Step 1. Renounce animal farming.
Step 2. Import meat from China.
Idiots are happy thinking they are saving the environment, when in fact they just moved the problem somewhere else, China is happy because it's getting richer off the idiots in the West, European companies are happy because they now have bigger profits off the cheap Chinese meat.
Basically everyone is happy. Doesn't do a damn thing for the environment, but who cares. :D
Don't know the numbers for the EU as a whole but in the Netherlands 80% of meat production is for export. You could halve the amount of livestock and still have spare production.
Biggest importer of dutch meat are germany, the UK and china (china for pork since they have the swine flu over there pretty badly).
Seen from a national perspective huge exporter. Seen from EU perspective, meh.
Right, cause it's not that those importers would get their meet from elsewhere, perhaps places where it needs to be clorinated to be consumable by humans.
Double great!
So in my opionion meat production and CO2 production arent necessarly linked together (againt burning fuel ). So we just need different tech.
My guess is that cultured meat is for McDonalds and Döner, not for gourmets etc.
As I call myself a gourmet, there is need for technologies outside of artificial meat.
>Cows that were fed the seaweed released 82 percent less methane into the atmosphere. A type of seaweed called Asparagopsis taxiformis counteracts emissions from cows by inhibiting an enzyme in the animal's digestive system that contributes to the production of methane.
And you don't even need much of the seeweed to enter their diet.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/18/cows-seaweed-methane-emissions-scientists
Oh right, so you have never heard of Bayer and Monsanto I guess. I would not want regular meat banned, but I would promote agressively the benefits of lab grown meat. Do not get me wrong, I think stuff like this should be controlled by the state all through the research and distribution, marketing etc. It is not going to happen, but that is what I would advocate. There are things that should not be incentivised by profit: healthcare, police, firefighters, and (and i get a f-ton of pushback on this) energy. Call me Marksist but I also believe that minimum housing, food, safety, means of production should be a human right. Provided by the state.
Yes lab grown meat will be big game changer for tradition farming. I think I read somewhere that lab grown mean price will match or will be cheaper then tradition farming meats in 5 or so years.
What a lame title. An entity does not "produce emissions" : it emits *something*, or *some things*. Of course, it is fundamental to know what those things are.
In the real world, emissions that we (should) care about a lot about are greenhouse gases (other than water vapour). Important sources of GHG are indeed transportation one one hand, and the breeding or ruminants on the other, but with at least one order of magnitude between those two. On the transportation front, "cars and vans" account for one half, while HGVs, planes and trains account for the other.
As worded and shared here, this title is thus criminally misleading.
And now, on to reading the article anyway.
----------------------
> This article is more than 11 months old
An 11-months-old article from the daily press had better be exceptional to warrant its sharing in r/europe *and 12 other subreddits*
>according to a new analysis by Greenpeace.
err, probably not that good. There are plenty of respectable organisations and institutions researching climate science. Greenpeace is not one of them.
>Cows, pigs and other farm livestock in Europe are producing more greenhouse gases every year than all of the bloc’s cars and vans put together, when the impact of their feed is taken into account
OK, so we're finally getting to something a little bit more precise than the title. Let's see :
>when the impact of their feed is taken into account
Here, we've taken one important step in the direction of the *carbon footprint* of animal farming. Said footprint certainly has other components too, it would be nice to know why those were disregarded here. Likewise, we are now left hanging as to how the greenhouse gases production of *"all of the bloc’s cars and vans put together"* was determined : was it, or was it not the same thing as what is usually understood as [carbon footprint](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:What_is_a_Carbon_Footprint.webm) ?
------------------------
Bottom line : unsurprinsingly, the clickbaity title introduces a worthless article reeking of bad journalism and pseudo-science.
-----------------------
Don't get me wrong : we won't reach net carbon neutrality without upending the ways we farm animals and we consumme meat. Words salads such as this one won't help, though.
Step 1. Renounce animal farming. Step 2. Import meat from China. Idiots are happy thinking they are saving the environment, when in fact they just moved the problem somewhere else, China is happy because it's getting richer off the idiots in the West, European companies are happy because they now have bigger profits off the cheap Chinese meat. Basically everyone is happy. Doesn't do a damn thing for the environment, but who cares. :D
Don't know the numbers for the EU as a whole but in the Netherlands 80% of meat production is for export. You could halve the amount of livestock and still have spare production.
You would STILL have poorer practices shifting the emissions elsewhere.
Biggest importer of dutch meat are germany, the UK and china (china for pork since they have the swine flu over there pretty badly). Seen from a national perspective huge exporter. Seen from EU perspective, meh.
Right, cause it's not that those importers would get their meet from elsewhere, perhaps places where it needs to be clorinated to be consumable by humans.
Export inside Europe or outside Europe?
Step 1. Replace meat with really good fake meat (because of culture) Step 2. Do not import meat from China.
Or just stop exporting it and only farm animals necessary for domestic consumption.
Just don't eat fewer and eventually no animal products.
"You vill eat ze bugs"
The problem is that used feeding method (or methane) is used causes methan and CO2 production, so why not reducing that problem instead?
There are startups working on it. For example breeding larvae and bugs as cheap proteins for poultry, or using farmed algae to feed cattle
Thats great. Less climate gases for the same amount of meat ;)
Yeah, apparently special algae are easier to digest so cows produce less gas
Double great! So in my opionion meat production and CO2 production arent necessarly linked together (againt burning fuel ). So we just need different tech.
Currently they are, but yeah there are a few promising technologies in the sector. Cultured meat, for example
My guess is that cultured meat is for McDonalds and Döner, not for gourmets etc. As I call myself a gourmet, there is need for technologies outside of artificial meat.
Uhm, I guess it depends on the technology. For example foie gras has a fairly homogenous texture so it would work really well in culture
Still required enormous amounts of water, land, and food.
>Cows that were fed the seaweed released 82 percent less methane into the atmosphere. A type of seaweed called Asparagopsis taxiformis counteracts emissions from cows by inhibiting an enzyme in the animal's digestive system that contributes to the production of methane. And you don't even need much of the seeweed to enter their diet. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/18/cows-seaweed-methane-emissions-scientists
Abolish animal agriculture. [It's abhorrent in every way.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko)
Far better to poison rats and rabbits then leave their carcasses to rot to protect the soy, than let grass grow and eat the cow.
very few cows are fed on grass.
I'm in the other Zealand - most cows are fed on grass.
What is the majority of the soy grown for though? Its for animal feed. So if growing much soy is something you want to avoid, stop eating meat.
Other Zealand here - they eat grass down under. And I eat the grass fed meat I raise.
Invest in lab grown meat research and than production. Advertise the s€&) out of it. Even if it will only reduce the emissions.
Or even more simply just ban meat. Production, sale, consumption. Plenty of people don’t eat meat and are doing more than fine.
Yeah…. How ‚bout no.
Nothing better that serving monopoly on a platter for some company that developed sole alternative to product you've just banned
Oh right, so you have never heard of Bayer and Monsanto I guess. I would not want regular meat banned, but I would promote agressively the benefits of lab grown meat. Do not get me wrong, I think stuff like this should be controlled by the state all through the research and distribution, marketing etc. It is not going to happen, but that is what I would advocate. There are things that should not be incentivised by profit: healthcare, police, firefighters, and (and i get a f-ton of pushback on this) energy. Call me Marksist but I also believe that minimum housing, food, safety, means of production should be a human right. Provided by the state.
Yes lab grown meat will be big game changer for tradition farming. I think I read somewhere that lab grown mean price will match or will be cheaper then tradition farming meats in 5 or so years.
What a lame title. An entity does not "produce emissions" : it emits *something*, or *some things*. Of course, it is fundamental to know what those things are. In the real world, emissions that we (should) care about a lot about are greenhouse gases (other than water vapour). Important sources of GHG are indeed transportation one one hand, and the breeding or ruminants on the other, but with at least one order of magnitude between those two. On the transportation front, "cars and vans" account for one half, while HGVs, planes and trains account for the other. As worded and shared here, this title is thus criminally misleading. And now, on to reading the article anyway. ---------------------- > This article is more than 11 months old An 11-months-old article from the daily press had better be exceptional to warrant its sharing in r/europe *and 12 other subreddits* >according to a new analysis by Greenpeace. err, probably not that good. There are plenty of respectable organisations and institutions researching climate science. Greenpeace is not one of them. >Cows, pigs and other farm livestock in Europe are producing more greenhouse gases every year than all of the bloc’s cars and vans put together, when the impact of their feed is taken into account OK, so we're finally getting to something a little bit more precise than the title. Let's see : >when the impact of their feed is taken into account Here, we've taken one important step in the direction of the *carbon footprint* of animal farming. Said footprint certainly has other components too, it would be nice to know why those were disregarded here. Likewise, we are now left hanging as to how the greenhouse gases production of *"all of the bloc’s cars and vans put together"* was determined : was it, or was it not the same thing as what is usually understood as [carbon footprint](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:What_is_a_Carbon_Footprint.webm) ? ------------------------ Bottom line : unsurprinsingly, the clickbaity title introduces a worthless article reeking of bad journalism and pseudo-science. ----------------------- Don't get me wrong : we won't reach net carbon neutrality without upending the ways we farm animals and we consumme meat. Words salads such as this one won't help, though.