3 ms·

Meat production is using some parts of this energy (e.g. transportation of feedstock + food). You either want to look at how the energy is produced or how it is

by pl-94 5y ago

Meat production is using some parts of this energy (e.g. transportation of feedstock + food). You either want to look at how the energy is produced or how it is consumed. Moreover, we aim at reaching net carbon by 2050. This means that we need to cut on everything. So the question is about how easy it is to reduce such budget and how efficient this cut provides. In this perspective, zero waste is a bad trade off for climate change (a lot of efforts and only a 100 kg saved per year). Vegetarianism (or better veganism) sounds like the best thing to start with.

pier25 5y ago
> Meat production is using some parts of this energy (e.g. transportation of feedstock + food). Everything is using energy. Transportation is not included in the 45% (check the link in my previous comment). And AFAIK we also need to transport vegetables, using machines for agriculture, etc. > Vegetarianism (or better veganism) sounds like the best thing to start with. Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic.
- pl-94 5y ago
  > Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic. Well, since you have a factor between 10x (cereals) and 100x (legumes) in the CO2 emissions between beef and vegetables, yeah it does drastically decrease emissions. > Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Right. However, pork is mostly fed with cereals, inducing a high level of CO2eq/kg + land use + loss of diversity.
  - kinjba11 5y ago
    It is easy for statistics to ignore the big picture, ignoring important details and caveats. There is no single number for CO2 emissions for beef and different crops. If beef is 10x more nutritious than cereals, does that change the equation? If cows are raised on grassland unsuitable for crops, does that change the equation? Would the demand for non-edible products produced by cows be satisfied with more CO2 intensive solutions? Highly efficient, mature and industrialized agriculture in the US is very different from burning down forests to raise cattle or make room for poorly raised crops as happens in some countries - does that change the equation? I highly recommend watching for more details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo

by pl-94 5y ago

pier25 5y ago

> Meat production is using some parts of this energy (e.g. transportation of feedstock + food). Everything is using energy. Transportation is not included in the 45% (check the link in my previous comment). And AFAIK we also need to transport vegetables, using machines for agriculture, etc. > Vegetarianism (or better veganism) sounds like the best thing to start with. Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic.

pl-94 5y ago
> Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic. Well, since you have a factor between 10x (cereals) and 100x (legumes) in the CO2 emissions between beef and vegetables, yeah it does drastically decrease emissions. > Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Right. However, pork is mostly fed with cereals, inducing a high level of CO2eq/kg + land use + loss of diversity.
- kinjba11 5y ago
  It is easy for statistics to ignore the big picture, ignoring important details and caveats. There is no single number for CO2 emissions for beef and different crops. If beef is 10x more nutritious than cereals, does that change the equation? If cows are raised on grassland unsuitable for crops, does that change the equation? Would the demand for non-edible products produced by cows be satisfied with more CO2 intensive solutions? Highly efficient, mature and industrialized agriculture in the US is very different from burning down forests to raise cattle or make room for poorly raised crops as happens in some countries - does that change the equation? I highly recommend watching for more details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrhpThqlCo