5 ms·

Could be true, in the countries I am most faniliar with (UK, Sweden) there’s no rainforest and a good chunk of the land used for rearing cattle couldn’t be used

by dijit 1y ago

Could be true, in the countries I am most faniliar with (UK, Sweden) there’s no rainforest and a good chunk of the land used for rearing cattle couldn’t be used for farming Soy.

adrianN 1y ago
Where does the feed come from? What other uses could the land have? Here in Germany drained wetlands are a huge contributor to GHG emissions.
- dijit 1y ago
  Largely grass (and oil based feed, as mentioned)
swores 1y ago
There is rainforest in the UK... it's just temperate rainforest, not tropical. (And it is as under threat as tropical - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/temperate-rainforest/ https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/ha... )
- closewith 1y ago
  Yes, and there was a lot more and could be again.
  - swores 1y ago
    Yes, absolutely!
cnity 1y ago
The cattle doesn't have to _be_ on the same wasted land that is used to feed it. Soy is imported from other countries to feed cattle in the UK (around 2M tons of soy per year[0]). It is a common and convenient misconception that raising cattle is not bad for the environment because it is raised on non-arable land -- the cattle still gets fed imported soy. 0: https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Sustainable-Soya-baseline-report-Oct-2018.pdf https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Su...
- dijit 1y ago
  But now we're returning to the assumption that everything thats fit for cows is fit for human edible crops. Cows aren't often eating the "human grade" crops, to my understanding. I'm not making an argument that we shouldn't scale back cattle-rearing, if anything my personal preference would be to eliminate all oil-based feed and see how sustainable we can make things; I just think we've got a real convenient scapegoat here when the largest polluter is definitely car dependence as it's adding carbon to the carbon cycle.
  - peterashford 1y ago
    Cows arent a scapegoat, they're just a significant part of the puzzle. It's nuts to think only co2 or only methane is the issue. They're both issues
    - dijit 1y ago
      But they exist in a closed system. They don't emit CO2 or Methane in any way that can run out of control unless we pour carbon into the system externally (by digging up oil and feeding it to them for example, or transporting them using cars that run on fossil fuels, or heating them with fossil fuels). They are a scapegoat, because they can't by themselves emit anything that can't be captured and returned and reused by cattle for essentially perpetuity, yet we as humans are doing things that are not sustainable and contribute to tipping the scales. Thanks for flagging me btw.
      - cnity 1y ago
        FWIW I don't think your points are totally invalid, and it is not me (and maybe not GP) that is flagging you. That aside, your primary argument if I understand it right is that there is no (or at least diminished) cost to cattle raising because the emitted carbon came from food that was sequestered as part of a cycle. The problem I would call attention to is that the planet's carbon capacity is simultaneously nerfed by the land required for feed. About 40% [0] of arable crop land is used to feed cattle, a process which faces huge caloric efficiency losses (consider that the caloric output of meat cannot be higher than the input). It is pretty well understood at this stage that meat consumption is a gigantic contributor to climate change. Anyway, I _also_ agree about cars. We don't need to rely on whataboutism here: we have a common objective. And, by the way, I still eat meat, but much much less than I used to, so I don't mean any of this as an attack on meat eaters. 0: https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-and-land-use/#:~:text=The%20total%20arable%20land%20used,from%20cereal%20harvesting%20for%20feed. https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-a...

by dijit 1y ago

Could be true, in the countries I am most faniliar with (UK, Sweden) there’s no rainforest and a good chunk of the land used for rearing cattle couldn’t be used for farming Soy.

adrianN 1y ago

Where does the feed come from? What other uses could the land have? Here in Germany drained wetlands are a huge contributor to GHG emissions.

dijit 1y ago
Largely grass (and oil based feed, as mentioned)

swores 1y ago

There is rainforest in the UK... it's just temperate rainforest, not tropical. (And it is as under threat as tropical - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/temperate-rainforest/ https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/ha... )

closewith 1y ago
Yes, and there was a lot more and could be again.
- swores 1y ago
  Yes, absolutely!

cnity 1y ago

The cattle doesn't have to _be_ on the same wasted land that is used to feed it. Soy is imported from other countries to feed cattle in the UK (around 2M tons of soy per year[0]). It is a common and convenient misconception that raising cattle is not bad for the environment because it is raised on non-arable land -- the cattle still gets fed imported soy. 0: https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Sustainable-Soya-baseline-report-Oct-2018.pdf https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Su...

dijit 1y ago
But now we're returning to the assumption that everything thats fit for cows is fit for human edible crops. Cows aren't often eating the "human grade" crops, to my understanding. I'm not making an argument that we shouldn't scale back cattle-rearing, if anything my personal preference would be to eliminate all oil-based feed and see how sustainable we can make things; I just think we've got a real convenient scapegoat here when the largest polluter is definitely car dependence as it's adding carbon to the carbon cycle.
- peterashford 1y ago
  Cows arent a scapegoat, they're just a significant part of the puzzle. It's nuts to think only co2 or only methane is the issue. They're both issues
  - dijit 1y ago
    But they exist in a closed system. They don't emit CO2 or Methane in any way that can run out of control unless we pour carbon into the system externally (by digging up oil and feeding it to them for example, or transporting them using cars that run on fossil fuels, or heating them with fossil fuels). They are a scapegoat, because they can't by themselves emit anything that can't be captured and returned and reused by cattle for essentially perpetuity, yet we as humans are doing things that are not sustainable and contribute to tipping the scales. Thanks for flagging me btw.
    - cnity 1y ago
      FWIW I don't think your points are totally invalid, and it is not me (and maybe not GP) that is flagging you. That aside, your primary argument if I understand it right is that there is no (or at least diminished) cost to cattle raising because the emitted carbon came from food that was sequestered as part of a cycle. The problem I would call attention to is that the planet's carbon capacity is simultaneously nerfed by the land required for feed. About 40% [0] of arable crop land is used to feed cattle, a process which faces huge caloric efficiency losses (consider that the caloric output of meat cannot be higher than the input). It is pretty well understood at this stage that meat consumption is a gigantic contributor to climate change. Anyway, I _also_ agree about cars. We don't need to rely on whataboutism here: we have a common objective. And, by the way, I still eat meat, but much much less than I used to, so I don't mean any of this as an attack on meat eaters. 0: https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-and-land-use/#:~:text=The%20total%20arable%20land%20used,from%20cereal%20harvesting%20for%20feed. https://fefac.eu/newsroom/news/a-few-facts-about-livestock-a...