4 ms·

That is patently false. It is burning fossil fuels that is destroying the planet by contributing almost 75% of the global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: https://our

That is patently false. It is burning fossil fuels that is destroying the planet by contributing almost 75% of the global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#sector-by-sector-where-do-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#sector-by-sec... Please don't spread dangerous lies! By saying that meat is destroying the planet you're distracting from the true source of climate change: oil.

throwanapple 4y ago
Biodiversity loss also counts as destroying the planet. Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. There's this concept called planetary boundaries.
- cheese_goddess 4y ago
  > Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. Not a good wording. Climate change is a major driver of biodiversity loss. In general, there isn't any problem we're facing right now that's worse than climate change any way you look at it.
  - throwanapple 4y ago
    Not saying climate change isn't important, just that these systemic issues are interlinked and should be addressed together. We won't last long without healthy ecosystems.
    - cheese_goddess 4y ago
      No objection there from me. I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, one important reason why climate change is bad is that it directly affects ecosystems. That we also destroy ecosystems directly must also be stressed as you say. And the two are indeed interlinked, for example habitat destruction causes both biodiversity loss and decreased ability to bind carbon. This "land use change" is a major source of emissions from agriculture and industrial farming is the main reason for it, for example rainforests razed to make space to grow soya to feed to cows. So yeah. I think we agree more than we disagree on that.
      - throwanapple 4y ago
        Indeed. Thanks for clarifying.
uwagar 4y ago
what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy? in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous.
- cheese_goddess 4y ago
  > what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy? I haven't watched it but from what I've read about it, it seems like ideologically driven propaganda rather than a documentary. > in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous. Why? The title of the article is misleading. If you look at the second graph, it's obvious that the amount of grain that is eaten directly by humans (1337 tonnes) is greater than the amount that goes to any another single use (the next highest is animal feed at 987). In fact if you sum all the other uses up from that graph they come to 1570 tonnes, where 245 of that is "processing & losses", and another 73 is "seeds". Those are categories that overlap with grains used to feed humans directly (and other uses also) so it's not clear they should be counted separately . In short, only 1252 tonnes are definitely used to do other things than to directly feed us (namely, they become feed and fuel). So despite what the article says, most of the grain we produce seems to go to feed humans directly. And as the article points out, it's not "grain" in general that's not fed to humans, but corn ("maize"). Most wheat and rice does go to feed humans directly and only a tiny amount of wheat or rice goes to other uses. So, misleading title.

throwanapple 4y ago

Biodiversity loss also counts as destroying the planet. Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. There's this concept called planetary boundaries.

cheese_goddess 4y ago
> Don't let climate change distract you from other sources of planet destruction. Not a good wording. Climate change is a major driver of biodiversity loss. In general, there isn't any problem we're facing right now that's worse than climate change any way you look at it.
- throwanapple 4y ago
  Not saying climate change isn't important, just that these systemic issues are interlinked and should be addressed together. We won't last long without healthy ecosystems.
  - cheese_goddess 4y ago
    No objection there from me. I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, one important reason why climate change is bad is that it directly affects ecosystems. That we also destroy ecosystems directly must also be stressed as you say. And the two are indeed interlinked, for example habitat destruction causes both biodiversity loss and decreased ability to bind carbon. This "land use change" is a major source of emissions from agriculture and industrial farming is the main reason for it, for example rainforests razed to make space to grow soya to feed to cows. So yeah. I think we agree more than we disagree on that.
    - throwanapple 4y ago
      Indeed. Thanks for clarifying.

uwagar 4y ago

what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy? in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous.

cheese_goddess 4y ago
> what do you think of the documentary cowspiracy? I haven't watched it but from what I've read about it, it seems like ideologically driven propaganda rather than a documentary. > in any case if most of the grain production isnt going for feeding humans, it is quite ridiculous. Why? The title of the article is misleading. If you look at the second graph, it's obvious that the amount of grain that is eaten directly by humans (1337 tonnes) is greater than the amount that goes to any another single use (the next highest is animal feed at 987). In fact if you sum all the other uses up from that graph they come to 1570 tonnes, where 245 of that is "processing & losses", and another 73 is "seeds". Those are categories that overlap with grains used to feed humans directly (and other uses also) so it's not clear they should be counted separately . In short, only 1252 tonnes are definitely used to do other things than to directly feed us (namely, they become feed and fuel). So despite what the article says, most of the grain we produce seems to go to feed humans directly. And as the article points out, it's not "grain" in general that's not fed to humans, but corn ("maize"). Most wheat and rice does go to feed humans directly and only a tiny amount of wheat or rice goes to other uses. So, misleading title.