5 ms·

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 t

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.
- caust1c 7y ago
  Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1]. I personally don't advocate for completely eliminating meat from our diets, but it's pretty naive to outright deny the environmental impact (including greenhouse gas emission) of meat production. [1] Tons of original research here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1]. Perhaps, but not the article you linked to. Your link doesn't deviate from the 3% of total GHG emissions figure. Actually it provides the lower figure of 2.6%. The Wikipedia article claims this figure is criticized, but doesn't provide any alternative ones.

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.
caust1c 7y ago
Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1]. I personally don't advocate for completely eliminating meat from our diets, but it's pretty naive to outright deny the environmental impact (including greenhouse gas emission) of meat production. [1] Tons of original research here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Research suggests strongly that this armchair analysis is wrong [1]. Perhaps, but not the article you linked to. Your link doesn't deviate from the 3% of total GHG emissions figure. Actually it provides the lower figure of 2.6%. The Wikipedia article claims this figure is criticized, but doesn't provide any alternative ones.