but that would make oak milk surely?
Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?
- Thread starter MrCurry
- Start date
- Status
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
According to this study, At best, giving up animal foods will save 3-6% emissions on a total Western footprint, avoiding red meat a mere 2-4%. And you would have to do that all you life to achieve something meaningful....
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The Guardian's own graphs tell this story well enough. GG emissions continue to go up. We're doing basically fuck all about it. Still. But this increase isn't being caused by agriculture. That's what their own graph shows.According to this study, At best, giving up animal foods will save 3-6% emissions on a total Western footprint, avoiding red meat a mere 2-4%. And you would have to do that all you life to achieve something meaningful....
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
It is staggering that we're still increasing GG emissions more than 40 years after the overwhelming evidence that we need to decrease them was at hand. But that's not down to agriculture. It is down to our continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Yossarian
⏭️
put one cup of rolled oats and four cups of water in the blender, blend for 30 to 45 seconds, strain after blending
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Feed the dregs to your pig...
do people actually do that?
I was just talking to some friends last night who have kept pigs and apparently it’s illegal to feed kitchen scraps to them
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
It is, but the point that was being made is that oatly got a bit of comeback after selling their waste oat pulp for exactly that.
Domestic kitchen waste illegal, byproducts not (your factory has to be registered as an animal feed supplier).
Ah I think I probably missed the point about the oatly pulp thing
I was surprised to hear about the illegal to feed scraps to pigs though. You can give them whole fruit or veg from the garden but not once you’ve cut or peeled them. Funny old world
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
It's more that you can't be sure that meat hasn't been prepared near them, so potentially could lead to foot and mouth disease.
We used to feed veg trimmings from the market to our pigs, which was totally fine and above board
Yeah, that’s what they were explaining as well
I do understand why meat might be a problem with the potential for contamination, I guess I’m just a bit surprised or maybe sad that it’s fine to buy oatly pulp to feed your pigs but illegal to feed your own oat pulp to them.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
what is 'rebound effect'?According to this study, At best, giving up animal foods will save 3-6% emissions on a total Western footprint, avoiding red meat a mere 2-4%. And you would have to do that all you life to achieve something meaningful....
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
Soak the oats for a few hours first, no? That's what I've done anyway.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, we need to improve how we farm and how we eat, and this is one big aspect of that. The main drivers of the need for change are a combination of welfare (animal and human), biodiversity and sustainability, which happily all feed into each other in many varied ways. An indirect consequence of improving those things would be a slight reduction in GHG emissions from farming. But let's not kid ourselves over these figures. Even bad farming practices form part of a carbon cycle. It is when you dig up organic remains that have been locked away underground for millions of years and add that carbon into the cycle that you drive climate change.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
Unlimited free-market dogmatism and the politicians who espouse it, molify it for public consumption, strip any restrictions on it and discredit any opposition to it is a real and deadly serious problem. I know U75 is fairly leftist, but that's honestly how I see it anyway.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep. Hence GHG emissions are continuing to rise decades after we knew they were a problem.
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
Looks like banning cars would make a significant difference.According to this study, At best, giving up animal foods will save 3-6% emissions on a total Western footprint, avoiding red meat a mere 2-4%. And you would have to do that all you life to achieve something meaningful....
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
The reason muslims don't eat pork. Is because of the brain worm parasite (Satan) sits in the meat.
I have lost my daughter to this parasite. I am very unhappy. The only way that kills it is love. Trust.
I have lost my daughter to this parasite. I am very unhappy. The only way that kills it is love. Trust.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
It's no coincidence that the idea of an individuals "carbon footprint" was thought up (as a bastardisation of "ecological footprint") by PR people for Shell, I think (might have been BP). Thus, passing the burden of blame from the fossil fuel companies to the individual.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Plastic made from plants. That sort of thing aye?
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
As long as we can keep flying long haul and eating shrimp in buisness classAccording to this study, At best, giving up animal foods will save 3-6% emissions on a total Western footprint, avoiding red meat a mere 2-4%. And you would have to do that all you life to achieve something meaningful....
The guardian being misleading again?
Surely not?
Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
No people should eat less meat first and then tackle climate change when they have the stomach for it.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Blind scouse FTW.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Yet you're the one who's 'different'
Get a burger down ya Jeff, it might cheer you up.
Wikipedia says it was BP, although if one were to dig deep enough I suspect there may be cooperative working across the sector on that one (Shell, Exxon, Total, etc).
Yossarian
⏭️
Worth a read
Some researchers criticize the FAO’s model for excluding one of the most important ways animal agriculture exacerbates climate change: the immense amount of land it requires. “Livestock use 75 percent of the world’s agricultural land,” which includes both the land that farm animals live on and the land devoted to growing crops to feed them, Searchinger said. “Forty percent of the world’s pasture was originally forest. We have lost a huge amount of carbon storage on that land.”
The FAO’s model continues “to ignore the massive land use of animal agriculture, and the major carbon opportunity costs of that land,” Hayek said. Its estimate does account for new deforestation events — for example, when wild land is cleared to make way for cattle pasture or to grow animal feed crops like soy — but it doesn’t factor in carbon storage opportunities on land that’s already been deforested for animal agriculture.
Freeing up some of that land would allow “large-scale reforestation and native ecosystem restoration,” Hayek said, pulling “multiple years’ worth of our carbon dioxide emissions out of the air and into trees, shrubs, and soils, improving the terrestrial carbon sink, and buying critical additional time that we need to reduce other emissions like fossil fuels.”
www.vox.com
Some researchers criticize the FAO’s model for excluding one of the most important ways animal agriculture exacerbates climate change: the immense amount of land it requires. “Livestock use 75 percent of the world’s agricultural land,” which includes both the land that farm animals live on and the land devoted to growing crops to feed them, Searchinger said. “Forty percent of the world’s pasture was originally forest. We have lost a huge amount of carbon storage on that land.”
The FAO’s model continues “to ignore the massive land use of animal agriculture, and the major carbon opportunity costs of that land,” Hayek said. Its estimate does account for new deforestation events — for example, when wild land is cleared to make way for cattle pasture or to grow animal feed crops like soy — but it doesn’t factor in carbon storage opportunities on land that’s already been deforested for animal agriculture.
Freeing up some of that land would allow “large-scale reforestation and native ecosystem restoration,” Hayek said, pulling “multiple years’ worth of our carbon dioxide emissions out of the air and into trees, shrubs, and soils, improving the terrestrial carbon sink, and buying critical additional time that we need to reduce other emissions like fossil fuels.”
UN numbers say meat is bad for the climate. The reality is worse.
As America gets ready to grill on Memorial Day, a reminder of meat’s role in climate change.
www.vox.com
- Status
