464
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
(sentientmedia.org)
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
464 points (84.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5239 readers
286 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any that do not say it's bad since most of the carbon is part of the earth's existing carbon cycle?
The organic stuff itself, maybe. But there's a lot of carbon involved in driving tractors and transport. All of which is vastly reduced by eating 1 plant instead of growing 10 plants to grow one steak.
Don't the largest most polluting machines work on the plant farms?
I'm talking grass fed animals. I agree with you that we shouldn't have grain fed cattle
Animals it's light trucks and tractors up feed the animals during winter or drought, then transport to market, eventually to the consumer.
Plants it's fertilising machines, crop dusting planes, massive harvesting machines then usually through factories eventually to the consumer. If you eat while foods only and nothing manufactured then it's massive harvesting machines then to market to the consumer
Yes. That's what I am referring to. Where are those studies?
I'm less concerned about tractors and transport, those are a matter of replacing with green alternatives.
The truth seems to be that the best choice is somewhere in the middle. Less meat, more vegetables. Attempts to zero out meat requires higher carbon input else where.
But if you're a vegetarian that mostly eats at restaurants, you've cancel out the benefits against someone who eats meat once a day, from a local farmer and prepares all their meals at home.
They're really pretty easy to find. But it's just basic physics. A cow doesn't eat to turn food into meat, it eats to stay alive. The business of living (and not in the least, that means farting lots of methane) consumes 90% of the food, only 10% is turned into meat. This varies a lot of course, depending on species and feeding regime.
The cow is part of the existing carbon cycle. The cow is not digging up buried carbon and releasing it. That's mostly us.
The focus needs to be on carbon input from these buried sources. Plants also release methane but for emotional reasons this is ok because pro-vegans accept this is coming from the existing carbon cycle. The methane from the cows is no different.
Vegans love this topic because it makes them feel they are helping more than others. It's all emotion. All of it. This comment section is oozing with this raw emotion.
Funny how your comment is 100% emotional and I am forced to conclude you didn't read the article, which cites peer reviewed studies. 😢
Fuck this is tiring.
These aren't new studies.
I've already read them and many more.
The source site has a stated goal of proving factory farming is bad for the environment. It has an agenda that nearly lines up with every in these comments who is downvoting me.
This is not science.
Me pointing out the emotions in others response is not an emotional reaction, it's an observation.
This fact that you are confused by this tells me how emotionally invested you are in this topic.
This simply isn't how science works.
This is how religious devotion operates.
you're doing great, sweetie
i was being sincere. i think you're doing really well here.
Or: All my emotions are science, by Mr. Rational himself. Its actually hilarious how much time you are willing to spend showing that your emotional responses are actually scientific with more emotional rhetoric and how little time you are willing to put into showing a single way that a single point in the article is wrong using science that shows otherwise. "I don't like the rhetorical slant of the article," does literally nothing to disprove the science they useto support their conclusions. But you are clearly the one single person on this planet that doesn't let their emotions guide what they believe. Ok.
I'm afraid that's a bit too simplistic. I'll name a few reasons to give a hint why.
For example, both carbon dioxide and methane are "part of the earth's carbon cycle", but both have different climate impacts. Ruminants transform one into the other; from bad to worse.
Another person pointed out how meat production also involves burning fossil fuels, for example for transport. Or synthetic fertilizers.
Yet another reason is land use change. Meat production, being inherently less efficient due to more intermediate steps (see trophic levels), uses more land for the same amount of nutritions compared to plant based agriculture. This translates to more deforestation, more dried up wetlands, more desertification, and more stress on other species.
Finally, scale and speed make a difference. It's true that both carbon dioxide and methane are part of Earth's existing carbon cycle. Yet, the scale and speed at which we emit those is unprecedented.
But natural ruminants like deer would take up places cows were removed from. They will have the same emissions as cows per unit biomass
Says who, got any source on that? Do we have any evidence for both assumptions, specifically the second?
As far as I know, natural herds of ruminants can actually help keep carbon in the ground. The natural population density is also much lower compared to modern factory farms.
I don't know what you're on, but it's impolite not to share. You should also read these studies so you don't say stupid shit like this.
It would be easier to take this seriously if any one that questioned it wasn't bombarded with personal attacks like yours.
This tells me you have made an emotional decision that you have backfilled with science and can therefore be ignored.
I don't need to cater to you, you're in a community designed to inform people about real climate science and spread knowledge about climate change. You're talking total nonsense edging on the border of misinformation, which doesn't deserve a serious response.
You don't need to be an asshole either and yet you were anyway.
You feel my questions are nonsense. I feel that means you aren't interested in debating the science.
You feel you know the truth and anyone that doesn't accept your truth is beneath you. That will not convince anyone.
This isn't science it's an agenda. I am sorry you cannot understand the difference but the responses and downvotes I am receiving illustrate this clearly.
It's just common sense that eating a plant is more efficient than growing many, many plants in order to feed an animal that is then eaten.
That said, I'm not willing to make that much of a personal sacrifice to push a boulder the size of Texas less than an inch. If we really want to make a difference, we need systemic change.
I'd absolutely support a 100% tax on meat. It'd be easier for us all to change if we did it together.
Sure, but that legislation is not on the table because the meat lobby wont even let people see what the inside of a slaughterhouse looks like and actually because of their lobbying power the exact opposite of what you are suggesting is true; instead of taxing meat, our tax dollars go to subsidize meat to keep it cheaper than plant based alternatives. We do actually need people to change individual habits, because the political machine has huge incentives not to change at all. Perhaps if the plant based lobby could become big enough to challenge the meat lobby we could make bigger changes, but that will require individuals making small changes in their diets first.
It's not on the table because it'd be wildly unpopular, and anyone who proposed it would never get reelected.
Can't say I know how to fix that, but that's what I'd rather work on.
Again with appeals to emotion. What proof do you have that this is an agenda and not valid science apart from you don't like the conclusions?
Again, claiming that anything you don't like is illogical because emotions are at play is a highly emotionally argument. If you don't think the science is rigorous, show scientific reasons why, because as In sure you are liable to say; the science doesn't care how you feel about it, its either factual or it isn't. You have no contradictory evidence, so you resort to, I feel this must be wrong because I don't like it. That's 100% emotional.
You are adding the emotions to my comments. I don't give a fuck if you choose not to eat meat, you on the other hand have a problem with my choice.
The fact that the article has an agenda does not require me to rigorously dismantle every part of it. The agenda automatically disqualifies the science.
The argument you're using is the same one that religious people use where they demand atheists disprove the existence of god and claim atheism is a religion.
Its also funny how you chose to infer how I feel about your choice to eat meat, which I actually never addressed. That's just how YOU feel about what I said. What's funny is that you are the one appealing to emotion, with your strawman argument about religion. In reality, this article makes conclusions based on a body of peer reviewed science. You claim you don't like their slant and expect everybody to come along with you, when frankly nobody asked your opinion and in reality that is closer to what religions do in demanding atheists disprove god. This article actually demonstrates proof of facts with cited science. You claim those studies must all be wrong because they don't prove your argument without so much as offering an alternative demonstrated by anything we can verify. So you're essentially appealing to the idea of meat eating as an infallible diety for which you will accept no proof that contradicts its divinity. Again, its 100% emotion. Its just hilarious at this point. I'm having fun. You?
Wow, another emotional comment from Mr. Rational himself. Did I hurt your feewings?
Arsenic is part of the earth's existing arsenic cycle. Try injecting it.
That's some serious smooth brain logic.
Yes… it is. Good job playing yourself bud
Are you a child? Me calling someone else's hysterics smooth brain makes me lose an argument? This level of childish attitude only causes people to tune out and ignore the problem. Its only purpose is to make you feel superior.
Oh, you’re just trolling. Nobody is that oblivious lol
Funny how trolls always call me the troll. You've added nothing to the discussion but angry noises.
NO, not muh life style choices. How come things I do are bad for the planet!?
Bad for the planet? The planet is fine. Our way of life is fucked. But the planet will happily move on without us.
Do you know how many species go extinct everyday? The planet may survive, but it could end up as a barren rock
Show me a serious scientific model that indicates that is a possibility.
denial
47 negative karma for calmly arguing with a good point. This place is hopeless. This isn't rationality, it's religion