3 ms·

The cost of transporting a hundred thousand burgers is dwarfed by the cost of creating a hundred thousand burgers. The primary costs associated with meat are in

The cost of transporting a hundred thousand burgers is dwarfed by the cost of creating a hundred thousand burgers. The primary costs associated with meat are in the production, not the transport: compared to, say, Beyond Meat, a single beef burger is 15x more ecologically expensive _before_ transport -- which is the same, and inconsequential in comparison.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
How about cooking them? Refrigerating them? Selling them? I see the idea of marginal cost is getting through. But consider all the costs to get a real sense of how the origination marginal cost contributes. And don't dismiss transportation. It has to get home from the grocery store, in that 10-burger one-person vehicular trip through city traffic. That's a marginal cost too.
- vegannet 7y ago
  You can make the same point repeatedly if you like but, as I've explained, the costs you're referring to are a very small part of the total cost and certainly do not come close to offsetting the gains made by cutting out livestock from the equation.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Citation? I suspect you made that up, to score imaginary internet points. Here's some data I just Googled: Car trips: 0.34 metric tonnes of CO2 / 1000 miles Burgers: 0.5 metric tonnes / year of burgers (150) Producing meat is very-much commensurate with other marginal activities associated with procuring meat, like trips to the grocery store. I'm done here.
- Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
  Ok, but considering that you very likely would continue to eat in the absence of meat, the replacement foods usually need cooking, refrigeration, and distribution. These things are not particular to meat and shouldn't factor into a comparison.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    That's the opposite of the correct conclusion. Because the meat ecological component is dwarfed by the other activities, it becomes (ecologically) insignificant to stop eating meat.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

How about cooking them? Refrigerating them? Selling them? I see the idea of marginal cost is getting through. But consider all the costs to get a real sense of how the origination marginal cost contributes. And don't dismiss transportation. It has to get home from the grocery store, in that 10-burger one-person vehicular trip through city traffic. That's a marginal cost too.

vegannet 7y ago
You can make the same point repeatedly if you like but, as I've explained, the costs you're referring to are a very small part of the total cost and certainly do not come close to offsetting the gains made by cutting out livestock from the equation.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Citation? I suspect you made that up, to score imaginary internet points. Here's some data I just Googled: Car trips: 0.34 metric tonnes of CO2 / 1000 miles Burgers: 0.5 metric tonnes / year of burgers (150) Producing meat is very-much commensurate with other marginal activities associated with procuring meat, like trips to the grocery store. I'm done here.
Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
Ok, but considering that you very likely would continue to eat in the absence of meat, the replacement foods usually need cooking, refrigeration, and distribution. These things are not particular to meat and shouldn't factor into a comparison.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That's the opposite of the correct conclusion. Because the meat ecological component is dwarfed by the other activities, it becomes (ecologically) insignificant to stop eating meat.