4 ms·
Baffled to read this, as I thought it was widely established as grossly inaccurate. Suggest you read Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Caste
by nmca 7y ago
Baffled to read this, as I thought it was widely established as grossly inaccurate.
Suggest you read
Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options
Or alternatively anything about food culture and supply in India.
I don't believe your current position is substantiated by any evidence; but I'm happy to look through any relevant numbers if you can find them.
- ar-jan 7y agoI suggest you also read Steinfeld's own correction regarding the 2006 claim that livestock accounts for 18% of GHG emissions: "The comparison measures direct emissions from transport against both direct and indirect emissions from livestock." http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0 http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0
- keymone 7y agoI skimmed through it, thanks for the link, my “rebuttal” is mostly that this report takes into account all cattle while I’m specifically talking about grass-fed. There are plenty of statements that clarify that corn-fed cattle production is much worse than grass-fed, like > The water used by the livestock sector is over 8 percent of global human water use. The major part of this water is in fact used for irrigation of feed crops, rep- resenting 7 percent of the global water use. And, yeah, that’s kind of my point - let’s limit cattle to grass and push it’s production somewhere out to steppes of mongolia or something, which will help recover Amazon rainforests and free-up land for more nutritious vegetables for humans.