
Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019 - open-source-ux
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/lifestyle-change-eat-less-meat-climate-change
======
QuantumAphid
Not impressed by their logic. This is a multi-factored problem with numerous
areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And they
proceed boil this complex problem down into an anti-meat soundbite.

I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is
the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit
the anti-meat agenda.

Breakdown of sources of greenhouse gas emissions: How much does animal
agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
[https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-
to...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html)

~~~
Robotbeat
> I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is
> the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't
> fit the anti-meat agenda.

To follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion: "committing suicide
is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019."

I'm really not a fan of the misanthropic philosophy around many of the
proposed solutions. Not only is it, you know, anti-people.... Not only is it
unnecessary considering the role than innovation and adaption can play...
...but it's also a complete dead-end politically. And there's no way we can
fight climate change effectively without political support.

Forcing people to decide between say, kids or pets on the one hand and
fighting climate change on the other, most people are going to choose their
kids or pets every time. So making that kind of argument is highly counter-
productive.

~~~
wtmt
> And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political
> support.

Of course, that's true. But where does political support come from? It comes
from the voters, who may be individuals making choices that spread to groups
and communities and so on, along with social/political activism.

~~~
Robotbeat
I personally bought two (used, on loan) EVs to replace two fossil cars. This
sort of change is pretty easy since it requires no lifestyle change and the
cost is roughly neutral. I've convinced two or three other people to also buy
EVs; it's infectious.

~~~
QuantumAphid
Bravo on taking some action. Hopefully your electrical grid is powered by
natural gas (or cleaner, sustainable sources) rather than coal-fired power
plants. I also much prefer my EV to a combustion engine vehicle too and hope
to stay electric.

~~~
Robotbeat
Mostly nuclear, actually. Turns out the average US grid emissions is actually
lower than natural gas due to about 37% of the US grid being emissions free.

------
nkurz
To put this in perspective, changing your diet from omnivore to vegetarian
appears to have about the same effect on greenhouse gas production as a
roundtrip flight across the United States (5000 mi / 8000 km total distance).

Here are approximate figures for CO2-equivalent emissions different diets:

    
    
      Omnivore: 6500 lbs/year (3000 kg/year)
      Vegetarian: 5300 lbs/year (2400 kg/year)
      Vegan: 4500 lbs/year (2000 kg/year)
    

[http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf](http://www.kohalacenter.org/HISGN/pdf/carbofoodprint.pdf)

And here's data for a round trip flight from JFK-SFO (New York to San
Francisco):

    
    
      JFK-SFO: 700 lbs (300 kg) (each way)
    

[https://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CarbonOffset/P...](https://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx)

The savings of going from omnivore to vegetarian is thus slightly less than
avoiding the cross-continent flight, and the savings from going from omnivore
to vegan is slightly greater. This doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't
change your diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if you are flying
more than one long haul flight per year, I think it does mean that there might
be more benefit to reducing your travel than changing your diet.

~~~
QuantumAphid
One should also note that a vegetarian diet may not be optimal for your
individual health profile. People with colitis, diversticulitis, chron's
disease / IBS or other allergies might not do well on a high fiber diet. In
other words, there's a lot of debate still about which diets are optimal for
humans. Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may
not be the most healthy diet for a given individual.

~~~
wtmt
> Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be
> the most healthy diet for a given individual.

Your comment would've been comprehensive if you'd also said that a meat based
diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual. Without that,
it's just one sided argument for your preferences, the exact notion that you
seem to be against (in all your comments) with respect to the article's
author.

~~~
QuantumAphid
I concede that, although I didn't think that was necessary. I'm not arguing
for meat here-- everyone should decide what's best for their health. I'm
addressing the article, not your desire for me to be comprehensive.

------
anarchimedes
I'm curios how this compares to what Bjorn Lomborg [1] (with a longer
explanation [2]) and other researchers found that going completely vegetarian
accounted for a modest decrease (-2%) in energy consumption and (-4%) carbon
footprint [3].

I keep seeing articles like this one and wondering if collectively we are low
on ideas of how to effectively tackle climate change when the focus turns to
exaggerating the effects at the margins.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770](https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058336665788448770)
[2] [https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-
production...](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/meat-production-
overstated-effect-on-climate-change-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-11) [3]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002153)

------
ikeyany
I didn't see the author prove the actual point made in the title.

I'd like to see a list of the average person's effect on the environment.
What's the effect of one egg a day? What's the effect of taking mass transit
vs driving each say? I'm a bit surprised such numbers aren't used as the main
talking points.

~~~
berbec
In New York City, there is an ad campaign about not wasting food.

One tag line is "Wasting one egg wastes 55 gallons of water".

~~~
goldfeld
Surprise, eating one egg also wastes 55 gallons of water.

~~~
xupybd
Well no it might spend that much water, but if the egg is eaten then the water
is not wasted.

Also where is this water coming from and going to? It's not a zero sum. The
chicken may need this much water to produce an egg but the water doesn't
disappear. It goes back into the same system it came from.

------
tareqak
For those questioning the impact of meat, this picture
[https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/...](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BC74/production/_104544284_climate_change_food_v3-nc.png)
from this previously submitted article [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-46384067](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067)
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18811565))
has a chart showing the impact of animal products versus plant products.

~~~
vibrato
And even if americans ate 0 food whatsoever, our greenhouse gas production
would drop about 10%. Diet is not a low hanging fruit in this fight.
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

------
open-source-ux
I also recommend this excellent 2011 article by a committed carnivore who
drastically reduced his meat consumption: British chef Hugh Fearnley-
Whittingstall.

The joy of veg [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-
fe...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/26/hugh-fearnley-
whittingstall-vegetables)

~~~
QuantumAphid
I'm not familiar with this chef, but if somone is a "carnivore" that typically
means that meat/fish/eggs compose most if not all of their diet. That's an
extreme diet.

At least in the US, the percentage of calories of a typical diet is 70% plant-
based (including nut/vegetable oils) vs 30% animal, and I believe red meat has
been on the decline for years, whereas consumption of chicken has risen.

[https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-
at...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at-calorie-
sources-in-the-american-diet/)

------
justtopost
Oh wow, new year, new vegan crusade.

At least post an article that tries to support its claim with... anything.

This is how you alienate normal people from your movement. Everyone agrees
factory farming sucks, why not push sustainable agriculture instead if
childing peole to change their personal diets?

~~~
vegannet
> Everyone agrees factory farming sucks

Not enough to change their diet though.

> why not push sustainable agriculture instead

Because factory farming _is_ the most environmentally sustainable form of
animal agriculture. Environmental sustainability and animal welfare are in
competition with each other, to give to one you have to take from the other,
so the obvious choice is to simply reduce animal agriculture.

------
scythe
I really dislike the political fatalism that hides behind individual-action
climate engineering. The argument says we can't convince our leaders to tax
carbon emissions or invest in green technologies, we have to push feebly
against the 9% of US carbon emissions which are related to agriculture while
the world ignores us and burns to death.

This is not the way. The way forward requires democratic, organized, serious
reforms of many areas of life. Individuals can't do it. Political
participation, communication, compromise, honesty, and skepticism are
necessary. Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity
of those who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods _entirely_ than to
have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics.

The _fact_ is that _I_ can't do _anything_ for the planet. My suicide would
save nobody. _We_ can stop global warming by _working together_.

~~~
jly
Any organized reforms requires enough of the population to agree to
substantial lifestyle changes and sacrifice, and that starts at the individual
level. How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or
fly/drive less, or just _consume_ less if we don't get enough of them to
actually do it willingly?

Green technologies and innovations will certainly help but I'm not happy just
waiting for some breakthrough and throwing money at it in the meantime.
Arguing that individuals can't make any meaningful difference is also a cop
out - if my small sacrifice won't help, then why bother? This seems like a
terrible perspective.

> Individual action is merely pandering to the laziness and timidity of those
> who find it easier to stop eating delicious foods entirely than to have a
> conversation with someone who disagrees with them about politics.

What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group? It's also worth pointing
out that many (maybe most?) who choose to forgo meat do it primarily for
ethical reasons.

~~~
scythe
> How do we expect people to agree to reduce meat consumption, or fly/drive
> less, or just consume less if we don't get enough of them to actually do it
> willingly?

40% of the United States does not believe the scientific consensus about
anthropogenic global warming. Two out of every five people do not actually
believe there is a problem to be solved! _Start there!_

Most of the behaviors that need to be changed will come as a significant
disadvantage to any individual who undertakes the change unilaterally. You're
going to have a hard time competing in the job market if you're one of a very
few who won't drive. You won't be out of a job if everyone is in it together.
Everyone will think you're a weirdo if you're the only person who doesn't heat
their house. Your parents will be very unhappy if you're the only child who
doesn't fly home every year. Your HOA will object if you incinerate your own
trash instead of sending it to a land-fill. So on, and so forth: no man is an
island.

And of course, what's particularly inappropriate is that so many vegans _like_
being contrarians, _prefer_ feeling morally superior to those around them,
etc. Contrarianism and vanity will never motivate the unwashed masses to do
what is necessary. Your virtues are a sand-castle beneath a waterfall.

>What makes you think this is a lazy and timid group?

Because they're putting the majority of their efforts into things that make
them feel good! Look at you: "I'm not happy just waiting". I'm not interested
in being _happy_ , I'm interested in stopping a catastrophe.

You don't like arguing with conservatives. You like feeling good about what
you eat. Stop doing what you like. It's not about what you like. You probably
really won't like forging a compromise with people who couldn't care less
about animal rights or agricultural land use or nitrosamines, but you will
have to do it anyway. You won't like trying to appeal to their beliefs so you
can make them do what you want, but you have to do it or they won't do what
you want.

Climate activism is a political quest, not a personal one. The bottom line is
that we must _win_. Feeling good is useless.

