5 ms·

How is that possible when animal agriculture only accounts for ~3% of greenhouse emissions? Even if you take into account the entire agriculture sector it's on

How is that possible when animal agriculture only accounts for ~3% of greenhouse emissions? Even if you take into account the entire agriculture sector it's only 9%. Let's not use this as a grandstand for pushing political agendas. There are much larger contributors that can be addressed. It just dilutes the entire climate change message by pushing a vegan agenda. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

caust1c 7y ago
It's pretty simple actually. Think of energy as a closed loop system down here on earth. Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals, butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc. The impact is much greater than the "cow farts" that are released into the atmosphere, despite methane actually being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (which I'm not sure if they account for in the report). The energy, of course, has to come from somewhere. Typically it comes from coal or gasoline.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Carbon atoms make up about 15-20% of most animal's mass. A 1000 lb cow would have sequestered 200 lbs of carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of which will be re released when eaten, but not it's not as simple as just saying "look how much energy goes into feeding a cow". Because most of that energy comes from crops - cows don't eat gasoline. > butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc. All of which had to be done for plant products as well. In reality is that going vegan isn't going to have a significant impact on the environment. About 10% of the US's carbon emissions are from any kind of agriculture, and animal products are a fraction of that 10%.
  - gambler 7y ago
    >Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Most animals are fed from industrially grown crops. Those crops require tons of oil to grow and contribute to deforestation. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-ani...
    - nightski 7y ago
      Obviously corn is a huge one because the government subsidizes it so heavily. But another popular food source for animals is beet pulp pellets. Now these are pure waste by products of sugar production. So even if you don't feed animals it's not going to reduce the impact of this.
  - deevolution 7y ago
    Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land. If we removed meat from our diets that would free up space for carbon sinks (reforestation)[1] if everyone switched to a plant based diet. Additionally, urban vertical farming methods such as those used by aerofarms[2] have by far the lowest environmental impact, lowest water use, lowest land use, pesticide free. 1.https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics-01-01-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics... 2. Https://aerofarms.com
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land You omitted the fact that livestock is often raised in land unsuitable for cultivation. Not all pasture can be converted to farms. Most pasture is in grasslands. Closing these pastures would not free up land for reforestation. Taking up habitable land is also not surprising. Everyone needs to eat, so it makes sense to put farms close to population centers. Doing otherwise would result in higher transportation costs (and more carbon emissions). Living space also isn't a constraint in most developed countries. Their populations are shrinking and urbanizing. Why are you so intent on finding problems for veganism or vegetarianism to solve? Vertical farming is promising, but it requires energy. It's tough to compete against traditional farming where energy is free from the sun. Using solar power is obviously not efficient - crops outdoors are already solar powered. Maybe feasible with more nuclear power, but that's not popular these days.
deevolution 7y ago
I challenge you to commit to a vegan diet for 3 weeks and let me know how your body feels. Personally, I'm much more energized and more productive than when I was 4 weeks ago eating meat everyday. I breathe easier, my sleep has improved, I dont feel bloated. And to top it off I'm reducing my carbon footprint.
- manfredo 7y ago
  This is completely departing from the original claim that going vegan is "the single best thing an individual can do" for the planet.
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  Your comment has nothing to do with any of the arguments nightski brought up.
gambler 7y ago
3% is still significant and such estimates vary. Some estimate it at 15%. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions aren't end all be all. Animal agriculture fucks up the environment. It's a source of drug-resistant diseases. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal-agriculture-choking-earth-making-sick-climate-food-environmental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal... Unless you have certain medical issue, the cost of not eating meat is just a minor inconvenience.
- manfredo 7y ago
  The cost of not eating meat is also a large quality of life impact in that now you can't eat a substantial portion of dishes. Let alone going vegan as the original commenter proposed. You may see this as "just a minor inconvenience", much of the world disagrees.
  - gambler 7y ago
    I agree that going 100% vegan is "a large quality of life impact". I don't agree that going vegetarian is. >much of the world disagrees Much of the world didn't ever try it.
  - deevolution 7y ago
    I would argue quality of life should increase by not eating meat. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are all highly correlated with meat consumption.[1] 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Quality of life is not the as quantity of life. Not everyone sees their bodies machines that need to be optimized, they'd rather eat tasty food.
deevolution 7y ago
This study you cite only accounts for U.S. emissions. I'm citing GLOBAL emissions.

caust1c 7y ago

It's pretty simple actually. Think of energy as a closed loop system down here on earth. Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals, butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc. The impact is much greater than the "cow farts" that are released into the atmosphere, despite methane actually being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (which I'm not sure if they account for in the report). The energy, of course, has to come from somewhere. Typically it comes from coal or gasoline.

manfredo 7y ago
> Now imagine the amount of energy it takes to: Grow the feed to feed the animals Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Carbon atoms make up about 15-20% of most animal's mass. A 1000 lb cow would have sequestered 200 lbs of carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of which will be re released when eaten, but not it's not as simple as just saying "look how much energy goes into feeding a cow". Because most of that energy comes from crops - cows don't eat gasoline. > butcher and transport the meat/dairy in refrigerated vehicles, store/prepare/cook the meat, etc. All of which had to be done for plant products as well. In reality is that going vegan isn't going to have a significant impact on the environment. About 10% of the US's carbon emissions are from any kind of agriculture, and animal products are a fraction of that 10%.
- gambler 7y ago
  >Animals are fed from crops, which sequester carbon from the air. Most animals are fed from industrially grown crops. Those crops require tons of oil to grow and contribute to deforestation. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-ani...
  - nightski 7y ago
    Obviously corn is a huge one because the government subsidizes it so heavily. But another popular food source for animals is beet pulp pellets. Now these are pure waste by products of sugar production. So even if you don't feed animals it's not going to reduce the impact of this.
- deevolution 7y ago
  Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land. If we removed meat from our diets that would free up space for carbon sinks (reforestation)[1] if everyone switched to a plant based diet. Additionally, urban vertical farming methods such as those used by aerofarms[2] have by far the lowest environmental impact, lowest water use, lowest land use, pesticide free. 1.https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics-01-01-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/Land-use-graphics... 2. Https://aerofarms.com
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Livestock accounts for 77% of all agricultural land space and takes up about 30% of the world's habitable land. That us a HUGE proportion of land You omitted the fact that livestock is often raised in land unsuitable for cultivation. Not all pasture can be converted to farms. Most pasture is in grasslands. Closing these pastures would not free up land for reforestation. Taking up habitable land is also not surprising. Everyone needs to eat, so it makes sense to put farms close to population centers. Doing otherwise would result in higher transportation costs (and more carbon emissions). Living space also isn't a constraint in most developed countries. Their populations are shrinking and urbanizing. Why are you so intent on finding problems for veganism or vegetarianism to solve? Vertical farming is promising, but it requires energy. It's tough to compete against traditional farming where energy is free from the sun. Using solar power is obviously not efficient - crops outdoors are already solar powered. Maybe feasible with more nuclear power, but that's not popular these days.

deevolution 7y ago

I challenge you to commit to a vegan diet for 3 weeks and let me know how your body feels. Personally, I'm much more energized and more productive than when I was 4 weeks ago eating meat everyday. I breathe easier, my sleep has improved, I dont feel bloated. And to top it off I'm reducing my carbon footprint.

manfredo 7y ago
This is completely departing from the original claim that going vegan is "the single best thing an individual can do" for the planet.
chipperyman573 7y ago
Your comment has nothing to do with any of the arguments nightski brought up.

gambler 7y ago

3% is still significant and such estimates vary. Some estimate it at 15%. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions aren't end all be all. Animal agriculture fucks up the environment. It's a source of drug-resistant diseases. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal-agriculture-choking-earth-making-sick-climate-food-environmental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal... Unless you have certain medical issue, the cost of not eating meat is just a minor inconvenience.

manfredo 7y ago
The cost of not eating meat is also a large quality of life impact in that now you can't eat a substantial portion of dishes. Let alone going vegan as the original commenter proposed. You may see this as "just a minor inconvenience", much of the world disagrees.
- gambler 7y ago
  I agree that going 100% vegan is "a large quality of life impact". I don't agree that going vegetarian is. >much of the world disagrees Much of the world didn't ever try it.
- deevolution 7y ago
  I would argue quality of life should increase by not eating meat. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are all highly correlated with meat consumption.[1] 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Quality of life is not the as quantity of life. Not everyone sees their bodies machines that need to be optimized, they'd rather eat tasty food.

deevolution 7y ago

This study you cite only accounts for U.S. emissions. I'm citing GLOBAL emissions.