3 ms·

If you dumped the bottom out of animal ag you'd have much worse than a riot. If you doubt me, try going down to the local NASCAR track and swapping out the hotd

by 23B1 3y ago

If you dumped the bottom out of animal ag you'd have much worse than a riot. If you doubt me, try going down to the local NASCAR track and swapping out the hotdogs with Beyond Sausage. Not saying it's right, just saying your argument isn't realistic outside of a mathematically perfect – or authoritarian – bubble.

myshpa 3y ago
Authoritarian? Our society is already far from perfect. IPCC: We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report. Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds. Among the measures put forward by the report is the proposal of a major shift towards vegetarian and vegan diets. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-land-use-food-production-key-to-climate-crisis-leaked-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-lan... IPCC: Slashing Emissions From Meat Crucial to Climate Action https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/ https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/ Plant-Based Lifestyles Now ‘Imperative’ For Survival, IPCC Climate Expert Says https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imperative-survival-climate-expert/ https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imper... How Meat and Fossil Fuel Producers Watered Down the Latest IPCC Report. Scientist authors recommended more plant-based diets and phasing out all fossil fuels. But those recommendations didn't make it into the final report. https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-meat-and-fossil-fuel-producers https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-meat-and-fossil-fuel-produ... The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1850261179 https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1...
- dgroshev 3y ago
  I think those links often miss the forest for the trees. Meat production, disregarding energy (that has to become carbon neutral anyway) and in steady state, is carbon neutral. It might require more agricultural land, true, but equating potential one-off carbon capture of reforesting with ongoing fossil emissions is just wrong.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Good point. You're right that, in theory, meat production could be carbon neutral. But the real world isn't that simple. Current animal farming emits a lot of methane and nitrous oxide (N2O), both potent greenhouse gases (over 100 year period methane is 28-36 times more potent than CO2, N2O is 265-298 times more potent than CO2). Also, when we talk about reforestation for carbon capture, it's not just a one-off event. Yes, a new forest can sequester a substantial amount of CO2, especially in its early years when tree growth is fast. But as long as that forest continues to grow and mature, it's going to keep pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's an ongoing process, not just a one-time event. So when we choose to use land for farming instead of allowing it to reforest, we're not just missing out on an initial large absorption of CO2, we're also giving up all the future CO2 that those trees could have continued to sequester throughout their lives. Plus, we shouldn't forget about the carbon storage potential in the wildlife that would populate these reforested areas and in the soils those forests would help enrich and expand. Sure, we need to make our energy production carbon neutral. But it may not happen for many decades, and until then, the high energy needed for meat production and distribution is a concern.
    - dgroshev 3y ago
      It is literally carbon neutral. Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state, unlike fossil fuels. Putting them in the same category is disingenuous. I don't understand your point about forests. "As long as that forest continues to grow and mature", surely that's still a one time event? There is no growing over what was previously a farm being reforested, and the "maturation" is effectively limited to soil generation (normally fractions of mms a year), which captures a tiny amount of carbon, the rest being cycled by scavenging (micro)organisms? It is, for all intents and purposes, a one time carbon capture event. The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, and again more or less constant after the first few years. "We should become vegan for a couple decades" then? I don't think it's a reasonable idea to sell to the public.
      - myshpa 3y ago

by 23B1 3y ago

myshpa 3y ago

Authoritarian? Our society is already far from perfect. IPCC: We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report. Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds. Among the measures put forward by the report is the proposal of a major shift towards vegetarian and vegan diets. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-land-use-food-production-key-to-climate-crisis-leaked-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-lan... IPCC: Slashing Emissions From Meat Crucial to Climate Action https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/ https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/ Plant-Based Lifestyles Now ‘Imperative’ For Survival, IPCC Climate Expert Says https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imperative-survival-climate-expert/ https://plantbasednews.org/news/plant-based-lifestyles-imper... How Meat and Fossil Fuel Producers Watered Down the Latest IPCC Report. Scientist authors recommended more plant-based diets and phasing out all fossil fuels. But those recommendations didn't make it into the final report. https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-meat-and-fossil-fuel-producers https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-meat-and-fossil-fuel-produ... The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1850261179 https://qz.com/ipcc-report-on-climate-change-meat-industry-1...

dgroshev 3y ago
I think those links often miss the forest for the trees. Meat production, disregarding energy (that has to become carbon neutral anyway) and in steady state, is carbon neutral. It might require more agricultural land, true, but equating potential one-off carbon capture of reforesting with ongoing fossil emissions is just wrong.
- myshpa 3y ago
  Good point. You're right that, in theory, meat production could be carbon neutral. But the real world isn't that simple. Current animal farming emits a lot of methane and nitrous oxide (N2O), both potent greenhouse gases (over 100 year period methane is 28-36 times more potent than CO2, N2O is 265-298 times more potent than CO2). Also, when we talk about reforestation for carbon capture, it's not just a one-off event. Yes, a new forest can sequester a substantial amount of CO2, especially in its early years when tree growth is fast. But as long as that forest continues to grow and mature, it's going to keep pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's an ongoing process, not just a one-time event. So when we choose to use land for farming instead of allowing it to reforest, we're not just missing out on an initial large absorption of CO2, we're also giving up all the future CO2 that those trees could have continued to sequester throughout their lives. Plus, we shouldn't forget about the carbon storage potential in the wildlife that would populate these reforested areas and in the soils those forests would help enrich and expand. Sure, we need to make our energy production carbon neutral. But it may not happen for many decades, and until then, the high energy needed for meat production and distribution is a concern.
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    It is literally carbon neutral. Methane and N2O do not increase the amount of carbon in the ecosystem and do not change the climate in the steady state, unlike fossil fuels. Putting them in the same category is disingenuous. I don't understand your point about forests. "As long as that forest continues to grow and mature", surely that's still a one time event? There is no growing over what was previously a farm being reforested, and the "maturation" is effectively limited to soil generation (normally fractions of mms a year), which captures a tiny amount of carbon, the rest being cycled by scavenging (micro)organisms? It is, for all intents and purposes, a one time carbon capture event. The overall body mass of mice, foxes, and deer is absolutely ineffectual for carbon capture, and again more or less constant after the first few years. "We should become vegan for a couple decades" then? I don't think it's a reasonable idea to sell to the public.
    - myshpa 3y ago