3 ms·

You're wrong (and I seriously doubt you're a vegan). Such a change is absolutely needed, and it's one of the best things we could do. We have to stop fossil fu

by myshpa 3y ago

You're wrong (and I seriously doubt you're a vegan). Such a change is absolutely needed, and it's one of the best things we could do. We have to stop fossil fuels, absolutely, that's a prerogative. But animal agriculture is 60% of emissions from food sector (26% of total emissions). https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector And that's just the emissions. When we switch to renewables, we have to store/sequester the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Animal agriculture takes so much lands, and carbon potential of reforestation/rewilding of grazing lands is so big, that we could store whole 1.5 Celcius carbon budget in forests there and stop the warming, reverse it, enable biodiversity to rebound and repair the water cycle (stop droughts). https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... How much land are we talking about. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decreased.html https://phys.org/news/2022-08-global-forest-area-capita-decr... New study finds global forest area per capita has decreased by over 60% https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-percent-of-forests-in-the-past-300-years https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/weve-lost-35-pe... We’ve Lost 35 Percent of Forests in the Past 300 Years https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal... Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century > Environmentally, losing ruminant food supplies that can convert inedible grasses into human sustenance would also be a shame (in a land use sense, vegetarianism would be better than veganism). We don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat most native grasses, unless we either GMO the shit out of them (or us) or else eat their seeds as grains. We should reforest/rewild those pastures. We don't need those lands if we're not consuming meat/dairy. > I think maybe it would be better for people to spend their time, money, and energy on more effective changes (say, political or science or engineering) instead... bang for buck, overthrowing personal diets is so a huge ask for such a small return. Just IMO. Perhaps taking some time to further educate yourself about the problem would be beneficial. While I understand it's a complex issue, disregarding solutions about which one has minimal knowledge can be counterproductive. IMHO.

solardev 3y ago
What exactly am I wrong about? I don't doubt that decreasing animal ag would decrease emissions. My argument was simply that it's not enough on its own (it isn't, since it's only a quarter of emissions as you pointed out). Yes, reforestation can help, but that's not synonymous with stopping animal ag, although of course there is overlap. And more significantly, that doing so at the necessary scales would be incredibly disruptive to world cultures and economies. Most people simply wouldn't stand for it. It hasn't ever been a realistic solution, despite decades of trying. I also think it's a bit unnecessary to accuse me of lying... why would anyone be deceptive about their diet..? I was eating a tofu scramble as I was writing that, in fact. FWIW I've spent way too much time on HappyCow. My undergrad was also in environmental science (part of the reason I went vegan), and we've read a lot of these sorts of papers. I've dressed up in chicken suits and handed out PETA pamphlets. Anyway, it's a silly accusation. Whatever I eat personally wouldn't change the fact that most of the world is not going to go vegan or vegetarian, and we're not going to replant enough forests, on a timescale to matter. It's too little, too late for that. The climate is getting worse despite rising awareness of dietary impacts (and way better vegan foods these days)... it's just not making a noticeable difference. We need more drastic actions. Covid did way more for emissions than decades of vegan propaganda, for example, and yet things went right back to the status quo afterward.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > My argument was simply that it's not enough on its own There is not a magic bullet at this point ... we have to do many things to correct the overshoot. > reforestation can help, but that's not synonymous with stopping animal ag, although of course there is overlap Animal agriculture occupies as much space as all our forests do. The overlap and deforestation that have occurred over millennia are highly significant. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use > doing so at the necessary scales would be incredibly disruptive to world cultures and economies There are many reasons why we need that. Without abundant biodiversity we might see collapse of animal populations, and we might lose remaining pollinators, for example. We won't have any economy without those services we take for granted from the nature. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ If you're ethical vegan, you'll know that culture is just stories we tell ourselves, and those stories are/were very often wrong (like slavery, for example). I don't have to tell you that with animal ag. we're taking something from those animals that isn't ours to take. I'll suppose from now on that you're a vegan and I don't have to explain this to you anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw > is not going to go vegan or vegetarian It's something we have to do, no matter what anyone thinks. We don't have enough space to feed everyone a meat and dairy diet in the quantities that Westerners consume. We could attempt to do so, but that would result in the total collapse of ecosystems and our own demise. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American. https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/ https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do... > and we're not going to replant enough forests, on a timescale to matter We don't have to replant them. It would be enough to allow those pastures to rewild or reforest themselves. Here's an example of how the land can look when kept free from animal agriculture for 30 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc > The climate is getting worse despite rising awareness of dietary impacts ... it's just not making a noticeable difference But it would ... at scale. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03565-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03565-5 What humanity should eat to stay healthy and save the planet > We need more drastic actions What would those be?

by myshpa 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

What exactly am I wrong about? I don't doubt that decreasing animal ag would decrease emissions. My argument was simply that it's not enough on its own (it isn't, since it's only a quarter of emissions as you pointed out). Yes, reforestation can help, but that's not synonymous with stopping animal ag, although of course there is overlap. And more significantly, that doing so at the necessary scales would be incredibly disruptive to world cultures and economies. Most people simply wouldn't stand for it. It hasn't ever been a realistic solution, despite decades of trying. I also think it's a bit unnecessary to accuse me of lying... why would anyone be deceptive about their diet..? I was eating a tofu scramble as I was writing that, in fact. FWIW I've spent way too much time on HappyCow. My undergrad was also in environmental science (part of the reason I went vegan), and we've read a lot of these sorts of papers. I've dressed up in chicken suits and handed out PETA pamphlets. Anyway, it's a silly accusation. Whatever I eat personally wouldn't change the fact that most of the world is not going to go vegan or vegetarian, and we're not going to replant enough forests, on a timescale to matter. It's too little, too late for that. The climate is getting worse despite rising awareness of dietary impacts (and way better vegan foods these days)... it's just not making a noticeable difference. We need more drastic actions. Covid did way more for emissions than decades of vegan propaganda, for example, and yet things went right back to the status quo afterward.

myshpa 3y ago
> My argument was simply that it's not enough on its own There is not a magic bullet at this point ... we have to do many things to correct the overshoot. > reforestation can help, but that's not synonymous with stopping animal ag, although of course there is overlap Animal agriculture occupies as much space as all our forests do. The overlap and deforestation that have occurred over millennia are highly significant. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use > doing so at the necessary scales would be incredibly disruptive to world cultures and economies There are many reasons why we need that. Without abundant biodiversity we might see collapse of animal populations, and we might lose remaining pollinators, for example. We won't have any economy without those services we take for granted from the nature. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ If you're ethical vegan, you'll know that culture is just stories we tell ourselves, and those stories are/were very often wrong (like slavery, for example). I don't have to tell you that with animal ag. we're taking something from those animals that isn't ours to take. I'll suppose from now on that you're a vegan and I don't have to explain this to you anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw > is not going to go vegan or vegetarian It's something we have to do, no matter what anyone thinks. We don't have enough space to feed everyone a meat and dairy diet in the quantities that Westerners consume. We could attempt to do so, but that would result in the total collapse of ecosystems and our own demise. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American. https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/ https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do... > and we're not going to replant enough forests, on a timescale to matter We don't have to replant them. It would be enough to allow those pastures to rewild or reforest themselves. Here's an example of how the land can look when kept free from animal agriculture for 30 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc > The climate is getting worse despite rising awareness of dietary impacts ... it's just not making a noticeable difference But it would ... at scale. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03565-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03565-5 What humanity should eat to stay healthy and save the planet > We need more drastic actions What would those be?