
COP21: Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Go part-time vegetarian to protect the planet' - adamnemecek
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35039465
======
mathetic
It is not popular to say this, but if you really want to protect the
environment, you should consider not having kids.

Especially if you're doing well because the chances are your kid will grow up
and drive for most of his life, fly in planes, obtain lots of stuff that
requires CO2 emission in its production, and perhaps even consume meat. If you
have multiple kids and they go on to have more kids etc, the environmental
effect of having a kid becomes exponentially worse.

This doesn't mean that you don't deserve to be a parent, it is only natural to
desire to be one. The closest orphanage will have many kids who are wishing
for a warm home every day of the year. There are many impoverished and
brilliant kids around the world who will live and die working under horrific
conditions.

Now there is an argument to be made about you and your partner's genes being
so exceptional that it would be more harmful to the society not to pass them
to future generations. I guess it is up to the individual to make that
judgement.

~~~
hnhg
There's also the argument that wanting to reproduce is a natural human urge,
and you're asking people to go against a very key biological instinct.

We haven't done all we can to protect the environment. We haven't even tried
that hard. It might be easier to reduce our personal impact to 10% than try to
reduce the world's population by the same level.

~~~
greenhatman
We already do a lot of things that go against our biological instincts. Which
is probably one of the main reasons humans are so successful as a species. We
can change ourselves some more, if it will increase the chances of our
species' survival.

We sit in font of computers the whole day. The disciplined ones runs when
there is no immediate danger or prey. We don't attack or kill people when they
make us angry. We don't have sex with everything that has a chance to bear
offspring.

~~~
ekzy
But we are doing more and more things going against our biological instincts,
especially in the last century; So I don't know if I would qualify the current
human a successful species. We are destroying our habitat

------
marricks
Or full time vegan and do more good for the planet. It's good to see people
are finally acknowledging the great toll that animal ag takes on the planet.

Yes, this guy used to be a big time meat eater, but he's changing his tune
which should be taken as a good thing. Our propensity for vilifying people who
turn the corner is baffling to me.

~~~
eth0up
I have several friends who keep chickens. These chickens are never killed, but
their eggs are consumed occasionally. These chickens roam freely during
daylight, then are corralled into "cages" overnight to prevent wild animals
from eating them. What benefit would come of eliminating these chickens? I am
neither vegetarian or vegan, but admire both, despite perceiving veganism as
the more ideological of the two. I struggle to imagine how the world would be
spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or
banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or
exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting
their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. If it's a
matter of numbers, it is obvious that great benefit would result from the
popularity of veganism; but there are also variations in quality and
circumstance to consider, i.e. a diet of cellulose might benefit the world and
all those not on a cellulose diet, but not necessarily those on the cellulose
diet; i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options
may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be
circumstantial. The world is large, one person's needs vary from another's,
and one group from another's. Might there there be positional benefits to all
three diets?

I ask this respectfully, as my unsure self, with no desire for debate, but
rather a will for suitable answers.

Some things I've admired recently:

1\. [https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/](https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/)

2\. [http://www.monksmeats.com/](http://www.monksmeats.com/)

~~~
adamnemecek
This is a straw man. The issue is with scaling the luxury of meat. If we
really want to we can produce meat cheaply (as we are doing now). However this
is the reason we are in this situation.

> I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet
> and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish
> and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining
> nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally
> bleeding their animals for sustenance.

We can talk about invasions in a couple of years. For now, we can be content
with reducing meat consumption in our respective home countries. Let's start
with getting rid of meat subsidies. Then we can move on to dealing with
industrial meat production. Etc etc.

> i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may
> exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be
> circumstantial

Like a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by.

~~~
eth0up
"...a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by."

Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans. Note the parent post I was replying to,
which suggested veganism. Strawman, red herrings in olive oil, say what you
will, but there are many people who aren't "natives" (reference to other
comment by marricks) that might struggle to maintain a healthy vegan diet,
especially if they aren't nextdoor to a Wholefoods. That is more my point -
not to suggest that we should feast on steak 24/7 "because Natives!". You'll
get no argument from me regarding the present state of the meat industry. Big
Ag can be and too often is appalling.

@marricks: Not one of the dozens of chickens on either friend's property
(including the freely roaming ones no longer producing) have ever died of
ovarian cancer. When I posed my questions, I was looking for answers - not
irrelevant examples of extremes. The egg industry can be putrid. My friends'
arrangement with chickens is certainly not. And I still struggle to see how
they are scourging the Earth with their non vegan behavior, breeders or no
breeders. Have we truly come to such extremes that owning a chicken and eating
an egg is worse for the environment than the daily baubles of our throwaway,
planned obsolescence society? Is our aim extreme, or practical? Is a vegan's
Volvo better than my chicken, etc? When I do see, I'll accept it, but the
question remains open. And again, I have much respect for veganism and
vegetarianism. Sprats, scarecrows and fallacies aren't things I wish to use
against either.

~~~
adamnemecek
> Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans.

They are lactovegetarians who have utmost respect for cows. I'm actually 100%
ok with this setup, if this is achieved, I'm ok with not going full vegan.

------
belorn
There has been quite a few articles about the climate effect of meat eating,
but every time it lacks a good comparison towards the older common problems
like car emissions. They general do not mention that driving 10 minutes each
day, or choosing a vegetarian diet vs meat rich diet for a whole day has the
same effect on the environment (from a CO2 perspective).

10 min drive, or a 5 min commute from one place to an other, is something I
think most people don't consider as far away. Driving to a vegetarian place
for lunch might set back the environment more than a walk to a beef
restaurant. We should have a cost table if we want to minimize the
environmental impact on this individual level.

> He said it was pointless trying to persuade people to give up things they
> wanted, like big cars

And this is why I suspect we have seen so many articles trying to address diet
instead. Having everyone reducing CO2 a bit is easier than addressing those
that do order of magnitude more damage, since there is so much more people who
eat than people who own a car.

*edited 10m -> 10 minutes

~~~
konschubert
10 meter or 10 miles? And if miles, what kind of mile?

~~~
lacampbell
I read it as minutes. I'm from a metric using country, but IIRC "mile" is
commonly abbreviated to "mi".

~~~
belorn
Yes, sorry for the confusion. I meant a 10 minutes drive or 5 minutes to a
lunch restaurant and 5 minutes back.

------
PerfectElement
For those who are interested in reducing their animal consumption and need an
extra push, I recommend this great talk by Dr. Melanie Joy about carnism,
which is the invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain
animals:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg)

------
mojoe
He's certainly right about the fact that people are not going to quit all at
once -- it's an example of the tragedy of the commons. If someone can figure
out how to grow a meat analog in a lab cheaply and efficiently it will
probably be one of the most positively impactful technologies ever created.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
As a member of the _commons_ I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or amused
by your condescending tone.

I eat meat because I like it and I don't try to impose my view of the world to
other people.

~~~
r0muald
The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat
and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many
purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat,
since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of
all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to
convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat
consumption.

~~~
nappy-doo
NIT: not carbon, but greenhouse gases. Specifically methane, which is 30x more
potent a greenhouse gas.

(Note, I realize that methane contains a carbon, I'm just clarifying that many
people thing CO2 when the word carbon is used.)

------
aaronblohowiak
Beef is the worst. Avoid ruminants because of their methane release (cow burps
are 25x more potent a ghg than co2). Also look at the feed to weight ratio for
animals, cows are like 6:1 whereas chicken is 1.5:1, and chicken don't release
substantial methane. Pork is about 4:1. Rabbit is about 3:1 and has a very
fast time to cull.

------
dkarapetyan
The framing in these things is always wrong. We are not protecting the planet.
The planet will be fine. The planet has been fine for a long time. What won't
be fine is a certain kind of primate that likes to live in certain places.

~~~
almostApatriot1
This type of response is intentionally obtuse. By 'planet' people mean the
planet's ecosystems. By the time humans are in danger, 90%+ of other species
will probably be long gone.

~~~
dkarapetyan
So? The planet has also gone through several extinction events. The white
knighting ain't helping anyone. Obtuse or not.

~~~
lern_too_spel
His obtuseness point is that you know exactly what he means by protecting the
planet, but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.

~~~
jogjayr
> but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.

But when we're dealing with geological timescales I think a literal
interpretation may be the right way of looking at it. Would it be sad if 90%
of Earth's species died off? Certainly, if there were any humans around to do
the mourning. But zooming out a bit, the current die-off isn't anything new.
There have been mass extinctions and rapid alterations of climate and
atmosphere in the Earth's past too.

Humans originated on this planet and we are a part of the ecosystem. In a way,
anything we do to nature is simply one part of nature being wildly out of
equilibrium. If we mess it up, it'll mean curtains for us but life itself will
march on. In 10-50 million years after we're gone, there will arise lifeforms
that are just as interesting and varied as anything we have now. Which, on a
geological timescale, really isn't that long (between 0.0025% and 0.0125% of
the Earth's age).

I think that promoting environmentalism in terms of it being a means to saving
ourselves might be more effective than appeals to "save the rapidly dying
$ENDANGERED_SPECIES".

------
chrisan
In addition to saving the planet, you can also save yourself from cancer and
heart disease!

[http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-
risk/recommendations-...](http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-
risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_05_red_meat.html)

[http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-
carniti...](http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-
red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083)

We have moved to eating red meat to a max of twice a month

------
applecore
Nine of the top ten leading causes of death[1] in the United States can be
directly attributed to meat consumption, so there's already a perfectly
"selfish" motive to go vegan or vegetarian.

[1]: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-
death.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

~~~
toxicFork
How can you link suicide, cancer, Alzheimer's, or accidents to meat? And most
of the rest of that list?

~~~
DanBC
We know that eating processed red meat causes cancer, and the evidence for
this is very good.

We also know that it doesn't cause many cases of cancer.

This was poorly reported last year with people talking about red meat, cancer,
and smoking.

------
kleiba
Reminds me of this: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections-
blog-2013...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections-
blog-2013/2013/sep/13/german-election-wurst-policy-veggie-day-greens)

------
dgudkov
I wonder when will lab-grown meat become economically feasible?

------
Tade0
I looked at the statistics and apparently I eat 3-5 times less meat than an
average US citizen. I guess I'm doing my part then.

------
nebulous1
Doesn't he drive a hummer?

~~~
coolsunglasses
I think he converted it to run on bio-fuel. Not sure how much of a difference
that makes.

~~~
bluedino
He has also has at least one that runs on hydrogen

~~~
justinator
So how many cars does this guy have, and why won't he talk about how much
natural resources are used up and pollution created by the mere manufacture of
a car/truck/light infantry vehicle?

Saying, "go veg. part time" could be analogues to, "Hey, you need only one
car? Own only one car - I'll start!"

------
Paul_S
If fewer people eat meat will meat be more or less expensive for me?

------
dorfsmay
Beside saving the planet, we actually don't need to eat a lot of meat, once or
twice a week should be sufficient in terms of health benefit.

~~~
isaac_is_goat
You don't need _any_ meat. There's no health benefit from meat you can't get
from plants, and plenty of things in meat that are horrible for your health.

~~~
ajanuary
I know this isn't the point you were making, but I wanted to take the
opportunity to do a PSA.

While it's true you don't need any meat, it's not true you can get everything
you need from an unsupplimented vegan diet (more accurately, it's incredibly
hard).

If you're looking at a vegan diet, consider researching supplements such as
for B12. If you're lazy and in the UK, Holland and Barret sell a single tablet
supplement designed for a vegan diet (just ignore all of the other bollocks
they sell in there)

~~~
isaac_is_goat
Everyone should be conscious of B12 and be supplementing. It's dirt cheap, and
crucial to proper brain function. Last time I checked something like 40% of
Americans are deficient or borderline deficient but less than 3% are vegan.

Humans don't get B12 from dirty water and trace amounts of dirt on vegetables
like we used to thousands of years ago and a lot of people aren't getting
enough from the meat they are eating. B12 from meat is usually coming by proxy
through the animal because farmers typically supplement the animals with it
too.

B12 is an issue for _everyone_.

------
bitmapbrother
At the age of 70 Arnold has probably consumed more meat than an average sized
U.S family will in their lifetime. It's nice that he's changed his tune on
meat consumption, but it's come rather late in his life. Arnold has had his
fill and then some and now he wants to make the planet better by suggesting
others limit their consumption.

------
handsomechad
Isn't this rather rich coming from a guy who has probably consumed 100 times
more animal protein in his ~70 years on earth than the average joe to whom he
is now rationing.

~~~
jschwartzi
Actually, he's right. You do not need to eat animals to get good protein. It's
easier to supplement with whey or soy protein. I wouldn't be surprised if his
bodybuilding diet involved supplementation since it's much easier to meet
macronutrient goals with protein shakes than by eating meat, because you don't
have to worry about the fat that comes from the meat.

~~~
tcj_phx
> It's easier to supplement with whey or soy protein.

Soy is a rather poor source of protein (phyto-estrogens, etc). Whey is a waste
product of the cheese industry.

(Edit: All things considered, milk is a pretty good source of protein.) The
milk cow is the most efficient means of converting the grass on a rocky
hillside into human-edible protein (ref: some old book I have somewhere.
They're all in boxes). The fat in grass-fed milk is more orange than
industrial milk because there is more vitamins A & E (and beta carotene) in
the milk than is in cottonseed meal (a waste product of the cotton industry
that is commonly fed to dairy cows in a feedlot).

~~~
ZenoArrow
>"Soy is a rather poor source of protein (phyto-estrogens, etc)"

Regarding phyto-estrogens, from what I've seen there are positives as well as
negatives. What in particular puts you off them?

To anyone reading this who hasn't heard about phyto-estrogens, and thinks of
estrogens as a female-only hormone, it should be noted that males have
estrogen receptors too, and phyto-estrogens are part of vegetables widely
accepted as being healthy, such as carrots, apples, lentils, oats, barley,
etc...

~~~
mhurron
There was a myth that was well circulated 10-15? years ago (as soy products
were becoming more available in the US) that said soy estrogen would turn men
and boys into effeminate pansies and we'd all grow girl boobs.

------
surrey-fringe
Our population exploded when we started farming grains.

~~~
ZenoArrow
The largest population explosion has been in the past 100 years:

[https://i0.wp.com/www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/wp-
content/upl...](https://i0.wp.com/www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/populationgrowthhistory2.jpg)

~~~
surrey-fringe
Does that refute what I said? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Depends on what you intended.

You pointed to something which represented a relatively minor cause of
population growth in the context of our overall history on this planet. What
did you intend to illuminate with your earlier comment?

~~~
surrey-fringe
Relatively minor compared to the industrial revolution, maybe. But it's
certainly not minor if you look at the change in world population when Sumeria
began.

Just a thought. Obviously I think anyone who goes vegan means well.

------
IIJamesII
"one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408
TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within
California."

Who does he think he is lecturing poor people like me about what I ought to be
eating for dinner?!

[http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how-m...](http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how-
much-jet-fuel-did-arnold-schwarzenegger-waste)

~~~
Infinitesimus
I think most of us here agree that ditching the Gulfstream will do wonders for
the environment; but this isn't a pitch for "Arnold is living the best life
for the environment."

He is a man who is becoming more conscious of his meat intake and taking steps
to reduce that and his footprint.

Can he do better? Of course! Does that negate the validity of the argument
that reduction of meat intake is a good idea for the environment? Nope.

The overall point is that we can all take little steps to reduce our footprint
and meat is just one of them.

That said, it is quite amazing just how much fuel has he used.

~~~
khedoros1
> Does that negate the validity of the argument

Does that matter? Most people will just say "What a hypocrite" and ignore the
message. People don't respond well to logic, they respond to emotion. A valid
argument that doesn't convince anyone is worthless.

