Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oil companies? Car companies? No, I am speaking of animal agriculture, of course.

Animal agriculture causes 51% of our contribution to AGW. That is an outright majority, yet it rarely gets any mention.

In 2006, FAO estimated that grazing occupied an area equivalent to 26 per cent of the ice- free terrestrial surface of the planet, while 33 per cent of total arable land was dedicated to feedcrop production – maize and soybean in particular. Thus, livestock production accounted for 70 per cent of all agricultural land and 30 per cent of the land surface of the planet,15 and the expansion of pastures and feed crops is a major source of deforestation, especially in Latin America. The FAO study estimated that the livestock sector was responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent – a larger share than transport. Once livestock respiration and the loss of greenhouse gas reductions from photosynthesis that are foregone by using large areas of land for grazing or feedcrops are taken into account, livestock is found to be responsible for 51 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, so that a 25 per cent reduction in livestock products worldwide between 2009 and 2017 could result in a 12.5 per cent reduction in global atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions.16 The precise figures remain debated, but there is no doubt in the scientific community that the impacts of livestock production are massive.

Linky.

We don't have to radically transform our infrastructure and city planning or develop any new technologies or turn to a hippy stone age lifestyle or cull the number of humans. Just stop using animals for production of goods.

Yet we are not doing that:

The researchers were in the vanguard of food scientists, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming.

Some climate-change activists dismiss the work, which is just getting underway, as a distraction and a concession to industrial-style agriculture, which they blame for compounding the world's environmental problems. Those leading the experiments, however, say new, heat-resistant breeds of farm animals will be essential to feeding the world as climate change takes hold.

The experiments reflect a continued shift in the federal government's response to climate change. With efforts to reduce carbon emissions lagging behind what most scientists believe will be needed to forestall further warming, the government increasingly is looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact.

In agriculture, "we are dealing with the challenge of difficult weather conditions at the same time we have to massively increase food production" to accommodate larger populations and a growing demand for meat, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

...

"Even if you believe we should be conserving our resources and putting more emphasis on eating plants, the reality we deal with is that worldwide the demand is growing for meat," he said. "There will be more and more pressure to produce it more sustainably and of consistent quality."

Some climate experts, however, question the federal government's emphasis on keeping pace with a projected growing global appetite for meat. Because raising animals demands so many resources, the only viable way to hit global targets for greenhouse gas reduction may be to encourage people to eat less meat, they say.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to climate change "is like trying to promote driver safety while helping the car industry make faster cars," said Alan Miller, who recently retired as a principal climate-change specialist at the World Bank.

The meat industry should be more radical in confronting climate change, Miller said, pointing to an approach backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that takes animals out the process altogether. The billionaire is bullish on technology that would use pea proteins to create replicas of beef and chicken that are indistinguishable from the real thing.

Linky.

Surely this is a problem of the evil factory farms and not the good, old fashioned ones with organic, grass-fed, pasture-raised, petted on the way to the slaughter animals? Nope.

On the environmental front, studies by Yan et al (2009) in Ireland used growth chambers to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from cattle with varying levels of forage and grain in the diet. Coupling these results with a 30% increase of harvest age of grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed, it becomes clear there is a 500% increase in greenhouse gas emissions for each pound of beef produced from grass-fed compared to grain-fed cattle. Uncontrolled nitrogen and phosphate release to the environment, 35% more water use, and 30% more land use for grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed increases the environmental impact of strictly grass feeding. A model reported by Canadian workers (Janzen et al, 2008) accounts for carbon loss from fossil fuels for corn production and other factors of production for both grass- and grain-fed cattle and shows the added efficiency of animal production and resource use from intensive grain feeding will reduce the collective environmental impact of grain-fed compared to grass-fed beef.

Linky.

Now some are playing games by saying "reduce" meat consumption, but that is just a cop out.

Prepare to see more ridiculousness like this before we start trying to actually address the issue.

The ridiculous thing is that it is so uselessly optional/preferential. Transport and energy have actually enable us to greater achievements. Hamburgers and milk, not so much.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..... Yeah good luck with that

 

[Manopolus]

If you're suggesting everyone becomes vegan, count me out. There's no way in hell. I straight up don't feel right when I don't eat meat for pretty much every meal. It's that simple... I don't know why that is, but it is what it is. No silly requests that make me feel like I'm weak, sick, and hungry all the time will even be entertained. Perhaps a person can get used to it, but most of us won't even try abstaining from meat past the first day unless it's just completely unavailable.

 

[Vermonter]

Reminds me of The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris. Interesting, but impractical.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If you're suggesting everyone becomes vegan, count me out. There's no way in hell. I straight up don't feel right when I don't eat meat for pretty much every meal. It's that simple... I don't know why that is, but it is what it is. No silly requests that make me feel like I'm weak, sick, and hungry all the time will even be entertained. Perhaps a person can get used to it, but most of us won't even try abstaining from meat past the first day unless it's just completely unavailable.

We hear the same unscientific anecdotes about gluten-free, organic, vegan, etc. foods. That most of us would suffer mysteriously unrecognised symptoms from not eating meat doesn't jibe with the evidence, and I would call an extraordinary claim.

A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/vegetarian-diet/ART-20046446?p=1

Experts generally agree that vegetarians who eat a wide variety of foods can readily meet all their body’s needs for nutrients. “At any stage of life, you should be able to eat a healthy diet by consuming vegetarian foods. But it does take a little planning,” says Rachel Fisher, a registered dietitian involved in nutrition research at NIH.

http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/Jul2012/Feature1

Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html

A well-planned vegetarian diet can give you good nutrition. A vegetarian diet often helps you have better health.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002465.htm

There is nothing magic in meat.

 

[theprestige]

There is nothing magic in meat.

Clearly you're not preparing it right.

 

[Cain]

If you're suggesting everyone becomes vegan, count me out.

Hear, hear! Whether we're talking about animals, or future human inhabitants on the Blue marble, my answer's the same: **** 'em.

 

[Modified]

To what extent have we made up for the AGW effects of farmed grazing animals by killing off or destroying the habitats of wild grazing animals? On the other hand, the killing off of predators has caused some grazing animal populations (deer) to explode, so maybe it is not a net positive.

 

[Manopolus]

We hear the same unscientific anecdotes about gluten-free, organic, vegan, etc. foods. That most of us would suffer mysteriously unrecognised symptoms from not eating meat doesn't jibe with the evidence, and I would call an extraordinary claim.

Yeah... all I said was that I don't feel right when I don't eat meat. I don't think that's scientifically verifiable either way, and I guess I'd probably be the only one that could tell you that one way or another. It does affect my decisions, however. No other claim was made.

It's quite simple. I didn't say a thing about health or anything which you can throw nutrition facts at. I've gone a day or two on more than one occasion without eating meat, and it quite frankly is uncomfortable to say the least.

 

[Manopolus]

Hear, hear! Whether we're talking about animals, or future human inhabitants on the Blue marble, my answer's the same: **** 'em.

You could use the same stupid joke about all sorts of things. I don't see a whole lot of people giving up, say, electricity for instance. Yes, there are things that should probably be done to help the environment, slow AGW, etc., but these things pretty much have to be done at the institutional level in order for them to work at all. Yes, lack of meat is something I'd straight up kill for (and technically have... just not humans), so it's not an option on the table.

Man does not have the digestive system an herbivore. I suppose we can make do without animal products in a pinch, but it's neither surprising nor inherently wrong that the vast majority of us do not want to. The whole vegan/vegetarian thing is fringe at best... there's likely a reason for that. There are as many or more who try to do it and change their minds once they find it intolerable as there are that actually stick with it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Reminds me of The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris. Interesting, but impractical.

I'll agree with Sam 100%. I bought a house with one. Used it once I think. They are a menace. England has already had one war with the ones that burn coal.

 

[Vermonter]

I'll agree with Sam 100%. I bought a house with one. Used it once I think. They are a menace. England has already had one war with the ones that burn coal.

It's an interesting piece, though burning wood serves a practical purpose. In some locations, alternative fuel is either unavailable or too costly to use. It's good for thought, at any rate.

 

[Cuddles]

A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/vegetarian-diet/ART-20046446?p=1

Experts generally agree that vegetarians who eat a wide variety of foods can readily meet all their body’s needs for nutrients. “At any stage of life, you should be able to eat a healthy diet by consuming vegetarian foods. But it does take a little planning,” says Rachel Fisher, a registered dietitian involved in nutrition research at NIH.

http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/Jul2012/Feature1

Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html

A well-planned vegetarian diet can give you good nutrition. A vegetarian diet often helps you have better health.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002465.htm

There is nothing magic in meat.

I've bolded the important points. The vast majority of people do not carefully plan their diets. It's not enough that a vegetarian diet can be just as healthy as one containing meat if in practice they mostly would not be. Until you can convince people to actually pay attention to what they're eating, the theoretical benefits of a diet most people will never stick to are largely irrelevant. Given the prevalence of obesity, just convincing people to stop eating too much would probably result in a huge reduction in greenhouse gases. If people can't be convinced to simply eat slightly less, how exactly do you think you could convince them to change their eating habits entirely?

 

[Cuddles]

A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/vegetarian-diet/ART-20046446?p=1

Experts generally agree that vegetarians who eat a wide variety of foods can readily meet all their body’s needs for nutrients. “At any stage of life, you should be able to eat a healthy diet by consuming vegetarian foods. But it does take a little planning,” says Rachel Fisher, a registered dietitian involved in nutrition research at NIH.

http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/Jul2012/Feature1

Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html

A well-planned vegetarian diet can give you good nutrition. A vegetarian diet often helps you have better health.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002465.htm

There is nothing magic in meat.

I've bolded the important points. The vast majority of people do not carefully plan their diets. It's not enough that a vegetarian diet can be just as healthy as one containing meat if in practice they mostly would not be. Until you can convince people to actually pay attention to what they're eating, the theoretical benefits of a diet most people will never stick to are largely irrelevant. Given the prevalence of obesity, just convincing people to stop eating too much would probably result in a huge reduction in greenhouse gases. If people can't be convinced to simply eat slightly less, how exactly do you think you could convince them to change their eating habits entirely?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah... all I said was that I don't feel right when I don't eat meat. I don't think that's scientifically verifiable either way, and I guess I'd probably be the only one that could tell you that one way or another. It does affect my decisions, however. No other claim was made.

It's quite simple. I didn't say a thing about health or anything which you can throw nutrition facts at. I've gone a day or two on more than one occasion without eating meat, and it quite frankly is uncomfortable to say the least.

Your feeling terrible/better is definitely a health claim, and one we run into all the time with organic, magnet therapy, reiki, chiropractic, etc. and should be treated as such.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Man does not have the digestive system an herbivore.

We are omnivores. We can get nutrition from plants and not animals. It isn't magic.

[Quoye]I suppose we can make do without animal products in a pinch,[/quote]

Who is this "we"? I thought your objection applied only to yourself.

but it's neither surprising nor inherently wrong that the vast majority of us do not want to.

Assertion contradicted by evidence.

The whole vegan/vegetarian thing is fringe at best... there's likely a reason for that.

Skepticism and atheism as well. Yay argumentum ad populum!

There are as many or more who try to do it and change their minds once they find it intolerable as there are that actually stick with it.

Again, factual claim about others completely unsupported.

 

[Aepervius]

Firstly a lot of the grazing land used as per definition above here is too slopped, too poor for crops, too cold, to wet, or for a variety of political reason not used (like farming quotas).

Furthermore there is about 2 billion husbandry grazing animal on earth (and that include goat, camel cattle etc...). Even counting the total 40 million km^2 of grazeable land that's less than 500 animals per square km. Practically in reality they are far more concentrated than that.

Furthermore it seems that the forest and similar biome lost in central america region , for example, are actually lost to crops and urban environment and not grazing.

I don#t doubt that grazing animal are a contribution to CO2 in atmosphere thru soil carbon depletion, but the difference is that that soil carbon was probably not in there for million of years, contrary to oil carbon, and part that soil carbon going into husbandry will actually return there in a form or another.

 

[Aepervius]

We are omnivores. We can get nutrition from plants and not animals. It isn't magic.

But it is actually far more easier to part of that nutrition to come from animal source.
You need to have a well balanced plant diet to have all your amino acid. You don't need to think too much with an omnivore diet which include meat.

Assertion contradicted by evidence.

What evidence ? At least in country without meat taboo, vegetarian are a minority. A quick look at the meal menu from cantine will show you that although gaining traction, the meat menu is still the king among restaurants, cantine, etc...

If this was not what the people were wanting, it would not be that way, but the other way around, if only due to market forces (restaurants).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've bolded the important points. The vast majority of people do not carefully plan their diets. It's not enough that a vegetarian diet can be just as healthy as one containing meat if in practice they mostly would not be.

You are cherry picking and twisting the meaning of the conclusions. Those are the same qualifying statements one would give before saying a meat eating first is healthy, not a statement that most people would not eat healthy diets.

Until you can convince people to actually pay attention to what they're eating, the theoretical benefits of a diet most people will never stick to are largely irrelevant. Given the prevalence of obesity, just convincing people to stop eating too much would probably result in a huge reduction in greenhouse gases. If people can't be convinced to simply eat slightly less, how exactly do you think you could convince them to change their eating habits entirely?

You are conflating eating fewer calories with swapping out specific foods. They are not the same, even though they are both dietary changes. Look at trans fats, childhood obesity, previous dietary changes, and the dietary patterns in the reverse (countries where meat eating have increases dramatically). The "just so" theory that there can be no more vegans or vegetarians or we won't change our diet is just silly and ahistorical. India even labels their food vegetarian vs containing animal products because so many are vegetarian.

 

[Manopolus]

I suppose we can make do without animal products in a pinch, but it's neither surprising nor inherently wrong that the vast majority of us do not want to.

Assertion contradicted by evidence.

I have no clue what you're talking about here. It looks to me like you're just spouting a string of words that has become culturally popular on this forum -- minus any actual content or applicability in this case. If what you said here has actual meaning, please explain.

The whole vegan/vegetarian thing is fringe at best... there's likely a reason for that.

Skepticism and atheism as well. Yay argumentum ad populum!

In this case, "ad populum" is pertinent, as it pertains to how likely it is that you'll be able to convince the entire population to adapt to your fringe but nonetheless well-known lifestyle. Popularity doesn't necessarily make it right, but it does speak to its practicality as a solution to anything.

There are as many or more who try to do it and change their minds once they find it intolerable as there are that actually stick with it.

Again, factual claim about others completely unsupported.

I am quite aware that this is purely anecdotal, but I've known at least 5 people (who didn't all know each other, so it wasn't a group thing) who have tried it and rejected it. I know no one personally (outside of the internet) who is currently a vegetarian of any sort.

So yeah... anecdotal, but until I see a contradiction, I see no reason not to go with that. It might be a bit difficult to get actual numbers in any case, so I can only go by what I've observed.