As negotiations get underway at COP28, we compiled a list of the leading research documenting the connection between meat and greenhouse gas emissions.
Stop telling me what to do and get the corporations to oblige with laws. Oh wait! No one gives a shit because the corpos are running the world now? Oh no, guess i gotta eat shit to make up for their mistakes :(((
Climate change isn’t my fault! It’s those corporations that I refuse to stop buying from fault!
🙄
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable. Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture. As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable, whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
pointing out that the “eat less meat” conclusions are fraudulent misrepresentations of the facts
pointing out that only way cutting out meat in most developed countries would be good for the environment is if we also start ecologically re-engineering for a lower natural footprint than our regions ever had, since the livestock footprint nearly resembles that of pre-colonial days (here in the US, methane emission is within 20%)
pointing out that most attacks on meat-eating make the mistake of mathematically treating marginal land as if it could support a forest, when it cannot
And finally, pointing out that improvements in cattle diet shows dramatically more real-world promise than this contrived idea of forcing or coercing all humans to stop eating meat, with far fewer risks and side-effects to availability of balanced nutrition
Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture
…in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
No. Whataboutism doesn’t change the facts. On that, we can agree.
You understand the problem with “studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong”, do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.
And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you’re only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn’t making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you’re going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.
This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I’m not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
Here is UC Davis ASI’s Funding year by year. They publish it. They’re PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950’s.
But taking a step back. It’s best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of “antivax movement” to me.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment? Like this isn’t me bringing up criticism of some random researcher, it’s specifically related to the “studies and experts” you referred to. And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
In case you were unable to read the article due to the paywall, this is the most pertinent part:
According to internal University of California documents reviewed by The New York Times, Dr. Mitloehner’s academic group, the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns.
The documents show that the center, which has become a leading institution in the field of agriculture and climate, was set up in 2019 with a $2.9 million gift to be paid out over several years from the Institute for Feed Education and Research, or IFeeder, the nonprofit arm of the American Feed Industry Association, a livestock industry group that represents major agricultural companies like Cargill and Tyson.
As of April 2022, the Clear Center had also received more than $350,000 from other industry or corporate sources, the documents show, including nearly $200,000 from the California Cattle Council, a regional livestock industry group.
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University.
“Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock,” he said. “His communications are discordant from the scientific consensus, and the evidence that he has brought to bear against that consensus has not been, in my eyes, sufficient to challenge it.”
The argument leans on a method developed by scientists that aims to better account for the global-warming effects of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell, professor of earth science at Duke University and the lead author of a landmark United Nations report on methane emissions.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment?
You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.
And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
As I mentioned, I couldn’t see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I’d get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It’s primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but
as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.
Here’s the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He’s an air quality specialist by background. Here’s a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it’s important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.
As he says in his penultimate line: “I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet.”
As you quote:
Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock
I do not get that conclusion from what I’ve read of him. I’m sorry, I just don’t. Yes, it’s not fair that I say “the people I know who have been involved with him think he’s on the up-and-up”, but it’s also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.
And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in “However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell”. Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are “high current emissions”. Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He’s literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I’m sorry, I’m not ok with that.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there’s a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).
I’m sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it’s starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.
Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise, and if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying, they are not going to publish anything that would sour relations with their main source of funding.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
I disagree because their research is largely about improving sustainability, not about proving to vegans (who will never win anyway if we’re honest) that meat is okay.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise
For that to be meaningful to a discussion about UC Davis’ research, there needs to be a meaningful possibility that humanity is doomed without everyone going vegan. No matter how we coerce numbers, that’s simply not the reality. If and when there is reputable research showing that meat is unsalvageable, then we can start the hard discussions. Until then, the idea that the industry that most benefits from research would be unable to ethically fund said research is just silly. Please check out the chain that led to an essay from one of the senior researchers of UC Davis’ CLEAR center for more context.
if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying
None of UC Davis is dependent upon the meat industry. They receive some funding for some of their research from it. Because sustainability means lower cost and the meat industry likes lower cost. It’s the same reason solar has started to win in the business sector. Better environment is good business. Yes, if there’s a secret gotcha where the 1 millionth cow will suddenly explode with anthrax, there might be an argument. But despite some mild disagreements with “how much GHG is bad”, there’s not really much to criticize them for. And as a reminder, ALL food sources hit the environment in various ways, and many plants do the same worse than many animals. There’s no smoking gun, so I would be incredibly hesitant to disqualify reputable science over it.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
What about studies paid for largely by sustainability groups, but backed by businesses because the outcome isn’t “positive” as much as “here’s how you can reduce the methane impact of your livestock allowing you to efficiently scale your operations and produce more food for less money”? You can understand why the latter, far more common in research, is worth it to everyone.
We grow our own vegetables, raise our own meat, hunt, fish, forage, buy used everything with a few exceptions and we live on much less than most. Our house is appropriately sized but we drive a truck out of necessity. It’s our one vehicle, 16 years old and works every day. We take so much shit over that damn truck from folks who “know better”. How about we fuck up the trillion dollar capitalist corpos who rape and pillage the people, land and sea for God’s Almighty Profits instead of judging our neighbors whom we don’t even know many whom are struggling to even exist.
Stop absolving yourself of responsibility by claiming that the decisions you make are inconsequential. The reason things don’t get better is because people don’t make them better ffs.
What’s your take on a meat eater with a net-zero or net-negative carbon footprint? The same? What about a vegan that has to drive to work and can’t quite get their carbon footprint to zero? Which one is better, the climate-hurting vegan or the climate-helping non-vegan?
I would tell the meat eater that going vegan would further reduce their climate impact and the vegan that commuting less would further reduce their climate impact
So your take was to dodge the entire question. Ironically, I had a discussion about how I expected you to answer this question in another thread, and you did not disappoint.
It’s not just about GHGs. It’s also habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, manure runoff infecting nearby veggies, all the extra land dedicated to growing crops just for animal ag.
And there’s answers to all the “it’s about…”'s. Of the ones you listed, only the first two would even need answering since the last two are largely fabricated issues.
Nobody is growing crops “for livestock”. 86% of what they eat are inedible waste, and the other 14% are things they are being grown anyway. The most common two feed crops, corn and soy, are being grown for a different part of the crop to be used for industrial purposes. Yes, they feed a little edible corn to cows shortly before slaughter to maximize the return and quality of meat. Nobody is waiting in line for that corn because it’s terrible and non-nutiritious calories for humans. If you suddenly passed a law that forced us to euthenize all the cows and threatened us with prison time if we ate meat, those same crops would be grown only to be destroyed in ways that are just as bad (or worse) for the environment as feeding to animals
Thank you for invalidating the first two arguments by tying them to a propagandist’s fantasy. Nobody will ever change a zealous vegan’s view, but anyone else that reads this will realize all the coercion to quit meat has nothing to do with valid environmental concerns.
Wouldn’t both of those scenarios be better outcomes than a meat eater that doesn’t care about reducing their carbon contributions at all? The vegan with a long commute is better than a meat eater with a long commute, ecologically. And if a meat eater can reduce their carbon in other ways, then that’s certainly a better situation than if they didn’t reduce it at all.
Personally, I still eat meat, but I try to reduce my beef consumption the most, since that’s the biggest emitter.
Wouldn’t both of those scenarios be better outcomes than a meat eater that doesn’t care about reducing their carbon contributions at all?
Better outcomes in terms of what? If we only focus on the environment, then the only thing that matters is total environmental impact. While intelligently choosing your foods may reduce the environmental impact of your diet, naively reducing meat eating alone simply doesn’t.
Disagreeing only slightly with Dr. Hannah Ritchie from OurWorldInData (steelmanning the less-meat side IMO), transport arguably counts for J>7% of the environmental impact of food, so eating locally-sourced chicken every day is clearly better than ordering out from the vegan joint every day, especially after accounting for the caloric quality.
I asked the previous commentor for takes on the specific scenario to start to depolarize her position. Many vegans here have this polar position, and won’t stand beside me as an environmental advocate because I don’t agree with them on quitting meat being a necessary or even good environmental decision. Challenging her with the decision of what’s environmentally right and what’s “morally right” (to her) is a form of deprogramming. It usually fails especially online, but I still do it.
You perhaps can see why it is important to help give and get context from people in that situation?
The strongest environmental advocates I know are small-town farmers in rural-but-liberal areas. But approximately zero of them are vegans. I still want them fighting for the environment.
EDIT: I saw your update. The irony is that your graph comes from the same article I was referring to myself. There is an argument in the vacuum if you focus on beef-herd and lamb only (but you have to understand those are world averages and the methane production from cattle in most countries is a lot lower than that number)… but I’d like to point out that 1kg of poultry is simply a superior food product to 1kg of rice. Eggs are arguably the perfect food for those not allergic to them (like me). Replacing many crops with egg-laying chickens is a no-brainer from that graph (and sorry, but you DO get some chicken meat in every egg coop if you’re being efficient).
That’s exactly the problem is they aren’t on this crusade because it’s the #1 cause. If they can tie their crusade to a bigger problem then it gains them more traction. Even though it’s a drop in the bucket compared to corporate effects on the environment. the idea that it’s anything but a power move to convert more people to their life choices is hilarious at best. Not to mention the ableist BS that it is to believe everyone can stop eating meat, but I’m not explaining that to the 20 internet doctors that will message me after this like last time I brought it up.
Stop telling me what to do and get the corporations to oblige with laws. Oh wait! No one gives a shit because the corpos are running the world now? Oh no, guess i gotta eat shit to make up for their mistakes :(((
Yeah, vegetables and legumes and grains. Horrible, horrible. Woe is you.
🙄
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable. Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture. As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable, whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:
…in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
No. Whataboutism doesn’t change the facts. On that, we can agree.
Studies and experts funded by the livestock industry, yes. Why are the studies and experts always Mitloehner, I swear…
You understand the problem with “studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong”, do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.
And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you’re only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn’t making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you’re going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.
This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I’m not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
Here is UC Davis ASI’s Funding year by year. They publish it. They’re PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950’s.
But taking a step back. It’s best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of “antivax movement” to me.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment? Like this isn’t me bringing up criticism of some random researcher, it’s specifically related to the “studies and experts” you referred to. And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
In case you were unable to read the article due to the paywall, this is the most pertinent part:
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.
As I mentioned, I couldn’t see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I’d get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It’s primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.
Here’s the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He’s an air quality specialist by background. Here’s a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it’s important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.
As he says in his penultimate line: “I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet.”
As you quote:
I do not get that conclusion from what I’ve read of him. I’m sorry, I just don’t. Yes, it’s not fair that I say “the people I know who have been involved with him think he’s on the up-and-up”, but it’s also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.
And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in “However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell”. Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are “high current emissions”. Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He’s literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I’m sorry, I’m not ok with that.
This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there’s a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).
I’m sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it’s starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise, and if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying, they are not going to publish anything that would sour relations with their main source of funding.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
I disagree because their research is largely about improving sustainability, not about proving to vegans (who will never win anyway if we’re honest) that meat is okay.
For that to be meaningful to a discussion about UC Davis’ research, there needs to be a meaningful possibility that humanity is doomed without everyone going vegan. No matter how we coerce numbers, that’s simply not the reality. If and when there is reputable research showing that meat is unsalvageable, then we can start the hard discussions. Until then, the idea that the industry that most benefits from research would be unable to ethically fund said research is just silly. Please check out the chain that led to an essay from one of the senior researchers of UC Davis’ CLEAR center for more context.
None of UC Davis is dependent upon the meat industry. They receive some funding for some of their research from it. Because sustainability means lower cost and the meat industry likes lower cost. It’s the same reason solar has started to win in the business sector. Better environment is good business. Yes, if there’s a secret gotcha where the 1 millionth cow will suddenly explode with anthrax, there might be an argument. But despite some mild disagreements with “how much GHG is bad”, there’s not really much to criticize them for. And as a reminder, ALL food sources hit the environment in various ways, and many plants do the same worse than many animals. There’s no smoking gun, so I would be incredibly hesitant to disqualify reputable science over it.
What about studies paid for largely by sustainability groups, but backed by businesses because the outcome isn’t “positive” as much as “here’s how you can reduce the methane impact of your livestock allowing you to efficiently scale your operations and produce more food for less money”? You can understand why the latter, far more common in research, is worth it to everyone.
Who is telling you what to do?
We grow our own vegetables, raise our own meat, hunt, fish, forage, buy used everything with a few exceptions and we live on much less than most. Our house is appropriately sized but we drive a truck out of necessity. It’s our one vehicle, 16 years old and works every day. We take so much shit over that damn truck from folks who “know better”. How about we fuck up the trillion dollar capitalist corpos who rape and pillage the people, land and sea for God’s Almighty Profits instead of judging our neighbors whom we don’t even know many whom are struggling to even exist.
Stop absolving yourself of responsibility by claiming that the decisions you make are inconsequential. The reason things don’t get better is because people don’t make them better ffs.
What’s your take on a meat eater with a net-zero or net-negative carbon footprint? The same? What about a vegan that has to drive to work and can’t quite get their carbon footprint to zero? Which one is better, the climate-hurting vegan or the climate-helping non-vegan?
I would tell the meat eater that going vegan would further reduce their climate impact and the vegan that commuting less would further reduce their climate impact
So your take was to dodge the entire question. Ironically, I had a discussion about how I expected you to answer this question in another thread, and you did not disappoint.
Removed by mod
I reported you. I’m blocking you. Please go back to reddit.
🎵🎵co-ping, coping and seething 🎵🎵
It’s not just about GHGs. It’s also habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, manure runoff infecting nearby veggies, all the extra land dedicated to growing crops just for animal ag.
And there’s answers to all the “it’s about…”'s. Of the ones you listed, only the first two would even need answering since the last two are largely fabricated issues.
Last one is directly connected to the first two lol
“lol”.
Nobody is growing crops “for livestock”. 86% of what they eat are inedible waste, and the other 14% are things they are being grown anyway. The most common two feed crops, corn and soy, are being grown for a different part of the crop to be used for industrial purposes. Yes, they feed a little edible corn to cows shortly before slaughter to maximize the return and quality of meat. Nobody is waiting in line for that corn because it’s terrible and non-nutiritious calories for humans. If you suddenly passed a law that forced us to euthenize all the cows and threatened us with prison time if we ate meat, those same crops would be grown only to be destroyed in ways that are just as bad (or worse) for the environment as feeding to animals
Thank you for invalidating the first two arguments by tying them to a propagandist’s fantasy. Nobody will ever change a zealous vegan’s view, but anyone else that reads this will realize all the coercion to quit meat has nothing to do with valid environmental concerns.
Thank you for winning my argument for me.
Wouldn’t both of those scenarios be better outcomes than a meat eater that doesn’t care about reducing their carbon contributions at all? The vegan with a long commute is better than a meat eater with a long commute, ecologically. And if a meat eater can reduce their carbon in other ways, then that’s certainly a better situation than if they didn’t reduce it at all.
Personally, I still eat meat, but I try to reduce my beef consumption the most, since that’s the biggest emitter.
Better outcomes in terms of what? If we only focus on the environment, then the only thing that matters is total environmental impact. While intelligently choosing your foods may reduce the environmental impact of your diet, naively reducing meat eating alone simply doesn’t.
Disagreeing only slightly with Dr. Hannah Ritchie from OurWorldInData (steelmanning the less-meat side IMO), transport arguably counts for J>7% of the environmental impact of food, so eating locally-sourced chicken every day is clearly better than ordering out from the vegan joint every day, especially after accounting for the caloric quality.
I asked the previous commentor for takes on the specific scenario to start to depolarize her position. Many vegans here have this polar position, and won’t stand beside me as an environmental advocate because I don’t agree with them on quitting meat being a necessary or even good environmental decision. Challenging her with the decision of what’s environmentally right and what’s “morally right” (to her) is a form of deprogramming. It usually fails especially online, but I still do it.
You perhaps can see why it is important to help give and get context from people in that situation?
The strongest environmental advocates I know are small-town farmers in rural-but-liberal areas. But approximately zero of them are vegans. I still want them fighting for the environment.
EDIT: I saw your update. The irony is that your graph comes from the same article I was referring to myself. There is an argument in the vacuum if you focus on beef-herd and lamb only (but you have to understand those are world averages and the methane production from cattle in most countries is a lot lower than that number)… but I’d like to point out that 1kg of poultry is simply a superior food product to 1kg of rice. Eggs are arguably the perfect food for those not allergic to them (like me). Replacing many crops with egg-laying chickens is a no-brainer from that graph (and sorry, but you DO get some chicken meat in every egg coop if you’re being efficient).
being vegan doesn’t make it better.
“ffs”
The article is right there explaining how it’s better for the environment
it’s full of insinuation and half truths and bad science and wishful thinking. it’s a bedtime story.
No it’s quite credible
saying it doesn’t make it so
I’ve declared it
That’s exactly the problem is they aren’t on this crusade because it’s the #1 cause. If they can tie their crusade to a bigger problem then it gains them more traction. Even though it’s a drop in the bucket compared to corporate effects on the environment. the idea that it’s anything but a power move to convert more people to their life choices is hilarious at best. Not to mention the ableist BS that it is to believe everyone can stop eating meat, but I’m not explaining that to the 20 internet doctors that will message me after this like last time I brought it up.
Exactly. Why do these articles also act like the consumer is at fault and not the giant corporations selling these things?
Because in this instance companies are just meeting consumer demands.
So far, I see lots of consumers here in the comments justifying their continued consumption of the thing in question.
I think because we all know people could just learn a new recipe and buy something else at the grocery store they were already shopping at.