3 ms·

Of course a vegan activist group is going to attempt to convince us all that it’s animal husbandry that’s destroying the atmosphere. I’m sure the fossil fuel co

Of course a vegan activist group is going to attempt to convince us all that it’s animal husbandry that’s destroying the atmosphere. I’m sure the fossil fuel companies want us to believe that, too. Coal and petroleum emit some 37 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... Methane emissions from fossil fuels have been underestimated to a very great degree; they are actually up to 110% higher than previously reported. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19797/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19797/ The problem of animal husbandry causing methane emissions is going to be self-solving in any case: between desertification of ranchlands and the waves upon waves upon waves of virulent disease blasting through high-density animal warehouses, there is not going to be anywhere near as much meat being raised. And in any case, methane emissions from melting permafrost are going to be orders of magnitude higher than anything humans have accomplished in our mission of self-destruction.

myshpa 4y ago
The linked page does not ignore fossil fuels, but shows, that the impact of the animal agriculture is under-estimated. If cannot focus only on fossil fuels and ignore meat production, if we want to reverse the current trend in a reasonable timeframe. "The burning of fossil fuels is currently the leading source of human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, climate change is caused by cumulative human-made greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and not just current CO2 emissions alone. While humans have been burning fossil fuels for a little over 200 years, we have been burning down forests for animal agriculture for well over 8,000 years." "We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first and that blindly eliminating fossil fuel usage first will accelerate the warming of the planet."
- moistly 4y ago
  Burning down forests counts for sweet fuck-all because forest fires aren’t emitting millennia-old sequestered carbon. The only important impact on global warming from animal husbandry is methane emission, and while agricultural emissions may have been underestimated, so have resource extraction emissions. Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” is ab-so-lute bullshit undoubtedly funded by the fucking fossil fuel propagandists.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    I understand your argument. Thank you. > Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” i But nobody's talking about going vegan first. Not me, not the referenced article. The point is we need to do not one, not two, but many things to reverse the trend. Solving fossil fuels alone is not enough, going vegan alone (first) is not enough ... the system needs many adjustements to achieve the balance [0]. The animal agriculture problem is on the table and because of it's scale it's something that should not be ignored. The current (political) trend is to talk about the fossil fuels and only fossil fuels. Changing our (western) diets can be uncomfortable, maybe scary, but something that should be done (please read the climatehealer's paper). [0] https://drawdown.org/solutions https://drawdown.org/solutions - although drawdown project underestimates animal agriculture's impact, it has some good ideas how many things need to change to move forward and shows the scale of the problem
    - moistly 4y ago
      The article says, and you quoted it, “We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy *first*”. The article is daft propaganda. Yes, we need to eat a mainly vegetable diet, no animal husbandry is not the supermajority driver of climate change.

myshpa 4y ago

The linked page does not ignore fossil fuels, but shows, that the impact of the animal agriculture is under-estimated. If cannot focus only on fossil fuels and ignore meat production, if we want to reverse the current trend in a reasonable timeframe. "The burning of fossil fuels is currently the leading source of human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, climate change is caused by cumulative human-made greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and not just current CO2 emissions alone. While humans have been burning fossil fuels for a little over 200 years, we have been burning down forests for animal agriculture for well over 8,000 years." "We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first and that blindly eliminating fossil fuel usage first will accelerate the warming of the planet."

moistly 4y ago
Burning down forests counts for sweet fuck-all because forest fires aren’t emitting millennia-old sequestered carbon. The only important impact on global warming from animal husbandry is methane emission, and while agricultural emissions may have been underestimated, so have resource extraction emissions. Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” is ab-so-lute bullshit undoubtedly funded by the fucking fossil fuel propagandists.
- myshpa 4y ago
  I understand your argument. Thank you. > Going vegan is not going to save us, and thinking that “we need to transition to a global plant-based economy first” i But nobody's talking about going vegan first. Not me, not the referenced article. The point is we need to do not one, not two, but many things to reverse the trend. Solving fossil fuels alone is not enough, going vegan alone (first) is not enough ... the system needs many adjustements to achieve the balance [0]. The animal agriculture problem is on the table and because of it's scale it's something that should not be ignored. The current (political) trend is to talk about the fossil fuels and only fossil fuels. Changing our (western) diets can be uncomfortable, maybe scary, but something that should be done (please read the climatehealer's paper). [0] https://drawdown.org/solutions https://drawdown.org/solutions - although drawdown project underestimates animal agriculture's impact, it has some good ideas how many things need to change to move forward and shows the scale of the problem
  - moistly 4y ago
    The article says, and you quoted it, “We show that we need to transition to a global plant-based economy *first*”. The article is daft propaganda. Yes, we need to eat a mainly vegetable diet, no animal husbandry is not the supermajority driver of climate change.