The Comforting Lie of "Climate-Friendly Meat"
The Comforting Lie of "Climate-Friendly Meat"
The industry insists that meat’s problems can be solved with technical fixes. We’ve seen this before.
You're viewing a single thread.
Lab-grown meat needs to become the norm, and cow-based meat needs to become a specialty food.
Though we also don't have time to only wait for lab grown production to scale up, so in the mean time, there's plenty of good plant-based meats and just general plant-based food as well. If we just wait, harm will continue to be done
The comforting lie of "climate friendly food."
It's really an order of magnitudes difference between any plant-based food and even best case meat production
Regardless of whether you compare the footprint of foods in terms of their weight (e.g. one kilogram of cheese versus one kilogram of peas); protein content ; or calories, the overall conclusion is the same: plant-based foods tend to have a lower carbon footprint than meat and dairy. In many cases a much smaller footprint.
[...]
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
these conclusions are largely based on poor nemecek 2018. the methodology in that study is suspect.
There is plenty of other research finding similar conclusions. Here's a review looking at 34 different papers finding that:
there is no indication that a situation or condition may make beef burgers more environmentally friendly than these two plant-based alternatives, or that the addition of plant-based meats to vegan and vegetarian diets may reduce their environmental benefits.
[...]
This paper shows that plant-based diets and plant-based meat options are unambiguously better for the environment. This is true for modeled vegetarian and vegan diets as well as for observed diets that may include highly processed foods such as plant burgers
this paper is fucked in about as many ways as poore nemecek. The homogenized disparate studies about LCAs when they all use different methodologies. The LCA numbers that they're using were never meant to be used in this context. it's possible they're even right but this methodology simply can't support their conclusions.
If I'm reading the methodology correctly, the paper is mainly comparing the relative findings within each study. (They do have some other comparisons that don't, yes, but they are mainly looking at relative numbers where each is computed with the same methodology)
Our focus on the percent change from a diet switch relative to the environmental impacts of the baseline omnivorous diet described in each study, makes the findings comparable across papers. Within each paper, the environmental impacts of one diet are comparable to those of another diet because these are expressed as a function of calories provided, taking as a benchmark a requirement of between 2000 and 2700 kcal/person/day
They then look at the distribution of the relative change figures. The entire range looked at here is lower emissions
We can also look at non-review studies as well. Here's one comparing emissions of farming types more directly
The aim is to compare the environmental impacts of different diets with different levels of animal product consumption, while accounting for the type of farming systems (organic or conventional) of the food consumed.
A positive link between animal-sourced food consumption and total environmental impact was observed in this large sample of French adults. By far, omnivorous had the highest-level of greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative energy demand and land occupation while vegan diets had the lowest
We found that a 100% organic omnivorous diet exhibited higher environmental pressures, suggesting that following an organic diet without changing towards a more plant-based diet is of little help, at least as regards the studied indicators
the vegan diet, whatever the indicator considered, remained less resource-intensive and environmentally damaging than other diets
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550919304920
we agree about what their methodology was. given that every lca study state explicitly that it's results should not be compared to other studies, these "researchers" knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they were not doing science.
wait til you hear about the plants that eat carbon dioxide
But do take into consideration the enormous amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous based fertilizers used to produce the plants, especially by greenhouses and industrial explorations.
Not the person you are replying to, but it should be noted that synthetic fertilizer usage is lower on plant-based diets even compared to maximal usage of manure. This is due to the fact that you don't have to grow so much animal feed (which you lose most of the energy from by other creatures body functions using that energy themselves)
shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528
While any food production is not going to be free of environmental effects, plant-based diets are substantially better on nearly all metrics
Wait till you learn about all the extra food we grow just to feed the animals we eat.
It takes up the majority of farmland in the US. more than we dedicate to growing for humans to consume directly.
If you actually want to use less farmland, and therefore fertilizer, I welcome you to veganism.
What I think is more likely though, is that you need to tell yourself this to feel better about eating animal products.
Ah, yes, that pillar of good practices, US, where corn is so heavily subsidized its by-products had to be force injected into the entire food chain to justify it, to the point all food is rendered sweet by default.
I know it’s popular but believe it or not, the US isn’t the cause of all the world’s problems.
Only 23% of ag land worldwide is used to grow crops for direct human consumption. That’s lower than the US number by the way.
The fact remains that if you actually care about reducing farmland and fertilizer use, you’d go vegan.
Or was I right and that was just a throwaway comment meant to make you feel better about your habits?
Only 23% of ag land worldwide is used to grow crops for direct human consumption.
this is misleading as fuck. much of the land used to grow crops for humans is the exact same land, the exact same plant, the exact same bean (sometimes) as the land used to feed animals. much of what is given to animals are parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. another huge portion of the ag land is pastureland, and much of that isn't even suitable for growing crops.
That wasn’t intended to mislead and I provided my source so others could read.
It’s why I referenced the US data first (I know it better) but now it has a paywall.
I found another source saying,
Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent).
Feeding crops to animals for us to eventually eat is always going to be less efficient and more costly environmentally.
plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
Feeding crops to animals for us to eventually eat is always going to be less efficient and more costly environmentally.
but very few people want to eat the parts of plants that we feed to animals after we process the rest of the plant for human food. soy, for instance: most people don't want to eat soy cake, so feeding it to animals and then eating the animals is actually a good use of the "crop calories".
Let's go back to examples I have at hand (I'm in Portugal and live in a somewhat rural area).
50 to 60 sixty years back, there was a lot more cattle roaming the area, as this was wool country. Even then, through field rotation, the production/consumption of feed was close to zero (abundant rains, predictable sunny intervals) allowed for fields to produce using what was at hand for fertilizer.
Come the 90's, with the end of the wool industry, flocks reduce drastically but the production of feed crops and cereals remains the same, with marginal use of synthetic fertilizers.
Come the 2000's and the berry craze explodes, with large extensions of land converted into greenhouses or intensive growth fields, that divert and consume huge amounts of water and require tons of synthetic agrochemicals.
The problem with corn in the US we have it here with berry farms and common greenhouses, that actively refuse manures and composts, thus injecting amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous previously absent from the soil. I can widen the scope to include peach and plum orchards.
The only area we have identified has being satured with those elements is further south, again due to intensive tomato farming. And an area where cattle is also raised.
I'm not white washing my option: I want sustainable agricultural practices to become norm, not exception.
As opposed to the enormous amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous based fertilizers used to produce cattle feed.
Talking out of what I can see out of my window, hay and feed crops for cattle are sown in the same fields where animals are led to graze, with no added fertilizers besides the manure left behind that is tilled into the soil, in field rotation system.
The greenhouses and berry farms around here turn down the readily and locally available and cheap manures to instead consume huge amounts of synthetic fertilizers produced in far away factories that have to be trucked in.
That's a cute fairy tale.
In the real world, over 5.6 million tons of nitrogen are applied to corn (40% of which is feedcorn, on top of 40% for ethanol. barely any for us vegans!) each year through chemical fertilizers, compared to a mere million tons of nitrogen from manure. A good amount is coming from cattle, like you said, but the reality is that the clear majority is artificial.
And regardless of whether it's natural or artificial, nitrates then wash into the rivers and waterways causing algae blooms, fish die-offs in rivers and lakes, drinking water pollution, ocean dead zones, coral bleaching and other habitat destruction, that shit even gets into the groundwater. In the human body it causes cancers, thyroid disease, birth defects, and probably more we don't know about.
Poison isn't better for you just because it's "natural" 🙄
At no point this was made a witch hunt on vegans.
And are you trying to deny by default what I am stating as "fairy tale" or are you trying to build up on my immediate example.
Yes, corn is a cash crop, along with soy and a couple other cereals. An heavily subsidized cash crop, already identified as a depleter of soils and water sources. Let's cut back on that front and incentivize the planting of rapeseed, as an example. Fulfils more environmentally useful roles than corn and provides a good chunk of useful and very important by-products.
But all of this just to go back to my initial statement: cereals here get a fraction of fertilizers other crops receive and usually through the animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields. These are practices done by small, family scale farmers.
And yes, the gross majority of nitrates are artificially added, often with no need. And let's also applaud the excelent marketing campaign create by fertilizer manufacturers, that objectively created a notion that it isn't factory made it isn't good.
The muds removed from waste water management plants are phosphorous and nitrogen rich, a fraction of the cost of the synthetic fertilizers yet nobody will use it. Many countries import huge amounts of fertilizers while wasting a readily available resource. That is another bad practice.
At no point this was made a witch hunt on vegans.
You say that, but then you turn around and present animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields as somehow "better" than the artificial fertilizers used in greenhouses. The reality is that we could use much less artificial fertilizer and also use less animal fertilizer. It all needs to be reduced and it's not healthy or good for the environment just because the pollutants come from animals.
There's nothing wrong with greenhouses using artificial fertilizer, as long as they're using controlled amounts and aren't adding to nitrate pollution. And you know what? Greenhouses are usually way better about that, because they have very controlled growing operations!
Please tell that to Spain (I'll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for "deluxe" or exotic crops, covered the land.
And you're trying to dog whistle. I could not care any less aboit the choices other people make towards their life, even more when it comes to dietary and philosophical options.
What irks me is the often used resort to guilt/finger pointing by those who opt to choose for such different option.
Now that that is out of the way, yes, we can aim at less animal production. The abuse of meat is not an healthy diet nor a sustainable one, which is my main concern. We can demand from agricultural producers - and impose - better practices, which make use of circular flow of resources, less use of agrochemicals and the use of best practices.
states are outlawing it
Good. Anything to prevent these attacks on our food supply
Hm. How is offering a safe alternative that some people may buy of their own volition an “attack on our food supply”?
Because environmentalists always ban what they're "offering" an alternative for. You see it in this very thread left and right.
It's a threat to our freedom we need to work to defend ourselves against by preventing it from getting any power
We already have alternatives. They’re called plants.
Not for meat
That’s weird because I’ve been eating plants instead of meat for over 4 years now.
Anyway, do you deny the fact that meat is far more environmentally damaging than the alternatives (plants)?
There's no alternative to meat. It's the best and humans need it
How long do I have doc? Going without it for 4 years must mean I’m close to death, right?
Funny. The people spouting your particular brand of bullshit never seem to have an answer to that.
this lemmy gets it :)