
Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet - sanxiyn
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7
======
mark_l_watson
At least in the USA, this could in principle be fixed by ending the corporate
welfare state. Old news, but All major industries like the beef industry get
huge tax breaks, free water and other giveaways at the general taxpayer’s
expense.

Fixing the corruption (both democratic and republican parties) in our our
political would end up helping the environment a lot. That said, we have zero
chance of fixing our corrupt political system. It will never happen, the
elites have won that war.

One problem with reducing meat consumption is the general low skill level for
cooking. Vegetarian food can taste better than meat dishes but you need skill
and good ingredients. I have mixed feelings about Beyond Meat: my wife and I
love the hot Italian sausage and burgers, but it is really not that healthy.

~~~
cribbles
Corporate welfare is one thing. I'd also like to direct readers to this thread
from yesterday:
[https://twitter.com/unabanned/status/1159272783676891136](https://twitter.com/unabanned/status/1159272783676891136)

\- which persuasively argues (with multiple sources) that the US meat industry
depends upon massive labor exploitation of undocumented immigrants in order to
1) suppress wages and 2) maintain an otherwise intolerable working
environment.

This shows that the problem is not simply corrupt legislation and lobbying,
but a de facto symbiotic relationship between the meat industry, federal
immigration authorities and border coyotes to maintain artificially low
prices.

~~~
dragonwriter
> which persuasively argues (with multiple sources) that the US meat industry
> depends upon massive labor exploitation of undocumented immigrants in order
> to 1) suppress wages and 2) maintain an otherwise intolerable working
> environment.

That's well-known about the meat industry. The problem with suggesting it as a
reason to avoid meat in favor of vegetable-based food is the same is well-
known to be true of agriculture generally.

~~~
grardb
Good point, though when speaking of "intolerable working environments," many
employees of slaughterhouses suffer from PTSD and drug/alcohol addiction, and
also become more likely to be domestic abusers:
[https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-
everyday-...](https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-
leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/)

------
Will_Parker
From [https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-
global-...](https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-
warming.htm)

"Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas
emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA).
Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for
approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more
in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA)."

I think in the USA, it would be more productive to address the 80% as higher
priority than reducing the 3%. I think this veganism initiative is also more
driven by morality and political partisanship than by an effort to find a
realistic and practical solution to GHG emissions. And this can backfire: I
believe that a reason why nearly half the country will not even openly admit
there is a problem, is because they fear the consequences of political over-
reaction more than the problem itself.

~~~
martius
Eating less meat is not veganism. It's not even vegetarianism.

It's not the first time that I'm seeing reactions about this report to focus
on veganism. I don't understand where it comes from: the word "vegan" is
absent from the article and the IPCC report doesn't recommend a any diet.

I understand debate about this report and the impact of agriculture and
breeding, but I don't understand why the debate is centered around veganism.

~~~
noetic_techy
If you trace the origin of most of these low meat consumption pushes, its
often vegan groups with an agenda trying to get the governments ear. Problem
is, the recommendations and studies they site don't stand up to real scrutiny.
For example they often say you should not exceed the RDA for meat consumption,
without realizing that an RDA is the bare minimum to not be nutrient
deficient. It is by no means the optimal level of protein consumption and
likely a detrimental recommendations for the vast majority. When called out on
it, they will pull the GHG card, but at 3% of US GHG emission even that
doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Then they pull the morality card, without
realized that row crop harvest kill vastly more small animals per harvest. Its
all rooted in bias, plane and simple. The most vocal are the vegans and they
make a convincing surface argument.

~~~
wolfv
There is no RDA for meat consumption.

------
robin_reala
It’s also worth pointing out that even if you don’t want to reduce the amount
of meat you eat, changing the type of meat can have big effects. For example
(and ignoring transport to the consumer), lamb produces about 35 kg CO₂ per kg
of meat, beef 25kg CO₂ / kg, pork and farmed salmon 8kg CO₂ / kg and chicken
4kg CO₂ / kg.

~~~
maxencecornet
This

If you really want to have an impact while still eating meat, just stop eating
beef/lamb altogether

The amount of food and water needed to produce 1kg of beef meat is just insane

Eat poultry or fish instead

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio)

>Cattle is the worst at something like 15:1. Aquaculture, specifically tilapia
and catfish, is good at under 2:1

~~~
mytailorisrich
As already mentioned in another discussion, the ratio they use for farmed fish
is " _where the first number is the mass of harvested fish used to feed farmed
fish, and the second number is the mass of the resulting farmed fish_ ".

Which makes it much less positive than it first appears.

~~~
pvaldes
> makes it much less positive than it first appears.

Take in mind that fish food for aquaculture has a small percentage of plant
proteins and oils also. Is unclear if this was included or not in the claimed
FIFO ratio, so some of this fish could be really soy (or maybe not). Reality
is always more complex than a single numerical value.

------
elktea
There's a good case to be made for humans being primarily meat eaters for much
of our history and only eating plants as an alternative to starving - we
certainly haven't had time to evolve to eat a vegetarian diet. Agriculture has
only been around for a small fraction of our history and the skeletal record
clearly shows how disasterous it was for our health.

The current 'plant based' fad diet recommendations are backed up by some very
poor science and may be seriously unsuitable for humans and for children in
particular, nutrition-wise. Animal agriculture is not even a major source of
human emissions so to call for changes to our natural diet seems very
premature.

~~~
throwaway3957
> There's a good case to be made for humans being primarily meat eaters for
> much of our history and only eating plants as an alternative to starving

To really contribute, it would be nice if you came up with some citations to
your claim.

~~~
elktea
Our stomach pH is very low, comparable to carrion eaters and some carnivores.

"It is interesting to note that humans, uniquely among the primates so far
considered, appear to have stomach pH values more akin to those of carrion
feeders than to those of most carnivores and omnivores"
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134116)

Our requirements for DHA and B12 indicate a diet rich in both - both found
almost exclusively in animal foods

Evolution of the Human Brain: the key roles of DHA(omega-3 fatty acid)
andD6-desaturase gene [https://www.ocl-
journal.org/articles/ocl/pdf/2018/04/ocl1700...](https://www.ocl-
journal.org/articles/ocl/pdf/2018/04/ocl170035.pdf)

We wean our young for a very short amount of time compared to other apes.

"Our model indicates that carnivory has a specific and quantifiable impact on
human development and life history and, crucially, explains why Homo weans so
much earlier than the great apes." Impact of Carnivory on Human Development
and Evolution Revealed by a New Unifying Model of Weaning in Mammals
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032452)

~~~
asokoloski
We do require B12, but "found almost exclusively in animal foods" leaves out
something important. B12 is produced by bacteria, and is found in natural,
untreated water sources, as well as dirt. Our bodies are adapted to preserve
B12 in a very elaborate way, (because it is a water-soluble vitamin), meaning
that we can survive on the trace amounts found in untreated water and the dirt
that sticks to vegetables. This is not to say that I'm recommending drinking
untreated water or not washing vegetables. Vegans should absolutely
supplement.

DHA can be produced by our bodies transforming ALA, which is found in plant
sources:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016378271...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782715000223)

Like the article says, there's debate over whether this is enough, as the
conversion is very inefficient. As I understand it, ALA and LA compete for the
same pathway, meaning that excess of LA intake (an omega 6 fatty acid,
abundant in nuts and seeds, and of course oils processed from them) will
reduce our body's ability to produce DHA, so a human eating prehistoric diet
would likely have a better conversion ratio than on a modern diet. Also,
there's apparently evidence that if we don't eat a lot of DHA, our bodies
convert more of our dietary ALA to it to compensate:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20861171](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20861171)

But even taking all this into consideration, I'm not very sympathetic to
arguments from nature. There's a big difference between saying "primal humans
did X" and saying "modurn humans need to do X to be healthy". Even taking
everything you said as given, there's overwhelming evidence that meat
consumption is a big factor in for modern chronic health problems like heart
disease and cancer. Eating whatever you can get your hands on (meat, eggs,
fish, insects) makes sense when you just need enough calories to survive and
reproduce, but that's not the problem now. We suffer from diseases of
abundance. A plant-based diet with B12 and DHA supplementation is much
healthier than an omnivorous one.

~~~
elktea
I'd like to focus on your assertion: "A plant-based diet with B12 and DHA
supplementation is much healthier than an omnivorous one."

I'd not bet my health and my children's development on a novel way of eating
without fantastic proof. Have you got any?

------
baxtr
I have become an 80% vegetarian - meaning I try to avoid meat completely, but
I am not "strong" enough and end up eating a (usually small) piece of meat,
once every week/second week.

It took me at least one year to achieve this, because meat is so prevalent in
our society. A friend of mine was in India recently and he said he did not
miss meat at all since the non-meat dishes were so great. I think a lot of it
is just how good the quality of vegetarian dishes is.

~~~
ictebres
Yes, living in Berlin I feel spoiled. When I was in South Korea, most of the
time there was nothing vegetarian on the menu, in Berlin you have multiple
vegan options and even more vegetarian options.

I believe restaurant options are very important since people learn from those
and mimic them at home. We need restaurants to offer more vegetarian and vegan
dishes for people to see that they can have a rich (IMHO richer) diet without
meat.

I don’t know how to nudge the restaurants though. Lower tax on
organic/sustainable food can be one thing, or even better subventions for such
restaurants and produce. But most importantly the meat and dairy industry
needs to get under real supervision. Governments all around the world have
been looking away for far too long.

~~~
Freak_NL
> I don’t know how to nudge the restaurants though

Visit and ask for vegetarian or vegan dishes. Move on if there is nothing
worthwhile; let the staff know if you've liked a particular dish or find the
selection too limiting. Demand drives supply.

In the Netherlands the vegetarian option used to be a boring salad with goat
cheese. Nowadays not having decent meat-free options means you can't compete
with the rest. This is something only the cheaper restaurants aimed at lower
socio-economic classes can afford to do (but only for now). The reason for
this discrepancy is that this class of people (mostly blue collar workers and
their families) tends to lag behind the rest of society a bit as habits shift
towards more healthy alternatives (smoking is another example).

~~~
alisonatwork
Years ago i remember someone making a joke that the best way to promote
veganism was to only buy vegan products at Aldi. The point was to avoid this
kind of bourgeois trickle down veganism.

It was interesting to me leaving Europe and coming to China. In upper class
restaurants here, they put meat in everything, even as a "seasoning" in veg
dishes. I think it's seen as an indicator of wealth. At working class
restaurants the cheapest dishes are all veg, or have only the barest scraping
of ground pork or bone stock. I much prefer to eat out here than i did in
Europe (and definitely the North America) where meat and dairy tends to be the
default option for blue collar grub. I still don't really understand how that
works, economically.

------
harimau777
I think this is a situation where we need a Dr. George Washington Carver that
not only recognizes that we need to eat less meat but also develops
alternatives that the general public will accept.

(Not sure how famous Dr. George Washington Carver is outside the US. He was
one of the first famous African American scientists and is known for
discovering that rotating crops with peanuts will add nutrients back to the
soil and then inventing about 300 uses for peanuts in order to convince
farmers to plant them. However, despite popular belief, peanut butter was not
one of the uses that he invented.)

~~~
Frondo
I was in Canada recently and tried one of the Tim Hortons "beyond sausage"
sausage, egg, and cheese sandwiches. From the "beyond meat" people.

Had I not known what I was eating, I wouldn't have known it was plant-based at
all. The taste and texture was, at least in fast food terms, just a really
good sausage.

I haven't been able to try the beyond burger Burger King is selling, but if
it's on par with the beyond sausage, I can't see why I'd ever eat a meat-based
fast food burger again. It was really that good, and an easy decision to make
given the meat industry's impact on the environment.

People who diss those meat substitutes out of hand should try them with an
open mind (i.e. not from a place of "you can't control me" or "I'll never stop
eating meat".)

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Quick note: Burger King uses the Impossible Burger, not the Beyond Burger. In
my opinion, the Impossible Burger isn't any better than a MorningStar Farms
Grillers Prime (at significantly higher price). The Beyond Burger though is
easily the best meat-free burger I've ever had.

A&W and Carl's Junior are Beyond Burger joints.

~~~
5A704C1N
You must have caught Impossible on a bad day. Prepared right, an Impossible
Whopper is indistinguishable from the real thing

~~~
degenerate
But that's not saying much; the whopper tastes like meat-flavored glue. I
believe BK rolled out the impossible burger nationwide yesterday, so I will
give it a shot.

------
thelittleone
We're creatures of habit. The pattern of breakfast, lunch and dinner means I'm
usually "hungry" before breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I was feeling hungry about dinner time a while back, but I couldn't decide
what to eat so I skipped. I woke the next morning and didn't feel hungry at
all. That seemed odd to me. So I skipped breakfast and ate lunch only (same
portion size as normal) and continued to do so for six weeks. I felt great.
Workouts strong, focus and concentration improved. I saved a bunch of time and
money.

After that did a 13 day fast (zero food). Day 3 sucked, but the 10 that
followed where really eye opening in a wholly positive way. I do a lot of
boxing, and I didn't stop during this fast. I thought it would suck but I had
tons of energy and lots of speed. At the finishing lime, the first morsel of
food (some roast pumpkin) was savored and tasted incredible. It gave me a new
awareness and appreciation of what and how much food I need to maintain
maximum performance.

I know i could eat a LOT less than I do in a year and be as or more healthy
and contribute to a healthier environment. We just have to break the habit.
That's really hard given the social culture of eating.

~~~
sphix0r
I'm a faster too and have more energy as well. No more energy drain after a
big meal. Another advantage of fasting is that you spend less time on food.
Our western society involves a lot of time on food(breakfast, lunch, dinner
and snacks).

~~~
thelittleone
Yeah the time saved surprised me also. No more "hmmm what to eat for... " only
one meal a day. I was surprised to learn how much time I spend thinking of
either what to eat, or eating or digesting it in a food coma :)

------
dsirola
The report states with high confidence that balanced diets featuring plant-
based, and _sustainably-produced animal-sourced, food_ “present major
opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-
benefits in terms of human health”.

I think this says it all. The consumption is not as much of a problem as
production. They don't mention how much forest is also cut to build farms and
it's not like plant growing industry is any better in terms of emissions [1]
and water / land poisoning with pesticides and GMO plants. Now, don't get me
wrong, I have nothing against GMO that is done well, but the current direction
that's only serving corporate greed instead of bettering farming industry is
just disgusting. Without animals we are just as equally doomed as we are with
them [2]. I also have a feeling that they're trying to optimize the 1% instead
of tackling real problems caused by coal energy, cars, airplanes etc.

[1] [https://agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/it-wasnt-the-
cows-...](https://agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/it-wasnt-the-cows-after-
all/)

[2] [https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI](https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI)

~~~
henryaj
> it's not like plant growing industry is any better in terms of emissions

Animal agriculture is enormously more resource-intensive than plant
agriculture:

[https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1159831081798864898...](https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1159831081798864898/photo/1)

How are we still having this debate?

~~~
hispanic
I didn't read much of the report from which this is sourced from, but it
appears that they base their numbers on current farming practices. In the
U.S., those practices (for beef, pork, etc.) are, for the most part, horrible
and irresponsible. Responsible practices work in concert with and support of
the environment, not against it. Cows graze on and replenish lush grasslands.
Pigs forage through and replenish forested areas. The animals are allowed to
work within the cycle of nature and act as integral parts of healthy land
management instead of being removed from it and treated as industrial outputs.

Cows aren't the problem. Pigs aren't the problem. Chickens aren't the problem.
Mankind's industrialization of cows, pigs, and chickens is the problem.

So, for me, that's why we're still having this debate.

------
efiecho
It's funny how HN is an echo chamber sometimes. Every time I'm reading a
thread like this, it's flooded with post from people who have turned vegans or
almost reduced meat to zero, and one could think that this is the norm.

Like a few years back when HN was going on about how the whole world would now
stop eating regular food, and consume some powder mixed with water, I think it
was called Soylent or something. That didn't happen.

If anything, I will only be eating more meat, better quality, but not less and
this is probably also the case for millions of other people.

~~~
mklarmann
This topic has gained substantial scientific evidence. More people have come
to turns that the facts only point to possible solutions for the climate were
we substantially eat less meat.

Having you eat even more meat makes you indirectly responsible for people’s
death. It might not be right. But in the near future (2-3 years) you might
feel ashamed of what you said right now.

~~~
marcus_holmes
I'm fascinated that the solutions to climate change appear to line up neatly
with the things that hippies have been saying for years (capitalism needs to
be replaced with a state-managed global economy, nuclear power is bad,
vegetarianism is good, bicycling is good, plant more trees).

Particularly the nuclear power option. That one makes no sense.

Concrete is a major source of CO2 emissions. In some places, it contributes
more than agriculture. Why isn't that being targeted for scientific studies on
its impact, and recommendations from the UN on practices? Or has it, and those
are just not newsworthy enough to make the BBC take notice?

I'm probably being cynical, but it all smells of hidden agendas.

~~~
dsirola
Why is nuclear power a problem? It's one of the cleanest energy sources
currently.

~~~
rotexo
Sounds to me like the parent isn't anti-nuclear, just that there is some
agenda downplaying the role of nuclear in fighting climate change.

------
jnwatson
If everyone stopped traveling for fun, that would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions even more.

You’re not going to guilt people into changing their behavior.

A carbon tax fixes this.

~~~
pmlnr
> stopped traveling for fun

Uhm... how about stop travelling for business in the world of instant
communication?

~~~
deepGem
Based on my business travels mostly related to sales, I don't see any of them
shifting online. When it comes to decision making, physical presence matters a
lot. This is not some routine weekly status call we are talking about.
Courting customers, making them feel good and closing that deal - none of
these will ever happen online, unless some magical VR tech comes about.

~~~
spopejoy
This is the thing I worry about -- my business requires a decent amount of air
travel, and in general business travel is where you hear most of people
bopping in and out of town in a single day, whereas vacationing is often for
at least a few days.

No question that physical presence is huge, but that doesn't justify it from
an environmental POV at all, esp. since most sales are about making
owners/investors richer, not making the world a better place.

I think real creative thought about how business travel could reduce impact
would be massively impactful. It would probably need regulation, because the
sales team that tries to, say, do all meetings virtual will be whomped by the
other team that shows up.

------
Nyandalized
I don't think people will stop consuming meat if you ask them nicely. You have
to make decisions that will hurt the meat industry and make it infeasible.

This would likely best be achieved through slowly dropping tax incentives, and
transferring them over to alternatives so that people have something equally
economical to today's meat.

~~~
mytailorisrich
There is no need to go from one extreme to the other. This is about eating
"less" meat.

People do not traditionally eat that much meat because meat used to be
expensive and its supply limited.

This is still the case in poor countries.

In developed countries, people started to eat more and more meat as they got
richer because we naturally like meat and because of clever marketing.

We now eat too much meat, and also consume too much dairy (adults don't need
to drink any milk and many don't digest it well, by the way). If people just
stopped eating meat at every meal or every day, consumption would drastically
drop without too much of a change in daily life.

One solution would be measures to increase prices but that is a political
minefield.

~~~
lol768
>adult don't need to drink any milk and many don't digest it well, by the way

Never understood the obsession with drinking milk on its own (though I never
liked the taste of it myself either). There's plenty of calcium to be found in
other sources: kale, leafy greens, almonds, fortrified grains, beans/pulses
etc.

~~~
harimau777
This is a very niche reason, but one of the classic diets for beginner weight
lifters who want to gain weight is to add a gallon of whole milk a day to
their existing diet.

For people that are trying to consume more calories and protein, I don't know
of an alternative that combines comparable calorie & protein density, low
cost, ease of consumption, and zero preparation time.

More generally, I think that one of the big challenges with plant based diets
is a lack of easily available calorie and protein dense foods. (I'm not saying
its impossible to get enough calories and protein as a vegan, even as a
bodybuilder. Just that it is not nearly as easy.)

~~~
markstos
Even weight lifting is changing, with one of the top weight lifters being
vegan: [https://www.greatveganathletes.com/patrik-baboumian-vegan-
st...](https://www.greatveganathletes.com/patrik-baboumian-vegan-strongman/)

Dairy in particular can be source of inflammation. One of the benefits of the
vegan diets for athletes cited is a fast recovery time after workouts.

~~~
departure
> with one of the top weight lifters being vegan

That's not exactly true, he's just some buff guy that is strong. He doesn't
even look big compared to bodybuilders, regular protein eaters at the gym are
his same size.

His 'record' deadlift was 360kg, worlds strongest men all pulled 420kg+ this
year. Arnold was in that class back in the 70's.

EDIT: After some research people are saying his european world records were
all accomplished before he became vegan in 2011.

~~~
marci
>> with one of the top weight lifters being vegan

> That's not exactly true, he's just some buff guy that is strong. He doesn't
> even look big compared to bodybuilders, regular protein eaters at the gym
> are his same size.

So, because he's a strong buff guy, while "not looking big compared to
bodybuilders" (category in which he has not been competing since 1999), and as
"regular protein eaters at the gym are his same size", it's not "exactly true"
that he's one of the top weight lifters ?

> His 'record' deadlift was 360kg

GP never said "top deadlifter". None of his records are about deadlift. Not
sure why you mentioned it.

> EDIT: After some research people are saying his european world records were
> all accomplished before he became vegan in 2011.

2012 Doesn't count?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Baboumian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Baboumian)

------
jillesvangurp
Regulate the industries and trade, not people's behavior. It's much easier and
you actually get results and people adapt to pricing by themselves. The
reality is that we have a few billion people that are doing pretty well
economically and they are going to be feeding themselves with whatever they
can afford. Unless you can convince more than half of them to become vegans,
that means demand for meat is going to go up, rather than down. A few
privileged rich hipsters choosing to only eat food others can't afford is not
going to be doing anything for this planet. It's not statistically meaningful.
Not even close.

Industrial farming is the main problem here. We're literally eroding farmland
by growing mono cultures (using pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc)
whose primary function is to feed cattle that spends all its life indoors
turning this farm produce into manure. That in turn gets mixed with urine to
produce a chemically very active mix that produces all sorts of nasty stuff.
It's stupid and massively wasteful. It's only cheap because doing that is
being subsidized and stimulated by governments. Stop doing doing that and the
price of meat goes up and people adapt their behavior. Unsustainably produced
cheap meat is the problem.

It's not the only way to produce meat but the it is the cheapest one and it's
only cheap unless you also factor in the cost of destroying this planet. There
are forms of farming that are effectively carbon negative (i.e. they capture
more co2 than is released) that still produce meat and other produce. We can
actually start undoing a lot of the damage already done simply by farming more
smartly. This starts by stopping to reward harmful behavior with subsidies.
Lots of farmers are already switching to more sustainable production methods
because it makes business sense. Removing subsidies for their unsustainable
competitors will help them.

~~~
captainredbeard
As I understand it, almost no cattle live indoors, especially not for their
entire life. The only exception I can think of is Kobe beef.

Even industrial beef cattle follow these stages (most companies target a
single stage though your smaller boutique producers tend to tackle all three
or at least the last two):

1\. Cow/calf operations. These are all pastured (grass fed). At weaning they
are sold at auction. 2\. Backgrounding. The calves are brought up to finishing
weight. This is typically a grass fed stage. Once they reach market weight,
they are sold at auction. 3\. Finishing. Most are finished at feedlots, which
are generally outdoors but extremely crowded. This is where the nasty
industrial farming stuff is concentrated.

Pasture finished beef is the way to go.

~~~
jillesvangurp
It depends. A lot of cows are kept indoors as well:
[https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2015/12/more-dutch-cows-are-
ke...](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2015/12/more-dutch-cows-are-kept-
permanently-indoors/)

The netherlands also has more pigs than people and these certainly don't go
outside except to travel to slaught houses.

------
saagarjha
A lot of people seem to equate this to “they’re telling me to stop eating
meat” and then fail to do anything: really, anything you do helps. Eat meat
with every meal? Try skipping it for breakfast. Eat it every week? Try every
other week. Nobody’s asking you to stop completely, at least not yet. (But if
you want to, go right ahead!)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> A lot of people seem to equate this to “they’re telling me to stop eating
> meat”

Indeed, in fact the report's authors are keen to stress that this is _not_ the
case.

------
nullreference00
_produce less meat_

Eating less meat just means more waste. We need to stop talking about climate
change as a problem individuals can solve with ecological lifestyle choices.
We need international economic planning and the seizure of carbon extracting
industry.

~~~
vorpalhex
> the seizure of carbon extracting industry

It sounds like what you mean is that you want some government or government
like entity to take down big beef/pork/chicken.

What the actual version of that would be is some government-esque entity
taking over a bunch of farms and murdering their cows/pigs/chickens and
forcibly unemploying large groups of people.

Alternatively that might mean some government-esque entity invading a bunch of
foreign farms owned by small Central and Southern American ranchers who aren't
exactly rolling in cash with their occupation despite releasing a lot of
carbon into the atmosphere.

Let's maybe not call for large government/government-esque orgs to go around
seizing anything. That sounds very drastic and bad for a lot of mostly
innocent people who do a lot of hard work to raise cows for not very much pay.

~~~
reitanqild
> Let's maybe not call for large government/government-esque orgs to go around
> seizing anything.

Agree.

I'm adding a reminder here for anyone whos intrigued by this to read up on
Soviet history, Kmer Rouge and Maos China. (Of course make sure to read up on
UK, Belgian and Dutch colonies as well. And American imperialism. Lots of ugly
stories there as well.)

------
adamsvystun
I think people in this thread suggest policies that are not centered around
the problem that we are trying to solve.

Do we want to reduce meat production or do we want to reduce the negative
climate impact of meat production?

It matters because the correlation is not straight forward. Different types of
meats produce different environmental harm. Each meat type can be produced
with different climate impact depending on production methods.

So the best policies would be centered around reducing (proportionally to
other industries) environmental impact of meat production. So things like
emissions tax, climate-friendly land use rewards make sense, while putting
taxes on all meat production makes less sense.

~~~
tomp
What's more, by targeting the effects, not the cause, you're helping create a
better, free-er world, where governments aren't dictating how people live
their lives. If the desired effect is "less global warming" (and you implement
that via a fair CO2 / CH4 tax), then people can choose _how_ they're going to
reduce their CO2 impact. Maybe I prefer to eat 1 steak per week and cycle to
work, whereas my neighbor eats soybeans whole year round and drives around in
a car.

Finally, by taxing (not banning) undesirable externalities governments spur
technological development - people/companies can invest money into figuring
out how to get the same result ("eat steak") with less of a climate impact
(e.g. by feeding seaweed to cows), resulting in a win-win.

------
glastra
How about we don't change the diet but change where the food comes from?

When talking about meat and damage to the environment, the only relevant
figures are the ones associated with animal feed (e.g. water consumption per
kg of meat).

Pastured animals, by definition, don't eat feed coming from the monoculture
industrial agriculture that is depleting the soil and consuming all those
resources, and which is also used to feed humans, sadly.

~~~
the8472
No matter what you feed them, compared to other livestock animals cows are a
fairly inefficient at turning feed into meat, meaning you need to dedicate
more land to agriculture when it could be forest instead and thus a better
carbon sink.

~~~
glastra
Out of curiosity, which animals are more efficient? Do you have a source on
that?

There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of growing
pasture, hard to plant trees in.

~~~
the8472
for the first two questions refer to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio)

> There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of
> growing pasture, hard to plant trees in.

I assume that those areas would not be sufficient to cover current meat and
dairy demands. If they were there wouldn't be any deforestation or soy fields
for animal feed. And non-grazed grasslands is still going to release less
methane than grazed lands.

~~~
chrisco255
More than 90% of a beef cow's body weight comes from pasture land grass and
hay.

When's the last time the Midwestern plains area of the United States was
forest? Before the beef industry, 50-100 million bison roamed the plains. It
turns out that ruminants like bison and cows are essential components of a
grassland ecosystem.

~~~
markstos
But killing them for food is not.

~~~
chrisco255
Yes it is. They are prey animals and they literally evolved to be prey.
Incidentally we also killed off most of the major predators around the world
so there are few wolves, saber tooth cats, etc to keep population numbers
controlled.

------
holstvoogd
Maybe we should also stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry close to
1,000,000,000,000$ yearly.

Not saying we should not eat less meat or anything, just saying there might be
more we could be doing if our governments weren't corporate/billionairs
puppets mostly.

------
pawanrawal
I am excited about the work Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are doing in this
space. Creating alternatives with same nutrient content and similar taste but
1/10th the land usage and consuming less of other resources.

~~~
elktea
If they had the same nutrient content I would be excited as well. They merely
look like a bit like meat. The similarities end there.

~~~
delecti
Considering the links between meat consumption and heart disease, one would
think that you should be more excited that the nutrient content _isn 't_ the
same.

------
Scoundreller
Have they taken meat off the menu at UN offices and HQ?

Or is this for « everyone else »?

~~~
delecti
_Even if_ your implied assumption is correct, and they haven't taken meat off
the menu at UN HQ, being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong.

And in any case, it's likely the scientists putting out climate reports aren't
the people running the cafeteria.

~~~
Scoundreller
> being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong.

But it makes one unpalatable; which is a problem when you want to change human
behaviour.

------
SmellyGeekBoy
It's good to see them putting the emphasis on eating _less_ meat rather than
cutting it out entirely. I do eat meat but I find myself eating less and less
these days as non-meat alternatives become more appealing to me. I also don't
eat "cheap" meat as I'm concerned about animal welfare. But I do take offense
to vegans telling me that I'm evil because I don't fully embrace their choice
of lifestyle and I'm sure most meat-eaters feel the same way.

~~~
supuun
Not all vegans think like this. I'm a vegetarian, but I really don't think,
that I am a better person than meat eater. :)

ETA: btw great job making effort to partly cut out meat from your diet. I
myself want to become vegan, but I just can't switch immediately. IMO there is
nothing wrong with gradual approach.

P.S. sorry for my broken English.

------
pikma
I'm doubtful that much change can come from personal choices made by
consumers. It seems to me that it would require tremendous energy and
commitment from a very large number of people to significantly reduce the
global demand. It seems to me that it's much more effective to raise the price
or to reduce the supply (something like quotas or cap-and-trade).

Can anyone point me to examples where my thinking is wrong, where changes came
from the demand side?

~~~
danmaz74
Why tremendous energy? Cutting individual consumption by eg 30% doesn't look
so difficult to me.

~~~
pikma
You would need to get a large part of the global population to do it though,
say 50%. And the prices for meat would go down, so you would need to convince
the other half of the population not to increase their consumption.

~~~
danmaz74
Meat is disproportionately consumed in western countries, so, even a change
only in those countries would have a big impact. Eg, China consumes half the
meat per person of the US, and India just 5%.

~~~
barry-cotter
As far as China goes that’s purely because it’s not all at first world levels
of consumption yet. In any coastal city where people are roughly as prosperous
as Poles or Romanians people eat first world amounts of meat. And telling
people they can’t eat meat will not garner support for the government, whether
in India, China, Indonesia or any other developing nation. Not eating meat is
either an ethical or a religious stance and on a global level the ethical
stance is marginal. People who can afford to eat meat do, and do so regularly.

~~~
danmaz74
The Chinese could become more environmentally conscious when climate change
will become an even more serious problem for them. In the meantime, starting
to cut consumption on our end is still useful, and would give us a much better
stance if at some point we'll have to negotiate reductions on their part.

------
K0nserv
I read somewhere that the one meat free day a week initative is laughable and
we should really be aiming for one meat day a week. Personally I've switched
to a mostly vegetarian diet in the past few years and when I do eat meat it's
good high quality meat.

Meat consumption seems like one of the easiest things governments could change
to tackle climate change. Unlike cars and travel it's hard to make the
argument that humans depend on access to meat so making it 700% more expensive
via tax would effectively shift consumption patterns with few if any
downsides. If anything it would probably have the excellect side effect of
improving public health.

~~~
danieldk
_Unlike cars and travel it 's hard to make the argument that humans depend on
access to meat so making it 700% more expensive via tax would effectively
shift consumption patterns with few if any downsides._

The problem is that no politician (perhaps outside green parties) wants to do
this, because of the fear of becoming unpopular. We simultaneously need a
shift in people's attitudes towards meat.

I have been a vegetarian since I was 17 (I am 37 now). It has always
fascinated me that becoming a vegetarian was only very little effort, but
somehow people are extremely attached to meat. I never talk about being a
vegetarian, but when people find out that I am a vegetarian, they often acts
as being offended and having to defend themselves.

We need to show people that there is a middle way where you can still eat meat
(e.g. maybe once a week) but still drastically decrease their footprint.

~~~
K0nserv
This is the unfortunate truth and it's particularly bad beause the rich
western countries that contribute the most to climate change will, in many
instances, be the last to feel the effects. This in combination with
decmoractic elections has the consequence that iniatives aimed at tackling
climate change, all of which will have a negative impact on people's
lives(percieved or not), will never be viable politics for any politcian who
wants to stay in office.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Actually in recent decades its rapidly developing countries like China and
India that have seen massive increases in meat eating.

~~~
K0nserv
That's to be expected with increasing wealth in those countries and while I
said a lot of western countries need to make adjustment it's also true for
growing economies like China and Indias as well.

------
blisterpeanuts
In the early 1800s, there were an estimated 60 million bison in North America.
They were hunted nearly to extinction, and today there are an estimated 31,000
(wikipedia).

Meanwhile, there are about 120 million cattle in the U.S. and Canada (over a
billion worldwide). It's possible that cattle therefore have a larger impact
on the ecology than did the buffalo, but there were always large grazing herds
in the world, and far more numerous prior to the Industrial Age. It's possible
that there are in fact fewer ruminants today than in pre-industrial times, if
the great herds of millions of reindeer and similar creatures that once roamed
the plains of North America and Siberia are taken into account.

Last year I began bow-hunting for deer in my part of New England, where there
is an excessive population that damage forests, endanger drivers, and spread
disease. I'm also hoping to raise meat chickens and egg laying chickens in the
near future.

Hunt for your own meat and stop buying factory meat that has been pumped with
all sorts of hormones and antibiotics. I love a good beefsteak and I do hope
such will continue to be available, but harvesting your own meat is probably
the best thing for the planet and gives you a much stronger connection to (and
respect for) the game animals that we eat!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Neat for you, but probably not scalable. Hunting and gathering always had that
problem. For the other 6 billion people on the planet, big Ag is all that's
going to feed them.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Not scalable to 7b people, but maybe applicable to a few more millions of
people in North America, for example, where meat consumption per capita is
very high. Imagine the impact on the meat industry if one million more
households in North America decided to keep chickens in the back yard, for
example.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They'd buy 1 or 2 fewer chickens per year. I don't think it'd register. You
vastly underestimate the Big Ag chicken infrastructure. E.g. when McD's
started serving chicken McNuggets years ago, they contracted for Every Chicken
In Canada to supply the demand. Currently Americans eat 8 billion chickens a
year, not to even mention egg factories. A million chickens from back yards is
literally 'chicken feed'.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
LOL, maybe so. But some of the homesteading videos on Youtube show people
receiving shipments of anywhere from 30 to 120 chicks, which they raise as
meat chickens, then after 8 weeks they slaughter them and freeze them. That's
a lot of meat. Probably not for everyone. But imagine going through about 15
chickens a year, out of your own freezer, totally separated from the industry
except for a breeder.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Then there's the freezer. Opting out of the (very efficient) chicken
distribution system and choosing your own less-efficient freezer from whatever
power grid, is arguably not going to be a smaller carbon footprint or
whatever.

Its hard to beat big Ag for efficiency - that's cash-money to them and they've
been at it for a century. Cottage industry agriculture is generally orders of
magnitude less efficient.

------
chansiky
I think one problem is that people don't realize they could not only survive,
but live healthy, satiated, and even build muscle on a vegetarian diet(without
protein shakes etc, just regular grocery foods). I feel like if more people
realized this, they would consider eating meat more often. I personally love
that I rarely have to worry about maggots in my garbage bin because there
would be nothing that would be interested for them to be eating.

------
perlpimp
There are depictions of cows and mention of amazon forest. Could this be about
fast food industry ? Also need scales of damage for poultry, swine etc, not
sensational articles about going from one extreme to the other. I don't eat
much beef but do love steak twice a month, is it alot? I don't think so,
mostly have chicken bc it is easier to prepare and it seems to be easier to
digest.

at any rate i hope to see some scales for this sort of thing.

~~~
mklarmann
Springman, as cited in the report did a lot of calculations around this. He
ended up with the minimal requirement for the average earth citizen with one
portion of red meat per week. Check his definition of a flexitarien diet.

~~~
jobigoud
Minimal requirement? Millions of vegetarians don't eat that "one portion of
red meat per week" and do just fine.

~~~
mklarmann
Minimal in terms of were we need at least reduce too. = max one portion per
week

------
loldot_
I think most people willing to change their diet for the sake of the
environment already are well aware of the consequences of meat eating. In my
opinion it would be more beneficial to focus campaigns on the problem of food
waste which I am sure more people would be willing to give up.

------
sak5sk
For anyone who hasn't had a chance to see how animals are treated in slaughter
houses (WARNING! Graphical and not easy to watch):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYQDWF2SkSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYQDWF2SkSU)

------
whiddershins
This is irresponsible advice because nutrition is not a solved problem.

As long as we fail to solve it, as in, correctly predict the short, medium,
and long term effects on heath and well being for people across all variations
of genome and microbiome, not to mention activity level and medical
conditions, people need to evaluate their food intake individually.

Guilting people away from “taking care” of themselves based on a subset of the
medical and nutritional literature to achieve some global carbon emissions
target is not a reasonable strategy, in my opinion.

~~~
mklarmann
This sounds rather short sighted to me. Changing our diet towards lower meat
consumption (like we had 50 years ago - max. 1 portion of meat per week), has
been shown to come with substantial health benefits. It is a no brainer that
we should go there. Because the alternative is so much more detrimental for
the human race. Being struck by climate change means we would have around 500
million people who need to migrate, besides other catastrophic effects.

------
swah
I'd raise my own pigs before replacing my meat with worms.

------
merricksb
Earlier discussion...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20643257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20643257)

------
codyb
This will probably get swallowed by the other 190 comments but are there good
sources for how to make meat substitutes? I love to cook, and I frequently
grind my own meat for burgers and sausages. I make my own jerkies too.

I try to buy grass fed and pasture raised but I’m definitely not perfect since
the nearest decent butcher is about twenty minutes by train.

I guess the alternative would be an ask for great vegetarian cookbook
recommendations.

~~~
nabnob
Personally, I've found that the tastiest way to go vegetarian is by completely
restructuring how I plan my meals.

American food tends to revolve around meat, whereas food in other cultures
treats meat as more of a side dish (if it is eaten at all). Indian/Bengali
food, Middle Eastern food, (authentic) chinese food...pretty much anything
besides American food is very easy to "veganize", since vegetables and legumes
are centered more in the meal.

I like this blog for ideas - [https://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/south-indian-
breakfast-rec...](https://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/south-indian-breakfast-
recipes/)

------
TheAlchemist
There is an interesting film coming soon on meat consumption: The Game
Changers

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpglxHTJVM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpglxHTJVM)

Produced by James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jackie Chan it follows
several top level athletes and investigate the myth about the need for animal
proteins

------
ultim8k
I simply cannot believe that food is affecting environment more than
factories, vehicles and rubbish.

~~~
mklarmann
Well, that is why it so important that we have the IPCC, and now this special
report. Food causes 25-30% of human made GHG emissions. Large part for
deforestation, Methan emissions of ruminants and animal feed. Without
including the transportation, packaging, etc. in the calculation it is still
23%. As you can read in chapter 5 of the report.

------
open-source-ux
This report doesn't say you have to give up eating meat. It does say we need
to reduce our consumption. This might mean eating meat once a week.

We are eating more meat today (at least in the industralised nations of the
"West") than in any other time in human history thanks to intensive farming
practices. People seems to think that this is the natural state of affairs and
that's how we've always consumed meat. But go back a few decades and meat was
never available in such abundance and at such cheap prices.

The ugly truth is we're simply too comfortable in our current lifestyles to
make any changes that might challenge that comfort. Whether it's flying less
(or even stopping altoghther) or eating less meat, the reaction is always
resistance and sometimes even anger and outrage.

I've said this before: we love to point accusatory fingers at others for
taking too little action over climate issues but never lift a finger
ourselves. Are we all a bunch of hypocrites and simply not willing to admit
it?

------
acd
For a New Years resolution to reduce the carbon footprint I came up with three
things to reduce my co2 footprint.

1) reduce meat consumption especially from cows 2) use public transportation
whenever available instead of a car. 3) consume less new stuff

------
ulises314
Is very sad to read through the comments and find only a bunch of excuses, you
claim being rational people: there is a problem, the solution is clear as day,
what are you going to do?

------
DiseasedBadger
The first and last meat in the economy is human. What we need to do, is limit
emigration and stabilize crumbling economies that incentivize high-
reproduction for subsistence labor.

------
pvaldes
It seems that nobody is wondering about implications of stopping eating meat
for our hormonal health...

Cholesterol has also a mission in our bodies. Protecting us from cold, and
being a necessary precursor of male hormones. Identify green with healthy and
meat as unhealty is a myth.

Try to eat 1 Kg of persil a day and stay alive. Many green things are pretty
good making poisons that can do horrible things to our body. Mammals and birds
instead are pretty safe in this aspect.

The real problem is not eating meat, is being served an oiled whole cow each
day in your restaurant. A partial solution could be as simple as standardize
(and reduce) the humongous USA rations.

------
_iyig
Side note: most industrial fertilizer is produced from non-renewable minerals
and natural gas [0]. If you want a truly sustainable food system, some amount
of "organic" a.k.a. plant and animal-based fertilizer is probably necessary.
We know this works, because it's how all farmland was fertilized before the
mining of niter and invention of the Haber-Bosch process.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Production)

------
JTbane
Would any vegans like to comment on how to address the lack of vitamin B12 and
EPA/DHA in diets that have no animal products?

Biggest issue for me, imo.

~~~
rqk9j
You supplement it and add it to other processed foods (like plant based milk).
The B12 is only in meat because it is fed to the animal already. You just have
to adjust the process. The days of natural B12 occurance in meat are long gone
bacause of the almost "sterile" way cattle is kept today.

------
amriksohata
Hindu texts, places where yoga came from, often warned about the Kali yuga and
the effect abusing a cow would have, Beef is one of the most costliest foods
to produce in terms of water consumption and carbon output

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-46459714](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714)

------
Josh379
When you factor in the CO2 absorbing grass the rudiments eat, the contribution
drops to about 0.5%.

------
nashashmi
We should encourage pasture aminal grazing instead of the current grazing
methods. And wished this UN report mentioned that.

Otherwise it is just a liberal green leftist report sponsored by the the
meatless meat industries who are encouraging this.

I see a parallel between a sudden rush of beyond meat served in restaurants
and this report. Like a concerted effort at play.

------
ivanhoe
Number of serious scientists claim quite the opposite, that cattle grazing is
the only solution to stop the erosion and turning land into deserts
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI)

------
Asmod4n
In the last couple articles I've read to reduce your own carbon footprint I've
found one thing is sadly missing most of the time: butter.

It's way worse than beef.

One kg butter blasts 24kg CO2 into the air before it gets to you, with beef
it's around 13kg.

~~~
K0nserv
The difference is that you don't consume butter in 250g quanities in a single
sitting. Even if butter is worse the consumption patterns for butter are not
those of beef.

~~~
mklarmann
Yes that is the point. If you account for calories, proteins and fats (as
essential nutrients next to let’s say water and dry weight), butter doesn’t
look that bad. It is still worse than average, so - check: app.eaternity.ch

------
jokoon
Unless you properly regulate capitalism, is it still capitalism? I don't want
to accuse capitalism because it often falls into the whole "is socialism bad",
"mao and stalin murdered people so socialism is dangerous", but it's difficult
to not correlate environmental issues and growth policies related to
capitalism. I guess communist states also had environmental issues? What about
current socialist states?

I mean how can we can really pinpoint the political issue here? It seems crony
capitalism is at the root of inequality and global warming, yet rent seeks are
still being left alone. It seems so difficult to have something in between.

Today we're giving crumbs to the poor in exchange of co2 emissions. We can't
do anything right.

~~~
eitland
I think you are right:

I'm fairly certain socialist states polluted just as bad as capitalist states.
As far as I'm aware they also did so in a more wasteful way, i.e. they
produced less goods and services for the same pollution.

~~~
philwelch
They polluted even worse. The Soviet Union was directly responsible for some
of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history, including the drying of
the Aral Sea.

------
fmakunbound
People are not going curb their meat intake. This is how you can be certain
global warming will continue, fresh water will become scarce and more forest
will be loss to animal agriculture.

------
tsherr
The UN doesn't have the guts to target the task issue: too many humans. And
recommend the only solution: one child per couple until we get down to about
half the current population.

~~~
mklarmann
This would ignore the fact that almost all emissions are caused by the richest
10%. Reducing this population would be more effective.

~~~
deworde
And they apparently transition to an average of 0-2 children naturally as a
function of wealth management and survival confidence.

------
Aser
I already do my part for the environment by not having kids. That's a much
bigger impact than trying to reduce the amount of meat I eat. So I'll eat
whatever I like, thank you.

~~~
saagarjha
Why not both?

------
methuselah
Lol those who needs classes for learning veg dishes, please visit some
vegetarian Indian family.they just cook best veg dishes though spicy

------
Hitton
Lab grown meat can't come soon enough.

------
dustinmoris
A little personal anecdote:

I grew up in Central Europe and in a very meat heavy society. When I grew up I
would have had three proper meals every day with meat in them. Meat was THE
main component of every meal. A sandwich without some ham or bacon?
Unimaginable! Lunch without meat in sauce, or steak or some ribs or some
chicken? I would have taken this as an insult. Are we beggars now or what?
Dinner... same story.

In my early twenties I was convinced that meat is part of a well balanced
diet. People who don't eat meat are weak. They get ill and they certainly
won't have much muscles. I was an ignorant prick, let's put it this way.

When I was ~25 I met my wife whilst travelling. She's British Indian and grew
up her entire life on a Vegetarian diet. We got together and so on, but the
point is I was confronted to compromise with a Vegetarian person from one day
to another without any warning.

Initially I continued to eat the way I always did, just taking her preferences
into account and try to be the loving supporting boyfriend/husband that we all
want to be. I'd cook my meat in a separate pan and I'd use different knives
and forks to handle meat and the veg in the house. My wife asked me for only
one favour: If I could not buy beef and store it in the house then she'd be
super grateful. I was okay with that, I thought cooking a good steak takes
some skill anyway and I can happily just eat steak outside and cook other
meats at home.

7 years later and I am 99% Vegetarian. The other 1% is sea food. I look back
at myself and think how stupid was I. I feel healthier today, get less ill and
feel physically in a pretty good shape. I don't take any protein shakes,
supplements or other crap. I actually prefer to eat veg over meat. It all
started with me trying some meat replacements like Quorn when making a stir
fry, or Quorn mince pieces when making spaghetti. Then I'd start cooking more
beans, lentils, chickpeas and other high protein ingredients. The taste is
amazing and our meals are rich in nutrition, vitamins and carbs.

I was the guy who would have sworn that I could never become Vegetarian and
today I'm almost the opposite. I don't like the look, smell or consistency of
meat anymore. I don't like that it's so easy to get seriously ill from meat
when not cooked properly, or the utensils which were used for preparation were
not cleaned sufficiently.

Long story short, if I was able to make such a drastic turn around on make
meat intake then I know that anyone can. It just takes a strong incentive to
implement change. For me that incentive was being in love with a girl, but for
others it might be something else. Tax, regulation, laws are an effective
tool. Personally I believe that nobody will miss the meat in 20 years time if
implemented by a government. It's just too difficult for people to imagine
that is true and I consider myself lucky to actually have experienced this
myself so I can say this today.

------
lhl
Almost all conventional/industrial agriculture (plant or animal based) is
unsustainable due to the external inputs required (70% from fossil fuels for
growing corn! [1]), soil depletion incurred [2], and just plain shipping
things around. [3]

The alternative is local regenerative agriculture [4], which the Rodale
Institute [5] and a recent Quantis (non-peer reviewed) studies [6] point to
being potentially carbon net negative due to carbon soil sequestration via
regenerative grazing. It also appears to be more economically sustainable
[7][8] and can provide competitive yields [8].

For those interested in reading more, I found a couple pretty lengthy (peer-
reviewed) academic reviews on the topic to be pretty fascinating:

Rhodes, Christopher J. “The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture.” Science
Progress 100, no. 1 (March 1, 2017): 80–129.
[https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017X14876775256165](https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017X14876775256165).

Teague, W R. “FORAGES AND PASTURES SYMPOSIUM: COVER CROPS IN LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION: WHOLE-SYSTEM APPROACH: Managing Grazing to Restore Soil Health and
Farm Livelihoods1.” Journal of Animal Science 96, no. 4 (April 2018): 1519–30.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx060](https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx060).

Pretty, Jules. “Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and
Evidence.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 363, no. 1491 (February 12, 2008): 447–65.
[https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163).

Pearson, Craig J. “Regenerative, Semiclosed Systems: A Priority for Twenty-
First-Century Agriculture.” BioScience 57, no. 5 (May 1, 2007): 409–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1641/B570506](https://doi.org/10.1641/B570506).

[1] [https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Can-conventional-agriculture-
feed...](https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Can-conventional-agriculture-feed-the-
world.htm)

[2] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-
of-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-
left-if-soil-degradation-continues/)

[3]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26...](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_agriculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_agriculture)

[5] [https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-
white-...](https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-
paper.pdf)

[6] [https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-
Quantis-2019...](https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-
Quantis-2019.pdf)

[7]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831153/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831153/)

[8] [https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-
trial/](https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/)

~~~
wtdata
Local agriculture won't feed 7 billion people and even worst went the method
you are proposing is GMO, fertilizer and pesticide free.

~~~
lhl
The point is that conventional agriculture (eg, with industrial inputs) is
literally unsustainable - there is a 56% food gap in the coming decades. [1]

Also, there's plenty of evidence that small, sustainable farms are both more
efficient (in inputs, and land) and more productive in total caloric terms
that mono-cropped industrial farming. In the Pretty review I referenced, Table
3 shows the "adoption of agricultural sustainability technologies and
practices on 286 projects in 47 countries" increased average % increase in
crop yields from 22% to 146%. [2]

Per the FAO [3], globally, small farms continue to dominate in food production
and their food production (and economic sustainability) would be improved via
an "ecological intensification" approach. [4]

[1] [https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-
feed-10-bil...](https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-
feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610163/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610163/)

[3] [https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-
topics/industrial-a...](https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-
topics/industrial-agriculture-and-small-scale-farming.html)

[4]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478712/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478712/)

------
mklarmann
Why is this thread a [dupe] ?

~~~
sanxiyn
It no more is.

------
CommieDetector
Let's open an history book an review what happens when the government
controlls the food production.

~~~
dragonwriter
Er, the results on that are rather mixed and ambiguous and depend more on
other factors; but then again, controlling food production and distribution
was the _main_ role of most governments in most of history; it wasn't really
until the agricultural revolutions that were a key factor in the feudal
economic system starting to be replaced with capitalism that some governments
could really afford (even in the short-term) _not_ to make that their primary
concern most of the time, and even now and even among advanced liberal
Democratic “capitalist” (really, mixed economies) states, guiding food
production and distribution remains a major role of government, even if the
means used involve markets with government intervention through price
controls, production subsidies, consumer (means-tested) subsidies, direct
government purchase and distribution, aggressive negotiation of agricultural
trade deals, etc., etc., etc., rather than transparent direct state direction.

~~~
nickik
> controlling food production and distribution was the main role of most
> governments in most of history;

I would say this is simply wrong. Government often capture food production and
use it to enrich themselves. Some historical places certainty had a function
in distribution as well but this is not the common case.

The waste majority of history, government were primary involved in food
production and distribution beyond capturing as much as possible and
distribution it to its own armies.

Most of history food for the most part was produced and consumed fairly
locally without much involvement of government.

------
wtdata
Very well, but why don't these reports ever call for reducing the birthrate in
countries where this is exploding [1]?

Now they are asking us to stop meat consumption, but the if number of people
keeps increasing, what will they ask us to stop next instead of addressing the
real problem?

Clearly the real issue is having too many people. Birth control is the proper
way to tackle the problem.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate)

~~~
ailideex
Can't really argue with that, which is why people don't and just downvote.

~~~
mklarmann
Na, I think it is downvoted because it is pretty neo-liberal, to assume that
population control is the solution, because it implicitly neglects that most
emissions are caused by the richest people. Reducing those rich people would
well be a fair point, though.

~~~
wtdata
Your point logically implies that you are against increasing life conditions
of the people that are born poor in those countries with high birth rates.

------
YeahSureWhyNot
climate change is caused by activities of large corporations but your solution
is regular people changing diet? it's like suggesting people start driving 2
cylinder cars with AC off while fleet of largest ship companies create more
co2 than all cars combined. you want to stop climate change? do the following:
-stop cutting down forests. -stop drilling in arctic -stop oil spills -stop
overfishing list goes on and all of these things are done by large
corporations with approval of governments. leave regular people alone, the
capitalist system has strangled them enough already.

------
AndriyKunitsyn
How about we put a ban on UN officials’ private jets first?

~~~
danieldk
Sorry, but this is really cheap criticism that detracts from the main point.
Of course, their private jets (if they have them) should be banned, sure. But
this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of the
meat industry (or air travel in general).

Such messages only cause people to postpone the need to take real action. And
we need to take real action _now_ if we even want a chance to dampen the
effects of climate change (let alone reverse it).

~~~
throwaway3957
> But this is an invisible blip on the radar compared to the climate impact of
> the meat industry

Me eating meat is an even smaller blip, why bother with taking my meat away?

The truth is that you have to lead also by example or you’re not credible.

~~~
sanxiyn
No one is taking your meat away. The most plausible implementation is to make
meat slightly more expensive. People do respond to incentives. People with
strong meat preference (like you seem to be) can continue to eat meat, but
people with marginal meat preference will switch.

------
ensiferum
The real culprit is the uncontrolled population growth but nobody wants to
talk about that.

Ok, let's assume that people do indeed eat too much meat and that we halve our
current consumption. Population grows until it has doubled and the meat
consumption is then back to the same level as to what it is now.

Eventually we can all be eating grass and rocks and there'd still be too much
demand on nature crated by the existence of humans.

The only real long term solution is start limiting population growth
drastically. Any crutch trying to limit energy and material consumption will
not solve the root cause. (Ofc it still makes sense to cut off the excess and
not be wasteful or a resource hog)

Personally I'd like to have only enough people on this planet, so that
everyone can be fed and educated and have access to health care, sanitation
and all the basic needs.

~~~
sanxiyn
> Ok, let's assume that people do indeed eat too much meat and that we halve
> our current consumption. Population grows until it has doubled and the meat
> consumption is then back to the same level as to what it is now.

This is a very strange assumption as UN Population Division predicts peak
population at 12B, that is, the current world population will never double.
That is business as usual without any intervention. Do you have specific
reasons to disagree with UN Population Division?

~~~
barry-cotter
The UN Population Division have underestimated population growth for decades
and base their projections on the assumption that fertility will converge on a
steady state. This is evolotuniariliy illiterate. People who have more
children will have children who have more children.

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513817302799#bb0180)

The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in
the foreseeable future

The forecasting of the future growth of world population is of critical
importance to anticipate and address a wide range of global challenges. The
United Nations produces forecasts of fertility and world population every two
years. As part of these forecasts, they model fertility levels in post-
demographic transition countries as tending toward a long-term mean, leading
to forecasts of flat or declining population in these countries. We substitute
this assumption of constant long-term fertility with a dynamic model,
theoretically founded in evolutionary biology, with heritable fertility.
Rather than stabilizing around a long-term level for post-demographic
transition countries, fertility tends to increase as children from larger
families represent a larger share of the population and partly share their
parents' trait of having more offspring. Our results suggest that world
population will grow larger in the future than currently anticipated.

