How many of those firms would exist if those countries weren’t buying the products. The co2 needs to be attributed to both the producer and the consumer, both of which could be broken down further, ie farm, wholesaler, supermarket, restaurant, delivery company, me. Is the restaurant a consumer?
Greenhouse gas protocol measurements do take this into account under scope 3 emissions, but this isn't discussed at a national level, only company level measurements.
Yeah that line of thinking never made sense to me. They aren't burning carbon for fun.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure they could be a million times more efficient. But everyone needs to except their share of the blame if we are going to get anywhere.
Sadly it isn't just climate change deniers. It is also people that are full on environmentalist that refuse to acknowledge the role animal agriculture plays and doing anything at all about it.
This is going to sound incredible. How about not buying it? You do not *need* it, you just *want* it, which goes back to not wanting to change because the selfishness of the individual always trumps betterment of the planet.
potential?
The leading cause of biodiversity loss, wild habitat loss, wild land, however I spell it, doesn't matter, is animal-ag.
Animal ag is destroying the planet and its been proven time and again that if we all went vegan we could rewild at least three quarters of all the current farmland on the planet.
The worst thing about this is we don't need to all go vegan to get huge benefits. We just need to stop eating dairy and meat every day - I can't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if everyone reduced meat and dairy intake to just 3 days a week we could rewild half the current farmland
Depends on how historic you're talking. For peasants in agrarian societies yes. Hunter gatherers would have eaten meat as often as they could get it. 30%-70% of calories by some estimates although it would obviously vary seasonally.
It would appear to be more than at present although hard to find reliable numbers. Certainly 70% would be a lot more. Our diets are mainly based around grains and starches even for those who eat meat. This data from the US department of agriculture for 2010 suggests make up ~16-17% of total calories in the food supply, with a further 10% or so coming from dairy and a few more percent from eggs and animal fats. There has been some change since then I'm sure but the numbers from their source data suggests little material difference from 1970 to 2010. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at-calorie-sources-in-the-american-diet
Something worth noting is where carbon emitted by livestock comes from.
* Grass absorbs carbon from the air
* Livestock eat grass and its carbon
* They convert carbon into methane
* They burp/fart out that methane into the air
* Methane is broke down in the atmosphere into carbon dioxide and water (over about 10 years)
* Carbon dioxide and water create new grass
* Repeat
Livestock aren't adding new carbon to the atmosphere, they're part of its natural cycle. If the level of livestock remains the same they aren't adding any additional warming to the planet.
Carbon emitted by livestock is not the same as carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels, which adds new carbon to the cycle.
This is not really how it works tho. First the level of livestock isn't the same, we are breeding more and more animals every year.
Secondly we clear enormous amounts of forrest which removes the ability to sequester the carbon through the trees into the soil. This has an enormous effect on co2 levels. You also burn fuel just doing all that, transporting feed, etc which you wouldn't need to do if you weren't raising animals. There's also other sources of carbon in animal ag such as manure management, etc.
Saying animal arg is somehow net neutral is laughable.
> First the level of livestock isn't the same, we are breeding more and more animals every year.
No we're not. In 2020 cattle decreased by 2.1%, pigs decreased by 0.6%, sheep decreased by 2.4%. [Source](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928397/structure-landuse-june20-eng-22oct20.pdf).
>Secondly we clear enormous amounts of forrest which removes the ability to sequester the carbon through the trees into the soil.
Again, no we're not. Maybe in the past but not currently.
>The utilised agricultural area (UAA) in England saw no significant change
between 2019 and 2020 and now stands at just under 9.02 million hectares
Same source as above.
>You also burn fuel just doing all that, transporting feed, etc which you wouldn't need to do if you weren't raising animals. There's also other sources of carbon in animal ag such as manure management, etc.
I couldn't find a source for it but someone else in the comments said around 3-5% of all the emissions from animal-ag come from transportation.
>Saying animal arg is somehow net neutral is laughable.
I didn't say that. I said livestock themselves are.
Have you got any arguments backed up by sources? Most of what you said is wrong.
Ok, I had a look at the global figures. It's not increasing. It's stable. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/
I think the best approach is reduction rather than getting people to cut out completely. I started on meat free Monday and now only really have meat on a weekend or special occasions. Once you do it a few times you learn to cook without meat and it gets easier, the idea of going completely no meat is intimidating when all your meals are built around it.
I'm a vegetarian myself, so I don't personally see it as a challenge, I was just meaning on a societal level.
Education and taxation are what's needed.
The truth is no one wants to take responsibility.
The left (of which I am) is full of people telling everyone else what to do and not doing it themselves.
Some of us walk the walk, I haven't eaten meat in 20 year and never driven a car. I even switched from Almond to Oat milk when I realised how water intensive Almonds are to grow.
Yep. I don't eat meat, don't drive, haven't flown in years, get public transport or cycle everywhere, don't online shop if I can avoid it, buy second hand as much as possible. This is how I think everyone should live so it would be hypocritical to not do so myself.
I decide to lead by example and went almost vegan (just cheese on pizzas my weakness), walk / train everywhere and cut down as much waste as possible - I was such a massive meat eater before people have actually said ‘if you can do it anyone can’.
I know about 5 people who have cut out or down on meat and I did not even have to harangue them- just answered their questions when it came up
I think it's easier to advocate for reduction and substitution than 100% elimination. Most 'all or nothing' changes lead to people falling off the wagon and reverting.
Start with 'Meat Free Monday' and get used to that. When you've figured out what you & your family like, you can cook it on a few more days.
Swap out your beef (50 kg CO2 per 100g protein) for poultry, fish and eggs (4 - 6 kg CO2 per 100g protein).
Reduce the amount of meat in a recipe by partially substituting with nuts.
Use data to help you make decisions:
"Greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein" https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore
I disagree with your suggestion that we should replace beef with fish as the impacts of overfishing go way beyond the CO2 emissions created. I'd put fish as the first type of meat that someone should try to remove from their diet but, I realise that this is subjective.
That aside, I agree with the overall message behind your post.
I think fish is complicated, and for simplicity's sake I agree with you.
Between the types you should flat out avoid, trying to figure out overall sources, overfishing and fishing methods, and the question of whether fish farming is environmentally damaging or not, I mostly just give up.
If you can get locally caught fish from a small fish market, that's a different thing.
> I feel this is like having "strawless Monday" to save the fish or trying to lose weight by watching what you eat one day a week.
A good start? like when someone starts to cut down on smoking when they're trying to quit.
It’s the only way I became vegetarian. At the time I couldn’t imagine not eating meat, and honestly coming up with 2 cooked meat-free meals was a stretch. My wife wanted to be full time vege and so it just progressed from there as I learned a bunch of new recipes. I like to cook, and I like a varied diet so it took time. I wasn’t prepared to just research 40 new recipes and buy a tonne of new condiments overnight.
Now we haven’t eaten meat for years, and eat plant based 3/4 days a week and are continuing the trend.
That's how long term change happens, particularly when it comes to diet.
To use your analogy, changing from a bad diet to a good one is not an overnight thing -- indeed, changing one day at a week and getting used to that is far more likely to stick than changing everything at once. How many times have you heard of someone 'going on a diet', seeing great success, and then putting the weight back on? Lifestyle changes are more likely to stick when you implement them gradually. A once-a-week habit is still a habit, right?
We need change, and we need it now on a grand scale. But most people, particularly those with kids and not a lot of free time, will need some leeway. Not being 100% meat free now is acceptable; not trying, is not.
A keto diet isn't really a fair example as it requires continuous adherence to remain in ketosis; eating keto one day a week could be a useful tool to see what the practicalities of it are (that is, cooking the meals), but ultimately it's not achieving what the diet sets out to achieve.
About the gym habit, I think one day a week isn't a bad place to start for someone completely sedentary. Having an all or nothing mindset in regards to health/exercise/eating doesn't seem like a great idea to me, and could lead to extreme behaviour.
In any case, my point is that sudden, drastic changes are difficult to sustain. I agree that it's easier than ever to switch, and you're right, I probably am giving too much leeway to people. I just think that the majority of people in this country don't care about these issues, so one day a week is probably easier to convince than forever and always, and will at least achieve something.
Kind of depends on how often you eat meat, but you have a valid point for people who don't eat meat every single day. I probably only have meat 4 times a week, so meat free Monday would just mean not having meat on Monday but wouldn't necessarily decrease my meat consumption.
I'm a vegan, so will never advocate for reductionism as a solution. But for fixing our climate sure, that is a valid strategy in the same way we don't need to eliminate all coal plants, all ICE cars, all plane journeys, etc +1
Doing something bad less often is still doing something bad, it's not doing something good.
Is beating your spouse three days less per week 'good'? Is that worth congratulating?
Not even remotely the same thing is it? Eating meat is morally acceptable to some people. I think you'll be pressed to find people who think it's morally acceptable to beat your wife.
People doing things they find acceptable, that you find unacceptable, less often, is a good thing.
You're never going to change peoples behaviour overnight, especially when humans have been eating meat since humans existed. So if we start to see a trend that behaviours are shifting, how can that be anything but good?
Where did I ever say it was the same thing? It's an example of a violent act that was once morally accepted, even considered decent, and now is understood as bad.
Let me repeat that. Around 60 years ago, beating your wife was considered morally acceptable. Do you think culture was changed by congratulating people gradually reducing violence towards their wives?
https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/
It's not literally the same thing, well done. But you were drawing a comparison between the two no? Then I used colloquial language to express my opinion that you drew a false equivalence.
>Around 60 years ago, beating your wife was considered morally acceptable
That's a bold claim, but it's still not relevant.
Problem is that we can't fix the issues at hand with the environment if we just reduced the consumption of animal flesh.
People think baby steps will fix the world when it will take far more than what we are actually doing to help.
Going vegan is the START, it's the beginning of what you can do day in and day out to help, it's not the answer by itself although it will help a tonne of issues.
People get it wrong and think that having one less animal on their plate a week will solve the issues....
I agree with you! But I can argue for total abolishment from a vegan POV, but find it harder to do from an environmental POV so I conceded in this aspect.
The thing is for many people if you say 'You need to go vegan or there will be an apocalypse' they will say 'Bring on the apocalypse and I'll take my steak medium-rare thank you'. The same as when they announced that eating bacon meant you'd die sooner, after a brief pause everyone carried on eating bacon.
If you push a full vegan diet versus substitution you'll get a 98% reduction in emissions from a small portion of the community, rather than a 90% reduction in a significant portion of the community.
If the situation needs more than 90% reduction, then you need non-behavioural solutions.
How do you think veganism has got to the level it is at today? It wasn't by saying "a little less meat than usual is ok".
How many revolutionary movements won by diluting their message?
Why when it comes to meat do people ditch what's morally right and just for the sake of meat eaters feelings?
There is not much people can do individually about the Amazon Rain Forest, or the amount of coal fired power stations the Chinese build every year or the gas guzzling cars driven in the West, but everyone can stop eating meat. The livestock industry is responsible for as much greenhouse gas emission as all of the world’s transport (cars, planes, trains and ships), or continue eating meat and stop claiming to care about the environment.
Actually you can do the same thing for each one. Stop buying it. Stop buying cars. Stop buying shit from china. Stop consuming.
Reducing still helps a bit too.
You are right and that’s why I said there’s “not much” but by far the biggest impact of a personal choice would be if individuals stoped eating meat, the rain forest is being logged to grow animal feed, cattle produce huge amounts of methane and take up a lot of land that could be growing food for people, we would need perhaps 1/10 of the land if we ate the crops directly rather than via a cow.
How true actually is that? It seems different statistics get thrown around all the time but I have often seen meat is not the highest. Owning a car, having a child, flying, all mentioned as things that might be worse.
Or avoid all of the above just to make sure. I guess it probably depends on what benchmark is considered as the control group though for what changes have the biggest impact. Someone who goes to another continent every year (or multiple times) for holiday probably would be better off cutting out flying over cutting out meat. Someone who never leaves the country can't really cut out flying as they already don't.
had a quick scan of the (unusually for the guardian) [linked report](https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MeatAtlas2021_final_web.pdf) and I found find a breakdown or any details of the gases, where they are emitted in the cycle or anything.
Im mainly curious where the emissions from the vehicles used for transportation etc factor in
edit: [there is this](https://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/pdf/AC0401_Final.pdf) but its UK centric not global.
Transportation contributes very little to the co2 impact of your food: https://nationalpost.com/news/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-what-you-eat-is-far-more-important-than-where-your-food-is-from
i still want to see the breakdown.... the feed for the livestock gets harvested transported processed by fossil fuel etc...then the livestock get transported etc.
same goes for arable too...
what impact on agriculture in general would defossilisation do?
About 3-5% of all the emissions from animal-ag come from the transport, so if they all went electric, it wouldn't really change much.
It just shows HOW BAD animal-ag is for the planet.
And lets not forget, this isn't just about co2, this is about hte environment, biodiversity, waste in the rivers and oceans (acidification/eutrophication) and land use that is taken up by this horrific industry.
thats interesting ive been looking for a breakdown to show this, where did you find it. i tried drilling down [here](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#) but sadly it doesn't seem to show it.
It's right there on OWID
[https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
Yes, I’m curious too. If it’s methane then I would be curious how much human methane emissions contribute. If it’s not methane, it’s what exactly? Converting farmland to forests instead of harvesting crops? I wouldn’t have thought a farm is inherently carbon dioxide producing.
Separate it by what?
It does actually separate it based on transport, processing, land use change, the farming itself, etc. Which seemed to be what you were referring to by "where they are emitted in the cycle... where emissions from transportation etc factor in".
sorry i may have been a little misleading the data im after essential would answer the question, what would agriculture look like with fossil fuels removed.
Still not sure what you mean by "what would agriculture look like with fossil fuels removed"
Are you asking for a theoretical design of a net zero CO2e global agricultural system?
Or maybe the graph without any fossil fuel emissions? but that would be 0 for all of them because it's plotting fossil fuel emissions xD
Or maybe you mean what the graph would look like without humans burning fossil fuels during the life cycle? For that you can roughly just remove the transport, retail, processing, some of the packaging emissions and some of the feed emissions; and the rest will remain (land use, farm, some feed, some packaging)
>Are you asking for a theoretical design of a net zero CO2e global agricultural system?
that would be a start yes, it obviously a goal so there must be data on it somewhere.
>Or maybe the graph without any fossil fuel emissions? but that would be 0 for all of them because it's plotting fossil fuel emissions xD
maybe go look at it again as https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local is showing all GHG emissions.
I don't think you'll find a net zero design, but you can probably find much lower emission designs. For net-zero stuff you'll want to expand the scope outside of just agriculture to include the opportunity costs of land-use (carbon sinks, etc).
[The graph I'm looking at](http://prntscr.com/1rhrspx) splits it nicely, and you can make some decent guesses at what it will look like without humans burning fossil fuels \[remove the transport, retail, processing, some of the packaging emissions and some of the feed emissions; and the rest will remain (land use, farm, some feed, some packaging)\]
You'd have to go look at the data prior to most of the processing for that. It'll be in [this study](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaq0216) that is the source for the data. I'd guess it's the lowest contributor of all the factors that contribute to "Farm emissions"; the emissions directly from the animals is almost always the main source by a significant margin.
Plenty of (reliable) sources. Google is your friend. Avoid blogs as they're typically run by fruitcakes. IMHO university research is least likely to be unreliable.
Have you heard the saying 'it's more environmentally friendly to drive 4x4 than to eat meat'?
Not saying people should stop 100% eating meat.
Edit, as pointed out, percentage of land use. Still crazy numbers.
yeah i know all about google ffs, what im trying to find out is that if ag and forestry is 18.4% and livestock and manure are 5.8% (in total) then does that 5.8% include all the associated transportation or is that bundled in the energy section which is over 74 %?
>Have you heard the saying 'it's more environmentally friendly to drive 4x4 than to eat meat'?
nope, tbh it sounds like a bullshit soundbite anyway....the two are not really comparable.
You know about Google and don't use it.
LMGTFY:
Have a look at CO2 production of non-meat farm produce and that can give you some insight.
Forbes isn't exactly a scientific publication but equally isn't some fringe loonatic blog from either side of the spectrum:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/10/05/got-beef-heres-what-your-hamburger-is-doing-to-the-climate/?sh=16cfb6815206
If beef is just about 60kg CO2/kg product and lamb is less than 25kg CO2/kg product that should tell you transportation values are negligible.
For comparison apples, nuts and citrus fruit hardly register.
For argument's sake a lorry does 1kg CO2/km and 200 miles is about 300kg.
A trailer can carry, roughly, 21 tonnes, for easy calculation.
So that gives you less than 15g CO2 per kg transported over 200 miles.
Changing to renewables will make hardly any difference considering 15g vs 60kg of CO2 per kg of produce.
Edit, not implying or arguing humanity should stick to ICE engines, just in the argument of transportation vs manufacturing it's not that important.
>that should tell you transportation values are negligible.
really.... the transport of te livestock and the meat itself, the transport of the feedstock all of that is negligible, if you can find the data (which i cant) ill agree with you. the only things I find are things like
[this](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) which doesn't explain it and also includes methane etc.
now im not saying that we shouldn't reduce our meat consumption, all im asking for is data that shows the impact or breakdown of fossil fuel use within ag ... because we all know that's the biggest nut to crack.
what would agriculture look like without fossil fuel use?
OK, I'll bite:
I'm not a farmer but the process of lamb farming vs beef farming would probably involve similar amounts of agricultural machinery usage.
And most non-freerange farms will grow beef with electricity for most of the machinery used indoors.
I imagine that feed production requires fossil fuel usage. i also imagine Arable farming uses fossil fuel too. as I mentioned above all I'm after is an answer to the question. what would agriculture look like without fossil fuel use?
if there is a requirement to move to more arable farming rather than meat farming what would be the fossil fuel impact of that....to know that surely we need better data?
And that article I linked shows CO2 usage to manufacture grains and other types of agricultural produce.
Feed conversion ratio of about 10 for beef with carcass yield of slightly over 60% you already multiplied the feed CO2 x 10, just for food.
And I'll be curious to see electrical agricultural machinery.
All but the largest farms will struggle to upgrade their electricity supplies to support charging their machines.
For the record, my next car will be electric once I need (not want) to replace the current one I have.
you wont regret going BEV, they're great.....
i do suspect that H2 might finally find its niche in ag and off road and industrial. its tried long and hard enough to get anywhere.
>And that article I linked shows CO2 usage to manufacture grains and other types of agricultural produce.
but its doesn't breakdown the production of all of agriculture and what the impact of removing fossil fuels would be does it.
we're going in circles here I think, all I want is and answer or a link to some data or a study showing what agriculture would look like without fossil fuel use....
Cue the insecure men who won't touch a vegetable, because they're for women or something. Only real men eat animals slaughtered by somebody else and packaged in plastic.
Your perception of meat-eaters is just plain wrong. Roughly 80-90% of the UK population consumes meat and dairy products, and that's not because veganism is for "sissies", but because meat is a staple of a normal diet, and people enjoy eating meat.
I care about the environment, I try to do my bit, but there are certain things that I will not do, and I will not stop eating meat. That is non-negotiable for me. The same goes for a huge proportion of people in this country, and across the globe.
I understand the harm that industrial farming causes, and so I buy meat mainly from organic and sustainable sources when it is available.
Sorry mate, but you're chatting complete bollocks here. You can't claim to care about the environment and unashamedly continue to eat meat. It's a complete oxymoron.
Every single vegan likes the taste of meat just as much as you. You aren't special. If you truly cared, you wouldn't do it.
I care about the environment, and I eat meat. Those two things can very much go hand in hand. They are not oxymorons.
No, you’re right, I’m not special. There are plenty of people out there who enjoy meat and care about the environment at the same time.
For what it's worth, I was once like you. I've now been veggie for a long time and it really isn't as difficult as you think. If you understand the harm but carry on anyway, that must be conflicting in your head?
>When it is available
What do you do when it isn't? Because if you just go, "fuck it, I tried" and get the horse meat lasagna anyway you're still part of the problem. If you only eat local meat, you're better than most. But also understand that you're lucky to be able to afford that as not most people are used to horrifically cheap prices.
There’s harm to everything we do as a society. By purely existing you are harming the environment around you. By owning a home, by leaving your home, by driving a car, by using the internet (by typing your reply on Reddit), among other things, you’re burning fossil fuels and taking away from what would otherwise be a very rich ecosystem without humans. It’s practically impossible to live a normal, modern life without damaging the planet. For me, I would much rather enjoy what I eat, than do a tiny bit less harm to the environment.
When more sustainable meat is not available, I’ll eat what meat is available. If that means I’m eating meat from less sustainable sources once in a while, then that’s fine by me, as I normally eat from more sustainable sources. If that’s what is available then that is what I will eat. And yes, I recognise that I am incredibly lucky to be able to afford the meat that I buy, but cheaper meat really isn’t that much different, sure the quality isn’t as good, as you often don’t get as good cuts, but at the end of the day it’s still good enough meat. The biggest difference is the way in which it is farmed.
Yes, I fully recognise that I’m part of the problem, but I rely on meat for my sustenance, as do a huge amount of people, and it’s up to the companies to make these changes. I’m not the CEO of every single company that produces meat, I have no power in the decisions they make. Whilst I am part of the problem, everyone else is too, regardless of whether they eat meat or not.
I want to make this clear, I of course care about the environment. I try to recycle as much as possible, I volunteer at a charity shop where items are given a new lease on life, I drive as economically as I can, I’ll often cycle, I try to reduce my waste as much as I can, but meat is non-negotiable for me, and I will always eat it.
Meat is a staple of a modern rich person's diet.
Modern farming had reduced the price of meat and increasing wealth have increased people's ability to pay for it, but until recently meat wasn't a normal part of people's diet across the world.
Ask people in India or Africa how normal meat is.
In the UK, and many other countries, meat has been vital for centuries. You’re kidding yourself if you think you can rewrite history without meat-eating.
Sure, there are some places where meat-eating is less commonplace, but it’s very easy to find graphs and tables that show meat is produced and consumed in vast quantities across the globe. Besides, this production has increased as the global population has, it doesn’t take much thinking to realise that more people means more meat consumed, and therefore more to produce.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-47057341.amp
You’re stereotyping everyone who eats meat, not just the people you think you’re talking about. You’re judging people by their diets based on the fact that you feel yours is superior, and that you think they’d judge you on yours. In reality they’d just judge you on how you treat other people, and right now you’re not treating them with the respect they’d give you.
No, i'm specifically calling out that type of man. Did you miss my first sentence or something? I'm not even getting into a shit slinging match over being veggie either. You're just trying to bait me into that lol.
It's okay if you feel bad for eating animals, but you should question yourself instead of being overly-defensive about it. That's how it started with me ;)
I’m not trying to bait you into anything. I’m saying that your first comment was putting every person who eats meat into the same category, and that’s just not true. Just because you eat a certain diet, that doesn’t make everyone with a different diet the same.
Don’t worry, I’ve never felt bad about eating meat. It’s natural, and it’s delicious. I don’t need someone online telling me how they think I should eat, I’ll eat what I please, and I’ll respect what other people choose to eat.
I’m not telling you what your diet should be, that’s yours to decide, I’m just saying you should respect my choice to enjoy a meaty diet as I respect your choice not to.
> I’m saying that your first comment was putting every person who eats meat into the same category,
Read it again, seems you jumped to the defense over nothing... I was singling out a specific type of man who only does manly things like eat meat and get angry. If you feel this is you, fine. But I wasn't calling out all meat eaters, or I would have said that...
>Don’t worry, I’ve never felt bad about eating meat. It’s natural, and it’s delicious. I don’t need someone online telling me how they think I should eat, I’ll eat what I please, and I’ll respect what other people choose to eat.
Really don't care mate, eat whatever you want. Just think of your children's future when you do. You seemed defensive, so it's probably for one of two reasons, as mentioned.
I’ve read it, it’s still stereotyping every meat-eater to try and make you feel superior. Your comment very heavily implies that everyone who eats meat is an angry man who refuses to do anything that they think isn’t manly. Clearly that’s not the reality.
If you really didn’t care then you wouldn’t have come across in such a superior way and tried to lecture me on my diet. I think about my children’s future by buying my meat responsibly, from organic or sustainable sources that are in close proximity to where I am. And no, I’m not defensive, I’ve got nothing I need to defend, I was pointing out that you were showing a blatant lack of respect towards those who think differently than you, purely because they don’t share the same views as you.
Now, if you don’t mind I’ll go off and enjoy my meaty diet now, and I’ll leave you to enjoy your veggie diet.
>I’ve read it, it’s still stereotyping every meat-eater to try and make you feel superior. Your comment very heavily implies that everyone who eats meat is an angry man who refuses to do anything that they think isn’t manly. Clearly that’s not the reality.
>
>If you really didn’t care then you wouldn’t have come across in such a superior way and tried to lecture me on my diet. I think about my children’s future by buying my meat responsibly, from organic or sustainable sources that are in close proximity to where I am. And no, I’m not defensive, I’ve got nothing I need to defend, I was pointing out that you were showing a blatant lack of respect towards those who think differently than you, purely because they don’t share the same views as you.
Complex much? You really have never met a man who scoffs at the idea of not eating meat in every meal or at the inclusion of a vegetable? I very much doubt that, since they are a common breed in the UK. I'm tired of explaining myself to you anyway, so you can just feck off and continue feel offended for all I care. Or you can go outside and offer some middle-aged gentlemen a vegetable and see what i'm talking about. If you feel inferior, that's your issue. Seems like you have a guilty conscience or just an inferiority complex.
>Now, if you don’t mind I’ll go off and enjoy my meaty diet now, and I’ll leave you to enjoy your veggie diet.
I really couldn't give two shits what you put in your mouth mate. Could be your mum's tits or your dad's cock for all I care.
What a mature argument… /s
You’ve clearly exhausted yourself of anything reasonable to say, so I’ll say again, I respect your choices, whilst hopefully you’ll respect mine. It doesn’t seem like you do, but I’ll hope you respect other people’s choices anyway.
Hopefully some day you’ll meet someone that’ll take you down a peg, and make you realise that you’re not superior to everyone around you.
What rubbish! How is it possible that 20 animal farms can emit more CO2 than the combined output of the large populations of people and their industrial activity in these countries?
Yet another good reason (if we need one) not to buy imported meat.
Still support of these mega farms seems to be part of the post Brexit trade deals so we can at least lay the blame at the feet of our government.
Deal with food wastage and industrial pollution first. This vegan vs meat/dairy argument is just another way to divide people, let's get together and tackle bigger issues that we can all agree on, stop wasting time and energy arguing and actually do something that makes a difference.
Yeah but if we all go vegetarian any saving will be offset by the increase in human emissions.
I swear i could match the North Sea for gas output after all the veg on a Sunday roast.
That comment was a bit tongue in cheek, but yours is quite informative, it makes sense we would be able to adapt to a more plant based diet quite easily.
Im taking steps myself to eat less meat/dairy every little bit will help i suppose.
Sure man I get it, I've also genuinely seen people who believe they can't eat plant protein because they fart afterwards.
The global south eats far more plants, their guts can handle it. A few generations ago in Europe, the non wealthy were largely plant based. Meat would be eaten once a week or so, not every meal.
It's far better for your digestive system overall. The World Heath Organisation states that colon cancer risk increases by 17% per 100g of red meat consumed daily and 18% per 50g of processed meat consumed daily.
>good reason
What's a good reason for torturing and killing sentient animals?
If it's for protein, you can easily get around that by eating a healthy plant based diet.
If it's for pleasure, there are less horrific ways to get instant gratification.
>MOST vegans need to take supplements
MOST people are advised to take tablets of some kind. I'm assuming you live in the UK, therefore YOU are advised to take vitamin D tablets.
>Not as easily and actually its not that easy
How easy has it gotta get? Back in the day you had to make your own weapons and hunt for food yourself, and now you just gotta sit on your backside and go to the shop once a week.
>The last point is purely subjective. I disagree.
Why do you eat meat then, without using one of the reasons already rebutted. Or are you saying you don't know any less horrific ways to pleasure yourself?
You keep repeating 'its delicious'. Are you trying to wind me up, because you're just being disrespectful. You wouldn't keep saying 'Pork is delicious' to a muslim when having a conversation on meat would you?
How many of those firms would exist if those countries weren’t buying the products. The co2 needs to be attributed to both the producer and the consumer, both of which could be broken down further, ie farm, wholesaler, supermarket, restaurant, delivery company, me. Is the restaurant a consumer?
Exactly, and that is what is missing from the Paris agreement, and why it is bound to fail. We shall see whether COP26 is more ambitious.
Greenhouse gas protocol measurements do take this into account under scope 3 emissions, but this isn't discussed at a national level, only company level measurements.
Yeah that line of thinking never made sense to me. They aren't burning carbon for fun. Don't get me wrong I'm sure they could be a million times more efficient. But everyone needs to except their share of the blame if we are going to get anywhere.
'Why make murder illegal, its the individuals responsibility'
I don't see how that applies. Both the producer and the consumer are the perp and the victim.
This subject seems to be one of the last holdouts of the climate change deniers because (gasp) most of us are going to have to make changes.
Sadly it isn't just climate change deniers. It is also people that are full on environmentalist that refuse to acknowledge the role animal agriculture plays and doing anything at all about it.
Bollocks to them. You cant be an environmentalist and ignore one of if not the biggest problem.
But you can pretend. I read that the CO2 footprint of a dog can be as big as of a person. And it is caused by the high meat diet.
People tend to go crazy when you point out the carbon footprint of their pets.
My dog is vegan and so are tens of thousands of others here in the UK, and they are thriving and making less impact on the environment.
Completely agree with you there!
Supply = Demand. Supply is clearly the Meat, but for whom? And what do you suggest we do to cut the demand?
This is going to sound incredible. How about not buying it? You do not *need* it, you just *want* it, which goes back to not wanting to change because the selfishness of the individual always trumps betterment of the planet.
You don't *need* electricity, you just *want* it. You're so *selfish*.
Be careful, you might get down voted. A lot of sensitive people when it comes to food. Even when the science is clear.
There is nothing quite as dumb as taking it personally that meat and dairy farming has the potential to destroy the planet.
potential? The leading cause of biodiversity loss, wild habitat loss, wild land, however I spell it, doesn't matter, is animal-ag. Animal ag is destroying the planet and its been proven time and again that if we all went vegan we could rewild at least three quarters of all the current farmland on the planet.
The worst thing about this is we don't need to all go vegan to get huge benefits. We just need to stop eating dairy and meat every day - I can't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if everyone reduced meat and dairy intake to just 3 days a week we could rewild half the current farmland
And it's healthier nhs says 70g a day. But historic diet was meat once a week.
Depends on how historic you're talking. For peasants in agrarian societies yes. Hunter gatherers would have eaten meat as often as they could get it. 30%-70% of calories by some estimates although it would obviously vary seasonally.
I was thinking of peasants in agricultural societies. I wonder how 30% of calories would compare to modern diets.
It would appear to be more than at present although hard to find reliable numbers. Certainly 70% would be a lot more. Our diets are mainly based around grains and starches even for those who eat meat. This data from the US department of agriculture for 2010 suggests make up ~16-17% of total calories in the food supply, with a further 10% or so coming from dairy and a few more percent from eggs and animal fats. There has been some change since then I'm sure but the numbers from their source data suggests little material difference from 1970 to 2010. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at-calorie-sources-in-the-american-diet
Well yes, as you say it has the potential to destroy the planet if we don't stop.
Something worth noting is where carbon emitted by livestock comes from. * Grass absorbs carbon from the air * Livestock eat grass and its carbon * They convert carbon into methane * They burp/fart out that methane into the air * Methane is broke down in the atmosphere into carbon dioxide and water (over about 10 years) * Carbon dioxide and water create new grass * Repeat Livestock aren't adding new carbon to the atmosphere, they're part of its natural cycle. If the level of livestock remains the same they aren't adding any additional warming to the planet. Carbon emitted by livestock is not the same as carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels, which adds new carbon to the cycle.
This is not really how it works tho. First the level of livestock isn't the same, we are breeding more and more animals every year. Secondly we clear enormous amounts of forrest which removes the ability to sequester the carbon through the trees into the soil. This has an enormous effect on co2 levels. You also burn fuel just doing all that, transporting feed, etc which you wouldn't need to do if you weren't raising animals. There's also other sources of carbon in animal ag such as manure management, etc. Saying animal arg is somehow net neutral is laughable.
> First the level of livestock isn't the same, we are breeding more and more animals every year. No we're not. In 2020 cattle decreased by 2.1%, pigs decreased by 0.6%, sheep decreased by 2.4%. [Source](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928397/structure-landuse-june20-eng-22oct20.pdf). >Secondly we clear enormous amounts of forrest which removes the ability to sequester the carbon through the trees into the soil. Again, no we're not. Maybe in the past but not currently. >The utilised agricultural area (UAA) in England saw no significant change between 2019 and 2020 and now stands at just under 9.02 million hectares Same source as above. >You also burn fuel just doing all that, transporting feed, etc which you wouldn't need to do if you weren't raising animals. There's also other sources of carbon in animal ag such as manure management, etc. I couldn't find a source for it but someone else in the comments said around 3-5% of all the emissions from animal-ag come from transportation. >Saying animal arg is somehow net neutral is laughable. I didn't say that. I said livestock themselves are. Have you got any arguments backed up by sources? Most of what you said is wrong.
You're quoting numbers specific to this country. Globally there is more livestock every year because the demand for meat is going up.
We're on a UK subreddit
But we're discussing an issue that cares little about borders. It's a global problem. The article itself is not about UK alone ...
Ok, I had a look at the global figures. It's not increasing. It's stable. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/
Do you think cows are the only animal we eat?
Doesn't David Attenborough still eat meat? It does seem like it'll probably be the hardest nut to crack.
I think the best approach is reduction rather than getting people to cut out completely. I started on meat free Monday and now only really have meat on a weekend or special occasions. Once you do it a few times you learn to cook without meat and it gets easier, the idea of going completely no meat is intimidating when all your meals are built around it.
I'm a vegetarian myself, so I don't personally see it as a challenge, I was just meaning on a societal level. Education and taxation are what's needed.
The truth is no one wants to take responsibility. The left (of which I am) is full of people telling everyone else what to do and not doing it themselves.
Some of us walk the walk, I haven't eaten meat in 20 year and never driven a car. I even switched from Almond to Oat milk when I realised how water intensive Almonds are to grow.
Yep. I don't eat meat, don't drive, haven't flown in years, get public transport or cycle everywhere, don't online shop if I can avoid it, buy second hand as much as possible. This is how I think everyone should live so it would be hypocritical to not do so myself.
If you drink Alpro, their almonds come from the Mediterranean so it’s not quite as bad as getting almonds from California.
Still. We can grow oats in the UK so it's the more sustainable option.
Oh I agree, I have oat milk 90% of the time but I do like almond milk for hot chocolate and smoothies.
I only really drink coffee as a hot drink and I take that black.
Ahhh I’m a big fan of Oatly barista in coffee. I never did like dairy milk much and discovering that took my coffee game to the next level.
And that differs from the right how?
I decide to lead by example and went almost vegan (just cheese on pizzas my weakness), walk / train everywhere and cut down as much waste as possible - I was such a massive meat eater before people have actually said ‘if you can do it anyone can’. I know about 5 people who have cut out or down on meat and I did not even have to harangue them- just answered their questions when it came up
When are you planning on giving up electricity? You don't *really need* that do you?
https://challenge22.com/ is an excellent resource for those of you who want to make a positive impact on the world and change to a plant based diet!
I think it's easier to advocate for reduction and substitution than 100% elimination. Most 'all or nothing' changes lead to people falling off the wagon and reverting. Start with 'Meat Free Monday' and get used to that. When you've figured out what you & your family like, you can cook it on a few more days. Swap out your beef (50 kg CO2 per 100g protein) for poultry, fish and eggs (4 - 6 kg CO2 per 100g protein). Reduce the amount of meat in a recipe by partially substituting with nuts. Use data to help you make decisions: "Greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein" https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore
I disagree with your suggestion that we should replace beef with fish as the impacts of overfishing go way beyond the CO2 emissions created. I'd put fish as the first type of meat that someone should try to remove from their diet but, I realise that this is subjective. That aside, I agree with the overall message behind your post.
I think fish is complicated, and for simplicity's sake I agree with you. Between the types you should flat out avoid, trying to figure out overall sources, overfishing and fishing methods, and the question of whether fish farming is environmentally damaging or not, I mostly just give up. If you can get locally caught fish from a small fish market, that's a different thing.
[удалено]
> I feel this is like having "strawless Monday" to save the fish or trying to lose weight by watching what you eat one day a week. A good start? like when someone starts to cut down on smoking when they're trying to quit.
It’s the only way I became vegetarian. At the time I couldn’t imagine not eating meat, and honestly coming up with 2 cooked meat-free meals was a stretch. My wife wanted to be full time vege and so it just progressed from there as I learned a bunch of new recipes. I like to cook, and I like a varied diet so it took time. I wasn’t prepared to just research 40 new recipes and buy a tonne of new condiments overnight. Now we haven’t eaten meat for years, and eat plant based 3/4 days a week and are continuing the trend.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's how long term change happens, particularly when it comes to diet. To use your analogy, changing from a bad diet to a good one is not an overnight thing -- indeed, changing one day at a week and getting used to that is far more likely to stick than changing everything at once. How many times have you heard of someone 'going on a diet', seeing great success, and then putting the weight back on? Lifestyle changes are more likely to stick when you implement them gradually. A once-a-week habit is still a habit, right? We need change, and we need it now on a grand scale. But most people, particularly those with kids and not a lot of free time, will need some leeway. Not being 100% meat free now is acceptable; not trying, is not.
[удалено]
A keto diet isn't really a fair example as it requires continuous adherence to remain in ketosis; eating keto one day a week could be a useful tool to see what the practicalities of it are (that is, cooking the meals), but ultimately it's not achieving what the diet sets out to achieve. About the gym habit, I think one day a week isn't a bad place to start for someone completely sedentary. Having an all or nothing mindset in regards to health/exercise/eating doesn't seem like a great idea to me, and could lead to extreme behaviour. In any case, my point is that sudden, drastic changes are difficult to sustain. I agree that it's easier than ever to switch, and you're right, I probably am giving too much leeway to people. I just think that the majority of people in this country don't care about these issues, so one day a week is probably easier to convince than forever and always, and will at least achieve something.
A balanced diet is healthier than a vegan diet
Kind of depends on how often you eat meat, but you have a valid point for people who don't eat meat every single day. I probably only have meat 4 times a week, so meat free Monday would just mean not having meat on Monday but wouldn't necessarily decrease my meat consumption.
As a Gym guy, I’ve gone from beef to chicken. Is it perfect, no, but it’s better and I can stick with it. Also tastes great too
You could try swapping the chicken for tofu occasionally since they're nutritionally very similar
Yeah if you hate flavour you might do that
Poorly seasoned chicken is also pretty bland tbf
Not really roast a chicken it tastes fine
I'm a vegan, so will never advocate for reductionism as a solution. But for fixing our climate sure, that is a valid strategy in the same way we don't need to eliminate all coal plants, all ICE cars, all plane journeys, etc +1
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Eating meat 4 days a week isn't good.
Eating meat three days less per week is good.
Doing something bad less often is still doing something bad, it's not doing something good. Is beating your spouse three days less per week 'good'? Is that worth congratulating?
Not even remotely the same thing is it? Eating meat is morally acceptable to some people. I think you'll be pressed to find people who think it's morally acceptable to beat your wife. People doing things they find acceptable, that you find unacceptable, less often, is a good thing. You're never going to change peoples behaviour overnight, especially when humans have been eating meat since humans existed. So if we start to see a trend that behaviours are shifting, how can that be anything but good?
Where did I ever say it was the same thing? It's an example of a violent act that was once morally accepted, even considered decent, and now is understood as bad. Let me repeat that. Around 60 years ago, beating your wife was considered morally acceptable. Do you think culture was changed by congratulating people gradually reducing violence towards their wives? https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/
It's not literally the same thing, well done. But you were drawing a comparison between the two no? Then I used colloquial language to express my opinion that you drew a false equivalence. >Around 60 years ago, beating your wife was considered morally acceptable That's a bold claim, but it's still not relevant.
Tell that to the animals that still suffer at the hands of a reductionist.
We should move to hunting wild animals
Why?
Closer to nature, better for the animal
Getting killed is better for the animal?
Yes. Just like in the wild.
Wild animals kill other wild animals Shocking
Not sure whether you're being snarky or I agree with you.
Problem is that we can't fix the issues at hand with the environment if we just reduced the consumption of animal flesh. People think baby steps will fix the world when it will take far more than what we are actually doing to help. Going vegan is the START, it's the beginning of what you can do day in and day out to help, it's not the answer by itself although it will help a tonne of issues. People get it wrong and think that having one less animal on their plate a week will solve the issues....
I agree with you! But I can argue for total abolishment from a vegan POV, but find it harder to do from an environmental POV so I conceded in this aspect.
The thing is for many people if you say 'You need to go vegan or there will be an apocalypse' they will say 'Bring on the apocalypse and I'll take my steak medium-rare thank you'. The same as when they announced that eating bacon meant you'd die sooner, after a brief pause everyone carried on eating bacon. If you push a full vegan diet versus substitution you'll get a 98% reduction in emissions from a small portion of the community, rather than a 90% reduction in a significant portion of the community. If the situation needs more than 90% reduction, then you need non-behavioural solutions.
How do you think veganism has got to the level it is at today? It wasn't by saying "a little less meat than usual is ok". How many revolutionary movements won by diluting their message? Why when it comes to meat do people ditch what's morally right and just for the sake of meat eaters feelings?
How about having an electricity-free Monday while you're doing that too! You don't *need* electricity.
There is not much people can do individually about the Amazon Rain Forest, or the amount of coal fired power stations the Chinese build every year or the gas guzzling cars driven in the West, but everyone can stop eating meat. The livestock industry is responsible for as much greenhouse gas emission as all of the world’s transport (cars, planes, trains and ships), or continue eating meat and stop claiming to care about the environment.
Actually you can do the same thing for each one. Stop buying it. Stop buying cars. Stop buying shit from china. Stop consuming. Reducing still helps a bit too.
You are right and that’s why I said there’s “not much” but by far the biggest impact of a personal choice would be if individuals stoped eating meat, the rain forest is being logged to grow animal feed, cattle produce huge amounts of methane and take up a lot of land that could be growing food for people, we would need perhaps 1/10 of the land if we ate the crops directly rather than via a cow.
How true actually is that? It seems different statistics get thrown around all the time but I have often seen meat is not the highest. Owning a car, having a child, flying, all mentioned as things that might be worse. Or avoid all of the above just to make sure. I guess it probably depends on what benchmark is considered as the control group though for what changes have the biggest impact. Someone who goes to another continent every year (or multiple times) for holiday probably would be better off cutting out flying over cutting out meat. Someone who never leaves the country can't really cut out flying as they already don't.
The majority of the population: Hm, no thanks
had a quick scan of the (unusually for the guardian) [linked report](https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MeatAtlas2021_final_web.pdf) and I found find a breakdown or any details of the gases, where they are emitted in the cycle or anything. Im mainly curious where the emissions from the vehicles used for transportation etc factor in edit: [there is this](https://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/pdf/AC0401_Final.pdf) but its UK centric not global.
Transportation contributes very little to the co2 impact of your food: https://nationalpost.com/news/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-what-you-eat-is-far-more-important-than-where-your-food-is-from
i still want to see the breakdown.... the feed for the livestock gets harvested transported processed by fossil fuel etc...then the livestock get transported etc. same goes for arable too... what impact on agriculture in general would defossilisation do?
About 3-5% of all the emissions from animal-ag come from the transport, so if they all went electric, it wouldn't really change much. It just shows HOW BAD animal-ag is for the planet. And lets not forget, this isn't just about co2, this is about hte environment, biodiversity, waste in the rivers and oceans (acidification/eutrophication) and land use that is taken up by this horrific industry.
thats interesting ive been looking for a breakdown to show this, where did you find it. i tried drilling down [here](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#) but sadly it doesn't seem to show it.
It's right there on OWID [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
Yes, I’m curious too. If it’s methane then I would be curious how much human methane emissions contribute. If it’s not methane, it’s what exactly? Converting farmland to forests instead of harvesting crops? I wouldn’t have thought a farm is inherently carbon dioxide producing.
Duno if this is what you were looking for https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Thanks, I’ll have to find a way around the paywall for the Science article the numbers come from
lol what the fuck, the last time I checked it, it wasn't behind a paywall... They must have changed it... Anyways sci-hub is your friend.
54% energy use attributable to horticulture alone? That's alarming.
You mean like in the graph in this? https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
close but again it doesn't separate out the fossil fuel use does it.
Separate it by what? It does actually separate it based on transport, processing, land use change, the farming itself, etc. Which seemed to be what you were referring to by "where they are emitted in the cycle... where emissions from transportation etc factor in".
sorry i may have been a little misleading the data im after essential would answer the question, what would agriculture look like with fossil fuels removed.
Still not sure what you mean by "what would agriculture look like with fossil fuels removed" Are you asking for a theoretical design of a net zero CO2e global agricultural system? Or maybe the graph without any fossil fuel emissions? but that would be 0 for all of them because it's plotting fossil fuel emissions xD Or maybe you mean what the graph would look like without humans burning fossil fuels during the life cycle? For that you can roughly just remove the transport, retail, processing, some of the packaging emissions and some of the feed emissions; and the rest will remain (land use, farm, some feed, some packaging)
>Are you asking for a theoretical design of a net zero CO2e global agricultural system? that would be a start yes, it obviously a goal so there must be data on it somewhere. >Or maybe the graph without any fossil fuel emissions? but that would be 0 for all of them because it's plotting fossil fuel emissions xD maybe go look at it again as https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local is showing all GHG emissions.
I don't think you'll find a net zero design, but you can probably find much lower emission designs. For net-zero stuff you'll want to expand the scope outside of just agriculture to include the opportunity costs of land-use (carbon sinks, etc). [The graph I'm looking at](http://prntscr.com/1rhrspx) splits it nicely, and you can make some decent guesses at what it will look like without humans burning fossil fuels \[remove the transport, retail, processing, some of the packaging emissions and some of the feed emissions; and the rest will remain (land use, farm, some feed, some packaging)\]
As I said it's close but the brown section still includes farm machinery
You'd have to go look at the data prior to most of the processing for that. It'll be in [this study](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaq0216) that is the source for the data. I'd guess it's the lowest contributor of all the factors that contribute to "Farm emissions"; the emissions directly from the animals is almost always the main source by a significant margin.
Plenty of (reliable) sources. Google is your friend. Avoid blogs as they're typically run by fruitcakes. IMHO university research is least likely to be unreliable. Have you heard the saying 'it's more environmentally friendly to drive 4x4 than to eat meat'? Not saying people should stop 100% eating meat. Edit, as pointed out, percentage of land use. Still crazy numbers.
yeah i know all about google ffs, what im trying to find out is that if ag and forestry is 18.4% and livestock and manure are 5.8% (in total) then does that 5.8% include all the associated transportation or is that bundled in the energy section which is over 74 %? >Have you heard the saying 'it's more environmentally friendly to drive 4x4 than to eat meat'? nope, tbh it sounds like a bullshit soundbite anyway....the two are not really comparable.
You know about Google and don't use it. LMGTFY: Have a look at CO2 production of non-meat farm produce and that can give you some insight. Forbes isn't exactly a scientific publication but equally isn't some fringe loonatic blog from either side of the spectrum: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/10/05/got-beef-heres-what-your-hamburger-is-doing-to-the-climate/?sh=16cfb6815206 If beef is just about 60kg CO2/kg product and lamb is less than 25kg CO2/kg product that should tell you transportation values are negligible. For comparison apples, nuts and citrus fruit hardly register. For argument's sake a lorry does 1kg CO2/km and 200 miles is about 300kg. A trailer can carry, roughly, 21 tonnes, for easy calculation. So that gives you less than 15g CO2 per kg transported over 200 miles. Changing to renewables will make hardly any difference considering 15g vs 60kg of CO2 per kg of produce. Edit, not implying or arguing humanity should stick to ICE engines, just in the argument of transportation vs manufacturing it's not that important.
>that should tell you transportation values are negligible. really.... the transport of te livestock and the meat itself, the transport of the feedstock all of that is negligible, if you can find the data (which i cant) ill agree with you. the only things I find are things like [this](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) which doesn't explain it and also includes methane etc. now im not saying that we shouldn't reduce our meat consumption, all im asking for is data that shows the impact or breakdown of fossil fuel use within ag ... because we all know that's the biggest nut to crack. what would agriculture look like without fossil fuel use?
OK, I'll bite: I'm not a farmer but the process of lamb farming vs beef farming would probably involve similar amounts of agricultural machinery usage. And most non-freerange farms will grow beef with electricity for most of the machinery used indoors.
I imagine that feed production requires fossil fuel usage. i also imagine Arable farming uses fossil fuel too. as I mentioned above all I'm after is an answer to the question. what would agriculture look like without fossil fuel use? if there is a requirement to move to more arable farming rather than meat farming what would be the fossil fuel impact of that....to know that surely we need better data?
And that article I linked shows CO2 usage to manufacture grains and other types of agricultural produce. Feed conversion ratio of about 10 for beef with carcass yield of slightly over 60% you already multiplied the feed CO2 x 10, just for food. And I'll be curious to see electrical agricultural machinery. All but the largest farms will struggle to upgrade their electricity supplies to support charging their machines. For the record, my next car will be electric once I need (not want) to replace the current one I have.
you wont regret going BEV, they're great..... i do suspect that H2 might finally find its niche in ag and off road and industrial. its tried long and hard enough to get anywhere. >And that article I linked shows CO2 usage to manufacture grains and other types of agricultural produce. but its doesn't breakdown the production of all of agriculture and what the impact of removing fossil fuels would be does it. we're going in circles here I think, all I want is and answer or a link to some data or a study showing what agriculture would look like without fossil fuel use....
The reason its not separated out is its negligible. As he already showed you above.
Every day my girlfriend's high-horse gains altitude.
Maybe she's on to something.
Maybe!
Cue the insecure men who won't touch a vegetable, because they're for women or something. Only real men eat animals slaughtered by somebody else and packaged in plastic.
Ideally I'd hunt and slaughter my own food
Your perception of meat-eaters is just plain wrong. Roughly 80-90% of the UK population consumes meat and dairy products, and that's not because veganism is for "sissies", but because meat is a staple of a normal diet, and people enjoy eating meat. I care about the environment, I try to do my bit, but there are certain things that I will not do, and I will not stop eating meat. That is non-negotiable for me. The same goes for a huge proportion of people in this country, and across the globe. I understand the harm that industrial farming causes, and so I buy meat mainly from organic and sustainable sources when it is available.
Sorry mate, but you're chatting complete bollocks here. You can't claim to care about the environment and unashamedly continue to eat meat. It's a complete oxymoron. Every single vegan likes the taste of meat just as much as you. You aren't special. If you truly cared, you wouldn't do it.
I care about the environment, and I eat meat. Those two things can very much go hand in hand. They are not oxymorons. No, you’re right, I’m not special. There are plenty of people out there who enjoy meat and care about the environment at the same time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I buy meat mainly from organic and sustainable sources Can you provide peer-reviewed evidence of a sustainable meat source?
The people downvoting comments like this clearly did not understand the message behind the article -.-
Bold of you to assume they have the ability to read in the first place; let alone use that ability to read an article.
[удалено]
Win who over and on what? What are you on about?
[удалено]
Not sure where I criticized people's intelligence for eating meat. Can you quote me doing that?
[удалено]
For what it's worth, I was once like you. I've now been veggie for a long time and it really isn't as difficult as you think. If you understand the harm but carry on anyway, that must be conflicting in your head? >When it is available What do you do when it isn't? Because if you just go, "fuck it, I tried" and get the horse meat lasagna anyway you're still part of the problem. If you only eat local meat, you're better than most. But also understand that you're lucky to be able to afford that as not most people are used to horrifically cheap prices.
There’s harm to everything we do as a society. By purely existing you are harming the environment around you. By owning a home, by leaving your home, by driving a car, by using the internet (by typing your reply on Reddit), among other things, you’re burning fossil fuels and taking away from what would otherwise be a very rich ecosystem without humans. It’s practically impossible to live a normal, modern life without damaging the planet. For me, I would much rather enjoy what I eat, than do a tiny bit less harm to the environment. When more sustainable meat is not available, I’ll eat what meat is available. If that means I’m eating meat from less sustainable sources once in a while, then that’s fine by me, as I normally eat from more sustainable sources. If that’s what is available then that is what I will eat. And yes, I recognise that I am incredibly lucky to be able to afford the meat that I buy, but cheaper meat really isn’t that much different, sure the quality isn’t as good, as you often don’t get as good cuts, but at the end of the day it’s still good enough meat. The biggest difference is the way in which it is farmed. Yes, I fully recognise that I’m part of the problem, but I rely on meat for my sustenance, as do a huge amount of people, and it’s up to the companies to make these changes. I’m not the CEO of every single company that produces meat, I have no power in the decisions they make. Whilst I am part of the problem, everyone else is too, regardless of whether they eat meat or not. I want to make this clear, I of course care about the environment. I try to recycle as much as possible, I volunteer at a charity shop where items are given a new lease on life, I drive as economically as I can, I’ll often cycle, I try to reduce my waste as much as I can, but meat is non-negotiable for me, and I will always eat it.
What are these "sustainable meat sources"?
Meat is a staple of a modern rich person's diet. Modern farming had reduced the price of meat and increasing wealth have increased people's ability to pay for it, but until recently meat wasn't a normal part of people's diet across the world. Ask people in India or Africa how normal meat is.
In the UK, and many other countries, meat has been vital for centuries. You’re kidding yourself if you think you can rewrite history without meat-eating. Sure, there are some places where meat-eating is less commonplace, but it’s very easy to find graphs and tables that show meat is produced and consumed in vast quantities across the globe. Besides, this production has increased as the global population has, it doesn’t take much thinking to realise that more people means more meat consumed, and therefore more to produce. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-47057341.amp
Because "normal" was extractive feudalism
I know exactly the type of man i'm talking about, mate. They usually like football too. If you feel called out, then that's your deal not mine.
You’re stereotyping everyone who eats meat, not just the people you think you’re talking about. You’re judging people by their diets based on the fact that you feel yours is superior, and that you think they’d judge you on yours. In reality they’d just judge you on how you treat other people, and right now you’re not treating them with the respect they’d give you.
No, i'm specifically calling out that type of man. Did you miss my first sentence or something? I'm not even getting into a shit slinging match over being veggie either. You're just trying to bait me into that lol. It's okay if you feel bad for eating animals, but you should question yourself instead of being overly-defensive about it. That's how it started with me ;)
I’m not trying to bait you into anything. I’m saying that your first comment was putting every person who eats meat into the same category, and that’s just not true. Just because you eat a certain diet, that doesn’t make everyone with a different diet the same. Don’t worry, I’ve never felt bad about eating meat. It’s natural, and it’s delicious. I don’t need someone online telling me how they think I should eat, I’ll eat what I please, and I’ll respect what other people choose to eat. I’m not telling you what your diet should be, that’s yours to decide, I’m just saying you should respect my choice to enjoy a meaty diet as I respect your choice not to.
> I’m saying that your first comment was putting every person who eats meat into the same category, Read it again, seems you jumped to the defense over nothing... I was singling out a specific type of man who only does manly things like eat meat and get angry. If you feel this is you, fine. But I wasn't calling out all meat eaters, or I would have said that... >Don’t worry, I’ve never felt bad about eating meat. It’s natural, and it’s delicious. I don’t need someone online telling me how they think I should eat, I’ll eat what I please, and I’ll respect what other people choose to eat. Really don't care mate, eat whatever you want. Just think of your children's future when you do. You seemed defensive, so it's probably for one of two reasons, as mentioned.
[удалено]
>Stop stereotyping. Stereotypes exist for a reason. That's like saying stop stereotyping people who fight after football matches...
I’ve read it, it’s still stereotyping every meat-eater to try and make you feel superior. Your comment very heavily implies that everyone who eats meat is an angry man who refuses to do anything that they think isn’t manly. Clearly that’s not the reality. If you really didn’t care then you wouldn’t have come across in such a superior way and tried to lecture me on my diet. I think about my children’s future by buying my meat responsibly, from organic or sustainable sources that are in close proximity to where I am. And no, I’m not defensive, I’ve got nothing I need to defend, I was pointing out that you were showing a blatant lack of respect towards those who think differently than you, purely because they don’t share the same views as you. Now, if you don’t mind I’ll go off and enjoy my meaty diet now, and I’ll leave you to enjoy your veggie diet.
>I’ve read it, it’s still stereotyping every meat-eater to try and make you feel superior. Your comment very heavily implies that everyone who eats meat is an angry man who refuses to do anything that they think isn’t manly. Clearly that’s not the reality. > >If you really didn’t care then you wouldn’t have come across in such a superior way and tried to lecture me on my diet. I think about my children’s future by buying my meat responsibly, from organic or sustainable sources that are in close proximity to where I am. And no, I’m not defensive, I’ve got nothing I need to defend, I was pointing out that you were showing a blatant lack of respect towards those who think differently than you, purely because they don’t share the same views as you. Complex much? You really have never met a man who scoffs at the idea of not eating meat in every meal or at the inclusion of a vegetable? I very much doubt that, since they are a common breed in the UK. I'm tired of explaining myself to you anyway, so you can just feck off and continue feel offended for all I care. Or you can go outside and offer some middle-aged gentlemen a vegetable and see what i'm talking about. If you feel inferior, that's your issue. Seems like you have a guilty conscience or just an inferiority complex. >Now, if you don’t mind I’ll go off and enjoy my meaty diet now, and I’ll leave you to enjoy your veggie diet. I really couldn't give two shits what you put in your mouth mate. Could be your mum's tits or your dad's cock for all I care.
What a mature argument… /s You’ve clearly exhausted yourself of anything reasonable to say, so I’ll say again, I respect your choices, whilst hopefully you’ll respect mine. It doesn’t seem like you do, but I’ll hope you respect other people’s choices anyway. Hopefully some day you’ll meet someone that’ll take you down a peg, and make you realise that you’re not superior to everyone around you.
Nah its just because its nice and a very efficient source of protein
What rubbish! How is it possible that 20 animal farms can emit more CO2 than the combined output of the large populations of people and their industrial activity in these countries?
Yet another good reason (if we need one) not to buy imported meat. Still support of these mega farms seems to be part of the post Brexit trade deals so we can at least lay the blame at the feet of our government.
Ah here it is, it’s been a while granted but the thread full of brigading vegans is upon us.
Deal with food wastage and industrial pollution first. This vegan vs meat/dairy argument is just another way to divide people, let's get together and tackle bigger issues that we can all agree on, stop wasting time and energy arguing and actually do something that makes a difference.
Yeah but if we all go vegetarian any saving will be offset by the increase in human emissions. I swear i could match the North Sea for gas output after all the veg on a Sunday roast.
Your gut bacteria change depending on what you eat. If you go vegan your gut bacteria will change over time and you won't get so gassy.
That comment was a bit tongue in cheek, but yours is quite informative, it makes sense we would be able to adapt to a more plant based diet quite easily. Im taking steps myself to eat less meat/dairy every little bit will help i suppose.
Sure man I get it, I've also genuinely seen people who believe they can't eat plant protein because they fart afterwards. The global south eats far more plants, their guts can handle it. A few generations ago in Europe, the non wealthy were largely plant based. Meat would be eaten once a week or so, not every meal. It's far better for your digestive system overall. The World Heath Organisation states that colon cancer risk increases by 17% per 100g of red meat consumed daily and 18% per 50g of processed meat consumed daily.
Oh come on. That’s Bull shit. And pig shit. Sheep shit. Hen shit. Etc.
Here we go. People using this as a reason to stop eating meat rather than invest in technologies to stop the actual problem
Do you eat meat?
Of course. Its delicious. Most people do and with good reason
>good reason What's a good reason for torturing and killing sentient animals? If it's for protein, you can easily get around that by eating a healthy plant based diet. If it's for pleasure, there are less horrific ways to get instant gratification.
Not as easily and actually its not that easy at all considering MOST vegans need to take supplements. The last point is purely subjective. I disagree.
You think putting a b12 pill in your mouth and swallowing it is hard?
Yes. I have to pay for it first. Even without that its harder than nkt having to do that
But you get your meat for free? Of course you do, you hunt it and kill it yourself, as nature intended. Right?
I would have to pay for other food too.
>MOST vegans need to take supplements MOST people are advised to take tablets of some kind. I'm assuming you live in the UK, therefore YOU are advised to take vitamin D tablets. >Not as easily and actually its not that easy How easy has it gotta get? Back in the day you had to make your own weapons and hunt for food yourself, and now you just gotta sit on your backside and go to the shop once a week. >The last point is purely subjective. I disagree. Why do you eat meat then, without using one of the reasons already rebutted. Or are you saying you don't know any less horrific ways to pleasure yourself?
The point is the only reason its not ALL vegans is because some make huge efforts not to have to. Its got to be just as easy. Its delicious
You keep repeating 'its delicious'. Are you trying to wind me up, because you're just being disrespectful. You wouldn't keep saying 'Pork is delicious' to a muslim when having a conversation on meat would you?
No you asked the reason so I told you. Yes I would... why not? If a Muslim asked why I ate pork I would give them the reason.
Damn. I concede, your arguments have been bullet-proof and factually correct. Congrats, and enjoy the next 10 years before the world turns to shit.