
Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered - mykowebhn
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html
======
agentultra
This is a great article. _Do I have to go vegan?_ No. But it would have the
biggest impact if you did. _Is organic farming the answer?_ No. It tends to
use more land for less output (although maybe the health-foodies could get off
the No-GMO bandwagon). I also appreciate that the authors recognize that for
some people living in certain cultures and climates _have_ to eat meat and
there's no shame in that.

The bulk of the reduction can definitely come from rich, affluent nations and
have the biggest impact.

Articles like this seem important. Hiding the fact that meat/dairy production
is such a huge factor in climate change hurts people more than it helps. When
we all start to wonder why it isn't getting any better we need to know that
there are ways we can do our part. Even if they're small things!

~~~
rayiner
This is an awful article because it doesn't put numbers on the various
alternatives. Without hard numbers, the discussion of alternatives is
meaningless. Even going from an average diet to fully vegan will only reduce
your food-related emissions by 40%, which only accounts for about 12.5% of
your carbon emissions to begin with (in the US): [http://www.greeneatz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/foods-ca...](http://www.greeneatz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/foods-carbon-footprint-7.gif). Cutting your CO2
footprint 5% is not going to do anything. Cutting it even less than that is
utterly pointless.

"Doing your part" and "doing small things" will not have any impact on climate
change. It ignores the enormous gap between where our emissions need to be and
where they are now. If you could convince everyone in America to become a
vegan tomorrow, that would cut global CO2 emissions by about a gigaton. That
is how much CO2 emissions went up last year alone, mostly due to China and
India. Think about that: the effect of every American undertaking an
unprecedented lifestyle change all at the same time would be totally wiped out
by a single year's growth globally.

~~~
specialist
I agree with both you and agentultra. I'm struggling to understand why. You're
correct on the comparative impact. But I've long believed psychology is
important too.

We lefties are frequently criticized, for better or worse, for hypocrisy.
Maybe personal pro forma efforts will remove that rhetorical angle of attack.

Also, there's got to be some priming benefits, an opportunity to educate about
the larger issues. However, my faith in this strategy has been rocked by
failures (betrayal) of the whole recycling charade, which has served to
alienate people and likely reduced future engagement.

I wish I knew what is best. Right now, I don't even have an opinion, just more
questions.

~~~
agentultra
The psychological factor of feeling empowered to take control of your part of
the world, however insignificant, is important I think.

"No silver bullet," is something I've said elsewhere. I don't think this
article nor I have implied that if everyone went vegan then the climate crisis
could be averted. I think it's a good article because it doesn't try to frame
our dietary choices as a solution. It informs us of the impact of our choices
and makes sure people realize that eating some meat is okay. But if you want
to do more, you can, and it will have an impact -- however small -- and that's
a good thing in my books.

------
misiti3780
I know this isnt going to be a popular opinion here, but I'm going to say it
anyways -- we are simply not going eat our away out of this climate change
problem, and we shouldnt even try, we should focus the efforts in other places

Here is the current breakdown of the world's emissions as of 2018:

1\. heavy industry (29 percent)

2\. buildings (18 percent)

3\. transport (15 percent)

4\. land-use change (15 percent)

5\. the energy needed to supply energy (13 percent).

Livestock is responsible for 5.5 percent, mostly methane rather than CO2, and
aviation for 1.5 percent.

Here is the estimated sacrifice needed to bring carbon emissions down by half
and then to zero:

It would require forgoing electricity, heating, cement, steel, paper, travel,
and affordable food and clothing.

Both of these are taken from Enlightenment Now by Pinker, and I have not seen
the numbers or his conclusions refuted. I'm open to someone trying to change
my mind, but with these numbers, I do not see how that is possible.

~~~
cageface
Most estimates put it at around 15%, not 5. Stopping climate change is going
to require action on all these vectors, and diet is one of the easiest to
change. It also has knock on effects like clear cutting rainforest to plant
crops to feed to cows.

On top of that it’s just cruel and unnecessary to go on eating so much meat.

~~~
mercer
The main argument in favor changing diet, to me, is the potential
psychological and social effects. When something you do multiple times a day
is different from what you used to do, and what many others around you do, it
stays active in your thoughts and might trigger other, more meaningful
activity.

I don't know if this is actually true, but anecdotally at least it seems to
be. The people around me who seem to be most active when it comes to the topic
of climate change also tend to be vegetarians or vegans. And many of them
started down this path by changing their diets, sometimes even for reasons
that weren't ideological.

~~~
rayiner
> The people around me who seem to be most active when it comes to the topic
> of climate change also tend to be vegetarians or vegans.

What do these people do? Unless they're working on renewables technology or
carbon-capture technology, they're not doing anything useful. That's just how
the math shakes out. The climate problem is so huge that only engineers and
scientists can help us now. Everything else is just putting on one of those
"raising awareness of breast cancer" ribbons.

~~~
mercer
Oh yeah, quite possible.

I imagine some of them _could_ be working on the things you mention, but most
of them don't. But that's particular to my current network.

But some of them do have strong relationships with people who play some
meaningful role in the whole climate issue. At least two of these 'people
around me' have siblings that occupy high-level engineering/management roles
in some of the most impactful (and worst) companies.

It's not much, maybe, but perhaps it's not meaningless.

------
yfdrea
I switched to a plant based diet last year after reading similar articles on
climate change and was surprised to see an additional set of benefits. I feel
a lot healthier, my skin is clearer (struggled with frequent untamable
breakouts), I save money, etc. Diet is a very individualized thing, so don't
dramatically overhaul your entire lifestyle based off what a random stranger
says on the Internet but if you haven't tried a plant-based diet you may be
pleasantly surprised like I was. I'll still eat meat if it's served to me but
when I am eating out and cooking I go veggie.

~~~
eric_b
I first tried eating vegetarian to deal with some digestion issues. It made it
worse. Especially spinach, broccoli and other high fiber foods. I switched to
a 90% carnivore diet and everything cleared up digestion wise, and I also felt
much better, healthier, and my skin cleared up. As you say, diet is very
individualized.

~~~
pureliquidhw
What was your diet before? Anecdotally, most people I know who felt better
after going keto-ish had horrible diets to begin with. Dramatic reduction in
processed foods, beer, HFCS, etc.

Simply preparing food at home with fresher ingredients and being conscious of
what you're taking in can account for much of the gains they experienced.

The vast majority of people on the planet don't eat 90% meat diets, but if we
did it would be a disaster! I'm not saying it isn't the case with you, but
anyone who experienced amazing gains shifting their diet to mostly meat should
consider survivorship bias, and that the benefits are from cutting other
things out, not adding tons of animal protein in.

------
dustinmoris
I have turned pescatarian a while ago for no other reason because I don't find
it very natural to eat large amounts of meat. In the last five years or so
I've been strongly of the belief that meat, especially meat like beef, should
get taxed so highly that it essentially becomes a luxurious good which
families can only enjoy once every so often and not 3-5 times a day. First
people will be extremely upset and call it classist, but later (especially new
generations) will just get used to the fact and quickly adapt to the new
normal where farming beef and eating cows every day is just not a normal way
of life.

Ultimately there is no birthright to eating meat every day, there are no
health benefits or other benefits of doing so, contrary it;s actually bad for
health and our planet and therefore there is nothing classist about taxing
beef so high that the average person shouldn't be able to afford it more than
a handful of times per month.

We need bold politicians in this world to look at the cost of these things and
implement a tax system which incentivise a more balanced lifestyle and also
account for the cost/damage that a high consumption of meat causes to society.

------
jamesgagan
I know there will be comments saying that individual action is not enough to
combat climate change, or that it's too late for that, but when governments
are so slow to act and corporations will only change when their bottom line is
at stake, it is left to individuals to take action. Going vegan is simply the
right thing to do at this point.

~~~
malvosenior
> _Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point._

I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is
going to change that.

Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things
that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life?

It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your
choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly
condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have
since no one likes to be preached at.

~~~
artimaeis
Isn't there a level of condescension and or proselytizing that always goes on
around environmental conversations?

Reduce, reuse, recycle - if you do it, good! If you don't, bad! Travel less,
don't own anything.

How can we frame these sorts of ideals so that people don't feel attacked?

There _is_ a climate crisis. At least some level of that crisis is driven by
consumer demands. We should be able to advocate a change without people
feeling like they're being shamed.

~~~
marricks
I think it’s their problem and not ours. No one ever wants to change and no
matter how nicely you put things they’ll always feel attacked. It’s just how
it work, ultimately no one really wants to change so they need to be pushed.

~~~
npsimons
> No one ever wants to change and no matter how nicely you put things they’ll
> always feel attacked.

Precisely. As another example, when people claim that progress pics are
"fatshaming", it's pretty obvious that the problem isn't with the information
or how it's presented, it's with the person feeling ashamed, which they
rightfully are. These people should self-reflect upon why they feel ashamed
instead of throwing a tantrum and playing the victim.

------
kaitai
A very thought-provoking article, but one that still leaves me with questions.

* The vast agricultural monocultures of the US have changed our climate on their own. Our fields of soy, wheat, and corn have decimated local ecosystems, led to high nitrate levels in the water, changed air temperature and humidity on their own, and encouraged a US diet that is high in processed food, leading to its own set of health problems.

* Yes, these vast monocultures are in a feedback loop with raising animals for meat. Corn-fed cattle and pigs and chickens are part of the reason Iowa is what it is today.

* If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US. Is that really that big a win? Curious.

* Vegetables seem to be lacking in the standard American diet, and they're not subsidized by the federal government the way grains/corn/soybeans are, and they're also something a lot of us buy from far away. How can we change all that?

* Many people will still want meat products, some for health reasons -- it can be hard for some folks to be vegetarian or vegan healthfully (I had trouble with fatigue and anemia for instance, and yes I understand that maybe I could have tried harder/eaten more supplements/etc). How can we encourage the shift to animal production on 'waste' land, and decrease the incentives to ship beef from Brazil and Bolivia? Can we make goat meat cool again, for instance? or rabbit?

The alternatives I'm personally more interested in: shifting transportation
patterns for US adults (biking and transit). Increasing green space. Re-
encouraging locally grown food, where by local I mean the back yard.
Rediscovering the foods you never knew you could eat but your great-
grandparents did: nettles, dandelions, Virginia waterleaf, garlic mustard,
purslane, daylilies, hostas. Many of you could get a whole week's worth of
greens, even in May in colder climes, by walking outside -- and how many of us
know it? Right now I'm motivated to rediscover these local foods for myself
for health reasons, but it helps that they're $0 to grow and $0 to transport,
and thus add 0 to my carbon emissions.

(edit for formatting)

~~~
Forbo
> If we all switch to tofu and tortillas with a side of Coke made with corn
> syrup, we overall preserve the agricultural status quo in the US.

It takes a lot less corn and soy to feed people directly than it does to feed
a bunch of cattle. You get a lot of efficiency by skipping the intermediary
trophic level.

------
cagenut
this is a great article, both in content and in form.

keep in mind though managing your carbon budget is like managing any other
budget, which in turn is like optimizing any other queue. meaning: don't over-
optimize the 5th most important thing when you're ignoring the top 2 - 3 most
important things.

by which I mean: #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling.

just to put a sortof min-max on it: if you eat vegan but fly to a conference
once a quarter and drive to work every day your emissions will be greater than
if you eat cheeseburgers for lunch every day but take the subway to work and
rarely fly.

which is why imho you should go for the 50 - 80% win (80+% reduction in red
meat) in this category (food) instead of going all the way to
vegetarian/vegan.

or put another way, being pro video-conference has a better GHG reduction
return than being vegan :)

~~~
taffer
> #1 flying, #2 driving, #3 heating and #4 cooling.

At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global
Calculator[1] the food lever appears to have the greatest impact on greenhouse
gas emissions, even more than heating or transport.

[1] [http://tool.globalcalculator.org](http://tool.globalcalculator.org)

------
LinuxBender
For those that would like to hear a mind blowing discussion about climate (and
the earth in general), watch all of the podcasts with Joe Rogan, Randall
Carlson and Graham Hancock.

They are three hours each and I promise you will learn many things that give
perspective on the repeat arguments and confusion about the climate. There are
many other podcasts with these gentlemen, but here are three to start with.

Joe Rogan and Randall Carlson #606 (3 hours) [1]

Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson #725 [2]

Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson #1284 [3]

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ)

[2] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8)

[3] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ)

------
anarchimedes
I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the
USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done
by Bjorn Lomberg and team that showed a modest 2% reduction in total CI
globally [1] if the entire population switched to a vegetarian diet.

[0][https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/2...](https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/235c254)

[1][https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648](https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648)

~~~
epistasis
Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push
contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest
analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and
should not be taken earnestly in any way.

This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work
showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald
Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?"
It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using
statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to
answer questions about the world.

~~~
anarchimedes
Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn
has done but also the USDA?

And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both
links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries
to find the most likely size of the effect.

I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and
much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that
our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful
analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith

~~~
epistasis
> much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism.

Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim?

And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to
examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA
to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to
"stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism.

Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should
not be taken as a gold standard of anything.

~~~
anarchimedes
I provided links to the USDA report and it's findings. I provided the link to
Lomborgs tweet and in it the referenced links to the findings. In it, he
addresses the 10% reduction in emissions argument and show that it is cherry
picking the available data. That to me has an element of alarmism in it.

"He has a history of being wrong" \- if he does, I have not seen it. and I am
open to changing my mind if there is evidence to the contrary - which I have
asked you in good faith to provide.

------
z0r
while the world's economy is fueled by adding more people to the mix forever,
we're not going to solve any problems. people have to imagine and accept a
world where the market might not grow without limit and where outputs decrease
from one year to the next without it being a disaster. grey pyramids have to
be accepted without righteous outcry to open borders more fully. the
population and its demands are the ultimate multiplier for all climate
impacting activities.

------
ptah
it's about time this information goes mainstream

------
beat
When talking about the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas, lifespan of
about 20 years. CO2, on the other hand, has a lifespan of around 100 years.

Interestingly, rice agriculture generates about as much methane as livestock,
and burning biomass (wood) and landfills each generate about half as much
methane as livestock.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
No one change is going to solve this problem, we are going to have to look at
everything.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
Although this is not made clear in the article, the highest amount of
greenhouse gasses are released by energy production and industry, which,
combined, account for about half of all emissions [1].

So what this article is saying is that I should consider going vegan or
reducing the (already meager) amount of meat in my diet so that fossil fuel
companies can keep burning fossil fuels and don't have to get off their butt
to develop greener alternatives, and so that industry can continue producing
useless capitalist crap that nobody needs.

To take it even further, this article is suggesting I restrict my options so
that others can continue profiting from the destruction of the environment.

Personally I don't drive and I don't fly. I don't even own a car. I go
everywhere by train or bus and on foot. I contribute to greenhouse gasses much
less than many vegans. And I'm very tired of hearing people saying I should
reduce the amount of meat I eat because it's destroying the environment. Food
is necessary- driving cars is not.

___________

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Gre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png)

------
hammock
This reminds me of propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s,
which sought to shift the blame for litter (increased use of disposable
packaging) from corporations onto consumers. Yes individuals can take
responsibility for their own actions by "voting with their wallet" etc. - not
denying that. But in a democracy, if you'd rather fight for greater
regulations on Big Ag than give up meat in your diet, that should be your
choice and don't feel ashamed about it.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
> propaganda from the environmentalism movement of the 70s, which sought to
> shift the blame for litter

Oh really? Keep America Beautiful was conceived, paid for and started by:
Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola and others. _Then_ they
started shifting blame onto the individual.

That was in reaction to Vermont proposing to require deposit and return
bottles for drinks, after a surge in single-use packaging litter.

~~~
hammock
Yes that's what I mean.

Phillip Morris and the beverage makers you mention were fighting against the
threat of regulations that would prevent them from continuing to pump out non-
biodegradable filter cigarettes and single-serve drink containers.

We could have had filterless cigarettes and returnable glass-bottle Coke.
Instead, Keep America Beautiful was their brilliant idea to redirect the focus
onto consumers, away from manufacturers.

Did you misunderstand me?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Clearly, yet "propaganda from the environmentalism movement" implies, to me,
propaganda from actual environmentalists.

I'd call what happened _corporate_ propaganda, "propaganda from the
multinationals", or perhaps the first example of greenwashing. I suspect that
may explain why you picked up a few downvotes. It certainly distracted me from
the real message you were trying to convey.

From your second comment, it's clear we are of similar mindset, and your point
very valid. The current popular "theme of the moment" around veganism in the
media _does_ seem to have the same smell of someone trying to move the gaze
away from the places that would move the dial fastest. Which in this case, of
course, is constraining the global food players.

------
thangalin
Excerpt from a book I'm writing:

\---

Life is experiencing an abrupt, widespread global species extinction event.
Humans are destroying intricate webs of animals, plants, and microorganisms.
These networks supply our food chain and sustain life on Earth; their
annihilation from rapid deforestation and climate change is causing grave
consequences: droughts, increased heat waves and wildfires, more frequent
severe weather events, coastal flooding, food shortages, and water wars.

Earth’s atmosphere was once mostly carbon dioxide. Once life took hold, simple
organisms (such as bacteria, algae, and plants) converted atmospheric carbon
dioxide into oxygen by way of photosynthesis. When those organisms died,
natural processes spanning eons changed their remains into carbon-bearing
fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

Burning fossil fuels recombines carbon with oxygen to make carbon dioxide
(CO2). Since the mid-1800s humans have released a stupendous amount of CO2
into the atmosphere. In the following graph, average annual atmospheric CO2
measurements in parts per million (PPM) are plotted alongside averaged global
ocean and surface temperature readings in degrees Celsius (°C), relative to
1881-1910:

[https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png](https://i.imgur.com/zNuwtnP.png)

Both atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in
lock-step.

Bubbles in ice cores drilled from polar glaciers trap historic atmospheric gas
ratios. Long-term observations reveal an increasing average warming trend that
is distinct from natural short-term fluctuations. Temperatures are climbing in
proportion to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the Industrial
Revolution.

 _Choices_

Our past choices have put life on Earth in peril; our children face an immense
CO2 cleanup, devastating climate changes, or both. We can curtail the most
severe catastrophic outcomes, though time to do so grows alarmingly thin.

If we choose air conditioner and refrigerator coolants based on hydrocarbon
refrigerants; if we urge politicians to invest in on-shore wind turbines; if
we reduce food waste; if we eat less meat; and if we support restoration of
tropical forests. If we choose these, there is hope.

\---

See also:

* [https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-cha...](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/index.html)

* [https://www.drawdown.org/about](https://www.drawdown.org/about)

* [https://igg.me/at/impacts](https://igg.me/at/impacts) (plug, plug; scroll down for previews)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
For clarity: your hard scifi novel will include images in its prose?

~~~
thangalin
The hard sci-fi novel (from my profile) is on hold until the Impacts layflat
coffee table book (quoted above) that links astronomy, the environment, and
Earth's history is finished.

The hard sci-fi novel currently includes some diagrams and illustrations, too.

------
cageface
There’s a bunch of good reasons you should reduce or eliminate meat from your
diet, including environmental effects but also including your health and
mistreating and killing intelligent creatures. If your diet requires people to
do things to thinking, feeling animals that would be criminal to do to a dog,
maybe having some bacon on your breakfast plate really isn’t that important
after all.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I don't eat bacon.

I also don't share your view on the ethics of eating other intelligent beings
(from different species). Many other animals eat other animals, and for this
they have to kill them and cause them pain. The pain comes from the fact that
animals do not easily die, and our death is almost always painful and
horrifying.

But- why shoud humans be any different than other animals, when it comes to
the ethics of killing other animals and causing them pain in order to feed on
their meat? Other animals don't have any compunctions about doing the same to
humans. Why are humans so special that it is immoral for us to eat meat?

~~~
cageface
We are special in that we have evolved to be utterly dominant, which gives us
privileges and responsibilities other animals don’t share.

Also, other animals kill out of necessity. We don’t _need_ to kill to survive
at all so why are we justified to do so?

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I don't see what dominance has to do with privileges and responsibilities.
Besides, humans "dominate" only in a very narrow sense. Most of the biomass on
the planet is not human. There are many species of insects and microorganisms
that are much more "dominant" than we are.

Other animals don't necessarily kill out of necessity. For example, many
animals perform surplus killing [1] - I personally know of two dogs who,
together, entered a coop and killed about 40 chiken without eating any. In the
same farm, dogs have often killed chickens and goats, which they just
eviscerate without eating them.

Then of course there's the killing of young animals by older males- like male
cats sometimes kill kittens, etc.

Besides, why is "need" to kill the only justification to kill? For example, if
it's very difficult to survive without killing an animal, say because you're
putting your health and that of your children at risk with a diet poor in
animal protein- then why are you not justified to do it?

______________

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

~~~
cageface
First of all it’s not at all difficult to get plenty of protein from plant
sources. You are most likely putting your children at much greater risk by
feeding them factory farmed meat than not feeding them meat at all.

I guess for me it just comes from a desire to respect and value all life. It’s
in our power to create a world full of unnecessary death and cruelty or
without it. Why would we choose the former? I found I became a much kinder and
more empathic person when I stopped eating animals. I don’t think it’s a
coincidence.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> I guess for me it just comes from a desire to respect and value all life.

 _All_ life? I think you mean all _animal_ life.

~~~
cageface
No all life. When we treat animal life as worthless we also come to value
human life less. It’s a connection that’s hard to see while you’re still
eating meat IMO.

At least in more “primitive” societies they would often acknowledge that the
animal had given its life and thank it and treat the act of eating an animal
with some solemnity. We instead do our best to forget that what we are eating
was ever alive.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
What I mean is that plants are also alive. Do you not respect and value plant
life?

~~~
cageface
It takes as much as 10 kilos of plants to produce a kilo of meat, so if you
respect plant life the best thing you can do is stop wasting it feeding it to
animals you intend to eat.

And yeah I do notice and appreciate plants a lot more since I became vegan.

This talk does a good job of addressing the common objections to veganism,
including all those you have raised:

[https://youtu.be/byTxzzztRBU](https://youtu.be/byTxzzztRBU)

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> It takes as much as 10 kilos of plants to produce a kilo of meat, so if you
respect plant life the best thing you can do is stop wasting it feeding it to
animals you intend to eat.

I do value and respect all life, but I don't think that means I shouldn't eat
it. Your comment was the one that made that point.

Rather than watching a video I can't converse with I would prefer it if you
explained to me yourself why it's OK to eat one kind of life one respects and
values, i.e. plants, but not another, i.e. animals.

I mean, I would welcome an explanation.

------
lowken10
Food production has zero to do with climate change! Cow farts have zero to do
with climate change!

If you think otherwise you are an idiot. There is zero scientific evidence
that shows a link between farm animals and climate change. Zero!!!

All this reminds me of a great Winston Churchhill quote...

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it,
but in the end, there it is."

------
willmacdonald
There is no mention of using insects like crickets? They have a VERY low
impact on the environment. Lower than nearly all vegetables.

------
willmoss1000
The very first line in this article is just silly:

"Does what I eat have an effect on climate change? Yes. The world’s food
system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming"

What you personally eat will make a tiny percentage of a fraction of 7
billionth difference.

Let's not just wash our hands of the issue and say "it's not my fault" \-
let's focus on encouraging action at the national and global level.

------
belorn
It is not as simply to reduce climate impact based on what you eat. The data
this article use is based on averages, and as in every industry the lowest
standard it drastically different from the top and carry more quantity.

On the very top you got meat produced that actively helps the environment.
Highland cattle that keeps national reservations open comes to mind. There is
also overpopulated and invasive species. At the bottom you got cattle who live
their whole life inside a barn and get feed from deforested jungle farms,
using unimaginable amount of pesticide and antibiotics.

It is also important to remember that diet is far from the most effective
personal choice to make when it come to climate change
([https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-
cl...](https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-
discussed.html)). It is ranked 6th. Driving to buy produce at a farmer several
miles out of town is likely to produce more C02 than biking down to eat a
burger. An electric car might help, through it depend if the electricity is
made from coal or wind.

The article gives some averages and for people who don't want to think about
the climate and want a simple guide the article provides. However if you care
about the topic and can spend the energy to go deeper and consider all facets
then it is much better to make informed decision by digging deeper.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Meat is almost perfectly substitutable. So going out of your way to ensure
that the beef you eat has low carbon impact isn't really doing much good. All
you're doing is ensuring that somebody else won't eat the beef you bought and
will eat something with higher carbon impact instead.

Where it does matter is when you choose not to eat meat. Less demand for beef
means less beef raised, but which cattle are they going to stop raising -- the
low carbon or the high carbon ones? My guess is that the high carbon beef is
the marginal beef. When you stop eating beef you cause the price to drop, so
the ranchers with the highest costs are going to be the first to go out of
business. And carbon is one of the main costs of ranching, so I would predict
that stopping eating beef would have a greater than average impact on carbon
emissions.

~~~
belorn
Low carbon production has higher marginal costs and tend to be small farmers
which is the group that suffer first when prices drops.

The high carbon beef is basically all import here in Sweden, and there is no
deforestation issue from farming. From a environmental perspective we actually
need more open fields to maintain bio diversity.

When climate aware people stop buying beef the ratio of imported beef
increase. In last few years we have actually seen an decrease in imported
beef, which has been attributed to more awareness of low carbon beef vs high
carbon beef. People buy more local and significant less imported. Locally
produced beef cost between 2-4 times as much as imported, which naturally
impact how much people buy.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Swedish beef has to be sheltered inside and fed over winter, doesn't it?
That's a fairly carbon intense activity.

~~~
belorn
Since we are talking about climate change, it happens that the last couple of
winters has been the mildest in ages and reduced the number of months that
farmers need to keep cattle inside to between one and two months.

But it is more complex than that. We don't have deforestation issue from
farming. Fields, even those that is just for hay are important for bio
diversity and it is generally soils where other crops won't grow. We don't
burn down old jungle forest to grow corn in order to feed cows that then get
transported through half the globe. It is fields that if they get overgrown
would remove the biotope that many species here depend on.

Highland cattle is the extreme end where they can basically live outside the
whole year, and they do the job that people and motorized machines otherwise
would need to do in order to maintain national reservations. I would be much
interested in reading a study that compared the environmental effect of using
forest machines vs letting cows keeping overgrowth down.

