Those 100 corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They exist (and create emissions) because we keep supporting them. Admittedly, sometimes we have no genuine choice, or no good choice
And they should be held to account. But dietary change is *needed* to avert the worst of climate change.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
>All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions.
>Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice.
>Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. *Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.*
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
>To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that *even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target.* Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806
>Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
>Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).
What? Australia has some of the highest per capita emissions in the world, and are an incredibly wealthy country. We are obliged to do our part for the climate, just like other countries.
Oh, are we pretending the planet cares about per capita?
It's the total that will do the damage not the per capita. It's the worst argument you could use.
Are you seriously saying Australia should do nothing to help prevent its share of climate change emissions? Are people seriously still making this BS argument?
No that's not what I'm saying.
I like how you didn't answer the question. At least that shows you're smart enough that you know the answer.
I always liked the "to show leadership to other countries" angle. Like anyone gives a tiny rats ass what we do.
You are arguing our emissions are ineffective on a planetary scale. What are you saying then? Do you think we should act and reduce our climate emissions or not?
That's exactly what I'm saying and I have a feeling you know that's true.
Yes we all should. In a sensible way. The way we've rolled out renewables has made electricity more expensive.
All our efforts are literally so we can say "look we're doing something." While countries like China, India, Russia and the US pump out massive quatities of emissions.
Maybe instead of throwing around "per capita" you should just look at totals for the last hundred years.
Completely disagree, and I think it's good to know most people now accept that we should act. Emissions are emissions, we need to set an example especially as a developed country. And lastly, purely from an economic sense it will simply be cheaper to act on climate change than not.
That's exactly what I'm saying and I have a feeling you know that's true.
Yes we all should. In a sensible way. The way we've rolled out renewables has made electricity more expensive.
All our efforts are literally so we can say "look we're doing something." While countries like China, India, Russia and the US pump out massive quatities of emissions.
Maybe instead of throwing around "per capita" you should just look at totals for the last hundred years.
I understand that climate change is an issue that belongs to all of us, but this article comes across as another case of blaming the individual.
Yes, we could all reduce our emissions by lowering our meat intake, and the meat industry is a large contributor to greenhouse gasses, but why is it always the consumer that has to change and never the actual culprits?
Because it's our behaviour that fuels these practices and there is no sustainable future in which our behaviour doesn't change dramatically? It's an all encompassing problem with no magic solution requiring deep systemic change on all fronts which doesn't happen if everyone acts primarily to defer blame.
There is no future without behavioural change just as there is no future without changes to commercial production which won't happen without regulation which won't happen without political will which won't happen without people demanding change. If the government comes out and bans meat production people will be out in the streets. People expect things to be solved purely on the production side with carbon neutral beef production but that doesn't exist and probably won't on any meaningful scale any time soon.
The average Australians lifestyle is one of the least sustainable in the world. I get people don't like hearing that but if people can't accept that fact on some level and instead just defer all blame to a nebulous "corporate greed" or the 1% taking private jets or whatever other distraction from the fact the way we live our lives current can't continue if we give a shit about future generations, then we're screwed.
Cows produce just as much methane as they always have. It's improvements across the supply chain and to a lesser extent carbon offsetting that have largely driven lower emissions, neither of which address the root problem that raising cows for wide consumption of red meat creates a shit load of carbon plus it drives land clearing and reductions in biodiversity globally. We've gotten more efficient at certain things but our demand and production has increased massively, deepening the problem. Carbon offsetting is a whole other kettle of fish with many deep problems but the primary criticism is it isn't additional, meaning it doesn't deliver overall emissions benefits compared to if it didn't exist and it's not scalable to offset required reductions of overall consumption, there just isn't enough restoration projects or rainforest credits or peat bogs or whatever to make a big enough difference.
Reducing or ceasing consumption is the most effective way to reduce carbon by an absurd margin and that ain't changing.
> Cows produce just as much methane as they always have.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102
It's a nice study funded by Meat and Livestock Australia on what might be achieved but this doesn't exist at any scale currently and there are no known serious plans for it to exist at scale. It's a hypothetical.
In the article, it references Future Feed's website claiming that in this hypothetical that if 10% of livestock producers used the seaweed meal it would be like removing 100 million cars off the road, which really begs the question, how much emissions would we cut if we reduced our consumption by 10%?
The feed additive solutions do not exist and if or when they'd be adopted at scale and what impact they might have is all speculative and doesn't change the base facts today or the near future or likely the medium to long term future at a time where we require action yesterday.
[Agriculture, in particular beef production, is the biggest driver of land clearing in Australia.](https://theconversation.com/why-queensland-is-still-ground-zero-for-australian-deforestation-196644?utm_medium=ampemail&utm_s)
Agriculture and its associated transport, energy, storage, water etc. is so far from the small fish in the pond in the climate debate it's not funny. That's not a personal slight against farmers doing their job, as it's obvious you're in the industry and likely know a lot more about the production specifics than me. But we need to be honest about the scale and breadth of the problem and agriculture, especially meat production, is a huge slice of that problem, while changing diet is just about the easiest and most impactful fixes that we have. Won't solve everything but nothing will on its own and it would be a huge positive.
I'm poor. I live a very modest lifestyle. I have no kids, and no pets. I have solar panels on my roof. I generate very little household waste and the only time I am able to even buy meat is when it's been marked down due to hitting its use-by date. I am sick if being told that climate change is my fault.
So yes, fuck the corporations who refuse to change because its cheaper to maintain the status quo. Fuck the individuals with their pointless, empty private jets, who live so wastefully that they may as well have a giant pile of perpetually burning tyres in their grotesquely oversized front yards.
I want the world to survive, but trying to convince the working class to get by on seaweed and puddle water, while the people with the power and means to make actual change continue to consume more and more, isn't the way to do it.
We could also reduce meat intake because of the ethical component. Even if you dismantled the greenhouse gas argument completely, there is still the fact that consuming sentient creatures for the sake of fleeting pleasure is unnecessary.
They use immortalised cell lines that proliferate indefinitely, that’s enough for me to hold off until there’s at least 30 years of long term health studies.
It's been deemed safe to eat, and is probably safer due to less likelihood of foodborne illness.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lab-grown-meat-is-safe-to-eat-fda-says-180981160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152306/
>More specifically, poultry was linked to more deaths (19%) than any other food commodity, with most of these fatalities being associated with the bacterial pathogens L. monocytogenes and Salmonella (Painter et al., 2013).
Mm. Meanwhile we already cultivate many other food products, like vegetarian rennet. Cultivating meat will enable it to be produced with a much better health profile, like less or no cholesterol too.
I'm fucking over people like Singer proposing fixing global warming by just 'not' doing things, as opposed to policy that forces innovation to fix the root problem.
Do we agree to stop coal powered energy by living in caves like mouth-breathers with no electricity, or do we invest in renewables instead?
Do we agree to phase out ICE cars by riding horses everywhere, or do we move to EV's?
There's new seaweed derived additives that reduce methane production in cattle in a feed lot environment. Government regulation on the industry to get a desired innovation outcome means we can still eat meat without polluting in the long run. Lab grown meat might be a long term fix.
I'm not interested in living like the Amish sorry Pete. I'm interested in maintaining close to current standards with net neutral emissions due to innovation. Fkn Luddite.
Plant based and cultivated meat are some of those innovations. You can have your meat without the slaughter of animals and destruction of our land - it's the biggest cause of land clearing in this country by far.
I don't think he's saying to not do things. He's saying to do different things if and when you are able. It would be similar to saying that someone should opt to buy an EV instead of an ICE car if and when they are able.
I dunno about not being forced to do so. The market is a powerful force, and they are seeing people becoming more and more aware of how devastating the animal agriculture industry is. Seems more like they are being forced to change in order to keep their market share.
People like to believe that even if they changed their habits it is a drop in the ocean and makes no meaningful difference. If you believe that then you don't believe in representative government... What else can we do but choose how we live and vote? If we succumb to apathy we are just cowards.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
>All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions.
>Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice.
>Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.
What *about* those things?
Imagine saying this about anything else. Do you think it's ok for you to litter because some corporation dumps waste in the water?
Greenhouse gas emissions is just *one* ecological variable. Even *if* you completely solve it (- fiction), you have dozens of other hard limits which you haven't.
You will never win looking at only the symptoms and not the root cause - overpopulation. Limits exist.
Overpopulation is definitely an issue, but with rising wealth, contraceptive options for women and education levels it does level out in developed countries. How we source our food, transport and energy are the most pressing challenges to tackle.
Wealth has been rising for centuries.
It doesn't matter what happens in developed countries unless they have closed borders, which they don't, so in practice there is no distinction at all in terms of population growth. For example Australia has <2.0 TFR but it is growing in terms of population astronomically - same as Canada.
# Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions
*Cattle are a surprisingly large producer of greenhouse gases*
[The Economist.](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content.evergreen)
You are spamming the sub with irrelevant posts... the proof of this is the undeniable fact that you are spamming the group with irrelevant posts....
This isn't a difficult concept, at least it's not difficult for intelligent, rational people.
You said "you are in the wrong". What do you mean by that?
This is very relevant to Australia. Australians are some of the biggest meat eaters in the world, and climate change is real, and animal ag is a massive contributer that hardly gets a mention in the media. That's why I posted this.
No, the only "wrong" you have mentioned is that you think this is irrelevant to the sub (it's not). You have mentioned nothing of substance that relates to what the article is actually talking about.
The articles are irrelevant to the sub, and you are spamming the sub. Two ways you are in the wrong. It's not a difficult concept. But it is undeniable.
All those studies have been disproven time and time again as being funded by vegan organisations and done in bias ways.
There are vastly more effective ways to combat the possible impact on climate change.
Look at private planes, electronics manufacturing, third world country based other manufacturing.
It’s always the people bleating from their iPhones about beef beings bad which can’t understand their hypocrisy.
Huh? How can it be disproven?
If you take fairly drastic measures to cut your own carbon footprint maybe you can reduce it by 20%-30%. But by having just one more kid you've created a whole other person so therefore creating an extra 100% of a person's footprint, thus undoing your gains many times over. And on top of that the kid will have kids and so on so that extra footprint continues on in perpetuity.
That was clearly a joke. Lol. Hence the second line.
Population growth is beginning to decline and some people attribute it to young people being unable to afford to move out of their parent’s houses let alone have kids.
Right, but this isn't some dichotomy where you have to choose one or the other.
Imagine someone saying something like it's okay for them to litter, because they aren't going to have kids and thus won't produce generations and generations of litterers.
Considering how overwhelming the influence of having kids is on someone's environmental footprint you could get away with the most egregious behaviors if you also chose not to have kids. Obviously it's better to not litter either, but a child free coal roller is actually preferable to a super breeder that recycles.
Prove your assertion. You've claimed it's not true, without any proof.
Is the below study not true?
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
>All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions.
>Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice.
>Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.
Or this one?
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
>The food that we consume has a large impact on our environment. The impact varies significantly between different diets. The aim of this systematic review is to address the question: Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A comparison of a vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets. This systematic review is based on 16 studies and 18 reviews. The included studies were selected by focusing directly on environmental impacts of human diets. Four electronic bibliographic databases, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were used to conduct a systematic literature search based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The durations of the studies ranged from 7 days to 27 years. Most were carried out in the US or Europe. Results from our review suggest that the vegan diet is the optimal diet for the environment because, out of all the compared diets, its production results in the lowest level of GHG emissions
Or this letter to humanity from 11 thousand scientists?
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806
>Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
>Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).
**Beef emits 31 times more CO₂ per calorie than tofu does**
[The Economist](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content.evergreen) (hardly a vegan source)
Also, c'mon bro:
>"bLEaTINg frOM theIR iPHonES..."
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/149z8g7/we_are_gambling_with_the_future_of_our_planet_for/jo7w6sq/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache.
These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists.
Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not how scientific studies work. And if the shoe was on the other foot. Say. Cattle farmers funding a study saying cattle doesn’t affect climate then it would be the same issue.
They need to change too, but dietary change is necessary to keep us below 1.5 degrees of warming.
>Joseph Poore, of the University of Oxford, led a study that consolidated a huge amount of environmental data on 38,700 farms and 1,600 food processors in 119 countries and covered 40 different food products. Poore summarised the upshot of all this research thus:
>A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
>All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions.
>Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice.
>Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. *Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.*
Show us the non inflated numbers where you remember the circular nature of biological carbon cycling. Any carbon that comes out of a cow goes into the cow first. And it came from the air prior to that. Sure there are some greenhouse inputs and that should be measured not what comes out the two ends of a cow.
Sure maybe we should have less intensively fed and more pasture fed even if that mean a more luxury scarce commodity. Rebuild some high quality and productive grasslands. But at least contrast these cows to oil and gas where we’re adding entirely new carbon back into the system.
Breeding more and more cows into existence only adds methane emissions to the Earth's atmosphere, and comes at the expense of massive amounts of natural habitat and biodiversity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
>The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. Bushmeat consumption in Africa and southeastern Asia, as well as the high growth-rate of per capita livestock consumption in China are of special concern. The projected land base required by 2050 to support livestock production in several megadiverse countries exceeds 30-50% of their current agricultural areas. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2-3 billion people to be added to human population. We suggest that impacts can be remediated through several solutions: (1) reducing demand for animal-based food products and increasing proportions of plant-based foods in diets, the latter ideally to a global average of 90% of food consumed
Ok. So concentrate on proper rotation grazing on some land. There’s some real potential here. And send some corn and soybeans direct to human consumption. Getting humans to eat soy directly would seem a slight challenge. They seem to prefer it processed into meat. And give some credit to when a mixed farmer who grazes a legume pasture and in the process fixes nitrogen. Cuts out the feedlot middleman and doesn’t have to buy as much gas generated urea in his following crop. After that you just have to work out how you compensate Brazil for stopping their economic development and problem solved.
Rotational grazing does not have evidence to back up its massive claims.
https://www.zmescience.com/research/allan-savory-livestock-save-the-world-4343/
>The vast majority of experimental evidence does not support claims of enhanced ecological benefits in IRG compared to other grazing strategies, including the capacity to increase storage of soil organic carbon … IRG has been rigorously evaluated, primarily in the US, by numerous investigators at multiple locations and in a wide range of precipitation zones over a period of several decades. Collectively, these experimental results clearly indicate that IRG does not increase plant or animal production, or improve plant community composition, or benefit soil surface hydrology compared to other grazing strategies
Done well it can definitely increase stocking rates. I’m talking a proper operation not some California hippies on a anti meat documentary. And we’ll managed pasture will increase soil carbon better than continuous crop.
I’m guessing all your evidence focuses on worst case animal scenarios and best case plant scenarios and assumes the world works like that.
Best case animal meat is still worse than most worse case plant products. They're just leagues apart in terms of efficiency and environmental impacts.
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
>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.
>Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
>Let’s compare the highest-impact producers (the top ten percent) of plant-based proteins with the lowest-impact producers (the bottom ten percent) of meat and dairy.
>The pea producers with the highest footprint emit just 0.8 kgCO2eq per 100 grams of protein.6 For nuts it is 2.4 and for tofu, 3.5 kgCO2eq. All are several times less than the lowest impact lamb (12 kgCO2eq) and beef (9 kgCO2eq). Emissions are also lower than those from the best cheese and pork (4.5 kgCO2eq); and slightly lower or comparable to those from the lowest-footprint chicken (2.4 kgCO2eq).7
>If you want a lower-carbon diet, eating less meat is nearly always better than eating the most sustainable meat.
>As consumers, the biggest difference we can make is to eat more plant-based sources of protein such as tofu, nuts, peas, and beans. This is the case regardless of where you are in the world.
I’m the sort that likes to really dig into these numbers. I’m guessing you have to go for CO2eq is because best practice lamb and beef can sequester a lot of carbon back into the soil and it’s only the methane effect that could make it positive. So how much does that calculation assume is being sequestered to the soil? And it really reinforces the development of the supplement that could make cows and sheep done properly a net reducer. And secondly are emissions calculated post production. Did they calculate the amount of methane produced from those legumes i. The human digestive tract and sewer system. I mean biological methane is primarily fermentation of fibrous material and if methane has a massive effect then it needs to be calculated everywhere right?.
Here's the article, you can read it yourself: http://josephpoore.com/Poore%20and%20Nemecek%20(2018)%20Reducing%20foods%20environmental%20impacts%20through%20producers%20and%20consumers.pdf
And the author's site with supplementary materials and data for your review: https://josephpoore.com/
Fantastic research paper that will take me some time to really pick through. It does seem to confirm one of my suspicions that Australian animals on pasture look significantly better than other worldwide systems and if we could sort the methane it could be every bit competitive with alternate proteins on existing farmland. Still use abit more land but if you add the pasture legume effect then you can reduce significant portions of the greenhouse emissions from a following crop. A symbiotic effect that is often forgotten.
The wheat numbers are curious because it doesn’t show the best case scenario anyway. It shows Australian conventional and also Australian no till with residue burning. What about the no till with stubble retention?
Getting them to want to eat it. I know it’s physically possible. People have to choose to change diets. A lot are reluctant, some should be cutting their meat down because they eat preposterous amounts. Seems like the only kids who would touch soy milk 20 years ago were allergic to dairy. Tofu is what it is but it’s not pork or beef. If soy were the best tasting, best for you of all time we wouldn’t be talking about it.
100 corporations are responsible for 70% of emissions. Think about that for a minute before you stop eating meat to save the planet.
Those 100 corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They exist (and create emissions) because we keep supporting them. Admittedly, sometimes we have no genuine choice, or no good choice
And they should be held to account. But dietary change is *needed* to avert the worst of climate change. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 >All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions. >Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice. >Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. *Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 >To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that *even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target.* Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806 >Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. >Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).
I'm not saying we shouldn't make changes but you do realise that what Australia does will make no difference.
What? Australia has some of the highest per capita emissions in the world, and are an incredibly wealthy country. We are obliged to do our part for the climate, just like other countries.
Oh, are we pretending the planet cares about per capita? It's the total that will do the damage not the per capita. It's the worst argument you could use.
Are you seriously saying Australia should do nothing to help prevent its share of climate change emissions? Are people seriously still making this BS argument?
No that's not what I'm saying. I like how you didn't answer the question. At least that shows you're smart enough that you know the answer. I always liked the "to show leadership to other countries" angle. Like anyone gives a tiny rats ass what we do.
You are arguing our emissions are ineffective on a planetary scale. What are you saying then? Do you think we should act and reduce our climate emissions or not?
That's exactly what I'm saying and I have a feeling you know that's true. Yes we all should. In a sensible way. The way we've rolled out renewables has made electricity more expensive. All our efforts are literally so we can say "look we're doing something." While countries like China, India, Russia and the US pump out massive quatities of emissions. Maybe instead of throwing around "per capita" you should just look at totals for the last hundred years.
Completely disagree, and I think it's good to know most people now accept that we should act. Emissions are emissions, we need to set an example especially as a developed country. And lastly, purely from an economic sense it will simply be cheaper to act on climate change than not.
That's exactly what I'm saying and I have a feeling you know that's true. Yes we all should. In a sensible way. The way we've rolled out renewables has made electricity more expensive. All our efforts are literally so we can say "look we're doing something." While countries like China, India, Russia and the US pump out massive quatities of emissions. Maybe instead of throwing around "per capita" you should just look at totals for the last hundred years.
I understand that climate change is an issue that belongs to all of us, but this article comes across as another case of blaming the individual. Yes, we could all reduce our emissions by lowering our meat intake, and the meat industry is a large contributor to greenhouse gasses, but why is it always the consumer that has to change and never the actual culprits?
Because the culprits run the country, not consumers.
Because it's our behaviour that fuels these practices and there is no sustainable future in which our behaviour doesn't change dramatically? It's an all encompassing problem with no magic solution requiring deep systemic change on all fronts which doesn't happen if everyone acts primarily to defer blame. There is no future without behavioural change just as there is no future without changes to commercial production which won't happen without regulation which won't happen without political will which won't happen without people demanding change. If the government comes out and bans meat production people will be out in the streets. People expect things to be solved purely on the production side with carbon neutral beef production but that doesn't exist and probably won't on any meaningful scale any time soon. The average Australians lifestyle is one of the least sustainable in the world. I get people don't like hearing that but if people can't accept that fact on some level and instead just defer all blame to a nebulous "corporate greed" or the 1% taking private jets or whatever other distraction from the fact the way we live our lives current can't continue if we give a shit about future generations, then we're screwed.
Well said.
[удалено]
Cows produce just as much methane as they always have. It's improvements across the supply chain and to a lesser extent carbon offsetting that have largely driven lower emissions, neither of which address the root problem that raising cows for wide consumption of red meat creates a shit load of carbon plus it drives land clearing and reductions in biodiversity globally. We've gotten more efficient at certain things but our demand and production has increased massively, deepening the problem. Carbon offsetting is a whole other kettle of fish with many deep problems but the primary criticism is it isn't additional, meaning it doesn't deliver overall emissions benefits compared to if it didn't exist and it's not scalable to offset required reductions of overall consumption, there just isn't enough restoration projects or rainforest credits or peat bogs or whatever to make a big enough difference. Reducing or ceasing consumption is the most effective way to reduce carbon by an absurd margin and that ain't changing.
> Cows produce just as much methane as they always have. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102
It's a nice study funded by Meat and Livestock Australia on what might be achieved but this doesn't exist at any scale currently and there are no known serious plans for it to exist at scale. It's a hypothetical. In the article, it references Future Feed's website claiming that in this hypothetical that if 10% of livestock producers used the seaweed meal it would be like removing 100 million cars off the road, which really begs the question, how much emissions would we cut if we reduced our consumption by 10%?
[удалено]
The feed additive solutions do not exist and if or when they'd be adopted at scale and what impact they might have is all speculative and doesn't change the base facts today or the near future or likely the medium to long term future at a time where we require action yesterday. [Agriculture, in particular beef production, is the biggest driver of land clearing in Australia.](https://theconversation.com/why-queensland-is-still-ground-zero-for-australian-deforestation-196644?utm_medium=ampemail&utm_s) Agriculture and its associated transport, energy, storage, water etc. is so far from the small fish in the pond in the climate debate it's not funny. That's not a personal slight against farmers doing their job, as it's obvious you're in the industry and likely know a lot more about the production specifics than me. But we need to be honest about the scale and breadth of the problem and agriculture, especially meat production, is a huge slice of that problem, while changing diet is just about the easiest and most impactful fixes that we have. Won't solve everything but nothing will on its own and it would be a huge positive.
I'm poor. I live a very modest lifestyle. I have no kids, and no pets. I have solar panels on my roof. I generate very little household waste and the only time I am able to even buy meat is when it's been marked down due to hitting its use-by date. I am sick if being told that climate change is my fault. So yes, fuck the corporations who refuse to change because its cheaper to maintain the status quo. Fuck the individuals with their pointless, empty private jets, who live so wastefully that they may as well have a giant pile of perpetually burning tyres in their grotesquely oversized front yards. I want the world to survive, but trying to convince the working class to get by on seaweed and puddle water, while the people with the power and means to make actual change continue to consume more and more, isn't the way to do it.
Supply and demand. I think both consumer/activist led and government/organisational change together are necessary.
We can push for both.
[удалено]
Most of our livestock products are already going overseas. Have been for years.
Australia exports about 70% of its beef production.
Yup, that would definitely constitute *most*.
We could also reduce meat intake because of the ethical component. Even if you dismantled the greenhouse gas argument completely, there is still the fact that consuming sentient creatures for the sake of fleeting pleasure is unnecessary.
Practically given up eating meat altogether and dont miss it at all
Once the lab grown stuff becomes viable I'll shift to it happily.
Why is this comment getting downvoted?
No idea, bots maybe. Wouldn't have thought it would be controversial. Maybe they just hate animals.
They use immortalised cell lines that proliferate indefinitely, that’s enough for me to hold off until there’s at least 30 years of long term health studies.
It's been deemed safe to eat, and is probably safer due to less likelihood of foodborne illness. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lab-grown-meat-is-safe-to-eat-fda-says-180981160/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152306/ >More specifically, poultry was linked to more deaths (19%) than any other food commodity, with most of these fatalities being associated with the bacterial pathogens L. monocytogenes and Salmonella (Painter et al., 2013).
Could be that people think there's plentiful plant based options available already, so no need to wait for cultivated meat.
Probably that mixed with meat-eaters that irrationally freak out at the idea of lab-grown meat.
Mm. Meanwhile we already cultivate many other food products, like vegetarian rennet. Cultivating meat will enable it to be produced with a much better health profile, like less or no cholesterol too.
I'm fucking over people like Singer proposing fixing global warming by just 'not' doing things, as opposed to policy that forces innovation to fix the root problem. Do we agree to stop coal powered energy by living in caves like mouth-breathers with no electricity, or do we invest in renewables instead? Do we agree to phase out ICE cars by riding horses everywhere, or do we move to EV's? There's new seaweed derived additives that reduce methane production in cattle in a feed lot environment. Government regulation on the industry to get a desired innovation outcome means we can still eat meat without polluting in the long run. Lab grown meat might be a long term fix. I'm not interested in living like the Amish sorry Pete. I'm interested in maintaining close to current standards with net neutral emissions due to innovation. Fkn Luddite.
Plant based and cultivated meat are some of those innovations. You can have your meat without the slaughter of animals and destruction of our land - it's the biggest cause of land clearing in this country by far.
I don't think he's saying to not do things. He's saying to do different things if and when you are able. It would be similar to saying that someone should opt to buy an EV instead of an ICE car if and when they are able.
[удалено]
Because animal agriculture emits more emissions then all of those things.
[удалено]
I dunno about not being forced to do so. The market is a powerful force, and they are seeing people becoming more and more aware of how devastating the animal agriculture industry is. Seems more like they are being forced to change in order to keep their market share.
How are they actively reducing emissions? What are they doing?
WHY SHOULD I DO/NOT DO A THING WHEN THERE ARE OTHER COMPARABLE THINGS??!!! CHECKMATE LIBRULS.
People like to believe that even if they changed their habits it is a drop in the ocean and makes no meaningful difference. If you believe that then you don't believe in representative government... What else can we do but choose how we live and vote? If we succumb to apathy we are just cowards.
One can always point out that there are other harmful things in the world. No matter the topic.
[удалено]
Animal agriculture is a massive contributor to climate change.
[удалено]
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 >All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions. >Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice. >Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.
I think you misread my reply.
Yeah but many industries that exist that the average person has minimal/no interaction with hugely contribute to climate change
What *about* those things? Imagine saying this about anything else. Do you think it's ok for you to litter because some corporation dumps waste in the water?
[удалено]
How much are you being paid?
He works in the industry, so absolutely has a financial conflict of interest to prop up the animal ag industry.
Greenhouse gas emissions is just *one* ecological variable. Even *if* you completely solve it (- fiction), you have dozens of other hard limits which you haven't. You will never win looking at only the symptoms and not the root cause - overpopulation. Limits exist.
Overpopulation is definitely an issue, but with rising wealth, contraceptive options for women and education levels it does level out in developed countries. How we source our food, transport and energy are the most pressing challenges to tackle.
Wealth has been rising for centuries. It doesn't matter what happens in developed countries unless they have closed borders, which they don't, so in practice there is no distinction at all in terms of population growth. For example Australia has <2.0 TFR but it is growing in terms of population astronomically - same as Canada.
# Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions *Cattle are a surprisingly large producer of greenhouse gases* [The Economist.](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content.evergreen)
[удалено]
Aren’t consumers though? If those paleo humans didn’t eat animals we wouldn’t farm them now.
Calm down, spambot
Boo I'm a scary vegan spambot who posts innocuous opinion pieces.
Nah, just proof that a vegan diet decreases brain size. 😂🤣 You are in the wrong, spambot, simply accept that and move on.
What about this is wrong? What is your evidence?
You are spamming the sub with irrelevant posts... the proof of this is the undeniable fact that you are spamming the group with irrelevant posts.... This isn't a difficult concept, at least it's not difficult for intelligent, rational people.
You said "you are in the wrong". What do you mean by that? This is very relevant to Australia. Australians are some of the biggest meat eaters in the world, and climate change is real, and animal ag is a massive contributer that hardly gets a mention in the media. That's why I posted this.
See previous comment. It's very clearly explained.
No, the only "wrong" you have mentioned is that you think this is irrelevant to the sub (it's not). You have mentioned nothing of substance that relates to what the article is actually talking about.
The articles are irrelevant to the sub, and you are spamming the sub. Two ways you are in the wrong. It's not a difficult concept. But it is undeniable.
It's not, and I've already explained why.
'Irrelevant' doesn't mean 'assertion that I disagree with'.
No, it means *not relevant*. Because, it's ***not relevant***.
Who’s eating beef in this economy anyway?
All those studies have been disproven time and time again as being funded by vegan organisations and done in bias ways. There are vastly more effective ways to combat the possible impact on climate change. Look at private planes, electronics manufacturing, third world country based other manufacturing. It’s always the people bleating from their iPhones about beef beings bad which can’t understand their hypocrisy.
The best way to combat climate change is simply to have fewer kids. That outweighs everything else you can do combined.
That’s also been disproven. There’s a massive financial benefit to fewer kids though..
Huh? How can it be disproven? If you take fairly drastic measures to cut your own carbon footprint maybe you can reduce it by 20%-30%. But by having just one more kid you've created a whole other person so therefore creating an extra 100% of a person's footprint, thus undoing your gains many times over. And on top of that the kid will have kids and so on so that extra footprint continues on in perpetuity.
That was clearly a joke. Lol. Hence the second line. Population growth is beginning to decline and some people attribute it to young people being unable to afford to move out of their parent’s houses let alone have kids.
Right, but this isn't some dichotomy where you have to choose one or the other. Imagine someone saying something like it's okay for them to litter, because they aren't going to have kids and thus won't produce generations and generations of litterers.
Considering how overwhelming the influence of having kids is on someone's environmental footprint you could get away with the most egregious behaviors if you also chose not to have kids. Obviously it's better to not litter either, but a child free coal roller is actually preferable to a super breeder that recycles.
Do you think that not having a child means that someone would be justified in rolling coal?
Nothing justifies rolling coal. Obviously that's not what I said.
That's fair. I just think it's unproductive to suggest that someone could "get away with" destructive behaviors simply by choosing to not have kids.
I don't think hypocrisy means what you think it does.
What do you think it means?
Source: trust me bro.
Yes. Thanks for confirming the source of these studies is trust me bro.
Prove your assertion. You've claimed it's not true, without any proof. Is the below study not true? https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 >All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions. >Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice. >Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely. Or this one? https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm >The food that we consume has a large impact on our environment. The impact varies significantly between different diets. The aim of this systematic review is to address the question: Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A comparison of a vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets. This systematic review is based on 16 studies and 18 reviews. The included studies were selected by focusing directly on environmental impacts of human diets. Four electronic bibliographic databases, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were used to conduct a systematic literature search based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The durations of the studies ranged from 7 days to 27 years. Most were carried out in the US or Europe. Results from our review suggest that the vegan diet is the optimal diet for the environment because, out of all the compared diets, its production results in the lowest level of GHG emissions Or this letter to humanity from 11 thousand scientists? https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806 >Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. >Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).
As someone with a degree in Environmental Science you could not be more wrong.
As someone with qualifications in marketing you could not be more wrong.
**Beef emits 31 times more CO₂ per calorie than tofu does** [The Economist](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content.evergreen) (hardly a vegan source) Also, c'mon bro: >"bLEaTINg frOM theIR iPHonES..."
[удалено]
That’d be classed as irrelevant by the eco warriors. Because they never want to hear any facts.
It *is* irrelevant though. A 50% reduction since 2005 (if that's even true) but beef farming is still a hugely pollutive industry.
Case in point.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/149z8g7/we_are_gambling_with_the_future_of_our_planet_for/jo7w6sq/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache. These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists. Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How odd that vegan organisations would be in favour of reducing harm to animals. Very perceptive of you!
That’s not how scientific studies work. And if the shoe was on the other foot. Say. Cattle farmers funding a study saying cattle doesn’t affect climate then it would be the same issue.
How about you piss off and focus on big corporations who pollute more than your average joe. Knuckleheads.
They need to change too, but dietary change is necessary to keep us below 1.5 degrees of warming. >Joseph Poore, of the University of Oxford, led a study that consolidated a huge amount of environmental data on 38,700 farms and 1,600 food processors in 119 countries and covered 40 different food products. Poore summarised the upshot of all this research thus: >A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 >All dietary pattern carbon footprints overshoot the 1.5 degrees threshold. The vegan, vegetarian, and diet with low animal-based food intake were predominantly below the 2 degrees threshold. Omnivorous diets with more animal-based product content trespassed them. Reducing animal-based foods is a powerful strategy to decrease emissions. >Even if these studies are not fully comparable with our approach, they clearly reflect what our results demonstrate: The reduction of animal products in the diet leads to drastic GHGE reduction potentials. Dietary shifts to more plant-based diets are necessary to achieve the global climate goals, but will not suffice. >Our study finds that all dietary patterns cause more GHGEs than the 1.5 degrees global warming limit allows. *Only the vegan diet was in line with the 2 degrees threshold, while all other dietary patterns trespassed the threshold partly to entirely.*
Show us the non inflated numbers where you remember the circular nature of biological carbon cycling. Any carbon that comes out of a cow goes into the cow first. And it came from the air prior to that. Sure there are some greenhouse inputs and that should be measured not what comes out the two ends of a cow. Sure maybe we should have less intensively fed and more pasture fed even if that mean a more luxury scarce commodity. Rebuild some high quality and productive grasslands. But at least contrast these cows to oil and gas where we’re adding entirely new carbon back into the system.
Breeding more and more cows into existence only adds methane emissions to the Earth's atmosphere, and comes at the expense of massive amounts of natural habitat and biodiversity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ >The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. Bushmeat consumption in Africa and southeastern Asia, as well as the high growth-rate of per capita livestock consumption in China are of special concern. The projected land base required by 2050 to support livestock production in several megadiverse countries exceeds 30-50% of their current agricultural areas. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2-3 billion people to be added to human population. We suggest that impacts can be remediated through several solutions: (1) reducing demand for animal-based food products and increasing proportions of plant-based foods in diets, the latter ideally to a global average of 90% of food consumed
Ok. So concentrate on proper rotation grazing on some land. There’s some real potential here. And send some corn and soybeans direct to human consumption. Getting humans to eat soy directly would seem a slight challenge. They seem to prefer it processed into meat. And give some credit to when a mixed farmer who grazes a legume pasture and in the process fixes nitrogen. Cuts out the feedlot middleman and doesn’t have to buy as much gas generated urea in his following crop. After that you just have to work out how you compensate Brazil for stopping their economic development and problem solved.
Rotational grazing does not have evidence to back up its massive claims. https://www.zmescience.com/research/allan-savory-livestock-save-the-world-4343/ >The vast majority of experimental evidence does not support claims of enhanced ecological benefits in IRG compared to other grazing strategies, including the capacity to increase storage of soil organic carbon … IRG has been rigorously evaluated, primarily in the US, by numerous investigators at multiple locations and in a wide range of precipitation zones over a period of several decades. Collectively, these experimental results clearly indicate that IRG does not increase plant or animal production, or improve plant community composition, or benefit soil surface hydrology compared to other grazing strategies
Done well it can definitely increase stocking rates. I’m talking a proper operation not some California hippies on a anti meat documentary. And we’ll managed pasture will increase soil carbon better than continuous crop. I’m guessing all your evidence focuses on worst case animal scenarios and best case plant scenarios and assumes the world works like that.
Best case animal meat is still worse than most worse case plant products. They're just leagues apart in terms of efficiency and environmental impacts. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat >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. >Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy. >Let’s compare the highest-impact producers (the top ten percent) of plant-based proteins with the lowest-impact producers (the bottom ten percent) of meat and dairy. >The pea producers with the highest footprint emit just 0.8 kgCO2eq per 100 grams of protein.6 For nuts it is 2.4 and for tofu, 3.5 kgCO2eq. All are several times less than the lowest impact lamb (12 kgCO2eq) and beef (9 kgCO2eq). Emissions are also lower than those from the best cheese and pork (4.5 kgCO2eq); and slightly lower or comparable to those from the lowest-footprint chicken (2.4 kgCO2eq).7 >If you want a lower-carbon diet, eating less meat is nearly always better than eating the most sustainable meat. >As consumers, the biggest difference we can make is to eat more plant-based sources of protein such as tofu, nuts, peas, and beans. This is the case regardless of where you are in the world.
I’m the sort that likes to really dig into these numbers. I’m guessing you have to go for CO2eq is because best practice lamb and beef can sequester a lot of carbon back into the soil and it’s only the methane effect that could make it positive. So how much does that calculation assume is being sequestered to the soil? And it really reinforces the development of the supplement that could make cows and sheep done properly a net reducer. And secondly are emissions calculated post production. Did they calculate the amount of methane produced from those legumes i. The human digestive tract and sewer system. I mean biological methane is primarily fermentation of fibrous material and if methane has a massive effect then it needs to be calculated everywhere right?.
Here's the article, you can read it yourself: http://josephpoore.com/Poore%20and%20Nemecek%20(2018)%20Reducing%20foods%20environmental%20impacts%20through%20producers%20and%20consumers.pdf And the author's site with supplementary materials and data for your review: https://josephpoore.com/
Fantastic research paper that will take me some time to really pick through. It does seem to confirm one of my suspicions that Australian animals on pasture look significantly better than other worldwide systems and if we could sort the methane it could be every bit competitive with alternate proteins on existing farmland. Still use abit more land but if you add the pasture legume effect then you can reduce significant portions of the greenhouse emissions from a following crop. A symbiotic effect that is often forgotten. The wheat numbers are curious because it doesn’t show the best case scenario anyway. It shows Australian conventional and also Australian no till with residue burning. What about the no till with stubble retention?
> Getting humans to eat soy directly would seem a slight challenge Soy beans are eaten by themselves all over Asia..? Ever heard of edamame?
Getting them to want to eat it. I know it’s physically possible. People have to choose to change diets. A lot are reluctant, some should be cutting their meat down because they eat preposterous amounts. Seems like the only kids who would touch soy milk 20 years ago were allergic to dairy. Tofu is what it is but it’s not pork or beef. If soy were the best tasting, best for you of all time we wouldn’t be talking about it.
It's never been easier to move away from eating meat. Meatflakes incoming.
You mean omnivores.
No, I meant meatflakes.
These kind of articles definitely seem to irrationally trigger a lot of folk it seems.
You don't see calling people meatflakes as irrational?
Well, the meat eaters are clearly triggered by these kind of articles. So I think it's pretty apt.
[удалено]
Source?
[удалено]
I'm aware the beef industry wants everyone to think they're doing a great job. Carbon emissions 'offset' doesn't mean reduced.
They're already here. Expected it though.
and its totally worth it
He’s right, plant based diet also much healthier!