3 ms·

> 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 th

by 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).
tonyarkles 3y ago
> On an individual level I’ve been doing a deep dive into grid resilience and decarbonization lately, basically exploring all of the sources of energy that are either available for purchase at grid-scale today or look very promising for commercial readiness on a <5 year time horizon. The two main thoughts that are unfortunately dominating are: - Any time people are being told that their own individual actions that potentially cost them money or reduce their quality of life (buy rooftop solar! “Shave The Peak!” Stop eating meat! Take the bus or train, don’t drive or fly), they’ve essentially been tricked into getting warm and fuzzy feelings by a corporation who will profit from their decision while making the most minuscule insignificant dent in the problem - Collective action is the only way this problem gets solved, and to be palatable to the general population it’s going to need to be done in a way that doesn’t reduce quality of life. The main one: rapid rollout of a combination of nuclear, combined-cycle natural gas with carbon capture, solar, wind, and pumped-storage hydro if the local geography actually supports that in an economic way. This needs to be sufficient capacity buildout that we not only can power our homes and industry with primarily carbon-free energy but also heat them and power our vehicles. I 100% understand the desire to feel like “I’m doing my part” and that personal sacrifice can feel a whole lot better when you feel like you’re contributing to solving an existential threat to humanity (which I do believe the carbon problem is, which led me to doing this research in the first place). But unless you’re actively attacking the Pareto portion of the problem, your individual effort isn’t going to do a whole lot.
- bjoli 3y ago
  Oh, I do agree with you. We should not individualize a collective problem. Telling people to eat less meat will be a lot less effective than, say, ending oil subsidies. I think a lot of people think ending the climate crisis is about NOT doing something, but that is not really a feasible choice. We would need something like 7 or 8 Corona recessions to actually reach the 1.5C "goal". I do agree with you, except for the natural gas part. The leaks in the process of storing and transporting natural gas are too large for it to be feasible even if chimney carbon capture starts being 100% effective. Regarding meat production we could at least start with not subsidising the shit out of it.
  - 3y ago
earthling8118 3y ago
What part of flying is mandatory for society? Driving surely has become this way, but there is a large number of people that could reduce their driving by a significant amount without a large impact to their lives. They still choose not to. They don't care.
- bjoli 3y ago
  It is not mandatory, but for many people not flying is a choice in the same way not having a smartphone is. Like where I am right now: Getting around in Norway means flying.

by bjoli 3y ago

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).

tonyarkles 3y ago

> On an individual level I’ve been doing a deep dive into grid resilience and decarbonization lately, basically exploring all of the sources of energy that are either available for purchase at grid-scale today or look very promising for commercial readiness on a <5 year time horizon. The two main thoughts that are unfortunately dominating are: - Any time people are being told that their own individual actions that potentially cost them money or reduce their quality of life (buy rooftop solar! “Shave The Peak!” Stop eating meat! Take the bus or train, don’t drive or fly), they’ve essentially been tricked into getting warm and fuzzy feelings by a corporation who will profit from their decision while making the most minuscule insignificant dent in the problem - Collective action is the only way this problem gets solved, and to be palatable to the general population it’s going to need to be done in a way that doesn’t reduce quality of life. The main one: rapid rollout of a combination of nuclear, combined-cycle natural gas with carbon capture, solar, wind, and pumped-storage hydro if the local geography actually supports that in an economic way. This needs to be sufficient capacity buildout that we not only can power our homes and industry with primarily carbon-free energy but also heat them and power our vehicles. I 100% understand the desire to feel like “I’m doing my part” and that personal sacrifice can feel a whole lot better when you feel like you’re contributing to solving an existential threat to humanity (which I do believe the carbon problem is, which led me to doing this research in the first place). But unless you’re actively attacking the Pareto portion of the problem, your individual effort isn’t going to do a whole lot.

bjoli 3y ago
Oh, I do agree with you. We should not individualize a collective problem. Telling people to eat less meat will be a lot less effective than, say, ending oil subsidies. I think a lot of people think ending the climate crisis is about NOT doing something, but that is not really a feasible choice. We would need something like 7 or 8 Corona recessions to actually reach the 1.5C "goal". I do agree with you, except for the natural gas part. The leaks in the process of storing and transporting natural gas are too large for it to be feasible even if chimney carbon capture starts being 100% effective. Regarding meat production we could at least start with not subsidising the shit out of it.
- 3y ago

earthling8118 3y ago

What part of flying is mandatory for society? Driving surely has become this way, but there is a large number of people that could reduce their driving by a significant amount without a large impact to their lives. They still choose not to. They don't care.

bjoli 3y ago
It is not mandatory, but for many people not flying is a choice in the same way not having a smartphone is. Like where I am right now: Getting around in Norway means flying.