3 ms·

> we would reach a new, lower steady state That's right but your claim that this > would buy some more time completely ignores my (admittedly back-of-the-env

> we would reach a new, lower steady state That's right but your claim that this > would buy some more time completely ignores my (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) calculation. Please do point out if there's an error somewhere but until then I will stand by my point: Emissions from meat production – even with meat consumption as high as it is these days – are negligible in the grand scheme of things. We better focus our efforts elsewhere. Besides, what kind of food would we replace the meat with? That food would also need to be grown, harvested, transported, and so on. In the end, we might not gain much in terms of greenhouse gases.

timeon 4y ago
> That food would also need to be grown Animals for meet are killed before reaching adult age but it still takes longer time then one season of plant growth. They need to eat those in meantime.
wizofaus 4y ago
With the exception of agriculturally marginal land, using land to produce food by way of animals is typically vastly more wasteful than using it to produce human-edible food directly, certainly on a per-calorie basis. There's no shortage of studies demonstrating the potential for genuine reductions in emissions (both CO2 and CH4), and reductions in the need for land-clearing, indeed freeing up land that can reforested etc. if we didn't insist on such (land-) inefficient methods of food production. Even if the emissions-savings benefits were negligible, it's hard to thing of too other many lifestyle changes we could make that have such potential ecological benefits than moderating meat consumption. If done sensibly and thoughtfully it's almost certainly going to benefit your personal health too (and, I'd argue, your tastebuds!). But obviously there's a cultural shift involved that won't happen overnight - restaurants/food retailers in particular often seem afraid to offer any more than one or two token meat-free dishes, despite the fact that if I were to list the 10 most amazing meals I've had in recent years, maybe 1 (2 at most) would contain any meat.

timeon 4y ago

> That food would also need to be grown Animals for meet are killed before reaching adult age but it still takes longer time then one season of plant growth. They need to eat those in meantime.

wizofaus 4y ago

With the exception of agriculturally marginal land, using land to produce food by way of animals is typically vastly more wasteful than using it to produce human-edible food directly, certainly on a per-calorie basis. There's no shortage of studies demonstrating the potential for genuine reductions in emissions (both CO2 and CH4), and reductions in the need for land-clearing, indeed freeing up land that can reforested etc. if we didn't insist on such (land-) inefficient methods of food production. Even if the emissions-savings benefits were negligible, it's hard to thing of too other many lifestyle changes we could make that have such potential ecological benefits than moderating meat consumption. If done sensibly and thoughtfully it's almost certainly going to benefit your personal health too (and, I'd argue, your tastebuds!). But obviously there's a cultural shift involved that won't happen overnight - restaurants/food retailers in particular often seem afraid to offer any more than one or two token meat-free dishes, despite the fact that if I were to list the 10 most amazing meals I've had in recent years, maybe 1 (2 at most) would contain any meat.