4 ms·

Maybe check out https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

by c0l0 4y ago

loceng 4y ago
Thanks! After scrolling a bit it shows that "Energy" accounts for 73%+ of greenhouse gas emissions. Seems like 100% of effort should be going to energy production for the highest yield, most efficient outcome - and while not increasing the cost of food for everyone which disproportionately causes suffering for the poor; increasing energy cost does the same of course, so it has to be done carefully.
- c0l0 4y ago
  I disagree. All of our effort should go towards all (relatively) easily attainable reductions of emissions in parallel. Substituting consuming meat with consuming plants is such a thing for me, so I readily do it.
  - loceng 4y ago
    So you're 100% for adding 3% of seaweed to cow's diets for an 80%+ reduction, or assuming that ~5% of reductions from livestock (from the chart on the URL you shared) are mostly from cows, bringing that 5% of total global emissions from cows down to just 1%? And then buying meat, from producers who use seaweed in their diets, will accelerate the adoption of that practice as the benefits economies of scale occur - bringing down the price of quality and very low emissions beef; and more money available for other goods or to invest in green energy, as plant-based are more expensive overall. That's a win-win-win scenario/strategy, no?
    - hedora 4y ago
      This NYT reprint points out Beyond Meat and Impossible neither track nor disclose their carbon emissions nor land footprint: https://bdnews24.com/environment/plant-based-food-companies-face-critics-environmental-advocates https://bdnews24.com/environment/plant-based-food-companies-... They're probably not providing more than a 90% reduction in emissions vs beef.
    - tomweingarten 4y ago
      The seaweed diet is just the result from a single study that has yet to be widely replicated. I'd caution against putting the fate of the planet into the hands of miracle cures until the scientific process can do its thing. Even if the seaweed diet does help, the fundamentals of thermodynamics dictate that eating animals will never come close to the efficiency of eating plants, fungi, and microorganisms. Cows, chicken, and fish spend most of their energy living (to whatever extent spending every hour of your day in a windowless cage can be called living).
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Efficiency of turning sunlight into calories? Absolutely agree. But that’s not the same as greenhouse gas emissions.
      - loceng 4y ago
        You do understand that's because it's not meant to - and it's not actually a valid comparison? That's the point: the animals do the work of the processing and concentrating protein, fat, and nutrients/amino acids into a source that is arguably a perfect single food source for human consumption (high fat red meat, in this case); yes, your gut biome has to adapt for it, and yes, some lineages of humans will not have evolved with access to meat or benefit the same from having some or mostly meat in their diet like some other lineages of evolution. It'd be more efficient to just consume sunlight, if possible, rather than waste it to the plants too - if maximizing for pure efficiency is the answer. And let's also not be blindly virtuous about plants when looking at the primary and harmful method of agriculture also of monocultures. The Sacred Cow documentary also presents a good case for the benefit and need of cows, not in factory farms, for being a necessary part of the ecosystem/life cycle for soil health - healthy soil that is needed for plants; or do we ignore some facts and wait 50-200 years to see what disastrous problems we encounter because we don't include all arguments, perspectives, to manage from an all encompassing holistic view point?

Maybe check out https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

by c0l0 4y ago

Maybe check out https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Thanks! After scrolling a bit it shows that "Energy" accounts for 73%+ of greenhouse gas emissions. Seems like 100% of effort should be going to energy production for the highest yield, most efficient outcome - and while not increasing the cost of food for everyone which disproportionately causes suffering for the poor; increasing energy cost does the same of course, so it has to be done carefully.

c0l0 4y ago
I disagree. All of our effort should go towards all (relatively) easily attainable reductions of emissions in parallel. Substituting consuming meat with consuming plants is such a thing for me, so I readily do it.
- loceng 4y ago
  So you're 100% for adding 3% of seaweed to cow's diets for an 80%+ reduction, or assuming that ~5% of reductions from livestock (from the chart on the URL you shared) are mostly from cows, bringing that 5% of total global emissions from cows down to just 1%? And then buying meat, from producers who use seaweed in their diets, will accelerate the adoption of that practice as the benefits economies of scale occur - bringing down the price of quality and very low emissions beef; and more money available for other goods or to invest in green energy, as plant-based are more expensive overall. That's a win-win-win scenario/strategy, no?
  - hedora 4y ago
    This NYT reprint points out Beyond Meat and Impossible neither track nor disclose their carbon emissions nor land footprint: https://bdnews24.com/environment/plant-based-food-companies-face-critics-environmental-advocates https://bdnews24.com/environment/plant-based-food-companies-... They're probably not providing more than a 90% reduction in emissions vs beef.
  - tomweingarten 4y ago
    The seaweed diet is just the result from a single study that has yet to be widely replicated. I'd caution against putting the fate of the planet into the hands of miracle cures until the scientific process can do its thing. Even if the seaweed diet does help, the fundamentals of thermodynamics dictate that eating animals will never come close to the efficiency of eating plants, fungi, and microorganisms. Cows, chicken, and fish spend most of their energy living (to whatever extent spending every hour of your day in a windowless cage can be called living).
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Efficiency of turning sunlight into calories? Absolutely agree. But that’s not the same as greenhouse gas emissions.
    - loceng 4y ago
      You do understand that's because it's not meant to - and it's not actually a valid comparison? That's the point: the animals do the work of the processing and concentrating protein, fat, and nutrients/amino acids into a source that is arguably a perfect single food source for human consumption (high fat red meat, in this case); yes, your gut biome has to adapt for it, and yes, some lineages of humans will not have evolved with access to meat or benefit the same from having some or mostly meat in their diet like some other lineages of evolution. It'd be more efficient to just consume sunlight, if possible, rather than waste it to the plants too - if maximizing for pure efficiency is the answer. And let's also not be blindly virtuous about plants when looking at the primary and harmful method of agriculture also of monocultures. The Sacred Cow documentary also presents a good case for the benefit and need of cows, not in factory farms, for being a necessary part of the ecosystem/life cycle for soil health - healthy soil that is needed for plants; or do we ignore some facts and wait 50-200 years to see what disastrous problems we encounter because we don't include all arguments, perspectives, to manage from an all encompassing holistic view point?