4 ms·

This weekend I read about how our food supply chain is responsible for a lot of greenhouse gases. As much as automobiles. That changing it could have a massive

by mfer 5y ago

This weekend I read about how our food supply chain is responsible for a lot of greenhouse gases. As much as automobiles. That changing it could have a massive impact. But, people don't like change that touches their food and leaders just won't even talk about it. How do we get people to be open to changes in stuff like this?

masturbayeser 5y ago
yes the government should tell people what they are and aren't allowed to eat i propose cockroaches and grasshoppers in lieu of chicken and beef. anyone else have suggestions?
- mfer 5y ago
  There's a difference between telling people what to eat and incentivizing things that give off a lot of greenhouse gases. With automobiles, the governments are trying to incentivize greener solutions. With food, things like subsidies incentivize processes that give off a lot of greenhouse gases. Should the government incentivize differently for food than for cars? By incentives I mean things like subsidies. Tax dollars. What makes cars different from the food supply chain when tax dollars are being spent on subsidies?
scythe 5y ago
>But, people don't like change that touches their food and leaders just won't even talk about it. How do we get people to be open to changes in stuff like this? You don't. I don't know where you get the idea that "leaders won't even talk about it", because I've been bombarded with articles about the GHG costs of agriculture for over a decade. It's everywhere. And frankly, a lot of it is borderline deliberately misleading. Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. You'll hear endlessly about how "potent" methane is, even though all climate models and serious scientific advocacy orgs have already taken this fully into account. It goes on. The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention. It's awfully convenient for the fossil fuel industry (responsible for three times as much GHG as everyone else combined) that climate change discussions are constantly diverted to the one topic which not only doesn't involve fossil fuels but also alienates practically everyone. I can think of no better way to sink Miami than to let the screeching vegans run the climate advocacy movement.
- mfer 5y ago
  You bring up some points worth talking about. For example... > Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. The reason this is discussed in percentages is that developed countries put out more GHG that developing countries. So, the percent from the food supply chain is a smaller percentage but still a large amount. There are also different GHGs. Those from our food supply chain, outside of CO2, last in the atmosphere less time and have a greater impact. This means that lowering them has a shorter time to seeing the impact. > The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention. If you follow the money you'll find that big AG is far more well funded than "plant-based". I recently learned that 60% of cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry alone. Big AG is massively funded. Digging into the details rather than the surface discussions is illuminating.
trustscientism 5y ago

by mfer 5y ago

masturbayeser 5y ago

yes the government should tell people what they are and aren't allowed to eat i propose cockroaches and grasshoppers in lieu of chicken and beef. anyone else have suggestions?

mfer 5y ago
There's a difference between telling people what to eat and incentivizing things that give off a lot of greenhouse gases. With automobiles, the governments are trying to incentivize greener solutions. With food, things like subsidies incentivize processes that give off a lot of greenhouse gases. Should the government incentivize differently for food than for cars? By incentives I mean things like subsidies. Tax dollars. What makes cars different from the food supply chain when tax dollars are being spent on subsidies?

scythe 5y ago

>But, people don't like change that touches their food and leaders just won't even talk about it. How do we get people to be open to changes in stuff like this? You don't. I don't know where you get the idea that "leaders won't even talk about it", because I've been bombarded with articles about the GHG costs of agriculture for over a decade. It's everywhere. And frankly, a lot of it is borderline deliberately misleading. Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. You'll hear endlessly about how "potent" methane is, even though all climate models and serious scientific advocacy orgs have already taken this fully into account. It goes on. The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention. It's awfully convenient for the fossil fuel industry (responsible for three times as much GHG as everyone else combined) that climate change discussions are constantly diverted to the one topic which not only doesn't involve fossil fuels but also alienates practically everyone. I can think of no better way to sink Miami than to let the screeching vegans run the climate advocacy movement.

mfer 5y ago
You bring up some points worth talking about. For example... > Articles will choose to highlight the fact that about a quarter of global emissions are due to agriculture — but if you stick to developed countries, it's a tenth. The reason this is discussed in percentages is that developed countries put out more GHG that developing countries. So, the percent from the food supply chain is a smaller percentage but still a large amount. There are also different GHGs. Those from our food supply chain, outside of CO2, last in the atmosphere less time and have a greater impact. This means that lowering them has a shorter time to seeing the impact. > The "plant-based" lobby is well-funded and manages to insert themselves all over the conversation while other industries like cement/steel/landfill/heating/shipping get little to no political or regulatory attention. If you follow the money you'll find that big AG is far more well funded than "plant-based". I recently learned that 60% of cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry alone. Big AG is massively funded. Digging into the details rather than the surface discussions is illuminating.

trustscientism 5y ago