Let them eat anything but steak.
May 10, 2018 3:12 PM Subscribe
Do Cow Farts Actually Contribute to Global Warming? Apparently the burps are worse.
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. Check the Infographic.
Which makes me ponder a bit about Brazil's million dollar cow.
Bigger livestock in larger numbers in more regions has led to methane in the air climbing faster than predicted due to ‘out-of-date data’.
We are killing the environment one hamburger at a time.
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. Check the Infographic.
Which makes me ponder a bit about Brazil's million dollar cow.
Bigger livestock in larger numbers in more regions has led to methane in the air climbing faster than predicted due to ‘out-of-date data’.
We are killing the environment one hamburger at a time.
This is one of those things that rolls in the back of my head all the time. The article about burps mentions that adding garlic to cow diets might cut the methane production in half. There's been some Australian research on red seaweed that shows that making it a part of a cow's diet can cut their methane emission by 99%. But you'd need thousands of acres of seaweed farms to feed even 10% of Australia's feedlots. So maybe science can address some of the issue. Fund more research into methanotrophs. Get a combination of methane reducing feed for cows and a cultural shift in how much beef we eat and maybe we can put a dent in things before climate change goes ahead and does it for us. My immediate family strives to eat less meat; working on extended family is... yeah. The individual must be supported by society and the government to effect the massive changes we need. Climate change is happening now. I would rather not take part in mass migration during my 70's.
posted by Mister Cheese at 3:29 PM on May 10, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Mister Cheese at 3:29 PM on May 10, 2018 [6 favorites]
This is a major issue for New Zealand. We're a big exporter of beef and dairy. Fully 49% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture and a huge chunk of that is methane and nitrous oxide from cattle.
Yes, we already have mostly grass-fed livestock for lower emissions.
Yes, we're breeding livestock for lower emissions per animal and per kilo of meat or milk produced.
Yes, we're researching changed diets for cattle to reduce their emissions.
Yes, we're trialing different on-farm processes for lower emissions.
Yes, we're part of global research efforts here.
None of which have worked very well, despite more than fifteen years of research and a fuck-load of money.
So the only current solution for drastically reducing emissions is for people to eat less meat and dairy.
posted by happyinmotion at 4:03 PM on May 10, 2018 [4 favorites]
Yes, we already have mostly grass-fed livestock for lower emissions.
Yes, we're breeding livestock for lower emissions per animal and per kilo of meat or milk produced.
Yes, we're researching changed diets for cattle to reduce their emissions.
Yes, we're trialing different on-farm processes for lower emissions.
Yes, we're part of global research efforts here.
None of which have worked very well, despite more than fifteen years of research and a fuck-load of money.
So the only current solution for drastically reducing emissions is for people to eat less meat and dairy.
posted by happyinmotion at 4:03 PM on May 10, 2018 [4 favorites]
I don't understand why "concerned" people don't just stop eating beef. It's not that fucking hard to give up one food.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:32 PM on May 10, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:32 PM on May 10, 2018 [15 favorites]
Oh Christ, links to Cowspiracy as a source? Come on.
Animal agriculture is 18% of greenhouse emissions? According to the EPA, it's around 9% ( and that's ALL agriculture, not just animal, at 13.5%) - with transportation at 28%, electricity at 28%, Industry at 22% and commercial and residential at 11%.
Cowspiracy also brought us this "astounding figure" -Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
And of course, these factish scientificish facts come from a single study that wasn't peer reviewed. Here is a good explanation of how they came up with that amazing number. I'm gonna stick with the EPA for a more reliable source.
posted by bradth27 at 5:03 PM on May 10, 2018 [27 favorites]
Animal agriculture is 18% of greenhouse emissions? According to the EPA, it's around 9% ( and that's ALL agriculture, not just animal, at 13.5%) - with transportation at 28%, electricity at 28%, Industry at 22% and commercial and residential at 11%.
Cowspiracy also brought us this "astounding figure" -Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
And of course, these factish scientificish facts come from a single study that wasn't peer reviewed. Here is a good explanation of how they came up with that amazing number. I'm gonna stick with the EPA for a more reliable source.
posted by bradth27 at 5:03 PM on May 10, 2018 [27 favorites]
Thanks bradth27. The numbers sounded shocking in the fpp, and I didn’t have time to dig deeper.
Of course this is not to say there is no problem, just let’s define our problem with accuracy.
posted by herda05 at 5:10 PM on May 10, 2018 [2 favorites]
Of course this is not to say there is no problem, just let’s define our problem with accuracy.
posted by herda05 at 5:10 PM on May 10, 2018 [2 favorites]
Maybe animal agriculture is 9% of greenhouse emissions. Maybe it's 5%.
You know what would be really easy for many American folks to do? Stop eating beef, pork, and poultry.
Shit, I know, it's people's livelihoods, it's people's culture. Food is a big deal. But we have to change what we are doing. People are being harmed by climate change now, today.
We have to change.
posted by allthinky at 5:17 PM on May 10, 2018 [3 favorites]
You know what would be really easy for many American folks to do? Stop eating beef, pork, and poultry.
Shit, I know, it's people's livelihoods, it's people's culture. Food is a big deal. But we have to change what we are doing. People are being harmed by climate change now, today.
We have to change.
posted by allthinky at 5:17 PM on May 10, 2018 [3 favorites]
According to the EPA, not driving a car and turning the AC off would do a hell of lot more for the planet. I'll keep eating meat, thanks.
posted by bradth27 at 5:18 PM on May 10, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by bradth27 at 5:18 PM on May 10, 2018 [5 favorites]
We have to change. The Earth has had major extinction events for ever and will have them after we're long gone.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:21 PM on May 10, 2018
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:21 PM on May 10, 2018
Guilt and distributed harm are crappy motivators. If we stopped subsidizing environmentally harmful agricultural practices and forced slaughterhouses to operate in compliance with labor and safety laws, maybe the price for beef would better reflect its cost to everyone.
posted by q*ben at 5:43 PM on May 10, 2018 [25 favorites]
posted by q*ben at 5:43 PM on May 10, 2018 [25 favorites]
I'm gonna stick with the EPA for a more reliable source.
Sucks that the EPA is quickly losing its cred as a reliable source :-/
The link above is probably fine in terms of veracity of claims, but with an openly malevolent anti-science jerk at the helm, who knows what they will stamp in the future. It's certainly better than cowspiracy, but I will no longer give implicit trust to EPA web pages, classing them more like the personal page of some random professor I've never heard of (probably not lunatic fringe, but could easily have an outside agenda and conflicts of interest).
Anyway, if we want to pick at sources, there are some ways the linked EPA data could also be skewing the numbers. For example carting cows around probably goes under "transportation", as does the shipping of cow feed and cow meat, but good arguments can be made that those should be included. I'm not clear if all the tractor fuel needed to grow crops is counted there, but it seems like its not. They even note that CO2 stuff would be classed under LUC.
Analysis of carbon footprints and GHG impacts in general is fiendishly complex, and it's possible for apparently disparate facts to be true, depending on how things are accounted for, what's counted where, etc. In my limited experience working adjacent to this sector, the least subjective results are labeled along the lines of "cradle-to-grave" or "life cycle analysis".
If anyone wants a breakdown of what's inside the GHG emissions of the livestock sector, see here for a nice paper analyzing how this works in the EU. Look especially at Fig. 1, which compares totals for meat cattle, dairy cows, poultry for meat and laying hens. Hint: cattle have by far the highest GHG emissions of any livestock. (Link is to freely accessible preview, paywalled paper here)
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:58 PM on May 10, 2018 [5 favorites]
Sucks that the EPA is quickly losing its cred as a reliable source :-/
The link above is probably fine in terms of veracity of claims, but with an openly malevolent anti-science jerk at the helm, who knows what they will stamp in the future. It's certainly better than cowspiracy, but I will no longer give implicit trust to EPA web pages, classing them more like the personal page of some random professor I've never heard of (probably not lunatic fringe, but could easily have an outside agenda and conflicts of interest).
Anyway, if we want to pick at sources, there are some ways the linked EPA data could also be skewing the numbers. For example carting cows around probably goes under "transportation", as does the shipping of cow feed and cow meat, but good arguments can be made that those should be included. I'm not clear if all the tractor fuel needed to grow crops is counted there, but it seems like its not. They even note that CO2 stuff would be classed under LUC.
Analysis of carbon footprints and GHG impacts in general is fiendishly complex, and it's possible for apparently disparate facts to be true, depending on how things are accounted for, what's counted where, etc. In my limited experience working adjacent to this sector, the least subjective results are labeled along the lines of "cradle-to-grave" or "life cycle analysis".
If anyone wants a breakdown of what's inside the GHG emissions of the livestock sector, see here for a nice paper analyzing how this works in the EU. Look especially at Fig. 1, which compares totals for meat cattle, dairy cows, poultry for meat and laying hens. Hint: cattle have by far the highest GHG emissions of any livestock. (Link is to freely accessible preview, paywalled paper here)
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:58 PM on May 10, 2018 [5 favorites]
The Earth has had major extinction events for ever and will have them after we're long gone.
So unless climate change leads to mass death and species extinction on a scale literally unprecedented in the billions of years of history of the planet, it's all pretty meh and we shouldn't care about it? Is that the bar we have to clear now?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:07 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
So unless climate change leads to mass death and species extinction on a scale literally unprecedented in the billions of years of history of the planet, it's all pretty meh and we shouldn't care about it? Is that the bar we have to clear now?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:07 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
Animal agriculture is 18% of greenhouse emissions? According to the EPA, it's around 9%
The EPA is listing only US emissions there. I'd be surprised if the cows to cars ratio wasn't at least twice as high for the world as a whole.
posted by sfenders at 6:09 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
The EPA is listing only US emissions there. I'd be surprised if the cows to cars ratio wasn't at least twice as high for the world as a whole.
posted by sfenders at 6:09 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think I may have met some of the folks in The Guardian article at a cattle auction in Brazil. Small world! I can confirm that those auctions can be very macho, but the food and drinks are really good.
posted by wintermind at 6:17 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by wintermind at 6:17 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]
The relevant xkcd is the most haunting webcomic I've ever seen.
posted by sfenders at 6:30 PM on May 10, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 6:30 PM on May 10, 2018 [9 favorites]
"The US Food and Agriculture Organization" ????? WTF is that? There's a UN group by that name, but...
Are these numbers only supposed to hold for a diet of only or largely of ryegrass that's been planted for forage?
posted by windowbr8r at 6:33 PM on May 10, 2018
Are these numbers only supposed to hold for a diet of only or largely of ryegrass that's been planted for forage?
posted by windowbr8r at 6:33 PM on May 10, 2018
On a more substantive note, my colleagues at the US Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison are working on this (disclaimer: I don’t work at DFRC but I work for ARS, and I’m friends with some of the folks there). Cows that emit lots of methane through burps are inefficient, and the rumen microbial community can be manipulated to produce less methane and more volatile organic compounds (e.g., propionate) that can be used to synthesize things like milk fat and protein. I’m not saying it’s easy, but there are some super-smart people working on the problem.
posted by wintermind at 6:34 PM on May 10, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 6:34 PM on May 10, 2018 [3 favorites]
You know what would be really easy for many American folks to do? Stop eating beef, pork, and poultry.
Shit, I know, it's people's livelihoods, it's people's culture. Food is a big deal.
The reason these things are hard to do on a macro scale is because, as you note, food is a big deal.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:34 PM on May 10, 2018 [4 favorites]
Shit, I know, it's people's livelihoods, it's people's culture. Food is a big deal.
The reason these things are hard to do on a macro scale is because, as you note, food is a big deal.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:34 PM on May 10, 2018 [4 favorites]
It's unclear from these numbers how much of animal emissions are net new carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide that animals emit is carbon dioxide that was extract from the atmosphere by plants. In the first order look, not a single new molecule is created. That's the essence of the carbon cycle.
Now the qualifications to that simple view. Agriculture involves the use of some fossils fuels, so that would be new carbon. So you would have to look at the numbers to see what amount is new carbon vs old carbon.
And you would have to look at the amount of deforestation that occurs due to animal agriculture since forest land sequesters more carbon than grazing land. In the U.S. that contribution is likely very small. There is actually more forested land in the U.S. than there was a hundred years ago. In South America that might be different as tropical forests are cleared for cattle grazing. But that is a one-time emission. Once the land is cleared of forest, it does not emit any more carbon.
And then there is the effect that cattle convert some of the carbon they consume into methane. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but has a much shorter half life than carbon dioxide. More than a third of methane is produced naturally by wetlands, termites and the oceans. The next largest contribution is fossil fuel production. The smallest contribution would be agricultural animals.
So I'm less impressed by the raw numbers regarding agriculture. By far the biggest percentage of the carbon from animals is simply recycled carbon. I would like to see a more detailed calculation of the net new contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
posted by JackFlash at 7:58 PM on May 10, 2018 [2 favorites]
Now the qualifications to that simple view. Agriculture involves the use of some fossils fuels, so that would be new carbon. So you would have to look at the numbers to see what amount is new carbon vs old carbon.
And you would have to look at the amount of deforestation that occurs due to animal agriculture since forest land sequesters more carbon than grazing land. In the U.S. that contribution is likely very small. There is actually more forested land in the U.S. than there was a hundred years ago. In South America that might be different as tropical forests are cleared for cattle grazing. But that is a one-time emission. Once the land is cleared of forest, it does not emit any more carbon.
And then there is the effect that cattle convert some of the carbon they consume into methane. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but has a much shorter half life than carbon dioxide. More than a third of methane is produced naturally by wetlands, termites and the oceans. The next largest contribution is fossil fuel production. The smallest contribution would be agricultural animals.
So I'm less impressed by the raw numbers regarding agriculture. By far the biggest percentage of the carbon from animals is simply recycled carbon. I would like to see a more detailed calculation of the net new contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
posted by JackFlash at 7:58 PM on May 10, 2018 [2 favorites]
This is completely wrong.
Carbon doesn't appear out of nowhere. Cows farting and burping is part of a carbon cycle. Carbon enters the cow, the cow farts/burps, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
The problem that is causing global warming is the added carbon--massive amounts of carbon based gases that were not in the atmosphere before and are here now. That comes mainly from a source that was previously under the earth: oil, natural gas, coal.
It is the added gas that is the problem. Not the recycled gas.
I'll grant the secondary source of extra carbon. There used to be a lot more plants on the Earth than there are now, and these plants store a lot of carbon. You could argue that a diet of meat leads to fewer plants, and therefore more carbon in the atmosphere.
But cows themselves, along with every other living thing, are just recycling gas. They are not creating it out of nothing. No matter how much they fart and burp there is no net gain in gas.
posted by eye of newt at 8:11 PM on May 10, 2018 [6 favorites]
Carbon doesn't appear out of nowhere. Cows farting and burping is part of a carbon cycle. Carbon enters the cow, the cow farts/burps, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
The problem that is causing global warming is the added carbon--massive amounts of carbon based gases that were not in the atmosphere before and are here now. That comes mainly from a source that was previously under the earth: oil, natural gas, coal.
It is the added gas that is the problem. Not the recycled gas.
I'll grant the secondary source of extra carbon. There used to be a lot more plants on the Earth than there are now, and these plants store a lot of carbon. You could argue that a diet of meat leads to fewer plants, and therefore more carbon in the atmosphere.
But cows themselves, along with every other living thing, are just recycling gas. They are not creating it out of nothing. No matter how much they fart and burp there is no net gain in gas.
posted by eye of newt at 8:11 PM on May 10, 2018 [6 favorites]
I'm on the "everyone should try to eat less meat (100% grassfed meat if their budget permits)" train.
Letting ruminants graze for a year between years when you grow crops on the same plot apparently helps put organic matter (i.e. shit) back into the soil. From a Sarah Taber Twitter thread (don't click if you hate Twitter):
Letting ruminants graze for a year between years when you grow crops on the same plot apparently helps put organic matter (i.e. shit) back into the soil. From a Sarah Taber Twitter thread (don't click if you hate Twitter):
Every 1% OM you can add to soil sequesters 2-3 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. ... Here's the thing: OM isn't forever. It's kind of like ... a kid, eventually it grows up into carbon dioxide. So if you wanna have high-OM soil, you have to keep adding OM as fast or faster than it breaks down into CO2. This is where the cow poop comes in. Ruminants are just really phenomenal at turning huge amounts of plants into OM, a lot faster than the plants can break down on their own. They're walking shit factories and I say that with the highest respect.And I'll just string together some quotes from this thread:
So the ol' "livestock is a bad way to raise protein bc 90% of what the cow eats doesn't turn into meat" concept is technically true, and deeply flawed. That 90% that doesn't turn into meat? Turns into soil. Meanwhile, growing grain and/or legume crops on a piece of land for year after year after year is INCREDIBLY destructive to the soil. You're basically mining out the nutrients & organic matter. ...posted by maudlin at 8:26 PM on May 10, 2018 [12 favorites]
You can't do that forever. What's that mean? IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE. No coincidence that all societies that did vegetarianism, were in river valleys that flooded every year. That's the ONLY way you can get away with mining the soil like that- when it gets a free top-up every year. ... Row crops grown the year after the field's in pasture for 1 yr can yield up to 2x as they would have otherwise.
How far would mass hydroponic agricultural of hardy GMO-engineered strains get you towards a modern mass vegetarian society?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:26 PM on May 10, 2018
posted by Apocryphon at 10:26 PM on May 10, 2018
we have an expert on cow emissions who works for an organisation called ARS?
posted by biffa at 12:07 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by biffa at 12:07 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
How far would mass hydroponic agricultural of hardy GMO-engineered strains get you towards a modern mass vegetarian society?
Not very far. It’s leaving out the poop part of the equation. Hydroponics is often based on waste (nutrients) from fish, which are in turn, consumed. Then there is just the simple idea of where are you getting all that fresh water from? Especially as water resources are becoming more scarce with increasing temperature.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:40 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
Not very far. It’s leaving out the poop part of the equation. Hydroponics is often based on waste (nutrients) from fish, which are in turn, consumed. Then there is just the simple idea of where are you getting all that fresh water from? Especially as water resources are becoming more scarce with increasing temperature.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:40 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
Guilt and distributed harm are crappy motivators. If we stopped subsidizing environmentally harmful agricultural practices and forced slaughterhouses to operate in compliance with labor and safety laws, maybe the price for beef would better reflect its cost to everyone.
This, I can get behind. Slap a GHG tax on everything and the market will sort it out within a few years. That makes too much sense, though, so we'll never do it.
Given that I don't drive a car and barely use electricity, I'll eat as much meat as I damn well please, thanks.
Quit complaining about cows and work on building usable transit systems. Getting that done would cut greenhouse gas emissions as much or more than just about anything else.
Also, it occurs to me that the process of raising the cows up to the point of the slaughterhouse uses far less oil than growing crops. Those fields have to be constantly fertilized, usually with petroleum-based fertilizers now that we'd rather not mine guano, the application of which is done by equipment running on fossil fuels, along with the planting, the harvesting, and pretty much everything done in between.
One must look beyond first order effects. Another place where this is important is evaluating energy sources. Hydro is pretty crappy since it generates a bunch of methane that would have been less warming carbon dioxide had the land been used for anything else. That certainly doesn't make them worse than coal plants, but it could well bring them close to an equivalent amount of gas turbine generation depending on where/how the gas is extracted and transported.
I mean really the answer is to completely outlaw the burning of fossil fuels under any circumstances except for directly safety related reasons. No new carbon means no more warming once the climate adjusts to the new normal. Better yet, we extract some of what we already burned from the atmosphere and turn it into plastics we'd be manufacturing from oil regardless so as to reduce the ultimate temperature rise.
It's a lot easier to tut at people rather than address the systemic issues that lead them to the choices they are making.
posted by wierdo at 3:34 AM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
This, I can get behind. Slap a GHG tax on everything and the market will sort it out within a few years. That makes too much sense, though, so we'll never do it.
Given that I don't drive a car and barely use electricity, I'll eat as much meat as I damn well please, thanks.
Quit complaining about cows and work on building usable transit systems. Getting that done would cut greenhouse gas emissions as much or more than just about anything else.
Also, it occurs to me that the process of raising the cows up to the point of the slaughterhouse uses far less oil than growing crops. Those fields have to be constantly fertilized, usually with petroleum-based fertilizers now that we'd rather not mine guano, the application of which is done by equipment running on fossil fuels, along with the planting, the harvesting, and pretty much everything done in between.
One must look beyond first order effects. Another place where this is important is evaluating energy sources. Hydro is pretty crappy since it generates a bunch of methane that would have been less warming carbon dioxide had the land been used for anything else. That certainly doesn't make them worse than coal plants, but it could well bring them close to an equivalent amount of gas turbine generation depending on where/how the gas is extracted and transported.
I mean really the answer is to completely outlaw the burning of fossil fuels under any circumstances except for directly safety related reasons. No new carbon means no more warming once the climate adjusts to the new normal. Better yet, we extract some of what we already burned from the atmosphere and turn it into plastics we'd be manufacturing from oil regardless so as to reduce the ultimate temperature rise.
It's a lot easier to tut at people rather than address the systemic issues that lead them to the choices they are making.
posted by wierdo at 3:34 AM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
So how do you rationalize the continued eating of meat?
Why rationalize it, when you can so easily get defensive and change the subject?
posted by sfenders at 4:22 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
Why rationalize it, when you can so easily get defensive and change the subject?
posted by sfenders at 4:22 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
Alright I'm going to step it up- how about we need to change both our participation in automobile use and industrial destructive products AS WELL as our meat consumption? Like everyone arguing that other people's vices make their vices ok is not really the best way to argue that are choices are great?
And if we use a harm reduction model and have empathy for where we are now and how we got there, then taking the steps to change becomes more doable. Admitting your behavior is a problem is the first step eh?
It's an addiction. We are addicted to doing very harmful things. We got here for reasons and we can empathize both with the fact that addicts have understandable reasons they got addicted to certain ways of life and that those actions DO cause harm and coming up with less harmful ways of doing things is important. Humanity- we can do this!!
posted by xarnop at 5:05 AM on May 11, 2018
And if we use a harm reduction model and have empathy for where we are now and how we got there, then taking the steps to change becomes more doable. Admitting your behavior is a problem is the first step eh?
It's an addiction. We are addicted to doing very harmful things. We got here for reasons and we can empathize both with the fact that addicts have understandable reasons they got addicted to certain ways of life and that those actions DO cause harm and coming up with less harmful ways of doing things is important. Humanity- we can do this!!
posted by xarnop at 5:05 AM on May 11, 2018
Ok, so, I think being in Asia near the coast and spending time in a certain massive archipelago of Muslimy islands plus northern Asia and also near the coast does this for me, but peeps, sashimi/sushi, chicken, sheep, and eggs. I don't even know when or how it happened, but somehow my diet shifted, and I barely touch cow and pig now. And I don't really miss it at all. Really, outside of lamb, I don't do much red meat at all.
I think for me, what did it is an addiction to saltiness and capsaicin. Don't get me wrong, I love a good steak. I love bacon. By all means cover me in meat. But there is nothing like a slab of raw fish slathered in vinegar, soy sauce, and fake-ass horseradish wasabi to put salt in you and hit that visceral flesh craving. That is a kick I can't eat without anymore. Same goes for oyster noodles, spicy chicken kebabs, cheesy omelettes... I'm making myself hungry. Stop it, self.
This is a habit thing y'all. Now, seeing this post, and giving it some thought, yeah. I'm gonna straight up avoid cow from now on. Pig...not quite there, but close. A slab of cow though, unless it's beef jerky, that's already outside my can-shit-it-without-3-days-of-constipation palette.
Now, this is also interesting because sheep is pretty much my beef now. What I'm not seeing in these statistics is, what is the contribution of poultry and sheep to global warming? Because barring meat grown in a lab and widespread acceptance of it, we're gonna transition "down" the foodchain to these animals in the next 50 years or so. Fish & invertebrate seafood is...I mean it exists, but these are fundamentally different meats and don't seem to be huge direct global warming contributors, although I have no clue about fish farming as an indirect contributor. How do they stack up, what are the projections for their contribution to global warming as as they get more popular, and given that, hell, people are eating fried crickets with salsa in Mexico now, anybody got some stats on bug farming?
This is one issue I'm optimistic that will self-correct with some gentle policy pushing over the coming decades, because unlike a lot of global warming problems, the solutions are right there in front of us. There's some really, really good food that doesn't involve cows out there, and it's not nearly as exotic as you might think.
posted by saysthis at 5:43 AM on May 11, 2018
I think for me, what did it is an addiction to saltiness and capsaicin. Don't get me wrong, I love a good steak. I love bacon. By all means cover me in meat. But there is nothing like a slab of raw fish slathered in vinegar, soy sauce, and fake-ass horseradish wasabi to put salt in you and hit that visceral flesh craving. That is a kick I can't eat without anymore. Same goes for oyster noodles, spicy chicken kebabs, cheesy omelettes... I'm making myself hungry. Stop it, self.
This is a habit thing y'all. Now, seeing this post, and giving it some thought, yeah. I'm gonna straight up avoid cow from now on. Pig...not quite there, but close. A slab of cow though, unless it's beef jerky, that's already outside my can-shit-it-without-3-days-of-constipation palette.
Now, this is also interesting because sheep is pretty much my beef now. What I'm not seeing in these statistics is, what is the contribution of poultry and sheep to global warming? Because barring meat grown in a lab and widespread acceptance of it, we're gonna transition "down" the foodchain to these animals in the next 50 years or so. Fish & invertebrate seafood is...I mean it exists, but these are fundamentally different meats and don't seem to be huge direct global warming contributors, although I have no clue about fish farming as an indirect contributor. How do they stack up, what are the projections for their contribution to global warming as as they get more popular, and given that, hell, people are eating fried crickets with salsa in Mexico now, anybody got some stats on bug farming?
This is one issue I'm optimistic that will self-correct with some gentle policy pushing over the coming decades, because unlike a lot of global warming problems, the solutions are right there in front of us. There's some really, really good food that doesn't involve cows out there, and it's not nearly as exotic as you might think.
posted by saysthis at 5:43 AM on May 11, 2018
i will second the notion of carbon already in the cycle vs carbon dug from the earth(gas/oil/coal) that gets added to the cycle. these are not equal. this is also an issue when discussing heating your home with wood vs heating your home with gas/oil/coal. the wood is already above ground carbon in the cycle.
in terms of eating meat, there is lots of meat available that is not industrial cow. and certainly there is enough grass to produce an incredible amount of meat with no new carbon input. no gas to power tractors to farm gmo corn to feed them. no petrol based fertilizers, etc. more deer/bison wild diet adapted species. more lawn mowers that feed you.
and i also second the notion that guilt and global things are poor motivators. what is a better motivator? that is the question...
posted by danjo at 6:07 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
in terms of eating meat, there is lots of meat available that is not industrial cow. and certainly there is enough grass to produce an incredible amount of meat with no new carbon input. no gas to power tractors to farm gmo corn to feed them. no petrol based fertilizers, etc. more deer/bison wild diet adapted species. more lawn mowers that feed you.
and i also second the notion that guilt and global things are poor motivators. what is a better motivator? that is the question...
posted by danjo at 6:07 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
If one requires an infographic on farm emissions, here's one from a reputable source, the UN FAO. Globally, livestock accounts for 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:34 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:34 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
Part of the problem with livestock animals in the US is that their waste is an environmental problem, not a spiffy fertilizer. Hog farms have massive pigshit/ urine ponds that breed flies and stench and where farmworkers die occasionally. The fertilizer may end up in streams and rivers where it is a problem. It's a typical business problem of distribution, but a problem that is not being solved.
Even the pretty clean little lake I live near is being jeopardized by too much development. We're all on septic tanks/ leach fields, and our excess nutrients percolate down to the lake causing algal blooms in summer.
I'm not ready to give up meat entirely, but I eat less of it. Not all lifestyle changes are drastic.
posted by theora55 at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
Even the pretty clean little lake I live near is being jeopardized by too much development. We're all on septic tanks/ leach fields, and our excess nutrients percolate down to the lake causing algal blooms in summer.
I'm not ready to give up meat entirely, but I eat less of it. Not all lifestyle changes are drastic.
posted by theora55 at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
It's an addiction. We are addicted to doing very harmful things.
It’s true. Most of us are addicted to living, even though humans are very harmful things.
Snark aside, the addiction rhetoric doesn’t help the conversation and stretches the definition of addiction to meaningless. For many people, the above things you cite are how people survive. Others, it’s cultural or habit. To attempt to moralize something is passing a judgement that is going to be met with resistance. You could tell me I’m addicted to eating meat and driving a car, and I’d tell you no, I eat meat because I need food, need a low carb diet. and don’t have time to play around with a low carb vegetarian or vegan diet. I could, if I was afforded more time and money. But I don’t have those luxuries. And it doesn’t apply to me, but gluten intolerance is on the rise, likely due at least in part to modern farming methods and the change in the structure of wheat gluten. How many other plant based foods will have similar issues as we try to enhance our crops?
Same for cars- I could give mine up, but I live in a city with poor public transportation. And I did actually move from the burbs to the city for better walkability- an option many don’t have.
Sure, moralize it and call it an addiction. But don’t be surprised when people get pissed when they’re trying to just survive. It’s at best, preaching to the choir. (Former annoyingly preachy vegetarian of 18 years.)
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:10 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
It’s true. Most of us are addicted to living, even though humans are very harmful things.
Snark aside, the addiction rhetoric doesn’t help the conversation and stretches the definition of addiction to meaningless. For many people, the above things you cite are how people survive. Others, it’s cultural or habit. To attempt to moralize something is passing a judgement that is going to be met with resistance. You could tell me I’m addicted to eating meat and driving a car, and I’d tell you no, I eat meat because I need food, need a low carb diet. and don’t have time to play around with a low carb vegetarian or vegan diet. I could, if I was afforded more time and money. But I don’t have those luxuries. And it doesn’t apply to me, but gluten intolerance is on the rise, likely due at least in part to modern farming methods and the change in the structure of wheat gluten. How many other plant based foods will have similar issues as we try to enhance our crops?
Same for cars- I could give mine up, but I live in a city with poor public transportation. And I did actually move from the burbs to the city for better walkability- an option many don’t have.
Sure, moralize it and call it an addiction. But don’t be surprised when people get pissed when they’re trying to just survive. It’s at best, preaching to the choir. (Former annoyingly preachy vegetarian of 18 years.)
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:10 AM on May 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I have problems with moralizing addiction and it's application to those who use chemical substances to help them cope with life or enjoy it. When it's someone else causing a harm, something demonized like drug addiction, people are fine with the rhetoric and talking about addiction as an illness or trying to force treatment and change on addicts.
People fight that mentality it when they are looking at their own harmful behaviors they feel powerless to stop but it's just cultural who gets judged as bad for the harms they cause.
Destroying the earth for real people of the future (and countless animals and plantlife) could arguably be a much worse harm than being addicted to drugs or even dying young or causing strife in your family over it. But since it's considered acceptable behavior and the harms ignorable, people don't have to challenge themselves to change.
I would prefer we judge those labelled "addicts" of drugs or alcohol less and ourselves more- if we can't even change mere habits how can we judge others coping with trauma or life experiences we don't even understand? Further if we learn to change, even if not overnight, behaviors that we are struggling with changing, we gain insights that might help others and we might find a much more understanding approach when we realize how many things we should hypothetically change we really can't especially not on a quick timescale- something that's often shoved on those labelled as "addicts".
posted by xarnop at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2018
People fight that mentality it when they are looking at their own harmful behaviors they feel powerless to stop but it's just cultural who gets judged as bad for the harms they cause.
Destroying the earth for real people of the future (and countless animals and plantlife) could arguably be a much worse harm than being addicted to drugs or even dying young or causing strife in your family over it. But since it's considered acceptable behavior and the harms ignorable, people don't have to challenge themselves to change.
I would prefer we judge those labelled "addicts" of drugs or alcohol less and ourselves more- if we can't even change mere habits how can we judge others coping with trauma or life experiences we don't even understand? Further if we learn to change, even if not overnight, behaviors that we are struggling with changing, we gain insights that might help others and we might find a much more understanding approach when we realize how many things we should hypothetically change we really can't especially not on a quick timescale- something that's often shoved on those labelled as "addicts".
posted by xarnop at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2018
Or to put it a different way I do believe the term addict is not only ambiguous and culturally invented but ultimately harmful and arbitrarily applied to peoples whose harmful coping behaviors the dominant classes and races don't like, while harmful behaviors and coping mechanisms of the upper and dominant classes, genders or races get ignored as pathology or as targets to dehumanize and control those coping with them.
posted by xarnop at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2018
posted by xarnop at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2018
> I'm gonna stick with the EPA for a more reliable source.
> The EPA is listing only US emissions there.
I'm too lazy to go around digging the latest IPCC WG1 report for figures on net emissions of ghg and respective radiative forcing but yeah, if you're going to cite the EPA, at least pick the relevant page:
Industrial agriculture is fucked in all sorts of ways and climate change is only part of it.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:27 AM on May 11, 2018 [5 favorites]
> The EPA is listing only US emissions there.
I'm too lazy to go around digging the latest IPCC WG1 report for figures on net emissions of ghg and respective radiative forcing but yeah, if you're going to cite the EPA, at least pick the relevant page:
Agriculture + land use change = 24%Livestock methane matters because it has much higher warming potential in the short term compared to CO2 (25x higher in a century timespan, eventually it reverts to CO2). So while in the long run cows are not net emitters (if we don't count the deforestation required to feed them) they significantly increase short term radiative forcing by converting plant matter carbon into CH4.
Transportation = 14%
Industrial agriculture is fucked in all sorts of ways and climate change is only part of it.
posted by Bangaioh at 11:27 AM on May 11, 2018 [5 favorites]
I'm too lazy to go around digging the latest IPCC WG1 report for figures on net emissions of ghg and respective radiative forcing but yeah, if you're going to cite the EPA, at least pick the relevant page:
Agriculture + land use change = 24%
Transportation = 14%
So... how much of the 24% is animal agriculture? That's deforestation ( which could include the logging industry) AND cultivation of crops.
posted by bradth27 at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2018
Agriculture + land use change = 24%
Transportation = 14%
So... how much of the 24% is animal agriculture? That's deforestation ( which could include the logging industry) AND cultivation of crops.
posted by bradth27 at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2018
from your "relevant link" -
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Sector Emissions and Sequestration
Plants absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow, and they store some of this carbon throughout their lifetime. Soils can also store some of the carbon from these plants depending on how the soil is managed and other environmental conditions (e.g., climate). This storage of carbon in plants and soils is called biological carbon sequestration. Because biological sequestration takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, it is also called a carbon "sink."
Emissions or sequestration of CO2, CH4 and N2O can occur from management of lands in their current use or as lands are converted to other uses. Carbon dioxide is exchanged between the atmosphere and the plants and soils on land, for example, as cropland is converted into grassland, as lands are cultivated for crops, or as forests grow. In addition, using biological feedstocks (such as energy crops or wood) for purposes such as electricity generation, as inputs to processes that create liquid fuels, or as building materials can lead to emissions or sequestration.*
In the United States overall, since 1990, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) activities have resulted in more removal of CO2 from the atmosphere than emissions. Because of this, the LULUCF sector in the United States is considered a net sink, rather than a source, of CO2 over this time-period. In many areas of the world, the opposite is true, particularly in countries where large areas of forest land are cleared, often for conversion to agricultural purposes or for settlements. In these situations, the LULUCF sector can be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.
And so I ask you - what part of that 24% is simply animal agriculture?
posted by bradth27 at 12:09 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Sector Emissions and Sequestration
Plants absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow, and they store some of this carbon throughout their lifetime. Soils can also store some of the carbon from these plants depending on how the soil is managed and other environmental conditions (e.g., climate). This storage of carbon in plants and soils is called biological carbon sequestration. Because biological sequestration takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, it is also called a carbon "sink."
Emissions or sequestration of CO2, CH4 and N2O can occur from management of lands in their current use or as lands are converted to other uses. Carbon dioxide is exchanged between the atmosphere and the plants and soils on land, for example, as cropland is converted into grassland, as lands are cultivated for crops, or as forests grow. In addition, using biological feedstocks (such as energy crops or wood) for purposes such as electricity generation, as inputs to processes that create liquid fuels, or as building materials can lead to emissions or sequestration.*
In the United States overall, since 1990, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) activities have resulted in more removal of CO2 from the atmosphere than emissions. Because of this, the LULUCF sector in the United States is considered a net sink, rather than a source, of CO2 over this time-period. In many areas of the world, the opposite is true, particularly in countries where large areas of forest land are cleared, often for conversion to agricultural purposes or for settlements. In these situations, the LULUCF sector can be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.
And so I ask you - what part of that 24% is simply animal agriculture?
posted by bradth27 at 12:09 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
Oh wait, I found the answer. It's pretty close to what I said earlier. So much for your relevant link.
" AnnualGHG emissions (mainly CH4 and N2O) from agricultural production in
2000–2010 were estimated at 5.0–5.8 GtCO2eq/yr, comprising about
10–12% of global anthropogenic emissions. Annual GHG flux from
land use and land-use change activities accounted for approximately
4.3–5.5 GtCO2eq/yr, or about 9–11% of total anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions. The total contribution of the AFOLU sector to
anthropogenic emissions is therefore around one quarter of the global
anthropogenic total."
That from the link that explains the categories of the chart that you got your 24% from. You're welcome.
Here's an actual relevant link.
posted by bradth27 at 12:18 PM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
" AnnualGHG emissions (mainly CH4 and N2O) from agricultural production in
2000–2010 were estimated at 5.0–5.8 GtCO2eq/yr, comprising about
10–12% of global anthropogenic emissions. Annual GHG flux from
land use and land-use change activities accounted for approximately
4.3–5.5 GtCO2eq/yr, or about 9–11% of total anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions. The total contribution of the AFOLU sector to
anthropogenic emissions is therefore around one quarter of the global
anthropogenic total."
That from the link that explains the categories of the chart that you got your 24% from. You're welcome.
Here's an actual relevant link.
posted by bradth27 at 12:18 PM on May 11, 2018 [3 favorites]
Yeah, people do all sorts of horrible things because people are all sorts of horrible. We need (and will get?) cheap and ecological factory meat and vegan substitutes, because immense animal suffering and environmental damage don't matter to people who want cheeseburgers. We need (and will get?) small cars that run on the sun, drive themselves, last a long time, are easy to repair and recycle, and almost never kill anyone, because you cannot pry people's asses out of lives and landscapes designed for cars.
posted by pracowity at 12:49 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by pracowity at 12:49 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
So how do you rationalize the continued eating of meat?
Moderation, or the same rationale that advises us to reduce human birthrates. There is much to say in favor of incentives to eat fresh with surcharges on all processed food, but just giving up meat to show a commitment to the environment is implying an Eden-like state to retreat to. That would be nice, but it is an aesthetic argument only, especially where tastes are concerned. It also misses a point that most cattle are replaced with billions of ruminants (deer, bison), which goes to the realm of wolves and poachers (minus milk and cheese) and increases animal suffering and produces as much methane. The reasons for not eating meat has very little to do with the supply of water, land, methane or net suffering, as these will shift to or from something else, perhaps made worse. The best reason is that meat should cost about twice as much in order to reduce its various problems, but this usually comes across as elitist (therefore avoided).
posted by Brian B. at 6:41 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
Moderation, or the same rationale that advises us to reduce human birthrates. There is much to say in favor of incentives to eat fresh with surcharges on all processed food, but just giving up meat to show a commitment to the environment is implying an Eden-like state to retreat to. That would be nice, but it is an aesthetic argument only, especially where tastes are concerned. It also misses a point that most cattle are replaced with billions of ruminants (deer, bison), which goes to the realm of wolves and poachers (minus milk and cheese) and increases animal suffering and produces as much methane. The reasons for not eating meat has very little to do with the supply of water, land, methane or net suffering, as these will shift to or from something else, perhaps made worse. The best reason is that meat should cost about twice as much in order to reduce its various problems, but this usually comes across as elitist (therefore avoided).
posted by Brian B. at 6:41 PM on May 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older Dear white [people], | A Brief History of Oral Sex Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I do lots of stupid shit that harms the environment, none of which I plan on altering at any time. I drive a V8. I eat meat. I fly frequent considerable distances for pleasure. I play golf.
One day my grandchildren will pay for my choices. I hope they are smart enough to engineer their way out of my mess. Because really, that`s how I rationalise my selfish lifestyle decisions.
posted by Keith Talent at 3:21 PM on May 10, 2018 [1 favorite]