5 ms·
Veganism is not the same as low emission. There are plenty of vegan food that has unsustainable levels of emissions if all of earth was to eat it. The top thin
by belorn 3y ago
Veganism is not the same as low emission. There are plenty of vegan food that has unsustainable levels of emissions if all of earth was to eat it.
The top thing is for people to consider emissions and allow emissions to become part of the decision process. In terms of diet that could be to introduce and consider food outside of the cultural limits, like shell fish and sea weed. A related issue are that a large number (majority?) of Europe and northern American lakes has major issues with eutrophication with mostly fish that people refuse to eat because of culture. Eating those kind of fish would solve two problems at the same time, feeding people and removing uncontrolled overgrowth caused by artificial fertilizers.
Right now it is also cheaper to operate heavy machinery that run on fossil fuels to control plant growth in nature reservation and around power lines, rather than raising animals that would do the same job and create food. Same thing with Lawn mowers. One of the most ecological method to keep grass cut is (real) free range hobby scale chickens. Produce food, cuts grass and keeps pests away.
As with everything else, everything change if people allow emissions to be part of the decision process.
- ReactiveJelly 3y ago> allow emissions to become part of the decision process. A carbon tax would do so. Unfortunately it's hard to get anything done nationally, much less globally
- colordrops 3y agoI tend to agree, in that it would be wonderful if, say, food packaging had resource usage and emissions printed on the label. In lieu of that, despite variance in environmental impact across foods, on the whole, the average vegan diet is almost certainly going to be far better for the environment than a non-vegan diet. And this is not even getting into other positive elements such as health and animal welfare, but those are unrelated topics likely to spark additional argument, so I won't go further.
- belorn 3y agoThe average right now is terrible for pretty much everything in the world. Fishermen in Greenland can send their fish to china to have it gutted, then sent to Norway to have it packaged, and then sent to USA to be sold. An avocado can have a piece of rain forest burned up, grown using fertilizers produced in Germany, which in turn is using natural gas mined in Russia. The avocado then get shipped to be packaged in the Netherlands, and then shipped again to be consumed in Norway. Emissions are not a significant consideration in this global economy. The key factor that everyone cares about is cost.
- colordrops 3y agoI understand your point, but animal agriculture alone accounts for more emissions than all transport combined. https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-waste https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf...
- belorn 3y agoDifferent time scale, and different form of emissions. Most of animal agriculture consider methane that are produced by cows eating grass that has grown by taking out co2 from the air. They are just as green as biofuel is green. Climate change is primary caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and humans extracting fossil fuels to be used in chemical processes like artificial fertilizers. In the short term it might be beneficial to reduce the number of animals that eat plants that has sequestrate carbon from the air, but in every case it would be worse if we humans use fossil fuel to burn the same plants. Some people has argued that in the very short term, reducing methane while increasing emissions of fossil fuel emissions could beneficial be a better strategy if we can know for sure that carbon capture will save us in the future. I am doubtful to that strategy. It should be noted that methane leaks from fossil fuel industry is larger than that from cows. A primary source of those methane leaks are the production of artificial fertilizers, but of course all steps between extracting natural gas to producing the fertilizers has large amount of emissions and leaks.
- intended 3y agoA very large portion of the world is already vegetarian. Making clear what you choices are communicates to your neighbors and eventually elected reps what your inclinations are. The big picture is fundamentally a communication and multi party negotiation issue. Solving that faster, is what is needed. Maybe instead of having everything be handled at the top level inter community personal outreach is needed.
- ipaddr 3y agoA large portion doesn't use toilets and these groups intersect. What you eat is personal not a multiparty negotiation.
- intended 3y agoI believe that is what I am saying ? What you eat is personal - having an impact on emissions/environment is not solved at a personal level, it requires nation level negotiations. What you eat is at best a signal to higher level political groups of your inclinations.
- poorUs 3y agoHabits are not always preferences. Political groups are lazy and/or inept and will assume such.
- dTal 3y agoIt most certainly is a multiparty negotiation. You eat things that can be reasonably obtained from vendors in your area, who in turn stock things they think they can sell. You order from the items available at the establishments you visit with your friends and family, who have input into where you go. You recommend foods to others, and eat foods that others recommend to you. In short, eating is a cultural activity you participate in. As far as veganism is concerned, it is notable that it is much easier to be vegan now than 20 or even 10 years ago, as vegan ingredients are more widespread and higher quality, and "vegan options" are essentially standard in restaurants. This didn't happen through legislation, but by the application of social pressure by vegans - if vegans can't eat at your restaurant, they won't just go somewhere else, they'll take their friends with them. It is the output of a massive multiparty negotiation.