3 ms·

This might be true, but without quantifying everything you've said, nobody can make a value judgment. The essential point is that the livestock emissions are a

by krona 4y ago

This might be true, but without quantifying everything you've said, nobody can make a value judgment. The essential point is that the livestock emissions are already part of the carbon cycle, and don't 'contribute to emissions' in the way most people think, especially activists.

blueflow 4y ago
Cows feed on plants, plants got their carbon from the atmosphere. So all the carbon they emit, technically, got caught in previously. The implication is that cows themselves are carbon neutral, their damage comes from the extra greenhouse effect the carbon has while its methane.
delecti 4y ago
How about this [1], which shows that producing a calorie of beef produces about 7x as much CO2 as one of chicken (not even including methane), and 30x as much CO2 as one of rice. And this [2] which shows that methane emissions are roughly twice as high per calorie from beef vs soy. Also, saying "already part of the carbon cycle" about factory farmed cows is nonsense, because the sum totality of carbon in the atmosphere is the problem being discussed. It's part of the carbon cycle which is currently bad. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore the data looks fairly well sourced [2] https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa...
- paulmd 4y ago
  Rice is nutritiously void though. You can make healthy things with rice, but rice itself (especially polished rice - vs whole) is an extremely poor source of macronutrients. It's more or less straight carbs and starch. As such it's not really the most useful point of comparison to other nutrient-rich foods. A valuable filler/staple certainly, but you can't live on rice alone.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    Perhaps a better point of comparison would be soy as it's much more nutrient-rich. According to this[1], beef emits 31 times more CO2 per calorie of food than tofu does. [1]https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=twitter https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating...
  - delecti 4y ago
    Sure, but it's also the biggest single source of calories in the world (wikipedia says 1/5 of globally consumed calories, citing a book), making it a good point of comparison. And on top of that, if you look at the linked data, rice isn't even the most efficient (in terms of CO2/calorie) food source. I'm not suggesting everyone switch from beef to rice, I'm just saying that beef is egregiously inefficient. For comparison, even rice is 17 as bad as nuts, and beef is over 500x as bad as nuts. Also you basically can live on potatoes, and the chart shows root vegetables as basically on-par with rice for CO2/kcal. Beef is just so bad that any other diet looks fantastic in comparison.

by krona 4y ago

blueflow 4y ago

Cows feed on plants, plants got their carbon from the atmosphere. So all the carbon they emit, technically, got caught in previously. The implication is that cows themselves are carbon neutral, their damage comes from the extra greenhouse effect the carbon has while its methane.

delecti 4y ago

How about this [1], which shows that producing a calorie of beef produces about 7x as much CO2 as one of chicken (not even including methane), and 30x as much CO2 as one of rice. And this [2] which shows that methane emissions are roughly twice as high per calorie from beef vs soy. Also, saying "already part of the carbon cycle" about factory farmed cows is nonsense, because the sum totality of carbon in the atmosphere is the problem being discussed. It's part of the carbon cycle which is currently bad. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore the data looks fairly well sourced [2] https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa...

paulmd 4y ago
Rice is nutritiously void though. You can make healthy things with rice, but rice itself (especially polished rice - vs whole) is an extremely poor source of macronutrients. It's more or less straight carbs and starch. As such it's not really the most useful point of comparison to other nutrient-rich foods. A valuable filler/staple certainly, but you can't live on rice alone.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  Perhaps a better point of comparison would be soy as it's much more nutrient-rich. According to this[1], beef emits 31 times more CO2 per calorie of food than tofu does. [1]https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=twitter https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating...
- delecti 4y ago
  Sure, but it's also the biggest single source of calories in the world (wikipedia says 1/5 of globally consumed calories, citing a book), making it a good point of comparison. And on top of that, if you look at the linked data, rice isn't even the most efficient (in terms of CO2/calorie) food source. I'm not suggesting everyone switch from beef to rice, I'm just saying that beef is egregiously inefficient. For comparison, even rice is 17 as bad as nuts, and beef is over 500x as bad as nuts. Also you basically can live on potatoes, and the chart shows root vegetables as basically on-par with rice for CO2/kcal. Beef is just so bad that any other diet looks fantastic in comparison.