Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
https://sentientmedia.org/meat-climate-change-studies/Open linkView original on lemmy.world487
Comments393https://sentientmedia.org/meat-climate-change-studies/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits. Enough with the green consumerist bullshit that only serve as neoliberal justifications for inaction.
If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.
The problem is not that the method that meat is produced, it is that it is produced at high levels at all. The inefficiencies don't go away by changing regulations. We are going to have to have changes in production and thus consumption levels. It's going to be difficult politically to get any policy like that through if people are unwilling to reduce any on there own as well
Do I think systematic actions are needed, yes, but if we're going to get there we'll have to start with some degree of individual action before any of it is paltable to the larger society
I don't think it's worth fighting the meat industry when the other big Corp companies are harming the ecosystem far heavier. The Argicultural industry is 4th largest, so I think main efforts should be regulating big power, manufactoring sector or the oil sector honestly.
41% of the land in the US is used for meat production, and 1/3rd globally. The Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned for cattle farming. Animal agriculture means habitat destruction and is a large part of why 21 species were declared extinct in the US this past year. We can and must fight them both.
But it's the marginal land, where food plants can't grow or where it's too steep for mechanical harvesters to work
If you want to hit climate targets, it's extremely important
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
you misunderstand, what I'm saying is I think that it's a wasted effort to split your concentration the way it is being done, the agricultural industry is going to be one of the most resistant changes out there, the other Industries such as manufacturing and oil, you have your lesser groups that are not going to be impacted so it's going to be fairly easy to gain support for those groups, however with the agriculture industry there is a vast more people that are going to be out to disregard the entire study because they won't want to change their lifestyle. You can have all the statistics in the world however at the end of the day those deciding actors are generally decided by the general public who isn't going to bother looking at complicated statistics. So therefore it would be a better move to go towards the path of least resistance which is going to be the other top emitters. My opinion is that if reducing the top three emitters somehow makes it so you don't hit your climate goal, the climate goal isn't going to be feasible to hit in the first place.
This isn't me saying that it shouldn't happen I'm just saying that the changes posted won't happen all at once and likely won't happen at all if too many Focus points are attempted at once.
I don't think the goal is feasible, but I would love to be proven wrong
There already is momentum in the right direction in many countries such as Germany. I don't think it's a hopeless fight at all
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23273338/germany-less-meat-plant-based-vegan-vegetarian-flexitarian
The global food systems biggest carbon source is from fertiliser production
In order for regulations to stick, they should come from the people. If you try to regulate meat consumption without convincing people that it's good, it will just not stick. It needs to be a consolidated effort, and guilting regular people into better choices is a big part of it
Something something tobacco New Zealand
Guilting people makes them dig their heels in. Especially when bacon is on the line. There is no good vegan bacon substitute
Right because capitalism is bad we should all feel free to never care about our choices
You've got some downvotes ... and there's a pretty strong "don't be obnoxious to people if you want to persuade them to do something" attitude here ... which I generally agree with.
Just to provide my own sentiment here ... at a broad, like "historical" level ... it does bother me that it seems like we've kinda become this coddled culture. Yes, we can be obnoxious about how our choices are better than someone else's bad choices.
But having frank discussions about what choices and actions are good and bad without getting stuck into ego shit fights is not only healthy but I'd argue pretty fundamental. And that includes whether it makes sense for an issue to be elevated to the government/regulatory level ... and then ... how we as the electorate are going effect that (because in the end, leadership from government these days isn't really a thing ... which is also part of the this coddled "make every feel good about themselves" culture I feel).
I recently started calling this something like "secondary climate denial" (which I got from somewhere I can't remember). The idea being that a fair amount of people (myself included I'd say) have acquired a sort of learnt helplessness and passiveness about the climate crisis ... have learnt to deny the possibility of there being things that they can actually do and that are actually worth doing. Sometimes we expect things to be more effective and more quickly than is reasonable, so we do nothing. Sometimes we think the world is too big and powerful for us to move it, so we give up.
Sometimes we get worried about letting perfect be the enemy of good and so we give up. And what have we all got to show for it ... what have we actually done?!
If/when it goes to shit and we're sitting grand-children who are asking us why we didn't stop it from happening and what we actually did ... are we really going to be satisfied that, well, we had some arguments online about it and tried to eat vegan as much as possible? Won't the grand-children then say "I'm vegan too, but what did you do to stop it? Didn't you do anything?"
>If the meat industry is hurting the planet, REGULATE IT.
i'd say "attack it". i don't care to ask people in the seats of power to pwease pwease hewp.
You can’t even get people to oppose livestock subsidies, and you’re talking about proactive blocks? The action you propose has the least chance of success. Individuals with self-control is the only certain action you can count on.
You know who opposes livestock subsidies? Cattle ranchers. You know why? Because they pay for most of them.
A lot of people don't realize what's up with the livestock subsidies, and just treat them as a boogeyman. The biggest monsters are usually the feed subsidy and the LIP. The LIP is just like FEMA for food, and it applies to all farms to prevent disasters cutting off our food supply. The feed subsidy, otoh, is truly a monster. It's mostly funded by a tax levied on farmers when they put their livestock up for wholesale. Think of it as an "origination fee" or a VAT tax. For red tape reasons, virtually all of it goes to providing discounted or free feed to a few large corporations. You know, like Tyson.
Ask any farmer who owns a few cows. Killing the feed subsidy would be a massive windfall for local animal agriculture.
Of course, since they're the ones paying for it, people who discover it's not really hitting their own tax dollars stop complaining about it and that's why it never changes.
>Saving the climate is not going to be done by guilting consumers into changing individual consumption habits.
💯
Vegans love to conflate all meat into one big group because their goal is to make veganism look good in comparison.
In reality, beef is the main problem.
It would be a lot more environmentally effective to convince people to reduce beef consumption and replace it with chicken/pork instead, but vegans aren't interested in that because for them it's not really about the climate - it's about reducing animal suffering and death.
This duplicity muddies the waters and makes getting real actual change that would benefit the climate harder to achieve and less likely to happen.
I would hazard saying "environmentally effective" here unless we are willing to ignore some of the other large environmental issues with meat production outside of just green house gases emission. Plant-based foods are lower not just on GHG emissions, but water usage, land usage, eutrophication, fertilizer usage^1^, etc.
There's all kinds of other pollutants such as Nitrogen runoff. The rise of the pig farming is has helped fueled a crisis in Nitrogen runoff in the Netherlands for instance
There's the high level of antibiotic usage to maintaining the high levels of production fueling antibiotic resistance.
And so on.
If we do want to look at the suffering, we should also note that chicken farming does not just keep things the same, but actually makes it worse with more chickens required than other creatures due to their smaller size.
^1^ Even less synthetic fertilizer even compared to the maximal usage of manure per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528
EDIT: I should also mention that land use change (deforestation) factor can change as you rapidly increase these industries size. Deforestation makes up a large portion of beef's current emissions. Plant-based foods require overall less cropland due to not needing to grow any feed and removing that energy loss. This is not the case for chicken production. Currently beef does make up the majority of Amazonian deforestation, however, the second largest portion is growing animal feed primary for chickens. Switch from beef to chickens and you might risk just moving around where the deforestation comes from
Yes. Sloppy choice of words on my part but this is a climate change topic, here.
Chicken meat uses 4x less water than beef. I'm not disputing your point, just firming up the perspective for anyone lurking.
Clearly, vegetables are way way better. But in terms of what kind of behavior change people are willing to consider, cutting out beef is a way way easier sell than cutting out all meat.
I tell people to try going without beef temporarily. What often happens is in doing so they learn to cook a bit and cut it out (maybe not fully but mostly) long term. Then they go after pork, chicken, etc. You're right that beef is the worst offender, but we want to be careful not to overemphasise and make it seem like its the only offender. I think a lot of it is setting a tone. I'm veg not vegan but pick vegan options when available. I think the more we can normalise 'eat less meat' the better as that's pretty hard to argue with
IMHO, the workable solution is to get people to eat vegetarian once in a while, eat less meat in general (which is even good for one's health, as at least in the West people eat way more meat per-day than recommended) and turn eating beef (and, to a lesser extent, pork) into something that is more unusual than usual.
Reduction and more climate-friendly meat consumption is way easier to sell as an idea to beings who are omnivore (so have a natural desire for the stuff) than full vegetarianism (or, worse, full veganism) and I'm pretty sure some of those people will end up mainly or even totally vegetarian and even vegan, as they get used to and appreciate meat-free meals.
However the Moralists are as usually abusing and distorting a genuine concern to push an absolutist view (as it's anchored above all on a Moral viewpoint on meat consumption, so Environmentalist objectives are at best secondary), damaging the actual Environmentalist outcomes since it's a lot easier to both convince people to slowly rebalance their meat-consumption and have it happen in a safe way for even the less informed than it is to do it with sudden total abstinence.
Exactly. Don't make it a religion, just ask people to give vegetarian food a try until they crave meat. At least that approach worked for me - I could never see myself be a vegetarian. Turned out I am happy with eating meat twice a year.
I mean, if we're looking at the graphs, beef really is the only "offender" (if you can call it that) and only in the current consumed amounts. If people ate a lot more chicken and less beef, the GHG effect from animals would be lower than the same number 500 years ago due to animal population culling and advancements in agricultural methane reduction.
At that point, the term "negligible effect" becomes unreasonably harsh. Even with the worst claims against the effect of livestock on the environment (many of which we might not see eye to eye on), it's simply objectively not an environmental issue if people are eating chicken and some pork as their staple proteins. You can call it an animal rights issue if you want. Considering chicken is almost objectively a correct and healthy food to eat, two thirds of the diet triforce (health, environment, animal rights) become non-issues.
And the cool thing, even if I disagree with the outcomes it's healthier for us to eat a bit less red meat as long as our meat protein intake stays reasonable from white meat and seafood.
What's the impact, if any, of any of these crops/livestock in non-water-short areas? Do other areas thousands of miles away cannibalize excess water if available to prevent draught, or are these numbers sometimes meaningless in the medium-term?
Yes. Sloppy choice of words on my part but this is a climate change topic, here.
Chicken meat uses 4x less water than beef. I'm not disputing your point, just firming up the perspective for anyone lurking.
Clearly, vegetables are way way better. But in terms of what kind of behavior change people are willing to consider, cutting out beef is a way way easier sell than cutting out all meat.
one aspect of this is that many vegans care about the environment and the victims of animal agriculture. Things are so bad for the animals (we kill trillions per year. That's insane.) that people are desperate to do or say anything to get people to stop supporting it.
Clearly not, as, humans being as humans are, merelly getting people to just start having vegetarian meals once in a while, reducing meat consumption (which is even a good thing healthwise) and eating more of the less environmentally harmful meats and less of the worst ones, is a far faster path to reduce the Environmental problem and avoiding the kind of push-back reaction that will put many people altogether against the idea.
The genuine, pragmatic approach to maximizing the Environmental outcomes both on the long- and short-term is the very opposite of how Moralists, driven by their own Moral standpoint and self-righteousness, are abusing broader Environmental concerns to push their morals.
People putting Environmentalism first aren't pushing for absolutist "abide by my Morals" pseudo-"solutions".
Then keep beef. One cow is a hundred meals, one chicken is two. 50 chickens die to save one cow.
And chickens don't give milk
If tofu is still ten times better for the planet than cheese I don't think it's "mostly beef" that's the problem.
Given cheese is a beef-related product I don't see the issue with the reasoning
Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans. Beef is the worst for climate while chickens get the least ethical treatment.
Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change. Non-beef meats still shadow plant-based food in terms of their climate harm.
Your pic was too big for me to download but if it’s the same data I’ve seen, then beef is the worst and lamb is 2nd at about ½ the emissions of beef, and all the meats are substantially more harmful than plant based options.
Honestly this whole argument reminds me of the importance of intersectionality. Yes different groups have different forms, levels and styles of oppression, but there is still a joint cause for dismantling oppression as a whole.
To summarize his infographic. Pork, Chicken, and farmed seafood are better than some plant-based options, and worse than some other plant-based options. The graph seems to leave off some of the famous outliers (like wild-caught seafood).
Unfortunately the graph leaves out a lot of important variables, like the usability of the land (whether growing corn on an acre that can support a forest is better or worse than having pork on an acre that cannot support much plantlife). It also uses global averages, which leaves out situations where many regions may be looking at entirely different calculations.
Coffee and chocolate are not substitutes for animal meat though. If you look at the chart and compare animal proteins to substitutes like tofu, beans, peas, and nuts the plant based options win every time.
You came so close to the answer, and then fell away. Factory farming as a process is what jacks up those numbers dramatically, not the thing that's being farmed. A few large corporations have seized the cattle and chicken industries, so their numbers would be far lower if regulations reversed that horrific trend (with a few caveats regarding methane in cattle, but I'm trying to stick to the topic). Remember how I mentioned "leaves out a lot of important variables"? That's another of them. Nobody cares that Tyson collects a feed subsidy that's paid for by small-scale farmers, or that small-scale farmers' animal products are 100% environmentally sustainable in most countries. There's nothing inherent about animal agriculture that means it NEEDS to be factory-farmed, or that we need to penalize small farmers so we can kick money over to Purdue.
But even in the current graph, poultry, pork, and seafood are in the same realm as most crops and are dramatically more usable calories. Several things that are not on the chart (wild-caught seafood, animals raised with certain processes, the influence of the symbiotic relationship between animals and crops) put most animals comfortably in with plants.
As for beef, that would deserve it's own entire conversation because those numbers misrepresent a lot of the reality. But that's another topic and I'm starting to tire of having 10+ people reply to me every hour on this topic, most of whom are angry at or belittling me (not you, just in general)
Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat, then eco-vegans aren't eco at all (and should admit it to themselves) if they can't embrace that fact. The willful oversimplification of the environmental impacts of meat-eating is a Tell that a given vegan couldn't care less about the environment.
I'm an environmental activist that the vegans try to burn because I'm also an advocate for small aggriculture and local rancher protections. How is that not "dividing an already tiny population"? You should let the eco-vegans join our team for a while, too, if the environmental side matters to you.
You know who the eco-vegans would have marching side-by-side with them if they focused on the environmental impact instead of the animal rights side? BLOODY FREAKING RANCHERS . There'd be 10x the people fighting for the environment. Get us all hugging fluffy bunnies after we save the world. Seems reasonable enough for me.
EDIT: Whoops. Double-post unintended. Just ignore one or both or reply to both or whatever.
First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy. I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.
But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern. Maybe there are some rare fruits that get shipped all over the world. It certainly does not make sense to divide, disempower, and diffuse the vegan movement in order to make exotic fruit/veg X the enemy of climate action in favor of preserving chicken factory-farming. Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:
“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation at the cost of neutering an otherwise strong movement -- or in the very least failed to exploit an important asset we need for climate action. This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.
The wise move is to consider action timing more tactfully. That is, push the simple vegan narrative for all it’s worth to shrink the whole livestock industry (extra emphasis on beef is fine but beyond that complexity works against you). No meat would be entirely eliminated of course (extinction mitigation is part of the cause anyway), but when a certain amount of progress is made only then does it make sense to go on the attack on whatever veg can really be justified as a worthy new top offender. The optimum tactful sequence of attack is not the order that appears on whatever chart you found.
The somewhat simplified take is: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, then beat ’em”. Vegans are united and it’s foolish to disrupt that at this stage.
And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers. This has been linked to diseases. Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics. And indeed, that same political party in the US who fought masks and vaccines happens to be the same group of people who deny climate change.
Good news. Much of the livestock industry is incredibly incentivized to keep livestock stress levels down because it is the cheapest way to include meat quality and (as you say) keep disease down.
Couldn't agree more. Nobody with a brain is trying to deregulate the agricultural industry.
Because its results disagree with your opinion? I'm not sure what constructive can come in any discussion after a line like that.
So evidence that concludes anything other than "everyone has to stop eating meat now" is immediately untrustworthy. Understood.
Let's say someone made the brash presupposition that the only way to show eating meat isn't destroying the environment is cherry-picking corner cases.
I agree with your statement about as much as I agree with Ronald Reagan. Like many Republicans, he was a fan of the tactic of oversimplifying an issue until it was easy enough to pretend to fix it with a trivial solution. Economy? Trickle-down! Anything more than saying "trickle-down" is adding counter-productive completixy to the equation.
The problem here, specifically, is that there are more farmers in the US than vegans in the US. You might have a point in that many farmers are already working towards improving the environment and most vegans tend to have such a shallow view of the issue that you need to reconcile veganism with the environment to get them to help the environment. But in the process you're losing environmentally conscious educated people who are in a position to take action, which most vegans are not.
And here is the problem. You just did it. You just told me I'm not allwoed to be an environmental activist because I support ethical meat-eating. Another guy (well I assume it's someone else) was attacking UC Davis, a reputable college.
Wow. I didn't know chocolate was so bad.
Coffee too
Note as well that if the chocolate comes from:
then the supply chain has child slaves as well.
I came to say that. Not everyone has to change completely, reducing meat intake a little, eating meat with less emissions and even different beef farms haslve large range of emissions. There are different ways of raising beef.
So for sustainability there are multiple solutions.
For promoting veganism and reduce animal suffering only one, which I do support, but don't put them together. It will only pusg people away from any improvement.
Note that there are developments in reducing the methane production of cattle. Supplementing their food with seaweed lets the bacteria in their gut fully digest the grass, breaking the methane to CO2
As it is if you removed the cattle and re-wilded the land they were on, that land would produce as much methane and CO2 as the cows did, as the same bacteria would break down fallen grass, or work in deer guts and no one will feed the wild land and deer seaweed
This is sometimes true, sometimes false. In areas where forests are cut down for cattle, the carbon offset of the forest "just wins".
But in marginal land, the cattle are arguably a net gain in greenhouse gasses over leaving the land untouched
Do you eat beef?
I feel like it's so unfair that there's so many people in the world we need to stop eating our favorite foods. How about reduce the human population instead? Such that we could all sustain an enjoyable existence where we don't have to worry about what we eat...
I'll double down. In reality, beef in Africa, India, and China are the problem (except agriculture isn't a significant enough problem to call "the problem"). In most countries, the climate impact of beef is low for the number of people fed by it.
And even in a full vacuum, plant-based food STILL accounts for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by agriculture/horticulture.
who tf is eating beef in India?
Not nearly as many people as in the US. But between ranching and leaving them in the wild, about 1/3 of all cows in the world are in India. As you might have caught, most of the cows in India are actually used for milk... which is a real problem because the lower tech means they get dramatically less milk per cow than we get in the US. As in, 1/4 as much.
The environmental impact of the Indian cow population is non-trivial, both because of how many cows are not used for food and how inefficient their food processes are with cows. In comparison, the environmental impact of the US cow population is arguably quite trivial. Ditto with the other large beef/milk consumers of the western world like Spain.
But cheese is so good…
I’ve already swapped to oat milk, but cheese…
I used to love cheese and ate a lot of it but after foregoing for a while now I find it revolting. One thing I feel that doesn't get talked about a lot among vegans is that after you break out of the habit of eating something you realise it was never that important.
They haven't succeeded yet. No good fake cheese, no good fake yoghurt, no good fake bacon
We haven't even done the much simpler chemistry of replicating photosynthesis (sunlight and CO2 to sugar)
Eggs and parmigiano reggiano were the last thing I gave up before changing. It took the environment + health + morality arguments to cement it for me.
@Resonosity @flames5123
I didn't eat any eggs for several years. But then I moved close to a farm that has twenty or so free-range Hens. Comparably, I have a much lower CO2 & CH4 footprint than the average British consumer & a far lower footprint than the 1% uber-rich (e.g., I don't fly. I use my bicycle when I can, busses, train and have been living a 100% - 98% vegan lifestyle for about twenty years), I thought frig it, a few free-range eggs now and again is fine (all things considered)
I wouldn't eat anything invented in the last hundred years. Who knows whether oat milk is safe?
I'm allergic to cow dairy, I wouldn't touch plant "milk"
Well, good news for you! Soy milk dates all the way back to 1300’s and almond milk to the 1700’s! However, almond milk is awful for environmental reasons, such as too much land and water use. But oat milk is just water and enzymes. We have enzymes in our body and have utilized them in cooking for centuries (like pineapple tenderizing meat).
But also, you’re using things invented in the last hundred years. You’ve been vaccinated for at least a few things. You’re using the internet. You’ve even eaten sliced bread (1928). Stop being obtuse with the whole “last hundred years” crap.
The majority of corn beans and a lot of grain all go to feeding livestock. You could be a lot more efficient growing the food directly.
Corn isn't very sweet (read energy rich). It's ridiculous to farm it for fuel. There are crops that are good, but they don't grow well in the continental US.
Feed/residual doesn't that include running sheep on harvested fields to eat the stubble and turn it into fertiliser?
I don't think so, since that wouldn't be counted in the bushel yield.
ITT people do all sorts of gymnastics instead of saying "I know but I just don't care enough"
Just be honest with yourself, if the emissions, pollution, land useage, and staggering cruelty don't bother you more than the 15 minutes of pleasure you get from a Burger pleases you just say it.
If it does, and you feel the need to defend yourself because of it just change. I promise you it's less difficult than you think and there are millions of people waiting to help you learn new delicious and nutritious methods of preparing food. Remember basically all vegans were raised carnist and most of us are complete garbage fires (as the internet so loves to point out (-; ) I promise you that you can do it and you won't even really miss meat after a few months.
People want to change nothing and point at corporations or billionaires like their own choices couldn't reduce suffering and emissions.
And some people will point at people individual choices rather than the corporations and states who promoted this lifestyle.
What pisses me the most about ecologists nowadays is how liberals they are. If you want to feel good about yourself, feel free, but don't pretend all people are responsible for climate change by themselves because they're eating meat.
Systems can be broken and incentivise poor behaviour while individual actions also make a difference.
Besides, where will your political change come from? people who wont even change their diet? Just like how all those environmental protections were brought into being by people who criticised the people chaining themselves to trees for thinking individual actions mattered?
The meat industry is terrified of vegans, they spend millions rewriting laws and producing propaganda to limit us. maybe they have reasons why.
One place individual action worked was when people started making a thing of divesting from coal power plants. It worked because the pension funds followed the popular lead. With investors fleeing it is hard for coal power plants to maintain themselves, or to get loans. It shortened many power plants' lives significantly
Where it hasn't worked: recycling
The industry loves vegans. It is an extremely profitable industry because those people are wealthier than average and already fanatised for their products. You're a fool if you think you're fighting the industry. You merely fight one industry for the benefit of another one.
The meat industry is fine. The terrified ones are the stupid conservative. But are they stupid or terrified? They're merely using the vegan propaganda against them.
And oh boy is it easy to do! Vegans are already full fanatics about their ideology. It's a full blown religion at this point : either you are vegan or a heretic causing the end of the world. If you're not vegan, you are personally responsible for the climate change. Isn't this the point of this article?
Conservative have nothing to do to make propaganda against this. Ecologists are as fascists as the fascists themselves, but in a green color.
Well I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for whatever change you're willing into being by tweeting about how nobody should do anything until somebody starts the glorious revolution.
Because the reality is that there's more than two people in the world. Most people are neither vegans nor assholes who don't care enough. There's those of us who think vegans are wrong. It's funny how many environmental scientists are not in support of a world exodus towards veganism and yet my choice are "stop eating meat or admit you just don't care"
How about "having spent my life around cattle farms, I know more than the person talking to me on this topic so they can go fly a kite"? Or "I have cattle specialists with advanced degrees in my family and after long discussion with them, I see all the gaps that these half-ass arguments online are missing"
...no, you're right. We just don't care enough. Oh look, I just found a study that shows that eating vegetables might be bad for the climate. Stop eating vegetables too, or you "just don't care enough"
Ok I'll humour you: what are vegans wrong about?
Land usage?
water usage?
Fertiliser usage?
That animal farms are hubs of disease outbreaks?
Thermodynamics?
Where the Amazon is going?
That killing/branding/doing surgery/forced impregnation etc when you don't have to is wrong?
My one rule on this topic is never getting into a gishgallop. Vegan advocates love to play the roulette of swapping topics every time they lose ground on one, until they manage to win the argument having lost every piece of it by just tiring the other side out. You pick one of those topics, and I will field that topic only with you. It might surprise you, I will agree with you on some of them (like saving the Amazon).
But if you make me choose, I will choose land use because it's a slam-dunk. 2/3 of agriculture uses marginal land that cannot (and I believe should not) be made arable. If resources were spent changing that instead of vegans fighting with farmers, that number could approach 100%. There's important asterisks about that (both crops and livestock become more environmentally friendly if done close to each other due to their symbiotic relationship) that need to be kept up. But reducing livestock population directly WRT marginal land is wasteful.
If you want to discuss this you're going to have to get more specific. What agriculture, where in the world, are feedlots used etc You're obviously excluding aquaculture, and non grazing animals like pigs, I suspect you're also excluding egg production since that is almost monolithically cage farming.
Like you can't really say "oh these pigs are on non arable land" if that merely refers to their physical location and not where their food is grown.
So could you please drill down a bit? what specifically are you referencing?
Which part of this? Marginal land? That's a very specific topic. Why should we bring in 100 different variables unless you can show those variables matter to marginal land.
Or are you sayign there's some prima facie point I'm missing where "nothing but wild animals on marginal land" will produce more sustainable food than "cattle on marginal land"?
Or are you just trying to get me to provide enough information to overspecialize my rebuttal so that your side need only say "ok, everything but that"?
Relax I want to talk this out.
I just need to know where you're pulling that from and how it was calculated. Otherwise we're just going "tis!" "tisn't!" till one of us gets bored.
Like are you referring to cattle farming in Botswana? global stats? all animal ag including fishing in Japan?
I can't discuss a magic number, I have to know how it was derived and under what assumptions. Then we can examine the assumptions and methods of derivation and determine whether or not we agree it to be true and why or why not.
My argument on marginal land is prima facie so far. I picked it because it seems obviously true on the surface, so I can let you provide your points to try to blow it up. I'm referring to the land use problem, which is the often-cited vegan argument that livestock land could be instead used as forests or croplands to sequester carbon.
If you want to contest the 2/3 marginal land number, I'll cite a few references, but it seems an odd number to consider "magic"
He chose gymnastics he just doesn't realise it lmao
Reminder that good is not the enemy of perfect. It is much easier to convince 100 people to eat 10% less meat than to convince 10 people to become vegetarian.
I've started eating vegetarian several days a week and all it's done is introduce me to some amazing tasting food that I haven't tried before because of the dumb stigma that vegetarian means not tasty. I find that I enjoy some of these vegetarian dishes more than it's meat counterpart because it's not ruined by tough overcooked tasteless meat.
Substituting some of your mince for plant based alternatives is something I highly recommend everyone does.
You'll be hard pressed to tell the difference because you still get all the oils and flavours from the meat, and the substitutes have a nearly identical texture. It's a super easy way to reduce your meat intake without changing your food much.
I've been vegan for a week now, shits hard - snacks suck but Oreos are on the menu.
Good job! Snacks do suck, nowadays I usually forego snacks entirely but fruit is always ol reliable for quick and easy.
How do you not snack? What do I do with my hands during my finite spare time?
Futile vegan activism on the internet lmao
Remember to supplement the missing vitamins. I think B12 is the big one, but also about 40% of people can't turn beta carotene into vitamin A (retinol) and need to supplement it. If you run into odd vision problems, try vitamin A - the first sign of a deficiency is night blindness
(Hardly a full diet when one supplement is needed for everyone, and several more for some)
I take a multivitamin just for the hell of it, figure I'll piss out what's not needed and take what is.
It's the specific proteins I'm worried about missing out, though macros weren't a concern when I ate meat so seems silly to care now.
I thought the proteins thing was a myth. If you have a diverse enough diet, you should be fine. Just make sure you’re getting nuts, beans, etc.
All worth it to punch a heart on moon for your SO.
I'm in the process of going vegan. It's taught me how to cook and how to appreciate food more. Veganism is awesome. You should try it.
Massively agree, it's made me get into food science and it's just so cool
Same, meat is just something you don't need in life. The satisfaction I get from a nice delicious meal is no different than it was before I was vegan just now it is better for the environment, my health and animal welfare.
it would be better for the environment and animal welfare of it diminished the effects of the industry. it doesn't. production continues to grow year over year.
Production keeps growing because there is still a demand for meat. The demand for meat isn't coming from vegans btw. ie more vegans less demand, less climate impact.
even with more vegans, we have seen production increase. it's not as simple as you make it sound.
It is
The great thing about meat and dairy consumption is that it is linear; if you eat 50% less you cause 50% less pain. Instead of trying to go full vegan, go half-vegetarian first. The next step can be taken later.
Interactive map
China's world wide illegal fishing operations begs to differ with their blue ranking.
The above map doesn't include fishing, it's showing land use. This shows fishing:
Here is another one about land animals:
OK, well tax everything that harms the environment equally and appropriately, and I'll choose if I want to carry on eating it.
The biggest polluters are
Agriculture (fertiliser, wild rodents, diesel, animals, rotting plants, not including plants wasted by consumers) is only 10%
We're making the best inroads into electricity. It is clearly possible and economical to convert all electrical grids to carbon neutral technology
We're starting to convert residential and commercial to entirely electric (except for the carbon and methane emissions from humans and pets, especially ones that eat beans) so that 13% is solvable
So at the moment 38% of greenhouse gases are easy, just needing political will
Another 23% is harder, industry needs some inventions, especially a green steel making process, and a green concrete making process. Both are years away and probably possible
Transport is hard. 6% is personal transport. That's easy to electrify. Trucking is harder, planes are harder still. I don't know how feasible wind power is for shipping, at least the trade winds blow the right way for Asia to America
The best bet for transport was a green liquid fuel, but the company trying to grow diesel from bacteria folded several years ago.
We are never going to decarbonise agriculture by abandoning any part of it. We can do a bit by practicing permaculture - that keeps more carbon in the ground; we can clean up animal agriculture by not feeding cattle human food, let them eat grass, and there is promising technology for reducing their (and other ruminants') methane emissions by feeding them seaweed
If we waved a wand and removed all farm animals from the world it wouldn't make a dent in carbon emissions or methane, cows would be replaced by deer which also make methane in exactly the same way cows do, but with no one feeding them seaweed
Uneaten grass would rot and be turned into methane (it's the same bacteria that work in cow and deer guts to break down grass). No one's treating rotting grass with seaweed.
Our best bet is to keep the marginal lands occupied by cattle and regulating people running cattle, requiring them to minimise their animals' emissions, or offset them
*Edited to fix typos
It looks like you're citing the EPA estimates for US GHG emissions by sector: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Unfortunately this is only a small part of the overall picture. For instance, it notably doesn't include carbon sinks (areas that have a net reduction of GHG) like protected wild lands. One of the biggest climate issues is deforestation, since it not only produces emissions, but also damages the earth's ability to sequester CO2. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/meat-industry-deforestation-cop26
In fact, if you look at total land use, an alarming percentage of habitable land is being used to produce meat and dairy, accounting for a relatively small percentage of protein and calorie consumption.
You also have to be careful using GHG emissions as your only metric. Animal agriculture is a major contributor to many of the environmental issues we face:
Biodiversity loss and mass extinction attributed to deforestation and use of land for agriculture.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria resulting from overuse of antibiotics to promote livestock growth.
Eutrophication and dead zones from fertilizers used to produce animal feed and runoff from farms.
Zoonotic diseases which very often originate in livestock before jumping to humans: see swine flu, avian flu, etc.
Additionally, the claim that eliminating livestock would result in a 1:1 replacement in wild mammals is patently false. Livestock is farmed intensively, whereas wild animals live in areas that are, again, carbon sinks. Just looking at the numbers, wild mammals are only a tiny fraction of mammalian biomass, with the vast majority being humans and livestock.
Considering the greater picture, the best bet is for those who are able to eliminate their consumption of animal products to do so.
He was actually unfairly charitable be looking at global figures. Unfortunately, the "meat problem" is largely Africa, India, and China. Yes, about 20% of US meat comes from those regions because it is cheaper. But it is entirely sustainable for countries like the US, one of the largest meat consumers, to produce all the meat we consume and stay well within reasonable greenhouse gas footprints.
Your reply to him unfaortunately made the same mistakes his statements did. If you laser-focus at the countries where most vegans are pushing to make changes, it takes bad-faith analysis of figures to see the meat industry as anything but entirely sustainable.
People who want meat-eating to stop have an agenda. People who want to farm meat have an agenda. You have to look through TWO agendas, not just one, to find the real answers.
I'm baffled as to why you would say this after a comment that is literally just objective truths
I answered how I would say that by actually describing my criticisms in some detail.
The problem is only 9% of the beef production and 30% of global sheep and goat production are feed using grazing. The rest so most of them are feed using some form of human edible plants and they would not be replaced by wild animals. Furthermore it is something, which can be easily done today. We would still be able to produce enough food for every human on the planet and it would even be easier, as all the feedstock for animals would no longer be needed. So it really is a nice and easy few percent to get, which pretty much everybody can easily do themself.
https://www.fao.org/3/X5303E/x5303e05.htm#chapter%202:%20livestock%20grazing%20systems%20&%20the%20environment
These two statements exclude the middle. There is grazing. There is feeding animal edible foods. And then there is feeding animals inedible waste. Your same source organization (FAO) points out that 86% of animal feed is inedible by humans. Realistically, a very high percent of that would be destroyed in a landfill or in burning if they were not being fed to animals.
Of the remaining 14% of feed that is edible to humans, they are the worst sorts of calories, empty and non-nutritious carbohydrates. And they are largely fed to the animal intentionally at certain parts of the feeding process (the end) to produce the highest quality of meat. Why? Because it's a waste of money to give animals feed that you could sell to humans if you have no good reason.
Grazing is terrible for the environment and crops are specifically grown as animal feed. It wouldn't be destroyed or burned because it wouldn't be grown at all. Additionally there are plenty of other uses for inedible plant waste other than feeding to animals.
Why do you say this?
Generally speaking, this is untrue. A small number of crops are grown as animal feed, but it's a waste of money to grow human edible crops for a majority of the animal feed cycle. As I said above, 86% of animal feed is inedible to humans, and a majority of the remaining 14% are dead calories.
I guarantee nobody is backing off on growing corn, wheat, rice, or soy right now, even if we suddenly stopped letting anyone eat meat.
Are there? Care to cite which uses exist for feed that are better than the efficient process of using livestock to create some of the objectively highest-quality human-edible calories that exist in nature?
Devastates local ecosystems
It's not untrue food is literally grown to feed animals
Yes but I'm talking about the food grown to feed animals
Biofuel and compost
Nope
Actual nope.
So, you're talking about fiction
Whatever that means.
Lol
I can opt to significantly reduce my impact for no extra money in one of these sectors.
Self reply. I wonder what the climate impact of my compost pile is. Should I add seaweed? I live a long way from the sea, is the pile worse than a 400km round trip (presuming the right weed grows in the nearest bit of sea).
I hope fixing electricity, residential, commercial, transport, and industry is enough. The world could handle the carbon load of the same sort of biomass as we have now before we started burning all the oil
Usually compost is made from stuff that would otherwise be waste. The stuff in your compost would rot and off-gas anyways. I think intentionally composting actually results in less emissions than what would happen naturally or in a landfill. I wouldn't buy stuff just to compost it (I'd just buy compost, which, in my area, is usually made from yard waste collected by local municipalities). If you need a lot of compost you can usually intercept quite a bit of material from the normal waste streams for free. I.e. you can usually get arborists to dump tons of woodchips in your yard, talk to coffee shops to see if they'll give you their spent coffee grounds, etc.
Meat, fish from overfished oceans, plantations from pesticides and deforestation.
Guess ill starve
I get that tons of folks just don't want to stop eating meat. I'm the same. I cut out red meat because it's very much the worst offender. It was much easier than I thought to do, and I can't say I miss it or even really think about it aside from months like this.
Give it a shot. Nothing to lose except a little weight maybe.
Have you ever mathed out your actual carbon footprint, or exactly how your carbon footprint changed by cutting out red meat? Do you even know where your meat comes from to figure out if it's environmentally friendly beef or unfriendly? You might be surprised either that you did more than you think to help.... or absolutely nothing.
Do you drive an electric car and charge it on solar or wind? Or an ICE car and run it on alcohol?
Personal transport is about the same as red meat emissions-wise. Red meat is getting better though, because farm animals are in the control of farmers (unlike wild animals that might replace them) the farmers can try different things to reduce the cow's emissions. So far they have had success, with fairly light public pressure the good practices will spread.
Now replace the cows with wild deer. Try to fix their methane emissions. All ruminants make methane in their fore gut.
Incidentally I lost the most weight on a very low carb diet. Lower carb, better weight loss (and weight gain – muscle). You can go low carb as a vegan, but not very.
It comes across like you're implying that if someone doesn't drive a more eco friendly car, then making other eco friendly decisions is wasted.
People love to imply a zero sum game if it provides copium. It is what it is.
No, I think he's implying that he thinks people are doing things that DON'T help to feel good while failing to make changes that DO help.
Gasoline isn't getting more environmentally friendly, but meat in many areas is already fairly environmentally friendly, and constantly improving.
Not sure what point you're even trying to make...
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".
Yeah, vegetables and legumes and grains. Horrible, horrible. Woe is you.
🙄
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.
The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:
...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.
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
No. Whataboutism doesn't change the facts. On that, we can agree.
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?
The wildly ineffecient ineffecient industry has long been supported by goverment subsides.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them. Their numbers are this high because they are treated as a commodity.
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:
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
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.
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.
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?
bad for climate change? good! i hate climate change!
well bad in the way that it makes climate change worse... not that it's detrimental to entity of climate change...
I think the comment was a joke lol
correct
oh bother! i was thinking it was finally some good news.
really it would be bad news because then we'd be obligated to eat more meat...
Look at how much impact that first thing has, y'all. If you convince one person not to have another child that has the same impact as convincing sixty people to go plant based.
Fighting for reproductive rights is one of the most impactful things you can do for the climate.
Save the Earth, have an abortion.
Very true but these are separate things and both can be done.
Or convince 2-3 people to give up meat. If they each convince 2-3 people who each convince 2-3 people who… ok, I’ll stop…. But the point stands. They don’t even need to stop, just reduce their meat consumption.
Right so just convince literally everyone to go vegan. Sure.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said /s
More people is more minds working on solutions.
So is "Return To Office" but the U.S. government hasn't made a peep about that.
Greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture has been well known for quite a while, though not as long as Fossil Fuels.
From this very article you can see it's the United Arab Emirates pushing hard for the Agriculture-angle on their COP - it's almost as if they have a vested in interest in moving the focus away from Fossil Fuels.
One has to wonder just how many years' worth of cow farts add up to the same greenhouse effect (over the long term, as methane is a stronger greenhouse gas but has a far lower half-life in the athmosphere than CO2) as more than 100k people flying over to COP28 (kudos to the genuine Environmentalists, who went by boat) or just a couple of hours of private-jet flight emissions.
Then there are all the moralists who are trying to use Climate Change as an angle to push their morals on others when it comes to using animals as food: the very same people who are usually (in my personal experience) unwilling to forego having a car or two and driving rather than cycling (from my observation, their "environmentalism" stops at chosing an electric car, which still polutes - micro-particles from tires, electricity generation emissions, manufacturing and end-of-life emissions - a lot more that my own personal choice of more than a decade of selling my car and walking and cycling instead) will blow out of all proportion the propagandist messaging put out by fossil-fuel fatcats and elites protecting their priviledge, distorting the reality and proportion of what is a genuine concern, because it helps force their own morals on others.
Changes in Agricultural practies - including reduction of meat consumptiom at the consumer level - are indeed things that need to be looked at, all of which is hard to do seriously and in a proper and proportionate way due to the subversion around the subject from an unholly alliance of people with a self-interest in pushing this angle: moralists, elites who want to keep their priviledges and fossil-fuel fatcats keep poluting the subject and destroying any chance at a serious, well-ballanced and proportionate approach at reballancing Agricultural emissions, because none of those actors have a genuine environmentalist objective.
It’s funny how you criticize one group for moralizing and then do the same thing about cars.
The fact is, people emphasize the things that affect them the least. Vegans and vegetarians will tell you animal agriculture is the biggest issue. Those that don’t like driving/cyclists will tell you cars are the problem. Anti-capitalist will point the finger at corporations. Anti-consumerists will point the finger at people buying stuff. People that’s don’t like to travel will point at aviation. I’ll gladly point out that studies show the largest individual climate action is having one fewer child, but I admit it appeals to me because I don’t want children.
I really feel climate will never be solved because no one will make uncomfortable drastic changes.
I think you've got it backwards. I'm an anti capitalist (at least partially) BECAUSE of the damage capitalism is doing to the environment. I don't drive a car BECAUSE of the damage it does to the environment. I avoid planes and ordering stuff from China because of the impact etc etc. My agenda IS climate change. And I eat meat. I eat meat because animal agriculture won't make enough difference to the climate, and because I like to eat meat.
Making those other changes is highly uncomfortable, every single day.
Thank god I'm not the only one. But then, I think there's more of us than people want to admit.
My local farm gives crop waste and fallow hay to my local ranch, who feeds it to cows and gives the manure to my local farm. When there was an illness and cow population needed to be culled, they burned the crop waste instead. But consistently I'm told I don't get to stay on the eco team because I eat meat and apparently burning corn is better than eating poor cute Bessie.
There's a lot of environmental protection degree-holders in my area thanks to several local colleges. There's also a lot of vegans. They're different people.
I would love for you to explain how cars by themselves, ex their polution, are a moral subject.
Is there some kind of "cars suffer" angle? Or is it about the "pain of roads"?
Yeah, Environmentalism can be a form of Moralism, in turn meaning that anything that polutes - cars, planes, factories - is by extention looked at in a moralist way, but there is no such thing as a belive in the inherent badness of using four wheeled vehicles.
Your entire "argument" starts with a massive False Equivalence and then goes on into a massive display of Projection - just because your "Environmentalism" is secondary to your convenience doesn't mean that everybody else's is - and missing the point - the problem never was vegans and vegetarians who are also Environamentalists, the problem is vegans and vegetarians willing to sacrifice positive Environmentalist outcomes to their need to preach their moral standpoint on meat-eating and even force others to obbey their morals on that, and hence they are not genuine Environmentalists (their hypocrisy often noticeable by their actual anti-Environmental choices in domains other than meat-eating).
If that is so hard to understand, imagine two types of Christians who claim to be Environmentalists: the first talk about Environmentalism by itself and evaluate ways to improve the Environment on their own merits, the others go on and on about how the Almighty created the Universe and how you should read the Bible and join the other "Followers of Our Lord Jesus" in "Protecting God's Creation".
It's pretty obvious that the second group are not genuine Environamentalists and are just leveraging Environmentalist concerns to preach their Morals to others and in doing so are even turning people away from Environamentalism.
However as I try to make clear in my alegory with the first group, it's perfectly possible to genuinelly be both, and people who are don't sacrifice Environmentalism to their need to preach their other Moral Beliefs.
There are people who oppose cars on moral grounds - they make cities noisy, they pollute, they kill people
Oh, wait, that's rational grounds.
So confident in your moral superiority. Guess what, you still pollute. And while I am definitely a meat eater, you have to be damn blind to not recognize that issues with animal agriculture goes beyond a mere moral issue. Heck, you even started your post with "Greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture has been well known for quite a while."
Cars are transportation, and used to get to work and perform necessary errands. Not everyone can bike or walk long distances. Would you force some people to be homebound, unable to support themselves?
By not having children, my wife and I save 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent, compared to living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year)..
I suggest you re-read my previous post.
My point can be sumarized by: don't let a need to preach your Morals on non-Environmental sides put aside more effective paths for better Environmental outcomes in favour of those paths which mainly serve your other Morals.
My personal standpoint on this specific subject is that we should be convincing people to eat less meat and aim for less enviromentally damaging meat (more poultry, less beef), and even try eating fully vegetarian meals once in a while, which IMHO is way more likelly to improve things Environmentally that trying to force people to switch to a "Meat Free" diet.
Pushing for the full "Meat Free" through legislation won't yield better Environmental outcomes, it will just generate lots of opposition, whilst an education "Eat less Meat" message will be much more broadly accepted and at the very least influence people away from damaging the Environment as much in this way.
imagine being concerned about the environment and still eating meat.
It encapsulated the whole human problem.
This attitude is why meat eaters will tell you to shut the fuck up when you bring up the subject. Your statement is reductive, dismissive, and pretentious to the point that you would be more convincing by not saying anything at all.
the article seems to imply that eating meat is harmful to the environment. you can make your own conclusions.
I'm sure you only eat meat from your uncles farm where the animals are treated like his family.
It does say that but if you can't add some additional context or express it in a way that will be better received by others then you're making things worse by being an elitist prick about it. No one wants to team up with that guy. However, if stroking your ego is more important to you than solving the actual problem then by all means, carry on.
did the nasty vegan say something horrible to you? maybe just shove more bacon into your mouth while the world burns.
You don't know anything about how I live my life and I don't know much about you but I do know that if you're anything like this to people in real life then most fucking hate listening to you talk. You latched on to one thing you were probably already doing for other reasons and are now acting like the savior of the planet over it despite the fact that even being in a position to respond to my messages puts your carbon footprint in the top 80% globally. Abstaining from meat isn't going to save the world, which is something you would know if you actually cared about the environment beyond the issue's ability to let you virtue signal at strangers on the internet, but it's probably hard to see much of anything from so far up your own ass. Oh well, I'm sure that smugness will sustain you when the power shuts off and the grocery stores are empty.
we could power the planet with your cognitive dissonance. the article is right there. but you wanna talk about my personality and how your feelings are making you cry a little bit.
poor didums.
Whats wrong with what they said? Eating meat is disproportionately more environmentally damaging than a plant based diet. Going vegan absolutely has a positive environmental impact so if you do want to help, go vegan. The fault is absolutely not on them if people read it and get annoyed because they don't actually want to make a sacrifice they just want things to get better without any personal change on their part.
The article did a decent job of explaining that fact without giving off a holier-than-thou, savior complex vibe. Surely you can see why that is a better approach than shaming people, especially when it's so easy to point out other ways in which a vegan might have a larger than necessary carbon footprint. The person I responded to is only interested in being smug, not educating people or genuine change. That's not environmentalism it's just a prime example of virtue signaling.
Bro go back and read the guys comment and tell me it's that deep.
^ likely said while sitting on disposable furniture made it China.
Meat is a problem, but there are a lot of contributing factors. Shaming people doesn't help them hear you.
meat is a problem.
Ok. Solve it without making the problem worse.
Remember you can't grow crops on the land we run most cattle on, it's marginal or steep.
If we remove cows from the marginal land, and sheep from the steep land deer and goats move in
Deer and goats are ruminants like sheep and cows. They will have the same emissions
Presumably we won't be farming the land, it'll be national parks or similar
So with cows and sheep we have a chance of improving their emissions, because we can inoculate them with specific methane eating bacteria, we can feed them supplements that let the existing bacteria crack methane.
With wild animals it's hard to do anything.
stop feeding crops to animals for low calorific returns.
stop deforesting the rainforest for soy products to feed cattle.
reduce the demand for meat and reduce the production thus reduce the methane.
or just pretend that you can't do anything about the problem.
if you can't even change what you eat for breakfast what hope do we have in changing society and avoiding a potential catastrophy?
Non-argument it makes sense to be conscientious of the elusive"disposable Chinese furniture" as well as what you eat if you care about the environment
Because eating meat and farming meat aren't the same thing and the problem isn't from eating it. I could stop eating meat today and it won't make a lick of difference. Everyone would have to stop at the same time to make raising the animals no longer profitable. And getting everyone everywhere to agree to anything is fucking impossible.
Instead of giving shit to people who eat meat, attack the fucking industry that raises the animals and has all the fucking power.
I say give shit to people who eat meat and go after big agriculture because you can do both those things actually
that's why I don't bother boycotting the slave trade. because I don't understand supply and demand.
I can't say I have come in contact with a slave trade. Never seen a slave market outside the cinema
but if there was one you would not boycott it I presume. as the people are already enslaved.
Worse than that. We could ban beef, have all the cows killed and the farms turned to national parks, but then deer would replace them and have exactly the same emissions
Yeah, the deers living alone in the national parks, without trees or plants or any other biodiversity
Cattle where I live aren't on bare fields. Driving across three states over Christmas break out was wonderful moving out of wheat, barley, and hay growing areas to cattle and sheep raising areas.
It went from fields of monoculture, to fields with various grasses, trees, shrubs
It was fun trying to pick whether a distant field was spotted with sheep or shrubs (it was a long drive)
It was usually both. Sheep are remarkably well camouflaged in a fairly natural grasslands
The cows were usually resting in the shade of a tree, though one field the cows were lined up feeding on the grass in the straight shadow of the tower for a wind turbine
Grazing is terrible for local ecosystems and does harm the environment more than native populations of animals do. One of the reasons why is because humans ensure that a grazing herd faces as little predation as possible as well as providing cattle with care that native animals do not have
that's true. wild animals are.known to live in very dense populations.
they are all hopped up on antibiotics in the wild
If eating meat is wrong and I should be punished for it, bury me with a few sides of beef because all the open flames in hell should be perfect for grilling.
Who brags about having a large impact on climate change lol
It’s more accurate to say that I reject that commenter’s asinine notion that eating meat and being concerned about the environment are mutually exclusive, when there are plenty of sources that aren’t entirely in the corporate machine. Most of my meat comes from the local Maui Cattle Company, which is all grassfed on our hillsides and processed locally. The last few chickens I’ve had were also raised by neighbors, then hand plucked and cooked the same day. This does happen in the world, just some of you need a reminder.
edit: further, this island is overrun with invasive axis deer that need frequent culling so they don’t decimate fields of crops, so venison is a regular thing here if you know hunters willing to share, and vegans/vegetarians should be happy we’re helping to save the veggies.
They kinda are mutually exclusive? Weird how everyone gets their meat locally when climate comes into the discussion, yet 99.99% of the meat we eat isn’t actually local.
People on lemmy are more likely to be left wing. More likely than average to be vegan.
Can't you believe that a meat eater might be at the ethical end of meat eaters? I eat local, I care about food miles, permaculture, grass fed beef and lamb.
That's what your argument sounds like.
I’m on an island with ranches taking up most of the mountain grasslands. Most don’t import cattle. The deer have nowhere to migrate to. Think harder.
“Think harder”
Yup… that
Hey, I can’t speak for everyone here, but I’m eating locally sourced meat raised on an isolated island, and you chose to question that, as if you actually have any idea what goes on here.
edit: we also locally source invasive pigs that otherwise would be tearing up the landscape. And there’s a population of people that love going after the invasive feral chickens.
I’m eating bacon right now.
Congrats?
Thank you!
I'm putting my money on microplastic/steroids/antibiotics infested meat just destroying the bodies of those who eat it.
You, person who eats red meat! Never get a colonoscopy, it's gay!
" 'The Pentagon is a larger polluter than 140 countries combined’ — Speaker Pelosi and U.S. delegates at COP26 responded to a question on how the military contributes to the climate crisis." Please stop blaming your neighbor for eating food. Divide and conquer is the oldest strategy there is. Stop falling for it...
Agriculture accounts for 20% of the global emissions. Meat is the vast majority of that. It's not divide and conquer, it is a reality (and the military contributes a lot to that as well, as they very much promote meat consumption).
In what country? In the US it's 10%
I know climate change is real, but I hope you know that the ruling elite of WEF, will spin this so you cut your emission while they continue their private jet setting lives. While "You will eat ze bugz" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TaSZ_DDQjcM
make your own meat then
Eating human is frowned upon
Jinx!
Cannibalism is illegal pretty much everywhere
i wasn't talking about cannibalism
I guessed, but it was more fun to pretend you were
Huh.
Obvious solution is to start hunting if you want to eat meat. Anyone want to go on a pig hunt with me in east Texas, or southern Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, or northern Florida? I can supply guns/ammo, you supply the land to hunt? (Might also need nods or thermal, depending on the area.) I figure about two feral hogs would be enough for a year, give or take. I'm not interested in deer hunting; lots of people do that, and deer were extinct for a few years in my state due to over-hunting, and had to be re-introduced. Also, I don't want to use dogs; hogs fuck dogs up pretty badly
So is taylor swift flying around the world on her jet every day.
Oh well such is life.
Repeat a lie a thousand times, and it becomes the truth. A hundred scientists came together in disapproval of Einstein. His response was, something along the lines of. - why a hundred scientists? If I was wrong, all it would take is one.
Eating meat isn't doing shit. It's the raising of the animals to be eaten that's fucking shit up.
Edit: To those who disagree: if we stopped raising cattle do you think that would stop hunting wild animals for food? Do you think hunting and trapping is harming the environment more than thousands of acres of animals causing soil erosion and belching greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and requiring millions of gallons of water? You can eat meat without ever contributing to the meat industry.
Yeah so we should stop raising animals for meat and start getting people to go vegan?
Eating meat financially supports the raising of those animals, that was originally why I went vegetarian.
Edit: Before I get flamed, I agree with you. It's the industry not the consumer who needs to change. I decided to stop being part of the system for my own sake (and with the vague hope of putting some financial pressure on the industry).
On hunting, I'm conflicted. While yes it would be better in general, there's of course the risk of over hunting and the like. Here in Australia we have the opposite problem and have to constantly cull kangaroos to protect the environment, the meat is then available in supermarkets (it's also significantly healthier than beef, and IMO has a better taste).
those people are paid long before you walk into the store or restaurant
Sure, but I meant the demand more than anything. I know I individually won't have a noticeable effect but reducing demand will. It will take significant collective action, but it's pretty much the only option we have in the current system.
I'm sick of just accepting how things are, so I decided to stop participating, better than nothing.
In favour of hunting: the animals get a life in the wild, making methane and CO2 at the rates of mass they grow
In favour of farming: the animals are in a farmer's control, they grow bigger, give milk, have fewer parasites so you can eat the meat rare, and they can be treated to reduce their methane production
If enough people stop eating meat for a beef farm to collapse and the land to be let go wild that will turn the grass over to wild deer that will have exactly the same emissions as the cows had, but with no chance of treating them to reduce their methane
Except we won't be growing insane amounts of crops to feed them all. And I'm really not sure that what you've said is really true, unless you've got something that can back it up.
Will their population increase to replace the population of cows? A quick google suggests that before the US was settled methane from wild ruminants was around 70% of what beef in the US is now, and that number will certainly be much lower even without cattle farms. (I didn't provide that source because I don't trust it and I'm not going to do a ton of research because it's your claim, I would legitimately love to read any proper studies you have read though). Even then, that's just the US, not every country will have an effect like that. Stopping cattle farms here won't cause an increase in populations of much of anything that could cause methane production. Not to mention a lot of that land could be restored to forest in many parts of the world which is going to help with sequestration of CO2, and hopefully restore a ton of biodiversity making the environment more resilient.
I don't think we should hunt for food regardless, but that's just my opinion. I really don't see how the relatively smaller population increase is going to somehow offset the massive reductions from stopping beef farming. Especially if you consider the environmental impact (by which I mean land and water pollution) of growing all that extra feed crop.
And I didn't even consider factory farming where insane numbers of animals are crammed into tiny spaces, which apparently is almost all of US livestock :|
https://medium.com/collapsenews/un-report-factory-farming-accounts-for-37-of-methane-emissions-b31753f103c7
The hunted animals are not in our control. Most of the large hunted animals (eg deer) are ruminants like cows. Deer belch methane just like cows.
Cows taste better than deer, of we're going to have methane belching animals I'd prefer they were cows
Also farmed animals can be treated to prevent their belching methane. No one's working on deer methane
say it again for the people in the back
Agricultural run off is the main polluter of US waterways. It does include the meat industry, but switching to an all vegetarian diet would ramp up the pollutants caused by fruit and vegi farming.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/ag_runoff_fact_sheet.pdf
This is technically true, but rather misleading.
Meat animals eat plants. By not eating meat, you don't need to grow the plants to feed to the animals. Animals aren't perfectly efficient. To grow 100 calories of chicken breast takes way, way more than 100 calories of corn.
In fact, more land is used to grow feed crops than to grow crops directly eaten by people, even though most calories in our diet are from plants. And that's not not counting pasture and rangeland, which makes up an absolutely absurd amount of the US.
So yes: you'll increase the amount of runoff from chickpea and lentil fields, but you'll more than make up for that from much larger decreased runoff from soy and corn fields.
>more land is used to grow feed crops than to grow crops directly eaten by people,
citation needed
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ is where I first saw that number, though it's paywalled now unfortunately.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed says
https://web.archive.org/web/20240108235444/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
you will forgive me if I don't take your word for it
>Most cropland is used for livestock feed, exports or is left idle to let the land recover.
this is pretty ambiguous syntax.
it does not plainly say what you claimed
Look at the numbers on the map behind the text.
77.3 m acres of crops eaten directly by people.
127.4 m acres of feed crops. 52 m acres fallow.
The feed crops alone dwarf what's eaten by people. Both feed and fallow is over double the number of acres of crops eaten by Americans.
this assumes that none of the exports are eaten directly.
if this is the best you have, you are basing a pretty heavy claim on a pretty thin interpretation. maybe you can find a better source, but I doubt it. I think you will find that people eat 2/3 of global crop calories. the method of excluding exports from food-uses and including them with animal feed seems sloppy at best, but possibly dishonest.
Sure - if you assume that fewer than 17.1 m acres of the 62.8 m acre category of "other grain and feed exports" (i.e. less than 27% of it) are animal feed, and none of the wheat exports end up in feed, then the total acreage of food eaten by someone and food eaten by animals are equal.
That seems pretty unlikely, though.
Global numbers aren't great, because diets are really different in different countries. The meat eaten by the average American dwarfs the amount of meat eaten by the average Latvian or Peruvian person.
Oh wow, I thought your original comment was a joke lol. Regardless of what Charlie Kirk told you, a lot of land used for animal feed could be repurposed to grow food for humans.
I’m not super serious. I mean we are talking hypotheticals either way. The world/USA is never going to be full vegan. At least not in our lifetimes, and we have to feed too many people. So, things will continue just as they are.
If I was being serious I would have also mentioned the water crisis in our agricultural areas in the US on top of the contamination. That way I could really drive home just how unsustainable our situation is. I know that livestock uses more water by the way, but it’s super unsustainable as it is. I doubt that just cutting out meat would be enough to save the lack of water situation.
It’s a multifaceted, and complicated issue. One that if we’re being serious I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know all the ins and outs of. I’m also smart enough to know that you don’t either. Seeing as this issue isn’t our job and both of us are woefully inadequate to look at the situation from every angle. I was simply trying to look at some angles that perhaps you hadn’t.
I think that explains how serious I was with my comments. Which is to say I am not, and neither are you.
Also, did you know that 20% of US crops are alfalfa for export? I’ll let you figure out why that’s important. After all you made me look up Charlie Kirk.
Again…. Current land use does not dictate future land use.
And I’m not seeing anything about 1/5th of US crop exports being alfalfa
That article says 20% of alfalfa is exported
That's why we should start talking about going vegan, get the change happening as early as possible
But I get significantly more nutrients from chicken than corn.
Yes, nutritionally speaking chicken feed isn't the best substitute for chicken.
A good vegan equivalent to chicken vindaloo on rice isn't corn vindaloo on rice. It's chickpea vindaloo on rice.
A good vegan substitution for chicken tacos isn't a corn taco. It's black bean tacos.
Yes, beans are a little lower in protein than chicken. No, that doesn't really matter ,reasonable vegan diets will have adequate protein. And there's a reason legumes and a grain are a staple in many cultures - black beans and corn, lentil soup with bread, tofu and rice - it's tasty, nutritionally sound and an efficient use of cropland.
Well, now I want black bean tacos...
I will take your notes. Can we simply reduce the meat intake coverall instead of eliminating it? I think a balance or moderation is good. We are naturally omnivores after all.
Yes.
There's assorted waste byproducts that aren't good eats but can be fed to animals - for example, spent brewery grain or sugar beet pulp. Some number of chickens and pigs can be raised sustainably. Not very many,
but some.
Some number of deer can be hunted sustainably. Likewise with wild boar.
100 people doing meatless Monday is the same as 14 people going vegan. And 100 flexitarians who eat meat on average one day a week are worth 85 people going vegan. Any amount of reducing meat intake is better than nothing.
Holy hell, people consume that much meat? I feel like I don't really eat meat often. I do love bird, but I'm pretty sure I have meatless Monday most Mondays haha.
There were studies that "proved" vaccines caused autism, take your psuedoscience and shove it.
One study. Only one. Compared to study after study after study coming to the same conclusion: Meat is bad for the environment.
Those studies are ages ago and terribly executed. And researchers have learned from that and since upped research standards. But I guess it's easier to be in denial and ignore it.
Do you just not know how to interpret information?
The biggest deterrent for me ever switching to being a vegetarian/vegan is…
Well, vegans.
If they weren’t so god-awful arrogant, I’d consider it, but I would never want anyone to associate me with that type of behavior. And there’s been several times where I was prepared to make the switch. In the end, the consideration of of being linked to such a hateful culture was just too much.
I’d imagine a lot of people feel the same way about Christianity- and if I were more clever then I am, if probable be able to spot the irony in this.
Steak is already on the menu tonight.
I tried to get the lemmy.world carnivore subreddit working, but there are five militant vegans for every carnivore on lemmy and in that sub. You could downvote troll here just by playing the meat eater
They're hardly touching your total karma though :)
Ha! You mean you started a carnivore community and kept getting brigaded by vegans? Funny if true since they always complain about meat eaters invading their safe spaces, as of they don’t disturb me in person about it while I’m trying to eat. It’s one of the most consistent double standards I’ve ever encountered.
Thanks for the note about the karma. I generally have vote counts turned off and don’t pay attention to that, but it’s good to know I’m not in the negative.
No, had I started it, I could have moderated it. I found it already created and tried to bring life, but there are so few zerocarb/carnivore people here and so many religiously vegan
Meat eaters probably not willing to subject themselves to the abuse. Totally understandable. We have our population of militant vegans here who can be way over the top, and I’ve commented throughout the years that I feel like we need a “meat eaters anonymous” support group to balance it out. Now I just point out what I said above about how if it weren’t for us, their own vegetables supply would suffer. At least here that makes them chill out a bit because they know it’s true from local farmers complaining about it.
I'm considering starting a "zerocarb" community, but that is an old name that has little brand recognition anymore.
Still the best places for carnivore support are on Reddit. r/ zerocarb, carnivore, ketoscience, meatogains
They don't seem to have lost many people to the exodus
Also I'm happy to cop downvotes. It helps me learn to craft my comments so they're less downvotable
Any that do not say it's bad since most of the carbon is part of the earth's existing carbon cycle?
The organic stuff itself, maybe. But there's a lot of carbon involved in driving tractors and transport. All of which is vastly reduced by eating 1 plant instead of growing 10 plants to grow one steak.
Don't the largest most polluting machines work on the plant farms?
I'm talking grass fed animals. I agree with you that we shouldn't have grain fed cattle
Animals it's light trucks and tractors up feed the animals during winter or drought, then transport to market, eventually to the consumer.
Plants it's fertilising machines, crop dusting planes, massive harvesting machines then usually through factories eventually to the consumer. If you eat while foods only and nothing manufactured then it's massive harvesting machines then to market to the consumer
Yes. That's what I am referring to. Where are those studies?
I'm less concerned about tractors and transport, those are a matter of replacing with green alternatives.
The truth seems to be that the best choice is somewhere in the middle. Less meat, more vegetables. Attempts to zero out meat requires higher carbon input else where.
But if you're a vegetarian that mostly eats at restaurants, you've cancel out the benefits against someone who eats meat once a day, from a local farmer and prepares all their meals at home.
They're really pretty easy to find. But it's just basic physics. A cow doesn't eat to turn food into meat, it eats to stay alive. The business of living (and not in the least, that means farting lots of methane) consumes 90% of the food, only 10% is turned into meat. This varies a lot of course, depending on species and feeding regime.
The cow is part of the existing carbon cycle. The cow is not digging up buried carbon and releasing it. That's mostly us.
The focus needs to be on carbon input from these buried sources. Plants also release methane but for emotional reasons this is ok because pro-vegans accept this is coming from the existing carbon cycle. The methane from the cows is no different.
Vegans love this topic because it makes them feel they are helping more than others. It's all emotion. All of it. This comment section is oozing with this raw emotion.
Fuck this is tiring.
These aren't new studies.
I've already read them and many more.
The source site has a stated goal of proving factory farming is bad for the environment. It has an agenda that nearly lines up with every in these comments who is downvoting me.
This is not science.
Me pointing out the emotions in others response is not an emotional reaction, it's an observation.
This fact that you are confused by this tells me how emotionally invested you are in this topic.
This simply isn't how science works.
This is how religious devotion operates.
you're doing great, sweetie
I'm afraid that's a bit too simplistic. I'll name a few reasons to give a hint why.
For example, both carbon dioxide and methane are "part of the earth's carbon cycle", but both have different climate impacts. Ruminants transform one into the other; from bad to worse.
Another person pointed out how meat production also involves burning fossil fuels, for example for transport. Or synthetic fertilizers.
Yet another reason is land use change. Meat production, being inherently less efficient due to more intermediate steps (see trophic levels), uses more land for the same amount of nutritions compared to plant based agriculture. This translates to more deforestation, more dried up wetlands, more desertification, and more stress on other species.
Finally, scale and speed make a difference. It's true that both carbon dioxide and methane are part of Earth's existing carbon cycle. Yet, the scale and speed at which we emit those is unprecedented.
But natural ruminants like deer would take up places cows were removed from. They will have the same emissions as cows per unit biomass
Says who, got any source on that? Do we have any evidence for both assumptions, specifically the second?
As far as I know, natural herds of ruminants can actually help keep carbon in the ground. The natural population density is also much lower compared to modern factory farms.
I don't know what you're on, but it's impolite not to share. You should also read these studies so you don't say stupid shit like this.
It would be easier to take this seriously if any one that questioned it wasn't bombarded with personal attacks like yours.
This tells me you have made an emotional decision that you have backfilled with science and can therefore be ignored.
I don't need to cater to you, you're in a community designed to inform people about real climate science and spread knowledge about climate change. You're talking total nonsense edging on the border of misinformation, which doesn't deserve a serious response.
You don't need to be an asshole either and yet you were anyway.
You feel my questions are nonsense. I feel that means you aren't interested in debating the science.
You feel you know the truth and anyone that doesn't accept your truth is beneath you. That will not convince anyone.
This isn't science it's an agenda. I am sorry you cannot understand the difference but the responses and downvotes I am receiving illustrate this clearly.
It's just common sense that eating a plant is more efficient than growing many, many plants in order to feed an animal that is then eaten.
That said, I'm not willing to make that much of a personal sacrifice to push a boulder the size of Texas less than an inch. If we really want to make a difference, we need systemic change.
I'd absolutely support a 100% tax on meat. It'd be easier for us all to change if we did it together.
It's not on the table because it'd be wildly unpopular, and anyone who proposed it would never get reelected.
Can't say I know how to fix that, but that's what I'd rather work on.
You are adding the emotions to my comments. I don't give a fuck if you choose not to eat meat, you on the other hand have a problem with my choice.
The fact that the article has an agenda does not require me to rigorously dismantle every part of it. The agenda automatically disqualifies the science.
The argument you're using is the same one that religious people use where they demand atheists disprove the existence of god and claim atheism is a religion.
NO, not muh life style choices. How come things I do are bad for the planet!?
Bad for the planet? The planet is fine. Our way of life is fucked. But the planet will happily move on without us.
Do you know how many species go extinct everyday? The planet may survive, but it could end up as a barren rock
Show me a serious scientific model that indicates that is a possibility.
Arsenic is part of the earth's existing arsenic cycle. Try injecting it.
That's some serious smooth brain logic.
Yes… it is. Good job playing yourself bud
Are you a child? Me calling someone else's hysterics smooth brain makes me lose an argument? This level of childish attitude only causes people to tune out and ignore the problem. Its only purpose is to make you feel superior.
Oh, you’re just trolling. Nobody is that oblivious lol
Funny how trolls always call me the troll. You've added nothing to the discussion but angry noises.
denial
47 negative karma for calmly arguing with a good point. This place is hopeless. This isn't rationality, it's religion