5 ms·

The article references this report from a year ago: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion https://www.unenvironment.o

The article references this report from a year ago: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting... (2018) “ The fashion industry produces 20 per cent of global wastewater and 10 per cent of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of water globally and it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans. Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. ”

paulcole 7y ago
By comparison, a pound of beef is around 1,800 pounds. Average American eats like 200 pounds of meat per year. How many pairs of jeans do you think a person buys each year? I buy 1 pair of Levis and just wear them about once or twice a week (never washing them) and throw them out after 2 or 3 years. https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/ https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/ https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.html https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.ht...
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Are you talking about cow farts? When cows eat grass, the carbon they emit was already in the system. It's just like any other organism staying alive. This is different than burning fossil fuels, the carbon of which until they are extracted hasn't been in the system for millions of years. To the extent that the beef industry burns fossil fuels, that's something you could criticize, but it's hardly unique to the beef industry. Cattle would eat less intensively-cultivated corn and more grass if the corn farmers weren't subsidized so much. If no corn was cultivated at all, cattle would still be a pretty efficient way of sustainably extracting food from marginal grassland.
  - seltzered_ 7y ago
    Hum, I'm not familiar with ruminant (i.e. cow) digestion but I think you're right in suggesting there's greater complexity here when associating cattle with the use of modern agriculture practices (haber-bosch process). Regarding the parent's comment, the 1800 pounds-of-water-for-pound-of-beef figure seems to be sourced from https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFo... (which won't say 1799 because it's metric) https://www.watercalculator.org/footprints/beef-king-big-water-footprints/ https://www.watercalculator.org/footprints/beef-king-big-wat... seems to aggregate various estimates. To direct the conversation towards solutions, Project drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org https://www.drawdown.org) mentions Silvopasture practices (closely related to Joel Salatin style farming). That said, reducing the amount of intensively-cultivated corn grown ultimately still means reducing the number of cattle (we're ~80-90% more than 100yrs ago) and seemingly less meat consumption per capita.
  - ip26 7y ago
    The carbon they emit was already in the system- but it is also true that they have converted carbon dioxide to methane.
  - milkey_mouse 7y ago
    From what I understand the main concern with cow farts is the methane produced in cows' (and other ruminants') digestive systems, not carbon dioxide. Methane is a 25x more potent greenhouse gas according to the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m...
  - paulcole 7y ago
    I’m guessing you didn’t look at the links I included?
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Did you? The one is talking about water, which I don't care about since I'm not raising cattle in a desert. The other says that people are eating more meat, which seems more of an economic measure than anything else. Yet you've posted them on this thread about carbon emissions. I tried to interpret your links in a reasonable way, but if I missed the point you could explain further.

paulcole 7y ago

By comparison, a pound of beef is around 1,800 pounds. Average American eats like 200 pounds of meat per year. How many pairs of jeans do you think a person buys each year? I buy 1 pair of Levis and just wear them about once or twice a week (never washing them) and throw them out after 2 or 3 years. https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/ https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/ https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.html https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.ht...

jessaustin 7y ago
Are you talking about cow farts? When cows eat grass, the carbon they emit was already in the system. It's just like any other organism staying alive. This is different than burning fossil fuels, the carbon of which until they are extracted hasn't been in the system for millions of years. To the extent that the beef industry burns fossil fuels, that's something you could criticize, but it's hardly unique to the beef industry. Cattle would eat less intensively-cultivated corn and more grass if the corn farmers weren't subsidized so much. If no corn was cultivated at all, cattle would still be a pretty efficient way of sustainably extracting food from marginal grassland.
- seltzered_ 7y ago
  Hum, I'm not familiar with ruminant (i.e. cow) digestion but I think you're right in suggesting there's greater complexity here when associating cattle with the use of modern agriculture practices (haber-bosch process). Regarding the parent's comment, the 1800 pounds-of-water-for-pound-of-beef figure seems to be sourced from https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFo... (which won't say 1799 because it's metric) https://www.watercalculator.org/footprints/beef-king-big-water-footprints/ https://www.watercalculator.org/footprints/beef-king-big-wat... seems to aggregate various estimates. To direct the conversation towards solutions, Project drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org https://www.drawdown.org) mentions Silvopasture practices (closely related to Joel Salatin style farming). That said, reducing the amount of intensively-cultivated corn grown ultimately still means reducing the number of cattle (we're ~80-90% more than 100yrs ago) and seemingly less meat consumption per capita.
- ip26 7y ago
  The carbon they emit was already in the system- but it is also true that they have converted carbon dioxide to methane.
- milkey_mouse 7y ago
  From what I understand the main concern with cow farts is the methane produced in cows' (and other ruminants') digestive systems, not carbon dioxide. Methane is a 25x more potent greenhouse gas according to the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m...
- paulcole 7y ago
  I’m guessing you didn’t look at the links I included?
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Did you? The one is talking about water, which I don't care about since I'm not raising cattle in a desert. The other says that people are eating more meat, which seems more of an economic measure than anything else. Yet you've posted them on this thread about carbon emissions. I tried to interpret your links in a reasonable way, but if I missed the point you could explain further.