17 ms·

Would you care to source that claim? All of the research I've encountered suggests agriculture in toto contributes around 8% of total GHG emissions, with meat p

Would you care to source that claim? All of the research I've encountered suggests agriculture in toto contributes around 8% of total GHG emissions, with meat production responsible for at most 60% of that number. Even if meat production was eliminated that would not in yield a 5% reduction in GHG as additional plant-based food production would be required to pick up this slack. Given the current state of play of arable land globally (near maximum utilization, available land shrinking rapidly, unrecoverable topsoil depletion rampant globally) one wonders where proponents of this idea think all of this extra agricultural output is supposed to come from.

Bakary 4y ago
Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. See the source for a list of nations with globally unsustainable diets in terms of land. https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets 36% of crops globally are used for animal feed. This climbs to 67% in the USA. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
- maximus-decimus 4y ago
  Measuring food production by calories feels like measuring programmer productivity by lines of code. How does it compare to other sources of proteins with full amino acid profiles?
  - pittmajp 4y ago
    Irrelevant. You can get a full amino acid profile by combining plant based sources. It is basic high school biology that there’s less energy available the higher up on the food pyramid you go. Farming Lions for meat would be less economical than farming cows. Farming cows is less economical than farming wheat.
    - maximus-decimus 4y ago
      > You can get a full amino acid profile by combining plant based sources. Well, yeah, that's why I'm asking how meat compares to those rather than pure calories sources like corn or sugar cane.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  These numbers don't really translate to meaningful information. Livestock eats bulk commodities like corn and grain, which modern mechanized farming has made incredibly efficient. Those staples are grown in regions that don't require irrigation (iowa, kansas, etc). Wheat and corn are already so cheap that they're almost free in the US. Humans get their fill. It's not like little Johnny can't have broccoli this week because the fat cats are eating burgers. Look at it from this perspective: Shipping corn and wheat is a relatively efficient way of moving "water" from places that rain a lot to places where it doesn't.
  - mauflows 4y ago
    This doesn't account for the carbon cost of fixing nitrogen for fertilizer to grow corn in monocultures Or the unused manure, nitrogen runoff, methane from cows
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Livestock also produce organic fertilizer though.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Given the frequency with which livestock is grazed on land that is utterly unsuitable for any other agricultural purpose that 80% is substantially less meaningful than it may appear at first glance.

Bakary 4y ago

Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. See the source for a list of nations with globally unsustainable diets in terms of land. https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets 36% of crops globally are used for animal feed. This climbs to 67% in the USA. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...

maximus-decimus 4y ago
Measuring food production by calories feels like measuring programmer productivity by lines of code. How does it compare to other sources of proteins with full amino acid profiles?
- pittmajp 4y ago
  Irrelevant. You can get a full amino acid profile by combining plant based sources. It is basic high school biology that there’s less energy available the higher up on the food pyramid you go. Farming Lions for meat would be less economical than farming cows. Farming cows is less economical than farming wheat.
  - maximus-decimus 4y ago
    > You can get a full amino acid profile by combining plant based sources. Well, yeah, that's why I'm asking how meat compares to those rather than pure calories sources like corn or sugar cane.
stickfigure 4y ago
These numbers don't really translate to meaningful information. Livestock eats bulk commodities like corn and grain, which modern mechanized farming has made incredibly efficient. Those staples are grown in regions that don't require irrigation (iowa, kansas, etc). Wheat and corn are already so cheap that they're almost free in the US. Humans get their fill. It's not like little Johnny can't have broccoli this week because the fat cats are eating burgers. Look at it from this perspective: Shipping corn and wheat is a relatively efficient way of moving "water" from places that rain a lot to places where it doesn't.
- mauflows 4y ago
  This doesn't account for the carbon cost of fixing nitrogen for fertilizer to grow corn in monocultures Or the unused manure, nitrogen runoff, methane from cows
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Livestock also produce organic fertilizer though.
forgetfreeman 4y ago
Given the frequency with which livestock is grazed on land that is utterly unsuitable for any other agricultural purpose that 80% is substantially less meaningful than it may appear at first glance.