4 ms·

> The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Citation needed. This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am ho

> The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Citation needed. This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this. I am all for curbing the slaughter industry for the ethical aspect of animal suffering but the argument for ecological reasons seems like something introduced in public discourse to create distraction. For example fugitive methane emissions from oil wells, pipelines, and coal pits, account for 5.8 % of GHG (This is also I suspect largely underreported). In contrast Livestock emissions and Manure/Fertilizer related emissions are also 5.8%. [0] Please explain how it will be easier to stop Farmers in remote parts of Brazil and Argentina from raising cattle versus forcing billion dollar companies to sequester methane at extraction sites in US/Canada/Gulf countries? In fact let's take it further if we look at the GHG emissions of: - Iron/Steel Industry (7.2%) - Cement Industry (3%) - Fugitive methane emissions from Oil/Gas/Coal (5.8%) - Petrochemical industry/refinement (3.6%) These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning. [0] Our governments/regulators are failing us. We expect a 180 change from developing countries when entire billion dollar industries are idle in jurisdictions where we actually have a saying. As much as I agree with it for Animal welfare, in my view, Beef as an ecological battle _is_ a distraction. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

helsinkiandrew 3y ago
> These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning If someone wants to decrease their green house emissions, its very hard to personally do anything about the Steel/Cement/Oil industry without a fair amount of effort - particularly if you're part of the "younger generation". Changes to those industries takes concerted political/industrial effort and vested interests want to maintain the status-quo. However, anyone can give up or reduce the amount of beef they're eating without much effort, no government regulation needed.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Most people that care about environment, animal cruelty, and ethics are already small consumers of meat anyway. I would hazard guess also that any market reduction in Beef consumption in the West would be absorbed by Asian Markets, producers would not be producing less. Actions like: - Reducing/eliminating car usage - Reducing residential heating/cooling Are something individuals control and both would objectively have a much much greater GHG emissions impact. However they are not as popular in public discourse.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Looking at some documentaries about living conditions in very dense places proves that humans could survive in much smaller housing. You could massively increase density of housing and people would still stay alive. But for some reason this is never suggested as solution before stopping eating meat...
  - jebarker 3y ago
    > Most people that care about environment, animal cruelty, and ethics are already small consumers of meat anyway. Based on what I see for sale in grocery stores and on restaurant menus a huge amount of meat is consumed in the US. I have a hard time believing it's all being consumed by people that don't care about the environment, animal cruelty and ethics. I think/hope that most people care about those things but just feel they are powerless to do anything about them or maybe aren't aware how bad some situations are, e.g. animal welfare in the meat industry.
throw310822 3y ago
> in contrast Livestock emissions and Manure/Fertilizer related emissions are also 5.8%. Are those net emissions (= from fossil fuels) or they include net-zero emissions, such as CO2 from the atmosphere (crops) converted to some other (short lived) ghg?
netsharc 3y ago
OT, but these 2 sentences after each other got me confused, then amused at the poor writing... > Citation needed. > This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this
picadores 3y ago
Its the recycling as distraction approach allover, but this time with vegetarians as usefull idiots. Make public transport and meat alternatives cheaper. Rest follows.
bjoli 3y ago
> This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this. It is because the FAO report "Livestock's long shadow" has stood the test of time, despite what is usually said in internet comment sections. On an individual level, it is probably the most simple thing you can do. Not driving/flying or will make it impossible for you to participate in society. Not eating meat is simple in most western countries.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Perhaps this is where we are missing the data. I struggle to see how a X percentage reduction in meat consumption in North America or Europe would lead to a matched reduction in livestock numbers or deforestation. That surplus would just be absorbed as cheaper beef in other markets with deficit (in Asia for example). I would be interested in seeing an analytical breakdown of consuming 50% less meat versus bringing your thermostat 3 or 4 Celsius away from your ideal temperature? Or forcing Commercial real estate to bring their thermostats 3 or 4 Celsius away from ideal?
  - bjoli 3y ago
    I never said I think it is an individual problem. If we don't switch the energy sector away from oil there is not a chance in hell we are getting anywhere. What I said is, on an individual level, not eating animal products is a lot easier than avoiding oil use. Regardless of how we chose to tackle the problem, we can't look away from the fact that meat - and especially beef - is an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Not just with regards to CO2e. It uses a pretty staggering amount of land and often a staggering amount of fresh water. I am looking out the window right now at a seemingly endless field of crops that will be fed to pigs and chicken. Sure, they are a lot better at converting plant calories to meat calories than cows, but it seems pretty wasteful. I remember calculating grams of protein per acre and was blown away at how inefficient everything except farmed fish and maybe chicken (which preformed worse than most pulses when comparing the most intensive husbandry). I haven't looked it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of the used arable land in Norway (where I am right now) is used for feed. Everywhere I look there are crops grown for cows, pigs and chicken (not counting the rest products they get from other types of crops).
themerone 3y ago
It's low hanging because it costs consumers nothing to eat less beef. The costs of cleaning up all those industries will get passed on to consumers.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

> These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning If someone wants to decrease their green house emissions, its very hard to personally do anything about the Steel/Cement/Oil industry without a fair amount of effort - particularly if you're part of the "younger generation". Changes to those industries takes concerted political/industrial effort and vested interests want to maintain the status-quo. However, anyone can give up or reduce the amount of beef they're eating without much effort, no government regulation needed.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Most people that care about environment, animal cruelty, and ethics are already small consumers of meat anyway. I would hazard guess also that any market reduction in Beef consumption in the West would be absorbed by Asian Markets, producers would not be producing less. Actions like: - Reducing/eliminating car usage - Reducing residential heating/cooling Are something individuals control and both would objectively have a much much greater GHG emissions impact. However they are not as popular in public discourse.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Looking at some documentaries about living conditions in very dense places proves that humans could survive in much smaller housing. You could massively increase density of housing and people would still stay alive. But for some reason this is never suggested as solution before stopping eating meat...
- jebarker 3y ago
  > Most people that care about environment, animal cruelty, and ethics are already small consumers of meat anyway. Based on what I see for sale in grocery stores and on restaurant menus a huge amount of meat is consumed in the US. I have a hard time believing it's all being consumed by people that don't care about the environment, animal cruelty and ethics. I think/hope that most people care about those things but just feel they are powerless to do anything about them or maybe aren't aware how bad some situations are, e.g. animal welfare in the meat industry.

throw310822 3y ago

> in contrast Livestock emissions and Manure/Fertilizer related emissions are also 5.8%. Are those net emissions (= from fossil fuels) or they include net-zero emissions, such as CO2 from the atmosphere (crops) converted to some other (short lived) ghg?

netsharc 3y ago

OT, but these 2 sentences after each other got me confused, then amused at the poor writing... > Citation needed. > This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this

picadores 3y ago

Its the recycling as distraction approach allover, but this time with vegetarians as usefull idiots. Make public transport and meat alternatives cheaper. Rest follows.

bjoli 3y ago

> This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this. It is because the FAO report "Livestock's long shadow" has stood the test of time, despite what is usually said in internet comment sections. On an individual level, it is probably the most simple thing you can do. Not driving/flying or will make it impossible for you to participate in society. Not eating meat is simple in most western countries.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Perhaps this is where we are missing the data. I struggle to see how a X percentage reduction in meat consumption in North America or Europe would lead to a matched reduction in livestock numbers or deforestation. That surplus would just be absorbed as cheaper beef in other markets with deficit (in Asia for example). I would be interested in seeing an analytical breakdown of consuming 50% less meat versus bringing your thermostat 3 or 4 Celsius away from your ideal temperature? Or forcing Commercial real estate to bring their thermostats 3 or 4 Celsius away from ideal?
- bjoli 3y ago
  I never said I think it is an individual problem. If we don't switch the energy sector away from oil there is not a chance in hell we are getting anywhere. What I said is, on an individual level, not eating animal products is a lot easier than avoiding oil use. Regardless of how we chose to tackle the problem, we can't look away from the fact that meat - and especially beef - is an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Not just with regards to CO2e. It uses a pretty staggering amount of land and often a staggering amount of fresh water. I am looking out the window right now at a seemingly endless field of crops that will be fed to pigs and chicken. Sure, they are a lot better at converting plant calories to meat calories than cows, but it seems pretty wasteful. I remember calculating grams of protein per acre and was blown away at how inefficient everything except farmed fish and maybe chicken (which preformed worse than most pulses when comparing the most intensive husbandry). I haven't looked it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of the used arable land in Norway (where I am right now) is used for feed. Everywhere I look there are crops grown for cows, pigs and chicken (not counting the rest products they get from other types of crops).

themerone 3y ago

It's low hanging because it costs consumers nothing to eat less beef. The costs of cleaning up all those industries will get passed on to consumers.