Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

[editor]

We're talking about a global issue, but the issue isn't necessarily what the thread title makes it out to be. I don't think you characterise the problem correctly. I'm not the only one. People who know a lot more about farming than me don't think you characterise the problem correctly either.

'How should we farm?' is the interesting question for me. You don't seem to have much to say about it, though.

How I'd like farms and the meat industry to operate is utterly irrelevant because capitalism and market forces will to ensure that it continues to devastate the planet.

So forgive me if I'm not interested in indulging your fantasy whataboutery here. It might make you feel better about eating meat but it's not going to change a thing and the science is emphatic: meat consumption has to be reduced.

And a reminder:

7 reasons why meat is bad for the environment - Greenpeace UK

The meat industry leaves a trail of destruction all over the world.

www.greenpeace.org.uk

What is the true cost of eating meat?

As concerns over the huge impact on the environment, human health and animal welfare grow, what future is there for the meat industry, asks Bibi van der Zee

www.theguardian.com

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

What are the environmental impacts of food production? How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?

ourworldindata.org

 

[editor]

Some more useful stats:

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

What are the environmental impacts of food production? How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?

ourworldindata.org

 

[Pickman's model]

Some more useful stats:

View attachment 276979

View attachment 276981
View attachment 276982

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

What are the environmental impacts of food production? How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?

ourworldindata.org

which you're producing because...

 

[editor]

which you're producing because...

The thread title seems to be a good pointer.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thread title seems to be a good pointer.

yeh we're on page 46 and you've just dumped three big charts with the comment 'some more useful stats'. perhaps you could explain why you think they are useful. not to mention who they are useful to.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

How I'd like farms and the meat industry to operate is utterly irrelevant because capitalism and market forces will to ensure that it continues to devastate the planet.

Good point, despite the pro-slaughterhouse fantasists' insincere and hypocritical claims that they are against 'factory farming" (clue, none of them do anything to oppose it in any way) their apologism for animal farming is objectively pro-factory farming, because that's how market forces dictate the industry must be overwhelmingly organised. As long as we have animal farming it will overwhelmingly be organised through factory farming because that's what market forces dictate.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Some more useful stats:

That is useful. So nuts are worse than beef. Do you eat nuts?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some more useful stats:

View attachment 276979

View attachment 276981
View attachment 276982

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

What are the environmental impacts of food production? How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?

ourworldindata.org

And again, as pointed out before, you have to set all of those things into context. As pointed out before, a lamb that has been farmed on land that isn't fit for arable farming in a place that receives plentiful rainfall is very very different from one farmed on land that can be used for arable farming or where there is limited freshwater. Not all land is equal. Not all water supplies are equal.

You're right of course to point out that it is the drivers of capitalism that have produced these destructive forms of farming. But that's where examples like Californian almonds are all too relevant - those drivers and that destruction are not confined to meat.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good point, despite the pro-slaughterhouse fantasists' insincere and hypocritical claims that they are against 'factory farming" (clue, none of them do anything to oppose it in any way) their apologism for animal farming is objectively pro-factory farming, because that's how market forces dictate the industry must be overwhelmingly organised. As long as we have animal farming it will overwhelmingly be organised through factory farming because that's what market forces dictate.

Do us all a favour and don't attempt to guess what others do or don't do. You don't know, and you're wrong. You don't think a meat eater is capable of giving a shit about animal welfare. You're just wrong on that. It's your failure of imagination and failure of empathy - you're unable to place yourself in the shoes of a person who doesn't think eating meat is morally wrong.

 

[Thaw]

i'd like to see your source for this because i don't think it says what you think it does

This UCLA study as referred to in this article (and a Guardian article)

Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

In the US, there are more than 163 million dogs and cats that consume, as a significant portion of their diet, animal products and therefore potentially constitute a considerable dietary footprint. Here, the energy and animal-derived product consumption of these pets in the US is evaluated for...

journals.plos.org

" through their diet, constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts from animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides"

What Will Become of the Pandemic Pets?

In a time of stress and isolation, we turned to them for comfort. Now it’s time to think about what owning animals really means.

www.newyorker.com

 

[editor]

And again, as pointed out before, you have to set all of those things into context. As pointed out before, a lamb that has been farmed on land that isn't fit for arable farming in a place that receives plentiful rainfall is very very different from one farmed on land that can be used for arable farming or where there is limited freshwater. Not all land is equal. Not all water supplies are equal.

You're right of course to point out that it is the drivers of capitalism that have produced these destructive forms of farming. But that's where examples like Californian almonds are all too relevant - those drivers and that destruction are not confined to meat.

But, again, the meat industry does infinitely more damage than almond production. And the vast majority of that meat production is environmentally catastrophic.

And guess what? Because I was troubled by the environmental impact of almond milk, I stopped buying the stuff. And it was really easy to do because there's plenty of alternatives. Just like there is for meat, for anyone who gives much of a fuck.,

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Do us all a favour and don't attempt to guess what others do or don't do. You don't know, and you're wrong. You don't think a meat eater is capable of giving a shit about animal welfare. You're just wrong on that. It's your failure of imagination and failure of empathy - you're unable to place yourself in the shoes of a person who doesn't think eating meat is morally wrong.

Erm I used to be one, so I can.

 

[editor]

yeh we're on page 46 and you've just dumped three big charts with the comment 'some more useful stats'. perhaps you could explain why you think they are useful. not to mention who they are useful to.

Not sure why I'm bothering to answer this pointless comment but I'll give it one last go.

The entire thread is about the damage caused by the meat industry. It's also recently touched on the amount of water consumed for various food stuffs. Those graphs make it easy to compare the environmental costs of each foodstuff.

Please don't bother asking for any more 'clarification' on this obvious point, because I'm done explaining the obvious. If you can't understand my posts, kindly ignore them.

 

[editor]

That is useful. So nuts are worse than beef. Do you eat nuts?

Hardly ever and certainly nowhere remotely near the quantity of meat you eat. I hope that helps.

Oh, and nuts aren't 'worse than beef' for land use and greenhouse emissions. Funny how you missed that, isn't it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Do us all a favour and don't attempt to guess what others do or don't do. You don't know, and you're wrong. You don't think a meat eater is capable of giving a shit about animal welfare. You're just wrong on that. It's your failure of imagination and failure of empathy - you're unable to place yourself in the shoes of a person who doesn't think eating meat is morally wrong.

Admit it, the thought of a vegan world frightens you far more than the status quo.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But, again, the meat industry does infinitely more damage than almond production. And the vast majority of that meat production is environmentally catastrophic.

And guess what? Because I was troubled by the environmental impact of almond milk, I stopped buying the stuff. And it was really easy to do because there's plenty of alternatives. Just like there is for meat, for anyone who gives much of a fuck.,

I guess you're just a better person. You and Jeff and Ddraig. Better people.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Admit it, the thought of a vegan world frightens you far more than the status quo.

lol

No. You're not good at guessing what others really think. You're better off just responding to what they tell you.

 

[Pickman's model]

This UCLA study as referred to in this article (and a Guardian article)

Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

In the US, there are more than 163 million dogs and cats that consume, as a significant portion of their diet, animal products and therefore potentially constitute a considerable dietary footprint. Here, the energy and animal-derived product consumption of these pets in the US is evaluated for...

journals.plos.org

" through their diet, constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts from animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides"

What Will Become of the Pandemic Pets?

In a time of stress and isolation, we turned to them for comfort. Now it’s time to think about what owning animals really means.

www.newyorker.com

View attachment 276984

yeh the 25% relates to the united states and did not establish that the 25-30% is a universal proportion. we are of course not in the united states.

 

[Spymaster]

Admit it, the thought of a vegan world frightens you far more than the status quo.

I'm more frightened of an alien invasion.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not sure why I'm bothering to answer this pointless comment but I'll give it one last go.

The entire thread is about the damage caused by the meat industry. It's also recently touched on the amount of water consumed for various food stuffs. Those graphs make it easy to compare the environmental costs of each foodstuff.

Please don't bother asking for any more 'clarification' on this obvious point, because I'm done explaining the obvious. If you can't understand my posts, kindly ignore them.

see, when you try you can change a content-free post into one with a modicum of meaning

 

[editor]

I guess you're just a better person. You and Jeff and Ddraig. Better people.

Nope. I'm as flawed and as hypocritical as the next person, you included.

But at least I don't pretend that some of my dietary choices aren't environmentally damaging and I do try and make a small difference by using alternatives, rather than indulging in extended whataboutery and constantly trying to make excuses for the inexcusable.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

lol

No. You're really not good at guessing what others really think. You're better off just responding to what they tell you.

Well based on how much time you spend on here defending meat-eating and arguing against vegans, whilst tossing in the occasional 'factory farming boo' virtue signal every now and then, I think its a reasonable guess.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Hardly ever and certainly nowhere remotely near the quantity of meat you eat. I hope that helps.

Oh, and nuts aren't 'worse than beef' for land use and greenhouse emissions. Funny how you missed that, isn't it?

Oh, now we're doing context.
I didn't miss it, I deliberately left it out, because you don't seem to care about context.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well based on how much time you spend on here defending meat-eating and arguing against vegans, whilst tossing in the occasional 'factory farming boo' virtue signal every now and then, I think its a reasonable guess.

I'd far rather have a whole conversation devoted to solutions to the problem. I've said that many, many times. I've given various examples of what I consider to be good practice, of farming practices that solve many of the problems of monocultures both for animals and plants.

But you know better. I'm not sincere. I don't really want change. You know this because...

So there we are.

 

[Pickman's model]

Hardly ever and certainly nowhere remotely near the quantity of meat you eat. I hope that helps.

Oh, and nuts aren't 'worse than beef' for land use and greenhouse emissions. Funny how you missed that, isn't it?

some nuts are bloody awful and might not be worse than beef for land use of greenhouse emissions but eating them can make you party to cruelty - for example cashews. The Cashew Nut Cruelty That No One Tells You About

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nope. I'm as flawed and as hypocritical as the next person, you included.

But at least I don't pretend that some of my dietary choices aren't environmentally damaging and I do try and make a small difference by using alternatives, rather than indulging in extended whataboutery and constantly trying to make excuses for the inexcusable.

Who here is pretending that some of their dietary choices aren't environmentally damaging? Not me. Not anyone from what I can tell.

You undermine your point by liking every idiotic post make ddraig and Jeff. So you're another one who refuses to take other posters at face value. Not really anywhere we can go from there is there?

 

[editor]

some nuts are bloody awful and might not be worse than beef for land use of greenhouse emissions but eating them can make you party to cruelty - for example cashews. The Cashew Nut Cruelty That No One Tells You About

I don't like cashew nuts but thanks anyway,

 

[editor]

I'd far rather have a whole conversation devoted to solutions to the problem. I've said that many, many times. I've given various examples of what I consider to be good practice, of farming practices that solve many of the problems of monocultures both for animals and plants.

But you know better. I'm not sincere. I don't really want change. You know this because...

So there we are.

Because you barely shifted one inch in your defence of meat and the meat industry since this discussion started. That's why.

 

[Saul Goodman]

some nuts are bloody awful and might not be worse than beef for land use of greenhouse emissions but eating them can make you party to cruelty - for example cashews. The Cashew Nut Cruelty That No One Tells You About

There's so much food production that involves human suffering. Coffee and chocolate are really bad, but they seem to get a free pass.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because you barely shifted one inch in your defence of meat and the meat industry since this discussion started. That's why.

You're not really reading what I post though, are you? I've consistently said what I think is wrong with 'the meat industry' from the start. I've linked to examples of what I consider to be better ways to do it. You just seem to ignore those bits.

But yes, there are forms of meat production that I have no real problem with. The traditional way that sheep are farmed in Wales is a good example. Farmed shellfish like mussels and oysters are another.