3 ms·

> The biggest dairy companies in the world have the same combined greenhouse gas emissions as the UK, the sixth biggest economy in the world The biggest dairy

> The biggest dairy companies in the world have the same combined greenhouse gas emissions as the UK, the sixth biggest economy in the world The biggest dairy companies in the world presumably feed a lot of people. The UK is less than 1% of the world's population. Economy rank doesn't matter on its own. This is an obviously disingenuous comparison. > More than 90% of the corporate dairy industries’ emissions are produced by the cows themselves, mostly in the form of methane. So we're worried that too many cows are breathing? > Research shows all plant-based milks, such as soya and oat, result in far fewer emissions than dairy milk. And there it is. It's a hit piece. Most dairy isn't consumed as milk. You can't make cheese or cream from a plant. Dairy is a big part of my diet, and I'm not replacing it with something that isn't even nutritionally equivalent.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
> So we're worried that too many cows are breathing? No, farting. > And there it is. It's a hit piece. You’re not objecting to any of the facts of the article. Nor, presumably, to the general idea of climate change. So I’m having trouble seeing your viscous reaction to the article as anything but anger at being shown facts that paint your lifestyle in a bad light. FWIW I also consume dairy and meat, and don’t plan on stopping, either. And yet I can’t fathom the anger this seems to invoke in you. Pointing out the relative costs to society of certain activities isn’t necessarily intended to get people to stop doing them. Here, for example, I believe putting pressure on the industry to mitigate that pesky methane problem is the far more promising route.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  So you appreciate the cost of your diet to the environment and yet you delegate the responsibility to somebody else (the industry). I am not sure which attitude is worse.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
  The methane comes mostly from burping. [1] I objected to how the article draws misleading comparisons amd I gave two examples - how the scale of emissions is distorted, and how offering up milk substitutes as an alternative ignores how most dairy is actually used. I think that's enough to convey my point without a line-by-line breakdown of the entire article. I do like that they pointed out that consolidation has driven up demand, and at the cost of rural businesses and communities. But it's overshadowed by the rest of the article. For example, the grain alternative would just make consolidation worse. This isn't about me wanting to drink milk, eat meat, and ignore climate change. It's about how we're replacing our traditional distributed and varied food supply with corporate monoculture. The article is written with such a heavy bias (intentional or not) that it seems more like an opinion piece. I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed in the journalism. [1] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734 http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

> So we're worried that too many cows are breathing? No, farting. > And there it is. It's a hit piece. You’re not objecting to any of the facts of the article. Nor, presumably, to the general idea of climate change. So I’m having trouble seeing your viscous reaction to the article as anything but anger at being shown facts that paint your lifestyle in a bad light. FWIW I also consume dairy and meat, and don’t plan on stopping, either. And yet I can’t fathom the anger this seems to invoke in you. Pointing out the relative costs to society of certain activities isn’t necessarily intended to get people to stop doing them. Here, for example, I believe putting pressure on the industry to mitigate that pesky methane problem is the far more promising route.

perfunctory 6y ago
So you appreciate the cost of your diet to the environment and yet you delegate the responsibility to somebody else (the industry). I am not sure which attitude is worse.
OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
The methane comes mostly from burping. [1] I objected to how the article draws misleading comparisons amd I gave two examples - how the scale of emissions is distorted, and how offering up milk substitutes as an alternative ignores how most dairy is actually used. I think that's enough to convey my point without a line-by-line breakdown of the entire article. I do like that they pointed out that consolidation has driven up demand, and at the cost of rural businesses and communities. But it's overshadowed by the rest of the article. For example, the grain alternative would just make consolidation worse. This isn't about me wanting to drink milk, eat meat, and ignore climate change. It's about how we're replacing our traditional distributed and varied food supply with corporate monoculture. The article is written with such a heavy bias (intentional or not) that it seems more like an opinion piece. I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed in the journalism. [1] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734 http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1734