The Climate Issue Government Leaders Aren't Addressing: Livestock Farming (theguardian.com) 445
It's "a major cause" of our climate crisis. "It's on course to guzzle half the world's carbon budget," writes a Guardian columnist — asking "so why are governments so afraid to discuss it?"
They've reviewed every agreement announced at 26 different climates. The results? Livestock is mentioned in only three agreements, and the only action each of them proposes is "management". Nowhere is there a word about reduction. It's as though nuclear non-proliferation negotiators had decided not to talk about bombs. You cannot address an issue if you will not discuss it. The call to stop farming animals should be as familiar as the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground. But it is seldom heard.
Livestock farming, a recent paper in the journal Sustainability estimates, accounts for between 16.5% and 28% of all greenhouse gas pollution. The wide range of these figures is an indication of how badly this issue has been neglected. As the same paper shows, the official figure (14.5%), published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, is clearly wrong. Everyone in the field knows it, yet few attempts have been made to update it. Even if the minimum number (16.5%) applies, this is greater than all the world's transport emissions.
And it is growing fast. In the 20 years to 2018, global meat consumption rose by 58%. A paper in Climate Policy estimates that, by 2030, greenhouse gases from livestock farming could use half the world's entire carbon budget, if we want to avoid more than 1.5C of global heating. An analysis by Our World in Data shows that even if greenhouse gas pollution from every other sector were eliminated today, by 2100 food production will, on its current trajectory, bust the global carbon budget two or three times over. This is largely because of animal farming, which accounts for 57% of greenhouse gases from the food system, though it provides just 18% of the calories.
The article also notes an academic paper which calculated that if livestock pastures in just the world's richest nations were returned to wild ecosystems, it would fully offset 12 years worth of global carbon emissions. "This issue has become even more urgent now we know the heating impact of methane is rising.
"Livestock farming is the world's greatest source of methane released by human activities. Yet there is no mention of it in the global methane pledge launched at last year's climate summit."
Thanks to Slashdot reader AleRunner for sharing the article.
They've reviewed every agreement announced at 26 different climates. The results? Livestock is mentioned in only three agreements, and the only action each of them proposes is "management". Nowhere is there a word about reduction. It's as though nuclear non-proliferation negotiators had decided not to talk about bombs. You cannot address an issue if you will not discuss it. The call to stop farming animals should be as familiar as the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground. But it is seldom heard.
Livestock farming, a recent paper in the journal Sustainability estimates, accounts for between 16.5% and 28% of all greenhouse gas pollution. The wide range of these figures is an indication of how badly this issue has been neglected. As the same paper shows, the official figure (14.5%), published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, is clearly wrong. Everyone in the field knows it, yet few attempts have been made to update it. Even if the minimum number (16.5%) applies, this is greater than all the world's transport emissions.
And it is growing fast. In the 20 years to 2018, global meat consumption rose by 58%. A paper in Climate Policy estimates that, by 2030, greenhouse gases from livestock farming could use half the world's entire carbon budget, if we want to avoid more than 1.5C of global heating. An analysis by Our World in Data shows that even if greenhouse gas pollution from every other sector were eliminated today, by 2100 food production will, on its current trajectory, bust the global carbon budget two or three times over. This is largely because of animal farming, which accounts for 57% of greenhouse gases from the food system, though it provides just 18% of the calories.
The article also notes an academic paper which calculated that if livestock pastures in just the world's richest nations were returned to wild ecosystems, it would fully offset 12 years worth of global carbon emissions. "This issue has become even more urgent now we know the heating impact of methane is rising.
"Livestock farming is the world's greatest source of methane released by human activities. Yet there is no mention of it in the global methane pledge launched at last year's climate summit."
Thanks to Slashdot reader AleRunner for sharing the article.
Eat meat why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome our soy overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they don't really care about climate change. Just like they don't really care about black lives, or whatever they're protesting this week.
The grauniad putting it this way puts them with the shouty "$TOPIC MATTERS!" crowd, the people who'll protest anything and everything to further their agenda. Which is, total breakdown of western civilisation, so they can remake it to their liking.
Me, I care about farming because that's where our food comes from. We might do with a little less meat (I already eat vegetarian most days), but reducing it to zero isn't all that good for the environment either, nevermind for us. Much of the pasture for livestock isn't suitable for growing other stuff that we can eat directly.
Re:Welcome our soy overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
The call to stop farming animals should be as familiar as the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground.
That is silly bullshit. Burning fossil fuels is relative new (in the grand scheme of things) and we can develop alternatives.
Livestock is mentioned in only three agreements, and the only action each of them proposes is "management". Nowhere is there a word about reduction.
Humans will always need to eat. We will always need to produce food and as the population increases we will need to produce more food, not less.
The vast majority of people in the world do not want to live in a cave and eat nothing but plants and bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
To sum all of this up - there are too many humans in the world. There are actually fewer other mammals in the world now than it was just a few decades ago.
Re: Welcome our soy overlords (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Monbiot is not complaining about corn-fed livestock.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. It is that we feed our livestock stupidly because corn is the only thing that will grow in some parts of the country with outsized political influence.
No, that is wrong. Cows burp more methane when eating grass than eating corn.
Corn subsidies are stupid, but they aren't the cause of this problem.
Disclaimer: I am 99% vegetarian and haven't eaten beef in 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have a solution. We decrease the population, that way there will be enough food.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have a solution. We decrease the population, that way there will be enough food.
And we wouldn't have to use as much space for animal farming as we do now because there wouldn't be a need for it. We'd also reduce the amount of pollution we pump out, reduce the amount of waste we produce, reduce the amount of natural resources we consume, have better education because class sizes would be smaller, better healthcare because hospitals and doctors wouldn't be overwhelmed, and more people would be able to have their own place rather than some cramped apartment.
Re:Welcome our soy overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, I suspect that when you say that, you really mean decrease OTHER population - most people who say words to the effect of "we need fewer people" really mean "we need fewer OTHER people."
In any case, when you get ready to reduce the population, my first thought is "you first!"....
Re:Welcome our soy overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
We just need to pump out fewer units. There's no need to kill off what's already here, just avoid creating more problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Our approach is all wrong, BTW. The AGW alarmists want to strangle western prosperity and institute communism, but have a cow when anyone mentions geo-engineering
If anyone could come up with a geoengineering approach that would both work and not have ridiculously obvious "unintended consequences" then maybe we could discuss it. The only idea you present here is "Shielding the planet from the sun, reflecting more sun than we do now..." That's crazy. While it might reduce the temperature of the Earth, it also reduces the amount of sunlight we get. Global warming is not happening because we're getting too much sunlight. It's happening because greenhouse gases are trapp
Re:Welcome our soy overlords (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not an "odd's" game.
No, and it's not an odds game, either.
People don't become doctors just because a certain number of people were created
That's not what I said, but I'm not surprised to see an anonymous coward not understand an argument. If you had ideas worth sharing, you wouldn't post them anonymously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This arguemnt has been debinked since the 60's.
Farting cows aren't killing the planet. There were far more Bison and other wildlife roaming the earth, burping, farting and fucking since forever.
I will eat the humans that demand I eat the bugs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Any birth rate below 2.1 means less people being born then dying. (immigration is what is driving population up in those countries)
For a map https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
This just means only the wealthy and elites (typically government rulers) get meat. Every green policy that aims to make things more expensive to reduce usage does nothing more than make things only available to the elites. The push to stop urban sprawl means only the elites can have actual yards. The push to have everyone use public transportation means only the elites can use convenient private point to point transportation. The push to make beef rare and expensive means only the elites can eat it. A
Re: (Score:2)
They are so fixated on emissions they forgot about the climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows if you don't personally dedicate every waking hour of your life to solving a problem, you must not really care about that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't really care about climate change.
As someone who composts in an apartment, reuses grey water when possible, and eats meat, my initial response to this was "fuck you". But if you'll permit me to walk that back a bit, I can explain and try to understand.
I gather you think it's your job to reduce climate change in every way you can? I think it's society's job. I want to reduce my meat intake and electricity usage! I just don't want to be the only person that does it. There is a significant individual cost to making sacrifices for the climate,
Re:Welcome our soy overlords (Score:4, Informative)
Eating meat (and lots of it in some cases) is just very culturally ingrained, subsidized and normalized, and of course protected by people like you.
It's also what we evolved to do. We have literally none of the hallmarks of a herbivore, and literally all of the characteristics of an omnivore.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also what we evolved to do. We have literally none of the hallmarks of a herbivore, and literally all of the characteristics of an omnivore.
Yes, omnivore, not carnivore. A varied diet, with the majority of the bulk some kind of vegetable matter and most meat lean, hunted and from varied sources very little of which will be bovine. The impact of some approximation of that diet would be much less than the current massive amounts of beef eaten.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they don't really care about climate change. Just like they don't really care about black lives, or whatever they're protesting this week.
Also, that's a huge heap of projection right there. When people banish empathy from their lives, this is what it looks like; they're telling us what's inside themselves.
Otherwise, what is the message here? "[[They]] aren't compensating enough for my ruinous lifestyle?"
No doubt, this screed was posted in-between other attacks aimed at "virtue signallers" who do stupid things for points, like going vegan or switching to solar + all electric (or using vaccines instead of horse de-wormer). Or maybe it was ju
Re: (Score:3)
Moderation works. We can cut the livestock problem by 3/4s without everyone becoming vegan or even vegetarian. The snag is the _increase_ in meat eating. I remember in the 60s when having a thick steak for the family once a week as normal, and in some families there was beef every day. It's the appearance of affluence; it used to be expensive and now it's not so much, so eat it up like the rich people do. If you're not so poor, then you can still have the cheap fast food burger once a day.
If people jus
Re:Eat meat why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The snag is the _increase_ in meat eating
The increase in meat eating is not "Americans eating 3x more steaks than before". Yes, it's true, people in affluent countries are, in the main, eating more meat than they did decades ago (due to a combination of rising purchasing power and lowered real cost of meat due to high-density industrial farming techniques), but the _real_ increase in meat consumption comes from countries where meat was formerly a mostly-unaffordable luxury for most. As real incomes have risen in those countries, their demand for a higher meat-to-grains/vegetables ratio has similarly increased, and given the sizes of those populations, the effect here is FAR greater than "we can afford to put a bit more chicken in the pot tonight" in already-wealthy countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Now compare food waste in America (40%) vs developing countries.
Seems like the (truly) really-real increases are probably discernible, but not from anything in the above post.
Re:Eat meat why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people just decided that once or twice a week to go vegetarian, that it would make a big impact on the carbon footprint.
Like recycling, you have to turn an alternative diet/lifestyle into something that people want to participate in. By force usually doesn't work, and the rich will always find a way to simply pay the sin tax and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle, often paid out of the pockets of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eat meat why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that is a major problem. We as humans generally tend to consume as much resources that are available to us. If the human population halved tomorrow I just think in a few years we would simply consume twice as per person.
I see it in a lot of things: Build bigger roads people just drive more. Hard drive, and internet speeds become larger, images, games and movies just become larger. CPU speeds increase programs become less efficient. Building becomes more efficient we just build bigger houses. Provide excess food we be come obese. I think we consume as much as we can because we evolved in a environment with scarce resources, were it made sense to consume as much as possible while it lasted. We need to learn to be happy with what we have got (or at this point, less than what we have got). Until we do that we will never save the planet. Also unfortunately capitalism is set up to encourage us to consume more. Please note I am not anti-capitalism, it has good points, just anti unrestrained capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
We have to change who we are at a fundamental level if we're ever going to have a decent shot at expanding beyond this little star system. Otherwise, we'll just keep making the same m
Re: (Score:2)
it used to be expensive and now it's not so much,
What? Are you Jerome Powell by chance? Clearly you haven't gone grocery shopping recently or you'd know how expensive beef is. And eating a fast food burger is no longer cheap either.
Re: (Score:3)
Moderation works.
Except here on Slashdot, where moderation is failing harder and harder with each passing year.
You guys get to moderate?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how people that say "climate change matters" are not all vegans...
I think the word you're looking for is "Hypocrisy".
Suffering and inconvenience is for thee, not for me.
Re:Eat meat why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand how people that say "climate change matters" are not all vegans...
If people want to talk about climate change they shouldn't post on Slashdot. Imagine the waste of electricity that is for something that objectively achieves nothing at all. /sarcasm
Your criticism is silly. People are insanely wasteful (myself included). There are many things we could do to improve the climate which have little to no meaningful impact on us, and certainly many that make far less of an impact than chowing down a steak. We don't need to get to zero emissions, and doing so is technically infeasible even if we discover the secret to fusion power tomorrow.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Re: Eat meat why? (Score:2)
The effect of rlectricity waste is not even close to cattle raising for food make, relating to climate change... (electricity can be generated by non polluting ways, but meat relays on cattle farm)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depends. If you don't have any children you are immensely ahead in your future carbon footprint, so you can eat meat, and run a dirty car too.
Let's be realistic: Not only people are eating more meat, cars are getting bigger too, so are houses, so are airports. Instead of grounding our own coffee, we increasingly use capsules from plastic or aluminum, think about the energy cost of that. So trends are not going in the right direction. In fact, asking people to reduce their convenience now for a poss
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think reducing the population will help we will just consume more and catch up quickly. As you said we eat more meat, cars are bigger, houses are bigger ... People in the rich countries produce 50 times more carbon than poor countries do you think it would be hard for us to produce 100 times? Especially if we demand equality? The only true way is to learn to be content and not want to consume more. I don't want to destroy the human population by not having children. If only 1 generation doesn't have
Re:Eat meat why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we aren't vegans, our brains developed fully.
Meat is not the problem. Cows are the problem. Unsustainable systems in general are the problem. Meat can be very sustainable, but probably not ever if you're eating cows. Goats can eat pretty much anything, if they are eating kudzu or being used to clear brush they have positive impact. Chickens eating insects (which can be raised on most vegetation) are very low-impact.
In fact, animals like these actually make food more sustainable by eating food waste, and turning it into compost more rapidly while also growing. Their crap is much better fertilizer than that synthetic garbage as it contains micronutrients that it doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand how people that say "climate change matters" are not all vegans...
Some of them most certainly are vegans. Others don't eat beef, or eat it rarely and stick to other, less resource intensive meats.
Re: Eat meat why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for bug eating
Just out of curiosity, I ordered some cricket powder on Amazon [amazon.com]. I mixed it with wheat flour and made muffins.
They tasted ok. But I won't do it again because cricket powder is hecka expensive, and so are all other insect proteins.
I am not eating bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Communists do not eat bugs. Some hippies do.
I eat lobster and shrimp which are pretty bug-like and do not produce methane.
That said, dairy cattle give much less methane than beef cattle mainly because of what we feed them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not? They actually taste quite alright. Think of them like land based shrimp and remember how absurd the idea is that eating one animal disgusts you while another delights you.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, nobody's going to ask you when the revolution comes!
Re:I am not eating bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoy that attitude while you're still able to order a side of choice with your meal.
And while you enjoy your steak, the rest of the planet will enjoy charging you $200/pound for it.
This is a fight environmentalists are guaranteed to lose while inflicting a great deal of collateral damage upon their cause.
Re:I am not eating bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
If beef goes for $200/lb, raising cattle will be one of the most profitable industries on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like they can't math.
If beef goes for $200/lb, raising cattle will be one of the most profitable industries on the planet.
If you thought cracking down hard on the millionaire steak lovers was harsh, wait until you see what happens with a compound whammy of green taxes chewin' up and shittin' out farming subsidies happens. It'll be $100 wholesale just to afford the title of farmer, and they'll end up with similar profit margins.
(Breeding of course be strictly "provided" for the farmer. By Monsanto Ag as per the Federal Food Czar.)
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff your kale up your ass. I'll stick with the diet that evolution approved.
Because there's nothing to be done... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because there's nothing to be done... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Messing with people's food, disincentivizing personal transportation, rationing of electricity, and reducing the consumer goods available to them make it seem like the climate alarmists are trying to insert themselves into every facet of life. That may work in places that are traditionally authoritarian, but is obviously not going to be well received in places where people are traditionally free to live their lives as they see fit.
We are not ants. Solutions that treat us like them are destined to fail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is a limit (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual choice is reduce greenhouse gas emissions or suffer climate change that will most likely decimate our ability to produce food & lead to mass starvation, refugee crises on a scale never seen before, & societal destabilisation. That's the price of our hamburgers, fried chicken, & steaks every day. It's one of those "buy now pay later" special deals.
We easily produce enough food to feed the world. The problem is distribution and waste, not production. Perhaps in the future we will dedicate some effort to solve those real problems, but I am not hopeful. Blaming my steak dinner for starving people in Africa is easier, and probably works well enough with intellectually shallow people.
Re:There is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual choice is reduce greenhouse gas emissions or suffer climate change that will most likely decimate our ability to produce food & lead to mass starvation, refugee crises on a scale never seen before, & societal destabilisation. That's the price of our hamburgers, fried chicken, & steaks every day. It's one of those "buy now pay later" special deals.
Overall arable land globally increases ~30% under climate change with substantial disruptive shrinkage in some regions.
Climate change is likely certainly a source of major disruption /w many losers especially as a result of worldwide coastal flooding over long term. When it comes to food supply people should be far more concerned about soil erosion than they are of impacts of climate change. This is a far greater direct threat to global food supplies than climate change and is a manageable problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Overall arable land globally increases ~30% under climate change with substantial disruptive shrinkage in some regions.
(a) Over what time period?
(b) Citation required
Re: (Score:2)
The actual choice is reduce greenhouse gas emissions or suffer climate change that will most likely decimate...
No it wont, even with the correct usage of decimate.
There's a lot of land that's too damn cold for farming. A lot of the land that are claimed to be too damn hot for people and farming in the future aren't exactly the highest yield farming lands today. The plants themselves grow just fine in the heat, so long as they have adequate water. Keeping the farms properly irrigated will be tough, but desertification has been going on since long before the industrial revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of land that's too damn cold for farming.
You mean the frozen tundra in the north? Yeah, when that thaws, it'll release billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere in a relatively short period of time. Then we're all fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. Show me the hard data that the climate we have now is the best possible climate and I might have a care.
This. 10,000 years ago anyone complaining about climate change from their glacial cave would have been complete morons in retrospect. I know, the current argument is about the pace of change and not change itself, but it is still hard to have a serious discussion about climate without agreement (or even discussion) of an actual ideal climate to aspire to. One that does not change much is not at all the same as one that is best, and in fact if it is not ideal, not changing much may not really be the best
Re: There is a limit (Score:2)
Biofuel from scrubland plants is the way to have cheap abundant meat with no emissions from equipment. Then change gut bacteria of bovine to reduce methane, has been done in experiments.
Solve issues with science and engineering instead of austerity and lower standard of living!
Re: (Score:2)
We are not ants.
You're right. The lemming masses running off the YOLO cliff are much dumber than that.
Solutions that treat us like them are destined to fail.
So let's just sit back and let Mother Nature take it's course. I'm sure Greed N. Corruption will eventually bow to Common F. Sense, because humans will eventually find a cure for the Disease of Greed that has crushed empires for thousands of years, right?
It's not environmental change that is hard for people to accept as they endure a 100+ degree heatwave in fucking Portland. It's the greedy liars constantly trying to ma
Re:There is a limit (Score:4, Informative)
So let's just sit back and let Mother Nature take it's course.
An equilibrium will eventually be reached. I'm not sure how many billions of humans that will ultimately entail, but in the end the system is self-correcting. Mother Nature was always going to have the final say.
Re: (Score:2)
An equilibrium will eventually be reached. I'm not sure how many billions of humans that will ultimately entail, but in the end the system is self-correcting.
If we wait for the system to auto-correct, the number of billions will be zero. So will the number of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
As for people's transportation I would kill to live in a walkable City that didn't have a cost of living so high you're living in a rented van. People are obsessed with cars because they're told to be obsessed with cars. It's not like you're really giving any othe
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not used to eating animal flesh it's actually kind of gross.
I doubt many cavemen thought so. Normal omnivorous humans clearly get past that pretty quickly and come to love a good burger.
As for people's transportation I would kill to live in a walkable City that didn't have a cost of living so high you're living in a rented van.
There are numerous such places. They are called "villages" or sometimes "towns". The ability to easily explore the vast world beyond just your village is one of the greatest achievements of modern humanity. I don't know why people want to convert their cities to villages when there are so many of the latter already to choose from. I consider it anti-civilization.
What would you do with an extra $1,000 a month in your pocket?
Buying a nicer c
Re: (Score:2)
Should primitive cave men be the benchmark? What happened to /. being a science & tech forum?
Homo Sapiens' status as omnivorous is well grounded in science.
Those "villages" and "towns" don't have jobs. I'm kinda married to city life as a result.
I too live in a city. My car allows me to escape to the country easily anytime though. I don't have to rely on having trains to nowhere. I can even visit other cities without a second thought.
And again, you're obsessed with cars because you've been told to be since you were real, real little.
Yes I like cars. I like driving my BMW. I'd really like a Ferrari or a McLaren. I enjoyed watching the Brazilian Gran Prix today (props to George Russell!). I'm sad this era will probably end, but happy I was here for it.
Got anyone in the army? They're fighting for cheap oil.
I'm in Canada. We have plen
Re: (Score:2)
Very well said. Thank you for saving me from having to come up with a similar comment myself.
60 million bison (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so our bovine fart production hasn't changed much.
But you're suggesting we could halve it without touching a bison right? It seems strange to write off something which could help as "it hasn't changed much" and therefore shouldn't be a focus.
Re: (Score:3)
A cycle (Score:2)
Livestock farming is a relatively rapid cycle - very different from digging up fuels that have been in the ground for thousands of years.
The gases emitted by the livestock are created from the food they consume. If that food was not consumed by livestock, it would be consumed by other animals or bacteria, or just wouldn't have been grown at all.
If you grow food directly for humans, it's still going to be emitted as gas and feces. At least feces from livestock is generally used directly to fertilise the fiel
Re: (Score:2)
The rising standards of living and population growth has created a lot of land use changes last century though, doesn't matter much in steady state but we don't live in steady state. Increasing total meat consumption is causing continued forest to pasture conversion.
A losing proposition (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a politician planning on proposing that people eat less/no meat, you might as well just blow your campaign funds in Vegas and then call your Republican opponent and congratulate them on their victory in advance.
People don't like making substantial compromises to their standards of living in the name of saving the climate. Come up with a solution that is equivalent or better (LED bulbs are a great example) and the market will adopt it voluntarily. Force a plant (or worse, bugs, eww) based diet down the throats of people who don't want it, and in a democracy, get ready to reap the whirlwind.
I say this as someone who doesn't mind a good Impossible Burger once in awhile. As long as it's my choice, plant-based options are just fine. The moment the government proposes taking that choice away from me, I'm holding my nose very tightly and voting for the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
"...call your Republican opponent and congratulate them on their victory..."
Maybe not THIS year.
So we need a meat-tax? (Score:2)
Why not, everything else is already taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you end up with the OTHER issue, Only rich people can afford to eat meat. Do you really want to walk this road?
Re: (Score:2)
Governments aren't completely idiotic (Score:2)
In a democracy, most people will not give up meat for climate. You can slowly boil the frog them into giving up some luxuries for climate stabilization measures, but if they get the idea you are trying to deny them meat for every meal they will vote Trump or worse in a heartbeat to get it back. Come hell or high water, literally.
Forcing that level of change on humanity could only really be done by a world dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Attitudes can an do change, most people used to think being gay was bad, now most people at the very least don't care. Diamonds where not very valuable, until an ad campaign was run and now they charge insane amounts of money for them. Smoking was cool, now its not.
Why is eating meat any different? Why is eating bugs yuck? its psychological based on probably marketing by meat companies and it can change, sure you won't convince everyone, and the change will not be immediate but I could happen for a signific
Leaders also are not addressing overpopulation (Score:3)
So what can you do about population? Provide FREE contraceptives and Maybe educate people that 2 kids is the sustainable number and hint you are being irresponsible if you go over that, but hey, make up your own mind.
Same for beef consumption: educate people that eating lots of beef is irresponsible but hey, make up your own mind.
Also after beef, there is always something next in line: https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
Re:Leaders also are not addressing overpopulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Stores donâ(TM)t stock Veg options (Score:2)
And yet (Score:2)
There is also natural processes in termite mounds that reduce the emissions of methane to those stated values, the generation being almost twice as high. Somet
New Zealand (Score:2)
The current New Zealand government *is* proposing to do something domestically - an emissions trading scheme, which is basically a cap-and-trade system causing high emitters to spend more money buying limited credits, forcing emitters to reduce their emissions one way or another (or pay sky high prices to continue on).
Guess what...
The government is being slaughtered over it - farming is a strong lobby across a lot of the world, and NZ is no exception.
Thats why no one is talking about it.
The other aspect is
Re: (Score:2)
The New Zealand government is not being "slaughtered" by it, sure there is opposition to it but the governing collation is hardly going to loose by a landslide. Its slightly behind sure but there could be many reasons for that in the current economic climate.
This is more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About land use than anything, when greens go out and hike, they want to see the land as pristine as possible,
Return land to it's natural state. And when they are hiking, they can watch out for that grizz--
So the proposal is to stop eating? (Score:2)
There are insinuated assumptions in the article. I see this often today. General statements that point to a solution that may not be there. Not all meat production land can be converted to farming. Farming isn't as green as some make it sound.
I'm not here to push an agenda. What I see is that our economies are based on growth but there are too many humans already on the planet. Nobody is talking on how we can shrink the number of humans. Not even the vegans.
Slight gap in the logic. (Score:3)
"The article also notes an academic paper which calculated that if livestock pastures in just the world's richest nations were returned to wild ecosystems,"
If the cows don't eat the the plants what animal does? Deer, elk, bison are all ruminants and will do the same thing as the cows. How about horses, do they produce less methane? Or rabbits?
If you want to argue for more grass fed beef and less feedlot beef you can make a case. But back in the 1990s I remember a big uproar about cattle wandering around the west eating grass and the environmentalists were against cows there too.
Bugger off with dumb stuff you already know (Score:3)
Hey, look (Score:2)
International freight shipping is one of the biggest polluters, but nobody quite addresses that because it's what the rich need to make you poorer and themselves richer.
Re: (Score:2)
cow farts aren't emitting sequestered carbon (Score:4, Insightful)
It sure sounds like these carbon estimates are equating methane, generated by farmed animals that ate grasses grown in the same year they were eaten, with fossil fuel methane emitted after being sequestered from the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of millions of years. They are clearly NOT the same thing. Yes, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but it also persists in the atmosphere for much less time (9 years versus thousands) and, ultimately, carbon emissions that are part of the active carbon cycle aren't contributing to significantly to climate change as the crops that will grow next year to feed livestock next year will be reducing atmospheric carbon at the same rate that it is emitted, no? Cows cannot emit more carbon than they eat and the carbon they eat comes larger right out of the atmosphere. The carbon associated with fueling farm equipment and transporting livestock to market and such is relevant. Cow farts seem much less so.
I call it Bull shit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We should just remove entire species from the world, all because they had the audacity to burp or fart? After these animals are gone then, should we look at the next species to wipe out because they burp and fart?
I don't think it's the same as wiping out a species. The number of cows & such are what they are because we have "farmed" them to encourage large numbers for greater profit. Moderation in the size & number of animal farms might be something to consider.
We as a species need to stop asking "How can we environmentally feed 10 billion people tomorrow?" and start asking why we should have 10 billion people.
I agree with you. However, if you think there'll be a negative reaction if/when we try to tell people what they can eat, think of what'll happen if we try to tell the world how many kids they're allowed to have. It's been said over & over that yo
Re: (Score:2)
So many people often come to this "simple" statement that there are too many people in the world.
So? What do you propose? That we round up some of them and shoot them? That we tell people to stop having children, as if flicking a switch. Our entire organism is built and motivated by the possibility of a better future for our children. But out of the wood works comes someone telling us that there are way too many of us and that we have to do something about it.
Often, that person happens to be an unmarried/ch
Re: (Score:2)
but looking at cow farts as a major issue not coal smokestacks seems distorted somehow
Two questions: 1) Are you only able to do a single task and not able to start another until the previous one is finished? 2) Are you the only person in the world?
If you answered no to either of those two questions then I am confused as to why you used the word "not" your statement. It seems to imply that the entire world should focus on a single emitter rather than say... addressing multiple ones at once with the immense human resources we have available, able to dedicate to multiple problems we face as a s
Re: (Score:2)
I just wonder how the world's farmers will cope with the switch, and how the countryside will look in the future.
Mostly old barns, some with classic Red Barchetta's hidden within.