Whereever there is need for something, some assholes come and create a new sector out of it to milk it as much as possible before moving onto the next thing. Pretty much the same story with responsibly sourced or net carbon zero emissions certificates etc. Some people are making shit loads of money out of it, while probably serving nothing (or barely anything) for the original purpose but just making it seem like they do. And worse they are probably delaying real solutions by at least a couple decades.
The thing I can never get behind is that this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer.
Pre-industrial technologies will only get us pre-industrial amounts of meat, which has to be split between the current population.
There’s a lot of people who probably won’t be very happy with only being able to afford meat once or twice a week. That seems like a surefire way to trigger a backlash.
this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer
Maybe because it’s about economical efficiency. The old ways were abandoned in favor of new methods, because the new approach was cheaper / yielded higher profits.
Yes, we could produce meat like we did in pre-industrial times, but that would mean higher prices or lower volume. Either way, it would mean less people could afford to eat meat. Like in pre-industrial times.
Oh, that’s not what I meant to describe. There are differences in ecological impact of various foods and production methods, obviously. Choosing the smaller options helps to do less harm, to “save the planet”.
I meant to point out that we moved from pre-industrial methods to modern methods because they make more sense in economic terms, in capitalism. And that just going back might lead to unwanted consequences like lots of people with much less access to meat.
The truly climate friendly meat has been right in front of us since the dawn of time, but it is illegal in most places and taboo in most cultures except in emergencies.
Human meat is unsustainable even if it could be allowed like some muscle donation. Adding in capitalist incentives would make “human trafficking” reach new levels horror.
Though we also don’t have time to only wait for lab grown production to scale up, so in the mean time, there’s plenty of good plant-based meats and just general plant-based food as well. If we just wait, harm will continue to be done
It’s really an order of magnitudes difference between any plant-based food and even best case meat production
Regardless of whether you compare the footprint of foods in terms of their weight (e.g. one kilogram of cheese versus one kilogram of peas); protein content ; or calories, the overall conclusion is the same: plant-based foods tend to have a lower carbon footprint than meat and dairy. In many cases a much smaller footprint.
[…]
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
There is plenty of other research finding similar conclusions. Here’s a review looking at 34 different papers finding that:
there is no indication that a situation or condition may make beef burgers more environmentally friendly than these two plant-based alternatives, or that the addition of plant-based meats to vegan and vegetarian diets may reduce their environmental benefits.
[…]
This paper shows that plant-based diets and plant-based meat options are unambiguously better for the environment. This is true for modeled vegetarian and vegan diets as well as for observed diets that may include highly processed foods such as plant burgers
this paper is fucked in about as many ways as poore nemecek. The homogenized disparate studies about LCAs when they all use different methodologies. The LCA numbers that they're using were never meant to be used in this context. it's possible they're even right but this methodology simply can't support their conclusions.
If I’m reading the methodology correctly, the paper is mainly comparing the relative findings within each study. (They do have some other comparisons that don’t, yes, but they are mainly looking at relative numbers where each is computed with the same methodology)
Our focus on the percent change from a diet switch relative to the environmental impacts of the baseline omnivorous diet described in each study, makes the findings comparable across papers. Within each paper, the environmental impacts of one diet are comparable to those of another diet because these are expressed as a function of calories provided, taking as a benchmark a requirement of between 2000 and 2700 kcal/person/day
They then look at the distribution of the relative change figures. The entire range looked at here is lower emissions
We can also look at non-review studies as well. Here’s one comparing emissions of farming types more directly
The aim is to compare the environmental impacts of different diets with different levels of animal product consumption, while accounting for the type of farming systems (organic or conventional) of the food consumed.
A positive link between animal-sourced food consumption and total environmental impact was observed in this large sample of French adults. By far, omnivorous had the highest-level of greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative energy demand and land occupation while vegan diets had the lowest
We found that a 100% organic omnivorous diet exhibited higher environmental pressures, suggesting that following an organic diet without changing towards a more plant-based diet is of little help, at least as regards the studied indicators
the vegan diet, whatever the indicator considered, remained less resource-intensive and environmentally damaging than other diets
we agree about what their methodology was. given that every lca study state explicitly that it's results should not be compared to other studies, these "researchers" knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they were not doing science.
But do take into consideration the enormous amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous based fertilizers used to produce the plants, especially by greenhouses and industrial explorations.
Talking out of what I can see out of my window, hay and feed crops for cattle are sown in the same fields where animals are led to graze, with no added fertilizers besides the manure left behind that is tilled into the soil, in field rotation system.
The greenhouses and berry farms around here turn down the readily and locally available and cheap manures to instead consume huge amounts of synthetic fertilizers produced in far away factories that have to be trucked in.
In the real world, over 5.6 million tons of nitrogen are applied to corn (40% of which is feedcorn, on top of 40% for ethanol. barely any for us vegans!) each year through chemical fertilizers, compared to a mere million tons of nitrogen from manure. A good amount is coming from cattle, like you said, but the reality is that the clear majority is artificial.
And regardless of whether it’s natural or artificial, nitrates then wash into the rivers and waterways causing algae blooms, fish die-offs in rivers and lakes, drinking water pollution, ocean dead zones, coral bleaching and other habitat destruction, that shit even gets into the groundwater. In the human body it causes cancers, thyroid disease, birth defects, and probably more we don’t know about.
Poison isn’t better for you just because it’s “natural” 🙄
And are you trying to deny by default what I am stating as “fairy tale” or are you trying to build up on my immediate example.
Yes, corn is a cash crop, along with soy and a couple other cereals. An heavily subsidized cash crop, already identified as a depleter of soils and water sources. Let’s cut back on that front and incentivize the planting of rapeseed, as an example. Fulfils more environmentally useful roles than corn and provides a good chunk of useful and very important by-products.
But all of this just to go back to my initial statement: cereals here get a fraction of fertilizers other crops receive and usually through the animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields. These are practices done by small, family scale farmers.
And yes, the gross majority of nitrates are artificially added, often with no need. And let’s also applaud the excelent marketing campaign create by fertilizer manufacturers, that objectively created a notion that it isn’t factory made it isn’t good.
The muds removed from waste water management plants are phosphorous and nitrogen rich, a fraction of the cost of the synthetic fertilizers yet nobody will use it. Many countries import huge amounts of fertilizers while wasting a readily available resource. That is another bad practice.
You say that, but then you turn around and present animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields as somehow “better” than the artificial fertilizers used in greenhouses. The reality is that we could use much less artificial fertilizer and also use less animal fertilizer. It all needs to be reduced and it’s not healthy or good for the environment just because the pollutants come from animals.
There’s nothing wrong with greenhouses using artificial fertilizer, as long as they’re using controlled amounts and aren’t adding to nitrate pollution. And you know what? Greenhouses are usually way better about that, because they have very controlled growing operations!
Please tell that to Spain (I’ll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for “deluxe” or exotic crops, covered the land.
And you’re trying to dog whistle. I could not care any less aboit the choices other people make towards their life, even more when it comes to dietary and philosophical options.
What irks me is the often used resort to guilt/finger pointing by those who opt to choose for such different option.
Now that that is out of the way, yes, we can aim at less animal production. The abuse of meat is not an healthy diet nor a sustainable one, which is my main concern. We can demand from agricultural producers - and impose - better practices, which make use of circular flow of resources, less use of agrochemicals and the use of best practices.
Please tell that to Spain (I’ll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for “deluxe” or exotic crops, covered the land.
You’re just kinda presenting this like I’m supposed to think it’s bad.
Shipping exotic crops from the equator is bad. I don’t know if growing them in greenhouses is better, but that’s basically the only alternative unless we stop people from eating this shit.
the use of best practices.
And speaking of stopping people from eating this shit, the use of best practices means no meat. Full stop. Vegetable protein uses less water, energy, fertilizer, and produces fewer GHGs.
I’m not dog whistling, I have no idea what you think I’m trying to say, I want people to give up on climate-friendly meat and just stop eating that shit. It’s easy, it’s cheap, it’s healthy, do it.
Yes, I think you should find the idea of having hundreds of square kilometers of land covered in glass and plastic at least disturbing.
And having exotic products shipped from their origin country and have it be expensive is an efficient way to control demand. But we have no time for reasonable solutions, so let’s instead introduce species with the potencial to become invasive or taxing to the foreign environment beyond what local cultures are.
The presence and use of animals in a farming setting, to the extent of my knowledge and understanding, is among the list of best practices available.
And yes, you are dog whisling, from the moment you insinuated I was making my argument a witch hunt on vegans. You are trying to elicit a prescribed response from by actively introducing a completely unrelated topic into the conversation.
We diverge on views and that is fine. I’m not waging a debate to move an audience nor you.
I stated greenhouses consume more resources, on all levels, due to poor practices.
You understand that, by default, raising animals, regardless of setting or purpose, is wrong.
Not the person you are replying to, but it should be noted that synthetic fertilizer usage is lower on plant-based diets even compared to maximal usage of manure. This is due to the fact that you don’t have to grow so much animal feed (which you lose most of the energy from by other creatures body functions using that energy themselves)
shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure
The problem with meat is not that we eat it, but that we eat too much of it. Most people eat a week’s worth of meat in a single day, and that results in the over production of meat, which is helping to destroy the environment.
Most people only eat that much meat because of a combination of lobbying, advertising, education (or lack thereof, about where our food comes from, home ec, etc..) and so on which all influence and create social norms, all engineered and focused on making money for those at the top, not our health, not our well being, and definitely not those of the animals.
The horror that is factory farming only exists because of profit motives. Remove the profit motive and whole thing comes tumbling down (because it's just unsustainable).
The horror that is factory farming only exists because of profit motives. Remove the profit motive and whole thing comes tumbling down (because it’s just unsustainable).
Nope. The horror of factory farming exists because herding/ranching exists. It’s the descendant, the result of the transition from extensive herding (which is also horrible) to intensive herding (which is obviously horrible). The CAFOs are the ones making profits by economies of scale. Most of the animal products are from CAFOs. End those and it’s going to get really surprising :)
Profits existed way before, with pastoralism. The “livestock” or “living capital” is a form of primitive accumulation, part of the formation of capitalism. The profit incentive and the GROWTH incentive goes deep in pastoralist culture. The notion that it’s in any sense non-profit is absolutely incorrect.
The problem with meat is not that we eat it, but that we eat too much of it.
This isn’t how it works. Consuming meat and cheese and butter and other animal products has been made into a conspicuous consumption deal for a long time, it’s a status symbol, obviously important to pastoralist cultures and their industrial descendants (like The West).
You can’t do “low meat” without first attacking the status power of meat.
People would go crazy and riot over reducing it, as it would most likely manifest as:
Rationing of meat (I’ve lived in this, in Romania, a long time ago) - possible, but hard, not really something that works in capitalist market economics.
Raising the prices (which is something that the animal farmers would love) - which would cause all sorts of …“so meat is only for rich people? FUCK THAT!” reactions.
If you don’t do those, it’s just going to be imported.
Yes, the most powerful will always have the most power. It still makes sense to set up some rules.
Pigovian taxes can still be beneficial for society, even if the super rich evade the system. They create incentives for everyone else to move in the desired direction. This includes consumers, producers, investors, researchers. For all those people in their different positions, it will be financial advantageous to consider other options.
But my main point was that you can raise prices without hurting the poor. By returning the tax revenue to the poor.
Government has tremendous power to address collective action problems through incentives, regulations, and taxation. In the world of public health, these interventions are ranked on a scale called the Nuffield Ladder, with gentle nudges at the bottom and outright bans at the top. One of the most commonly used tools is taxation. In particular, governments can implement what are known as Pigouvian taxes on things like sugary drinks, tobacco, or polluting factories—the idea is to force producers to cover the cost of the harms their products do. They can also slap so-called “sin taxes” on products to increase direct costs for consumers. These taxes work. Numerous studies show that these are very effective in decreasing consumption, leading groups like the World Health Organization to strongly support them. The academic case for such taxes on meat is robust and convincing. But taxes in general are massively politically unpopular and lead to accusations of a nanny state interfering in consumers’ free choice, as the battles over sugar taxes around the world have shown.
Just cutting back the subsidies would kill off a good portion of the industrial grade producers.
It would be, nonetheless, very good to actively support small scale family farms, where better practices are often used and simpler to implement and supervise.
Yes, we should subsidize small-scale oil producers in the Arctic. And artesian cobalt mines in the DRC. /s
No, the tax would be temporary. We need to increase the carbon tax over time as a means to phase it out. We dont need carbon energy. Likewise, we need to increase animal ag taxes until its phased out. We don’t need to eat animals. What we need to do is stop this unjustifiable, harmful activities.
Yes, lets forbid people that still strive for self sustenance, with small scale farming and animal rearing, to make an independent living.
Get your head out of your ass for a moment and when the oxygen rushes back to your brain realize animals are much more than meat and are an integral part of well managed and sustainable systems.
Animals make use of crops by-products otherwise wasted, manage vegetation and provide fertilizers, just off the top of my head.
And there are regions where no suitable crops can be planted and instead animals are the only means of survival and sustenance for people.
Back off and let people live.
There are better hills to die on than to persecute traditional farming.
Animals - mostly sheep and goats - have been used for millennia to manage vegetation. The moment it was considered an outdated practice, some fifty years back, better resolved by use of machinery, we started having wild fires, due to having unmanaged highly combustible vegetation, that otherwise was consumed by the animals.
Let’s avoid black or white purism. Animals have played a fundamental role in our civilization. Let’s eliminate the excessive practices and strive for well balanced practices.
Yeah and animals ag has caused many of those areas to turn into deserts. You’re right we’ve been doing it tens of thousands if years, and look at where we are now.
I’m not aguing that we kill all wild animals. Bison and deer are fine (sheep and goats are chicken and cows are not). I’m arguing that we need to stop all human-bred animals that are unnatural species and causing immense damage to the planet.
Strange, doesn’t show up like for me. I don’t think there’s a paywall on this article, so I’m not sure why it’d be showing up like that. Maybe a browser issue? I’m using Firefox, what browser are you using?
A recent study published in Global Food Security, for instance, shows that humble legumes, with the right government push, could provide a far more sustainable and diverse source of protein than meat
i’m still bummed the humble black bean burger (usually no extra charge) has been replaced by beyond/impossible (usually a $1-3 upcharge) at so many restaurants.
The thing that I hate the most about it is it’s the same fucking price at the grocery store, but somehow that equates to a 40% more expensive burger. Meat is ungodly expensive nowadays such that my partner and I opt for meat substitutes because it’s often cheaper and we prefer them anyway.
I understand economies of scale, and that they’re buying less of it so they’re gonna be paying a little more, but $3 per 8oz burger is absurd. Burger places have lost their goddamn minds when there’s often way better ramen noodles next door for half the price.
Add comment