3 ms·

> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are

by MiroF 6y ago

> they've been deforested because people are starving, and they need to put food on the table, and be lifted out of poverty. And countries, such as Brazil, are only now doing what the western countries have been doing all throughout the 19th and the 20th century. I know this sounds terrible, but you have no right to demand that Brazil stops the deforestation, and in fact you have no sway either, because you are not buying the result of their agriculture anyway. Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative. I am certain there are people starving in Brazil, but this is much more of a distribution problem than a "didn't cut down enough trees in the Amazon" problem. > solar panels are super inefficient No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive and nuclear is looking less and less good by comparison every day. I say that as a big believer in nuclear power.

bad_user 6y ago
> Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. In the US for example, less than 10% of beef is imported, and most of that is from Mexico and Canada. Believe it or not, western countries grow their own meat, and in the west the CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. > No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. I don't understand why that matters? Brazil doesn't export to the US because of its FMD problem among its cattle. > CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. Beef production accounts for 1/3 of all agricultural emissions in the US. Obviously it's not the primary or even a huge share of overall emissions, because there are so many other human activities like driving and using electricity that we are doing all the time. > Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO. Yeah, it is ridiculous that we subsidize industries to such an extent! Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all...
  - bad_user 6y ago
    > "I don't understand why that matters?" It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. It's also untrue that the Amazon forest is deforested because of meat production, and that stopping meat production will prevent deforestation, but that's an argument for another day. > "Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all... " Sure, stop subsidizing it. I'm all for it ;-) That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table. And I'm as anti-subsidies as it gets, because it prevents free market competition, with subsidies becoming yet another privilege for the incumbents and the rich. So yeah, let's get rid of that shit.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      > It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. First, I think the reason to stop eating as much beef is because of the GHG impact of doing so. That occurs regardless of whether the beef is raised in Brazil or otherwise. There is a global meat market, so convincing people in the Western world shifts the demand. > That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table. Are you kidding? Removing the subsidies would have an absolutely massive impact on the affordability of meat and dairy, at least in the US. For every 30 cents of milk sold, the US govt pays dairy farmer the equivalent of 70 cents - ie. 70% of the earnings dairy farmers make are from subsidy. If animal feed were not subsidized to the extent it was, meat would be significantly more expensive. I strongly favor removing agricultural subsidies. Renewables are actually competitive enough now that they cost essentially the same, the problem is the switching cost requires up front capital.

by MiroF 6y ago

bad_user 6y ago

> Brazil is a net exporter of food, so there goes that narrative Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. In the US for example, less than 10% of beef is imported, and most of that is from Mexico and Canada. Believe it or not, western countries grow their own meat, and in the west the CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. > No longer true, renewables are pretty cost competitive Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO.

MiroF 6y ago
> Yes, but it doesn't export that food to western countries. I don't understand why that matters? Brazil doesn't export to the US because of its FMD problem among its cattle. > CO2 and methane emissions for growing meat has been pretty steady, and is a moderate slice of the carbon emissions' pie. Beef production accounts for 1/3 of all agricultural emissions in the US. Obviously it's not the primary or even a huge share of overall emissions, because there are so many other human activities like driving and using electricity that we are doing all the time. > Renewables are only cost effective because that cost is subsidized. It's a sham IMO. Yeah, it is ridiculous that we subsidize industries to such an extent! Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all...
- bad_user 6y ago
  > "I don't understand why that matters?" It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. It's also untrue that the Amazon forest is deforested because of meat production, and that stopping meat production will prevent deforestation, but that's an argument for another day. > "Good thing beef and milk production are not subsidized at all... " Sure, stop subsidizing it. I'm all for it ;-) That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table. And I'm as anti-subsidies as it gets, because it prevents free market competition, with subsidies becoming yet another privilege for the incumbents and the rich. So yeah, let's get rid of that shit.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative. First, I think the reason to stop eating as much beef is because of the GHG impact of doing so. That occurs regardless of whether the beef is raised in Brazil or otherwise. There is a global meat market, so convincing people in the Western world shifts the demand. > That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table. Are you kidding? Removing the subsidies would have an absolutely massive impact on the affordability of meat and dairy, at least in the US. For every 30 cents of milk sold, the US govt pays dairy farmer the equivalent of 70 cents - ie. 70% of the earnings dairy farmers make are from subsidy. If animal feed were not subsidized to the extent it was, meat would be significantly more expensive. I strongly favor removing agricultural subsidies. Renewables are actually competitive enough now that they cost essentially the same, the problem is the switching cost requires up front capital.