farmers which is the group that suffer first when prices drops. The high carbon beef is basically all import here in Sweden, and there is no deforestation issue from farming. From a environmental perspective we actually need more open fields to maintain bio diversity. When climate aware people stop buying beef the ratio of imported beef increase. In last few years we have actually seen an decrease in imported beef, which has been attributed to more awareness of low carbon beef vs high carbon beef. People buy more local and significant less imported. Locally produced beef cost between 2-4 times as much as imported, which naturally impact how much people buy.

cageface 7y ago

There’s a bunch of good reasons you should reduce or eliminate meat from your diet, including environmental effects but also including your health and mistreating and killing intelligent creatures. If your diet requires people to do things to thinking, feeling animals that would be criminal to do to a dog, maybe having some bacon on your breakfast plate really isn’t that important after all.

lovemymeat 7y ago
Millennials are so freaking obnoxious. You should leave your comfortable 1st world environment and go tell this to someone less privileged to see the reaction you get. Hint: eating domesticated meat has been done for thousands of years and your “think of the pigs!” argument is both laughable and insulting.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
I don't eat bacon. I also don't share your view on the ethics of eating other intelligent beings (from different species). Many other animals eat other animals, and for this they have to kill them and cause them pain. The pain comes from the fact that animals do not easily die, and our death is almost always painful and horrifying. But- why shoud humans be any different than other animals, when it comes to the ethics of killing other animals and causing them pain in order to feed on their meat? Other animals don't have any compunctions about doing the same to humans. Why are humans so special that it is immoral for us to eat meat?
- cageface 7y ago
  We are special in that we have evolved to be utterly dominant, which gives us privileges and responsibilities other animals don’t share. Also, other animals kill out of necessity. We don’t need to kill to survive at all so why are we justified to do so?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    I don't see what dominance has to do with privileges and responsibilities. Besides, humans "dominate" only in a very narrow sense. Most of the biomass on the planet is not human. There are many species of insects and microorganisms that are much more "dominant" than we are. Other animals don't necessarily kill out of necessity. For example, many animals perform surplus killing [1] - I personally know of two dogs who, together, entered a coop and killed about 40 chiken without eating any. In the same farm, dogs have often killed chickens and goats, which they just eviscerate without eating them. Then of course there's the killing of young animals by older males- like male cats sometimes kill kittens, etc. Besides, why is "need" to kill the only justification to kill? For example, if it's very difficult to survive without killing an animal, say because you're putting your health and that of your children at risk with a diet poor in animal protein- then why are you not justified to do it? ______________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

misiti3780 7y ago

I know this isnt going to be a popular opinion here, but I'm going to say it anyways -- we are simply not going eat our away out of this climate change problem, and we shouldnt even try, we should focus the efforts in other places Here is the current breakdown of the world's emissions as of 2018: 1. heavy industry (29 percent) 2. buildings (18 percent) 3. transport (15 percent) 4. land-use change (15 percent) 5. the energy needed to supply energy (13 percent). Livestock is responsible for 5.5 percent, mostly methane rather than CO2, and aviation for 1.5 percent. Here is the estimated sacrifice needed to bring carbon emissions down by half and then to zero: It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel, and affordable food and clothing. Both of these are taken from Enlightenment Now by Pinker, and I have not seen the numbers or his conclusions refuted. I'm open to someone trying to change my mind, but with these numbers, I do not see how that is possible.

cageface 7y ago
Most estimates put it at around 15%, not 5. Stopping climate change is going to require action on all these vectors, and diet is one of the easiest to change. It also has knock on effects like clear cutting rainforest to plant crops to feed to cows. On top of that it’s just cruel and unnecessary to go on eating so much meat.
- TheBeardKing 7y ago
  Also clearing rainforests for palm oil trees.
- rayiner 7y ago
  It's 15% globally, but just 5% in the U.S. That's because eating meat is one of the few things your average Bangladeshi or African does to create CO2 emissions. Those people aren't going to become vegans, and as those economies develop, they'll want more of the things that are responsible for the other 95% of your average American's carbon emissions.
- mercer 7y ago
  The main argument in favor changing diet, to me, is the potential psychological and social effects. When something you do multiple times a day is different from what you used to do, and what many others around you do, it stays active in your thoughts and might trigger other, more meaningful activity. I don't know if this is actually true, but anecdotally at least it seems to be. The people around me who seem to be most active when it comes to the topic of climate change also tend to be vegetarians or vegans. And many of them started down this path by changing their diets, sometimes even for reasons that weren't ideological.

z0r 7y ago

while the world's economy is fueled by adding more people to the mix forever, we're not going to solve any problems. people have to imagine and accept a world where the market might not grow without limit and where outputs decrease from one year to the next without it being a disaster. grey pyramids have to be accepted without righteous outcry to open borders more fully. the population and its demands are the ultimate multiplier for all climate impacting activities.

thangalin 7y ago

Excerpt from a book I'm writing: --- Life is experiencing an abrupt, widespread global species extinction event. Humans are destroying intricate webs of animals, plants, and microorganisms. These networks supply our food chain and sustain life on Earth; their annihilation from rapid deforestation and climate change is causing grave consequences: droughts, increased heat waves and wildfires, more frequent severe weather events, coastal flooding, food shortages, and water wars. Earth’s atmosphere was once mostly carbon dioxide. Once life took hold, simple organisms (such as bacteria, algae, and plants) converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen by way of photosynthesis. When those organisms died, natural processes spanning eons changed their remains into carbon-bearing fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Burning fossil fuels recombines carbon with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the mid-1800s humans have released a stupendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the following graph, average annual atmospheric CO2 measurements in parts per million (PPM) are plotted alongside averaged global ocean and surface temperature readings in degrees Celsius (°C), relative to 1881-1910: https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png Both atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step. Bubbles in ice cores drilled from polar glaciers trap historic atmospheric gas ratios. Long-term observations reveal an increasing average warming trend that is distinct from natural short-term fluctuations. Temperatures are climbing in proportion to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution. Choices Our past choices have put life on Earth in peril; our children face an immense CO2 cleanup, devastating climate changes, or both. We can curtail the most severe catastrophic outcomes, though time to do so grows alarmingly thin. If we choose air conditioner and refrigerator coolants based on hydrocarbon refrigerants; if we urge politicians to invest in on-shore wind turbines; if we reduce food waste; if we eat less meat; and if we support restoration of tropical forests. If we choose these, there is hope. --- See also: * https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/index.html https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-cha... * https://www.drawdown.org/about https://www.drawdown.org/about * https://igg.me/at/impacts https://igg.me/at/impacts (plug, plug; scroll down for previews)

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
For clarity: your hard scifi novel will include images in its prose?

willmoss1000 7y ago

The very first line in this article is just silly: "Does what I eat have an effect on climate change? Yes. The world’s food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming" What you personally eat will make a tiny percentage of a fraction of 7 billionth difference. Let's not just wash our hands of the issue and say "it's not my fault" - let's focus on encouraging action at the national and global level.

LinuxBender 7y ago

For those that would like to hear a mind blowing discussion about climate (and the earth in general), watch all of the podcasts with Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock. They are three hours each and I promise you will learn many things that give perspective on the repeat arguments and confusion about the climate. There are many other podcasts with these gentlemen, but here are three to start with. Joe Rogan and Randall Carlson #606 (3 hours) [1] Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson #725 [2] Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson #1284 [3] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8 [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ

throwawaymanbot 7y ago
Joe Rogan eh.... hmmmm.. dont he have alt-right types on a lot?
throwawaymanbot 7y ago
Randall Carlson talks about the "Holy Grail" the actual Holy Grail..... hmmm...

dustinmoris 7y ago

I have turned pescatarian a while ago for no other reason because I don't find it very natural to eat large amounts of meat. In the last five years or so I've been strongly of the belief that meat, especially meat like beef, should get taxed so highly that it essentially becomes a luxurious good which families can only enjoy once every so often and not 3-5 times a day. First people will be extremely upset and call it classist, but later (especially new generations) will just get used to the fact and quickly adapt to the new normal where farming beef and eating cows every day is just not a normal way of life. Ultimately there is no birthright to eating meat every day, there are no health benefits or other benefits of doing so, contrary it;s actually bad for health and our planet and therefore there is nothing classist about taxing beef so high that the average person shouldn't be able to afford it more than a handful of times per month. We need bold politicians in this world to look at the cost of these things and implement a tax system which incentivise a more balanced lifestyle and also account for the cost/damage that a high consumption of meat causes to society.

fishstick2000 7y ago
Incredibly disingenuous or just ignorant to claim there are no health benefits to eating meat

lowken10 7y ago

Food production has zero to do with climate change! Cow farts have zero to do with climate change! If you think otherwise you are an idiot. There is zero scientific evidence that shows a link between farm animals and climate change. Zero!!! All this reminds me of a great Winston Churchhill quote... "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

willmacdonald 7y ago

There is no mention of using insects like crickets? They have a VERY low impact on the environment. Lower than nearly all vegetables.