8 ms·
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. W
by war1025 6y ago
> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases.
Well that's a bit over the top...
Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.
- tomdell 6y agoThe truth is over the top?
- CuriouslyC 6y agoBecause no vegetable farm ever caused habitat destruction or environmental damage...
- emteycz 6y agoThat's obviously not true, and also obviously not the point being argued.
- typon 6y agoTerrible straw man argument
- renaicirc 6y agoIt's interesting how your response to the point that farming plants is far more efficient and sustainable than farming animals is "but some vegetable farms are bad for the environment, too!"
- CuriouslyC 6y agoMixed permaculture habitats that mimic nature and incorporate animals are sustainable. The vegatarian mafia would be happy with endless rows of unsustainable conventional monoculture agriculture, I know this because of the blank look so many vegans have give me when I start to talk about permaculture. You're a hypocrite.
- renaicirc 6y agoYou've accused me of hypocrisy based on your claimed experiences with other people. How charming. In any case, sure, sustainable animal farms exist. Could they meet the meat demands of the US? Popular consensus is no, and [0] lists many authorities who urge a reduction in meat consumption, but I'd be happy for you to convince me otherwise. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat...
- eigenket 6y agoI'll take "whataboutism" for $500 Alex...
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoIt implicitly distorts the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions relative to other sources. And it ignores the health effects of going meatless.
- tito 6y agoWhat most people miss is that methane (ie from cows) is more than an order of magnitude as impactful as carbon dioxide. This source says methane is 84x the impact of carbon dioxide: https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhou...
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoThat article you linked also says that the largest source of man-made methane is the oil and gas industry.
- kqr 6y agoIs it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
- xwdv 6y agoWhat unit of energy? Calories?
- henryaj 6y ago...why is the unit important?
- renaicirc 6y agoIt's a percentage, so why would the units matter?
- _Microft 6y agoThey are talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
- kebman 6y agoMy BS-O-metre just went off big time. First off, this is an extreme generalization that does not pick up local differences. Take the Northeren hemisphere for instance, where meat is in many instances the most effective way to utilize our growing conditions to produce edible food. [1] It's just not possible to efficibely use our climate to make sustainable production of vegetables, so meat is in fact a better way to make the most of our growing conditions. The alternative would be to let tons of cultured pastures go to waste, and instead develop extremely expensive and wasteful greenhouse altnernatives that would suck our energy reserves dry. That is why meat production is in fact preferrable in the North. It's just not feasible to produce enough food without spending a lot of resources on imports, due to growing conditions that favour greens that aren't edible for humans, so our best option is then meat for local and "short-travelled" sustenance. [2] Second, there's obviously a place for meat eaters in this biodiversity. Of course, we're "too many" humans (who are of course meat eaters), but on the other hand we're sustaining our current population nicely with progresses made within both environmentally friendly transportation and not to mention advances within industrialized and automated farming. [3] Add to this that the population growth is in fact slowing down. [4] Long story short, the world has a giant surplus of food. [5] The amount of food here isn't the problem. It's the adverse effects local politics, production and transportation that are the problems the grand level, and to that end you can't as a general rule suggest that veggies are the "best" option. Well, it clearly isn't in the northeren hemisphere. In the end the moral question is, should we really force people to eat this, that or the other? I mean, there's obviously no harm in making suggestions, but when those suggestions aren't met with enthusiasm, then change isn't liable to happen without the use of force. And I think can all agree that we are nowhere near a Soylent Green situation, so we still have the option to give people a choice. Personally, my bet are on those developing succulent and protein-rich meat alternatives. The second they can make a product that similar enough, but without the environmental overhead, then people will flock to it. [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf [2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dokumenter/Dokumenter%202019/Rapport%205%E2%80%932019%20Beitemarka%20-%20et%20ukjent%20karbonlager.pdf https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dok... [3]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter5.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#:~:text=In%202017%20the%20UN%20predicted,to%20%2B0.1%25%20in%202100.&text=Randers'%20%22most%20likely%20scenario%22,billion%20people%2C%20followed%20by%20decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow.... [5]: https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289 https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289
- Ma8ee 6y agoI don’t think it is controversial. I thought the huge environmental impact of meat eating was common knowledge.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoIsn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference? Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
- tito 6y agoWish there was a good tool to give you an answer on this, or a way to poke around and be curious. http://energyliteracy.com/ http://energyliteracy.com/ gets close but it's USA only. This article suggests livestock greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to the entire transportation sector. Basically because methane and carbon dioxide have different effects on warming: https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoI have absolutely no idea what anything means in that chart. If you have a good source I would be delighted to read it.
- cj 6y agoI found that infographic very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.
- Ma8ee 6y agoAgriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%
- cj 6y agoThe article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”. It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals: > Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.
- missedthecue 6y agoSomething I dont think very many people realize is that cattle are raised on land that is unsuitable for practically any other purpose. They aren't ranching in Manhatten. Leasing land for grazing brings in about $70 an acre while doing it for crops will bring in around $280 an acre. Development of course would bring in amounts that are several orders of magnitude higher. Where cattle are raised, raising cattle is the only purpose available. This is why ranches are out west in the US or in the outback in Australia. If the world stopped raising cattle, a lot of steppes around the world would go back to being completely useless. We wouldnt free up valuable land.
- eigenket 6y agoThats not hugely relevant though, quoting from the wiki article: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef" The overwhelming majority of cows live on maize, soy, barley etc. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing
- cj 6y agoI’d be interested to read more about this. Any sources you’d recommend?
- astura 6y agoWhich is entirely irrelevant because 90%+ of cattle produced for meat do not graze, they are fed industrial produced corn and soy in crowded feedlots. We don't have the physical space on earth for all the cattle we currently produce to graze naturally.
- loceng 6y ago> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health That meat is bad for our health is a myth perpetuated by the health industry, as well as by bad research that isn't accounting for processed meat vs. high quality unprocessed meat, nor do the studies account for confounding factors like other unhealthy food that many meat eaters eat. Dr. Georgia Ede is someone to look up on YouTube who's been spending her time debunking bad research on meat. > but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Monocultures are really terrible, and based on the latest thought leaders and their knowledge, the trend needs to move towards allowing animals to roam the land again - which helps aerate and maintain the quality of soil. My guess for future is free-roaming animals in their natural habitat, and vertical farming for vegetables, etc.
- dr_hooo 6y agoSwitching to "allowing animals to roam" doesn't seem remotely viable or likely path in the current state of the world. There just doesn't seem to be any incentive which can compete with the maximization of profit.