
What If Fighting Climate Change Is as Easy as Giving Up Meat? - mykowebhn
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/jonathan-safran-foer-vegan-before-six-climate-change-food-culture.html
======
shartshooter
He says: _refraining from consuming animal products, argues Foer, is one of
the most significant actions individuals can take to help prevent global
warming, along with driving less, flying less, and having fewer children._

But, Agricultural production makes up 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions.[1]

The largest categories are: \- Transportation: 29% \- Electricity: 28% \-
Industry: 22% \- Commercial and Residential: 12% \- Ag: 9%

As for individual action on climate change am I the only one feeling like
things are so focused on beef production when, looking at the grand scheme of
things you should start biking everywhere you go, quit taking flights across
the country, put some solar panels on your roof and stop buying stuff you
throw away?

Wouldn't each of those actions have, potentially, a far bigger impact on
climate change than just beef reduction?

[1][https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

~~~
tmm84
Not to poke holes here but that link shows agricultural emissions with animal
manure [aka feces] (14% of the 9%) and livestock ruminants [aka farts and
other digestive processes] (~33% of the 9%). So, about 47% of that 9% is
directly related to livestock with the remainder actually being from farming
related to food.

------
pjkundert
If you believe that the millions of plains bison that roamed the grasslands of
North America led to topsoil reduction... you'd be wrong. Industrial feedlot
and processing plant meat production is _nothing_ like meat should/can be
raised. You just don't know it; you've been decieved.

If you believe that children raised and mentored by loving parents, training
them to "move the needle" beyond what their parents were able to accomplish is
a net negative to humanity and the biosphere... you'd be wrong. Sad little
oppressed kids being primarily deceived by their "peers" and generally ignored
by parents/teachers isn't education. You just don't know it; you've been
deceived.

I'll deny the hateful, screeching, dark, negative dialectic of the climate
apocalypsists all day long... because it's wrong. 7 billion humans caring for
their family lands _can_ repair the planet; 7 billion downtrodden subjects of
liberty- and wealth-robbing tyrant governments; not so much.

As for me and my house, we'll put on our hardhats and break out our
engineering skills, and push back against the selfish, nihilistic
"totalitarian impulse" of the ignorant elitists, sending ranting little girls
to the UN in an attempt to deny us the ability and capacity to do the R&D that
_actually_ improves our planet.

Let the down-voting begin... Don't be deceived, though; the smugly superior,
soft-handed, flabby chattering political class who are ready, willing and able
to sacrifice you to accomplish their little totalitarian redistribution
schemes won't shed a tear when the time comes to march you up to the chopping
block or execution wall.

Its only then that it'll dawn on you: they said they were loving and accepting
of us, but they actually hated us. Your neighbors, however, love you and need
you: exactly the opposite of what we've all been deceived into believing.

------
beatgammit
> I think the best thing that we could possibly do is simply require meat to
> cost what it actually costs. The price is heavily subsidized for the factory
> farm industry, mostly to corn and grain, but also through not requiring any
> environmental regulation.

This is the meat of it for me.

What I don't understand is that most activists seem to push the "regulation"
angle, when perhaps the simplest solution is to just stop artificially
reducing the cost of meat. If we simply stopped subsidizing dairy, corn, and
other agriculture products and instituted a tax on methane pollution (start
small and work our way up to an estimate of the damage it causes), we'd see a
decline in demand for animal products. Or maybe we'll see some innovation in
reducing the impact of raising meat products (I saw something somewhat
recently about decreasing methane production for cattle by adjusting diet).

But no, we have this weird conflict between "climate change believers" and
"climate change deniers", and both want to use government to force their will
in different ways. It's weird because simply making things cost what they cost
to produce would do more to help fix climate change than all of the bickering
on both sides. This should be an area that liberals and conservatives can
agree on: less government involvement in business is a conservative taking
point, and ending agricultural subsidies is a liberal talking point, so why
aren't we doing it? Let's cut oil subsidies as well while we're at it.

~~~
wmf
If we "just" internalized all the externalities then rich people would still
eat meat, still drive, still fly, etc. while many people would have to give up
those things. It might make inequality much more visible. There's also a moral
angle that even "bad" people could "automatically" become green without having
to change their minds about anything.

~~~
whenchamenia
I already see that happening in places like new york and california. The most
trendy resturants are the ones that flunt the green image, and charge you as
much or more to be seen there as for the food.

