Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
As negotiations get underway at COP28, we compiled a list of the leading research documenting the connection between meat and greenhouse gas emissions.
You're viewing a single thread.
Stop telling me what to do and get the corporations to oblige with laws. Oh wait! No one gives a shit because the corpos are running the world now? Oh no, guess i gotta eat shit to make up for their mistakes :(((
As someone who makes delicious plant based foods from inexpensive and available ingredients, I take a lot of issue with the idea that plant based food is "shit".
rite? I take pride in my vegan food, and my non-vegan friends and family always ask me to bring entrées, treats and baked goods whenever I visit.
I eat GOOD, and if you think the contrary about vegans as a whole then that's your own limited, small, sheltered little view.
Everyone knows that vegan who ended up in the hospital from malnutrition. In my case, 2 of "that vegan" were family members, and one was a friend. I'll be the first to admit that we non-vegans have to stop and remember that just because the unnecessary malnutrition rate is much higher in vegans, that doesn't mean many of you don't find ways to eat delicious and healthy.
There's some delicious vegan foods out there. It just takes a lot more work and can often be more expensive to hit the same tier of deliciousness of (for example) a perfectly cooked steak.
Perhaps you'll agree, though, that "fake-foods" are terrible? Like, a vegan burger is nothing compared to a nice angus (or venison!) patty with real aged cheddar. Or a carbonara with egg substitute vs the real thing.
I have had some incredible vegan foods (especially Indian or Lebanese) but an Impossible burger belongs in the trash IMO.
That I mean to say is, if someone really wants a Carbonara, there's nothing that can compare without using egg and some smoked meat. And if their diet has a lot of meals with those flavor profiles, it's easy for them to see vegan food as problematic. A meat-eater can have all the falafal they want.
There’s some delicious vegan foods out there. It just takes a lot more work and can often be more expensive to hit the same tier of deliciousness of (for example) a perfectly cooked steak.
As someone who grew up eating meat, and still eats meat for various reasons (though I'm trying to cut down), I'm not sure I agree with that statement.
Beef (the most environmentally unfriendly meat) is far and away more expensive than vegan or vegetarian substitute ingredients. Only cheap chicken and turkey grown inhumanely are comparably priced to most vegan sources of protein (Butler soy curls purchased in bulk are extremely affordable, as an example, and much healthier and tasty than the TVP of old).
All meat, at least without any seasoning, I personally find pretty darn bland. A steak with some salt on it does have some flavor, but nothing really worth writing home about (at least to me). The thing that makes a meal good is when meat is used to soak up some other flavor, or incorporated in dish to add texture, or again, to act as a sponge for flavor. I've found that same concept to apply to vegan meats, and when used in that way, It's actually fairly difficult to tell it apart from real meat. Adding a bullion cube of beef or chicken flavor isn't expensive, and after that's applied, you're pretty much at parity with real meat as far as flavor, often for less expense than using real meat.
I will admit this doesn't apply to more processed meat-substitutes, like impossible meat, which are generally quite expensive. But in general, veggies are pretty cheap compared to meat.
Perhaps you’ll agree, though, that “fake-foods” are terrible? Like, a vegan burger is nothing compared to a nice angus (or venison!) patty with real aged cheddar. Or a carbonara with egg substitute vs the real thing.
As an aspiring vegetarian, I'd agree that real cheese is... Likely not something I could replace right now.
I have had some incredible vegan foods (especially Indian or Lebanese) but an Impossible burger belongs in the trash IMO.
I'd agree with you if you mentioned Beyond Meat, which I found to be... Terrible. It gave me horrible heartburn (the processed oils were likely oxidized inside it), and I'll never touch it again. BUT, I tried some premade frozen impossible patties from costco, and I couldn't believe how delicious they were. They didn't use easily oxidized oils in comparison to Beyond meat, and the flavor and texture were comparable to the finest burgers I'd ever cooked with expensive local ground beef. But that's just my opinion.
I also tried Impossible chicken nuggets and Trader Joe's new vegan Fish offering, and both were excellent. I would easily be able to switch to those alternatives and never feel deprived of the real thing.
Adding a bullion cube of beef or chicken flavor isn't expensive, and after that's applied, you're pretty much at parity with real meat as far as flavor, often for less expense than using real meat.
A real foodie eh?
It's not as bad as that makes it out to be, lol. As far as flavoring these plant-meats, I'm just saying bullion cubes are very effective at imparting a rich meaty flavor (especially if the bullion is high quality).
As someone who grew up eating meat, and still eats meat for various reasons (though I’m trying to cut down), I’m not sure I agree with that statement.
I recently has a $120 filet from a premium steakhouse for a special occasion. I'm sorry, but in my lifetime of being an "try anything" foodie I've never tried a meatless dish that comes within $3-40 of creating a food experience worth that much money to me, and that includes some stuff created by amazing Indian or Lebanese chefs (where I got the best meatless food I've ever eaten).
And here's the thing. I can make that filet. If I hit a butcher and get a prime cut of angus filet, toss it on the grill, I can have that $120 filet in front of me. I went through part of a culinary degree, and my wife comes from incredible restauranteurs of two cultures. If I were to dream of coming up with a $120 non-meat meal, it would require such an immense amount of expertise and skill. That $120 filet I could have mostly managed wiith none of the experience I have since picked up.
Beef (the most environmentally unfriendly meat) is far and away more expensive than vegan or vegetarian substitute ingredients
On beef, I lean to the simplicity. You're right about the price, but a good steak is worth the price in terms of enjoyment. At least to this foodie.
All meat, at least without any seasoning, I personally find pretty darn bland
I wouldn't call a little salt and pepper complicated. Would you? I wouldn't ever put more than that on a quality cut of beef. Compare that meat prep with, say, falafel.
A good head-to-head was creating meat toppings and creating veggie toppings. The fanciest meat topping I created was a delicious liver pate. Prep took me about 20 minutes. My wife's family has a meat-based cheeseball recipe that's about 30 minutes. Both are amazing. Compare to the excuisite mustardas and chutneys I've made, and the effort difference is an order of magnitude. For me, I'm talking hours of work, sauteing each ingredient and letting it cook down carefully to maximize flavor. And the latter start requiring more and more pricy specialized ingredients. Liver for pate is dirt cheap around here, and devilled ham (cheeseball) is pretty cheap, too. My chutney required specific harder-to-find breeds of fruit.
From your explanation of meat, I think it's clear you're not a huge fan of meat in general or that you've often been stuck with bad cuts of meat. The way you described meat "absorbing other flavors" is the one thing we were taught in culinary school you never do with your protein. In French Style cooking at least, your protein is your star - it's the most important part of the dish, and it's the one thing whose flavor should SHINE. Properly cooked duck is perhaps the perfect example of that. Duck L'orange is one of my favorite dishes, but the orange sauce needs to be on it sparingly because the point of the dish is that amazing and irreplacable flavor of Duck. The orange is like a stairway to get the duck from "great" to "life-changing"
My wife puts it this way with scallops (the scallop industry is in our family, sorry). If you want to buy scallops somewhere far from the ocean, you buy fried scallops because the scallop is basically ruined and you're just trying to get a hint of the flavor you like and drowning it in flavors that are palatable. If you eat a scallop off the boat, you pan-sear it with a pad of butter and some crushed cracker crumbs for about 2 minutes.
BUT, I tried some premade frozen impossible patties from costco, and I couldn’t believe how delicious they were
I didn't love Impossible. But I like my food elevated. I will agree that Impossible compares favorably to a "Applebees" burger, but I haven't eaten at Applebees in 5+ years. If I compare it instead to some fresh 80/20 from the butcher, mixed with a little bit of pork, it's a different world.
I'll agree the best fake meats can beat the worst real meats. I don't think that's a concession for someone who teaches himself to cook things because he thinks good food is worth the effort.
$120 filet
Huh. We really do need a meat tax.
Cool thing is, a meat tax wouldn't even increase the price of meat if we take away the feed subsidy (which is financed for by what is effectively a VAT on first sale and then remitted to a few large companies).
I'll admit I've never had a single steak that was more than $30 uncooked, I simply do not have the disposable income to justify spending $120 on a single meal, so I'm not really sure what I'm missing out on there.
From your explanation of meat, I think it’s clear you’re not a huge fan of meat in general or that you’ve often been stuck with bad cuts of meat.
I love meat in other contexts, but I'm not super into it on its own if it's lightly seasoned. I have had steak from a local grass fed farm (Vermont), which, I have to imagine, was a very high quality piece of meat. I consider myself a fairly adept cook, and cooked the meat rare with salt and pepper and a healthy amount of fresh local butter. It was good, but... Overall, I found the complexity of flavor to be lacking, as I do with any lightly seasoned meat. For me, a regular old steak can't compare with heavily seasoned and flavored meat like BBQ pulled pork. I think we definitely have different preferences in that regard.
I’ll admit I’ve never had a single steak that was more than $30 uncooked, I simply do not have the disposable income to justify spending $120 on a single meal, so I’m not really sure what I’m missing out on there.
Luxury food has a logarithmic value increase. A $120 steak is as much better than a $60 steak as a $60 is than a $30, and so on. Compare the best steak you've had (about $30?) to the worst steak you've had (about $15?). A $60 is that much better than the $30, so a diminishing return. A $120 steak is that much better than the $60. It's incredible, but not something you would want to eat every day even if you were wealthy.
I love meat in other contexts, but I’m not super into it on its own if it’s lightly seasoned
That's understandable. We cannot know how much is simply different tastes or how much is the quality you have never tried.
I have had steak from a local grass fed farm (Vermont), which, I have to imagine, was a very high quality piece of meat
I, too, am from New England. There's a lot of gamey cattle around in the grass-fed world for some reason. I would wager what you had is better than some, still. Anything is better than frozen stuff that came out of a warehouse.
It was good, but… Overall, I found the complexity of flavor to be lacking, as I do with any lightly seasoned meat
Interesting. You talk about steak the way so many people I know talk about Scotch. An A-B test could perhaps be a world-changer to you. That said, steak flavor is a little simpler in general. Expensive steak is usually more about texture, the balance of umami, and what flavor profile the cut has shining enough that you can tell the cut on taste alone. A good filet mignon has this tendency to melt in your mouth just a bit, like a marshmallow. No fat, no veins, no inconsistency in its silky texture. A good prime rib could be tougher, because there's that specific flavor you look for in the middle, and that specific marbling on the sides where you get these crunchy bacon-like ends sandwiched between paper-thin layers of fat, so thin as to not be off-putting to eat generously. The people I know who swear by Rib-Eye will drive 100 miles and pay $100 for the top tier rib-eye. I'm not a Rib-Eye guy, so as much as I enjoy it, I can't speak for it quite so well.
For me, a regular old steak can’t compare with heavily seasoned and flavored meat like BBQ pulled pork
That's understandable. And I can imagine BBQ Pulled Cauliflour (or whatever) is a closer match to BBQ Pulled Pork than any vegan dish is to the meat dishes I like. My favorite pulled pork is marinated lightly in wine, so you're still tasting pork first, not some BBQ. We have a local meal in my area called cacoila, and it's both amazing with the spices supplementing the meat... and dirt cheap.
Anything someone feels forced to eat against their will is "shit". You'd have every right to call meat shit if someone made it the only food available to you.
Who's being forced to eat something against their will? People should be able to make the choice to eat what they want based on all the information available. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about animal agriculture so many people don't have all the info.
A lot of the vegans here are pushing for the end of all meat-eating, so a lot of the non-vegans here (like the guy you responded to about "eating that shit") feel like "nobody should be eating meat anymore" means "you shouldn't eat meat anymore".
Whether "you" is part of "nobody" is a challenging question. I've met plenty of vegans who push for meat bans, and plenty of vegans who otherwise somehow think "since veg tastes good and the only people who eat meat do so feeling guilty, we'll eventually all be vegan anyway". The former are a threat (sorry, they are), and the latter are not worth treating like one.
You can feel however you want but the fact is nobody here is forcing anything to do anything.
Oh some people are trying.
Many of the rest are trying to coerce people into doing things. From a legal/ethical point of view, people typically consider that a form of a forcing.
And I can feel or not feel however I want, but the fact that you decided to bring up my feelings doesn't change facts.
Most importantly, I have clearly explained why the original comment was justified in using the word "shit" and a vegan would be justified in using the word "shit". Heaven forbid vegans are on the same plane of existence as we mere mortals. No, you're right. Vegans can use cuss words, but we non-vegans must bow and say "I understand that only vegetables taste good and that meat is horrible, but I eat meat because I like to feel guilty and want to burn in hell. Please judge me"
Or maybe the top comment really was justified in using the word "shit". Please leave your reddit at the door. You'll track in mud.
can we all start eating dog again?
If you want to. I'm not sure why you would. It doesn't taste that good, as most dog breeds were bred for work and not flavor.
but it's just not legal. how are you able to survive while laws and social norms stop you eating absolutely anything?
but it’s just not legal
You're right that it's not. I'm not sure how I feel on food bans, personally. Probably very negative.
how are you able to survive while laws and social norms stop you eating absolutely anything?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Social norms don't stop anything except someone's consented will. My wife won't eat rabbit, but it has nothing to do with being forced against it.
Horse sausage is the way to go then.
I've never tried horse meat. I've heard bad things about it being incredibly muscly and gamey, as well as expensive. Are there any upsides for me to consider it?
I was half joking, but I had some by accident in France and it was very good as sausage. I've never had it in any other format.
Interesting! I recently had gator jerky I enjoyed. I'm not one of those "off-put" by what animal meat comes from. But I often want to know why I should try it. As you can see in my other replies, I'm a foodie and I like to truly understand what goes into the food I consume both literally and figuratively. To the extent I learned how to distill my own whiskey when I learned it was legal/decriminalized where I live.
Yeah, vegetables and legumes and grains. Horrible, horrible. Woe is you.
Climate change isn't my fault! It's those corporations that I refuse to stop buying from fault!
🙄
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable. Even if the oil industries weren't such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn't change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture. As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable, whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable
The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:
- pointing out that the "eat less meat" conclusions are fraudulent misrepresentations of the facts
- pointing out that only way cutting out meat in most developed countries would be good for the environment is if we also start ecologically re-engineering for a lower natural footprint than our regions ever had, since the livestock footprint nearly resembles that of pre-colonial days (here in the US, methane emission is within 20%)
- pointing out that most attacks on meat-eating make the mistake of mathematically treating marginal land as if it could support a forest, when it cannot
- And finally, pointing out that improvements in cattle diet shows dramatically more real-world promise than this contrived idea of forcing or coercing all humans to stop eating meat, with far fewer risks and side-effects to availability of balanced nutrition
Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture
...in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
whataboutism doesnt change the facts.
No. Whataboutism doesn't change the facts. On that, we can agree.
experts denying them
It's kinda wild to post "it's not that bad... studies" funded by corporate interests in /climate. It's always the same old denial lines served from the same ole' boiler plate. Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too? Are the innovations of" clean coal" going to revive the industry so nothing has to change?
if that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
The wildly ineffecient ineffecient industry has long been supported by goverment subsides.
If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them. Their numbers are this high because they are treated as a commodity.
As I said to the other guy, accusing the large percent of studies that disagree with you of being false is bad-faith far-right bullshit, and we had enough of that in 2020 with the anti-vaxxers. I have sworn off EVER giving that style of bullshit any more respect than it deserves.
Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too?
I never said "benefit of the doubt". You're the one picking research based on whether you like its results. I'm the one reading the articles and studies on both sides.
Actually, let me use your reference to show my point. Do you know who the BIGGEST opponent of farm subsidies is? FARMERS.
You tell me why, and we'll continue this discussion. Otherwise, you just showed your hand, and it's a 2-7 off-suit high card.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them
Till when? In my country, the total methane impact from agriculture is only 20% higher than pre-colonial ecostasis. We will reach those numbers in 10 years. Are you saying my country needs to have LOWER methane emissions than it had 500 years ago all so we can support BP continuing to do whatever the fuck they want and still have a global temperature continue to rise? Because if the worst GHG footprint was my home country's agricultural industry, global warming wouldn't be a problem.
Which one of us is giving BP the benefit of the doubt, now? What percent of environmental spending are you really willing to do to reduce GHG emissions <5%?
The studies have studies and experts denying them..
Studies and experts funded by the livestock industry, yes. Why are the studies and experts always Mitloehner, I swear...
You understand the problem with "studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong", do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.
And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you're only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn't making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you're going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.
This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I'm not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
Here is UC Davis ASI's Funding year by year. They publish it. They're PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950's.
But taking a step back. It's best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of "antivax movement" to me.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment? Like this isn't me bringing up criticism of some random researcher, it's specifically related to the "studies and experts" you referred to. And I'm not sure why you're bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn't related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
In case you were unable to read the article due to the paywall, this is the most pertinent part:
According to internal University of California documents reviewed by The New York Times, Dr. Mitloehner’s academic group, the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns.
The documents show that the center, which has become a leading institution in the field of agriculture and climate, was set up in 2019 with a $2.9 million gift to be paid out over several years from the Institute for Feed Education and Research, or IFeeder, the nonprofit arm of the American Feed Industry Association, a livestock industry group that represents major agricultural companies like Cargill and Tyson.
As of April 2022, the Clear Center had also received more than $350,000 from other industry or corporate sources, the documents show, including nearly $200,000 from the California Cattle Council, a regional livestock industry group.
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University.
“Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock,” he said. “His communications are discordant from the scientific consensus, and the evidence that he has brought to bear against that consensus has not been, in my eyes, sufficient to challenge it.”
The argument leans on a method developed by scientists that aims to better account for the global-warming effects of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell, professor of earth science at Duke University and the lead author of a landmark United Nations report on methane emissions.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment?
You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.
And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
As I mentioned, I couldn't see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I'd get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It's primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.
Here's the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He's an air quality specialist by background. Here's a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it's important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.
As he says in his penultimate line: "I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet."
As you quote:
Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock
I do not get that conclusion from what I've read of him. I'm sorry, I just don't. Yes, it's not fair that I say "the people I know who have been involved with him think he's on the up-and-up", but it's also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.
And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in "However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell". Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are "high current emissions". Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He's literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I'm sorry, I'm not ok with that.
The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.
This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there's a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).
I'm sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it's starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.
Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise, and if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying, they are not going to publish anything that would sour relations with their main source of funding.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn't mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
I disagree because their research is largely about improving sustainability, not about proving to vegans (who will never win anyway if we're honest) that meat is okay.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise
For that to be meaningful to a discussion about UC Davis' research, there needs to be a meaningful possibility that humanity is doomed without everyone going vegan. No matter how we coerce numbers, that's simply not the reality. If and when there is reputable research showing that meat is unsalvageable, then we can start the hard discussions. Until then, the idea that the industry that most benefits from research would be unable to ethically fund said research is just silly. Please check out the chain that led to an essay from one of the senior researchers of UC Davis' CLEAR center for more context.
if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying
None of UC Davis is dependent upon the meat industry. They receive some funding for some of their research from it. Because sustainability means lower cost and the meat industry likes lower cost. It's the same reason solar has started to win in the business sector. Better environment is good business. Yes, if there's a secret gotcha where the 1 millionth cow will suddenly explode with anthrax, there might be an argument. But despite some mild disagreements with "how much GHG is bad", there's not really much to criticize them for. And as a reminder, ALL food sources hit the environment in various ways, and many plants do the same worse than many animals. There's no smoking gun, so I would be incredibly hesitant to disqualify reputable science over it.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn’t mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
What about studies paid for largely by sustainability groups, but backed by businesses because the outcome isn't "positive" as much as "here's how you can reduce the methane impact of your livestock allowing you to efficiently scale your operations and produce more food for less money"? You can understand why the latter, far more common in research, is worth it to everyone.
Who is telling you what to do?
We grow our own vegetables, raise our own meat, hunt, fish, forage, buy used everything with a few exceptions and we live on much less than most. Our house is appropriately sized but we drive a truck out of necessity. It's our one vehicle, 16 years old and works every day. We take so much shit over that damn truck from folks who "know better". How about we fuck up the trillion dollar capitalist corpos who rape and pillage the people, land and sea for God's Almighty Profits instead of judging our neighbors whom we don't even know many whom are struggling to even exist.
Stop absolving yourself of responsibility by claiming that the decisions you make are inconsequential. The reason things don't get better is because people don't make them better ffs.
What's your take on a meat eater with a net-zero or net-negative carbon footprint? The same? What about a vegan that has to drive to work and can't quite get their carbon footprint to zero? Which one is better, the climate-hurting vegan or the climate-helping non-vegan?
I would tell the meat eater that going vegan would further reduce their climate impact and the vegan that commuting less would further reduce their climate impact
Wouldn't both of those scenarios be better outcomes than a meat eater that doesn't care about reducing their carbon contributions at all? The vegan with a long commute is better than a meat eater with a long commute, ecologically. And if a meat eater can reduce their carbon in other ways, then that's certainly a better situation than if they didn't reduce it at all.
Personally, I still eat meat, but I try to reduce my beef consumption the most, since that's the biggest emitter.
Wouldn’t both of those scenarios be better outcomes than a meat eater that doesn’t care about reducing their carbon contributions at all?
Better outcomes in terms of what? If we only focus on the environment, then the only thing that matters is total environmental impact. While intelligently choosing your foods may reduce the environmental impact of your diet, naively reducing meat eating alone simply doesn't.
Disagreeing only slightly with Dr. Hannah Ritchie from OurWorldInData (steelmanning the less-meat side IMO), transport arguably counts for J>7% of the environmental impact of food, so eating locally-sourced chicken every day is clearly better than ordering out from the vegan joint every day, especially after accounting for the caloric quality.
I asked the previous commentor for takes on the specific scenario to start to depolarize her position. Many vegans here have this polar position, and won't stand beside me as an environmental advocate because I don't agree with them on quitting meat being a necessary or even good environmental decision. Challenging her with the decision of what's environmentally right and what's "morally right" (to her) is a form of deprogramming. It usually fails especially online, but I still do it.
You perhaps can see why it is important to help give and get context from people in that situation?
The strongest environmental advocates I know are small-town farmers in rural-but-liberal areas. But approximately zero of them are vegans. I still want them fighting for the environment.
EDIT: I saw your update. The irony is that your graph comes from the same article I was referring to myself. There is an argument in the vacuum if you focus on beef-herd and lamb only (but you have to understand those are world averages and the methane production from cattle in most countries is a lot lower than that number)... but I'd like to point out that 1kg of poultry is simply a superior food product to 1kg of rice. Eggs are arguably the perfect food for those not allergic to them (like me). Replacing many crops with egg-laying chickens is a no-brainer from that graph (and sorry, but you DO get some chicken meat in every egg coop if you're being efficient).
It’s not just about GHGs. It’s also habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, manure runoff infecting nearby veggies, all the extra land dedicated to growing crops just for animal ag.
And there's answers to all the "it's about..."'s. Of the ones you listed, only the first two would even need answering since the last two are largely fabricated issues.
Last one is directly connected to the first two lol
Edit: Since the thread got locked I guess I'll have to dunk on the guy below me from here.
Nobody is growing crops “for livestock”.
Damn, that's weird. Because this article shows the majority of US cropland is dedicated to growing food just for livestock. And before you bring up grazing land, that's separated out. There's even nice pictures if the words confuse you.
86% of what they eat are inedible waste, and the other 14% are things they are being grown anyway.
Feel free to source your claims at any time. But even if the 86% number is right, that's crazy that to make up the rest we need the majority of US cropland hu?
Thank you for invalidating the first two arguments by tying them to a propagandist’s fantasy.
I brought fuckin' receipts boy.
Nobody will ever change a zealous vegan’s view, but anyone else that reads this will realize all the coercion to quit meat has nothing to do with valid environmental concerns.
I got to this position based on data (and morals). Feel free to present data at any time.
"lol".
Nobody is growing crops "for livestock". 86% of what they eat are inedible waste, and the other 14% are things they are being grown anyway. The most common two feed crops, corn and soy, are being grown for a different part of the crop to be used for industrial purposes. Yes, they feed a little edible corn to cows shortly before slaughter to maximize the return and quality of meat. Nobody is waiting in line for that corn because it's terrible and non-nutiritious calories for humans. If you suddenly passed a law that forced us to euthenize all the cows and threatened us with prison time if we ate meat, those same crops would be grown only to be destroyed in ways that are just as bad (or worse) for the environment as feeding to animals
Thank you for invalidating the first two arguments by tying them to a propagandist's fantasy. Nobody will ever change a zealous vegan's view, but anyone else that reads this will realize all the coercion to quit meat has nothing to do with valid environmental concerns.
Thank you for winning my argument for me.
being vegan doesn't make it better.
"ffs"
The article is right there explaining how it's better for the environment
it's full of insinuation and half truths and bad science and wishful thinking. it's a bedtime story.
No it's quite credible
saying it doesn't make it so
I've declared it
That's exactly the problem is they aren't on this crusade because it's the #1 cause. If they can tie their crusade to a bigger problem then it gains them more traction. Even though it's a drop in the bucket compared to corporate effects on the environment. the idea that it's anything but a power move to convert more people to their life choices is hilarious at best. Not to mention the ableist BS that it is to believe everyone can stop eating meat, but I'm not explaining that to the 20 internet doctors that will message me after this like last time I brought it up.
Exactly. Why do these articles also act like the consumer is at fault and not the giant corporations selling these things?
Because in this instance companies are just meeting consumer demands.
So far, I see lots of consumers here in the comments justifying their continued consumption of the thing in question.
I think because we all know people could just learn a new recipe and buy something else at the grocery store they were already shopping at.