Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[editor]

overweight, pls.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[kabbes]

Here's another study for the meat fans to ignore/dismiss/go into full denial about

Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives - Nature Communications

Meat and dairy alternatives are promoted for diet sustainability. Here, the authors use a modelling approach to show that replacing 50% of pork, chicken, beef and milk globally with plant-based alternatives can reduce GHG emissions by 6.3 Gt CO2eq year-1 and more than half biodiversity loss by 2050.

www.nature.com

Have you noticed in your careful reading of the study that the impact of the discussed 50% change (or even complete dietary substitution) on European land use, water use, nitrogen input and GHG production is minimal? The effect is almost entirely concentrated in Brazil, Other South America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The report is underlining what many on this thread, such as Funky_monks , have been saying all along — it is environmental context and the way that farming is performed that really matters, not simplistic dividing lines.

 

[butcher]

You're actually moaning because I've said an unkind thing about the greenwashing meat lobby? You know, the people who are putting the environment and the planet's future at risk in the name of fat profits?

Filthy meat lobby was the exact phrase.

TBH 90% of business does the same.

Business is about turning a profit whether 'meat lobby' or meatless lobby.

The use of filthy before meat comes across as another less than subtle dig at anyone who is involved in the meat industry.

 

[editor]

Filthy meat lobby was the exact phrase.

TBH 90% of business does the same.

Business is about turning a profit whether 'meat lobby' or meatless lobby.

The use of filthy before meat comes across as another less than subtle dig at anyone who is involved in the meat industry.

Yes. And the 'filthy' part relates to the well documented sector of the meat industry that is trying to downplay the role of meat in the climate crisis through disinformation, deceit, propaganda and lies.

How would you describe such people?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are a fair few people trying to up-play the role of meat in the climate crisis in furtherance of their agenda. It remains the case that adding extra carbon to the carbon cycle, carbon that has been sequestered away underground for millions of years, is the primary driver of climate change. Drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels is the only way to tackle the climate crisis. Currently use of fossil fuels worldwide is still increasing, amazingly, decades after we realised the harm it is causing. The rate of increase has slowed, but we haven't even begun to tackle the issue of a meaningful changeover to a sustainable system of energy production.

Meat farming worldwide needs radical reform. Farming systems generally - both meat and plants - need reform in the name of sustainability, biodiversity, environmental degradation, animal welfare, food security and affordability, and reducing the use of fossil fuels in farming. Banging on about meat and climate change missed several points. Animal farming isn't the driver of climate change. If only it were that simple.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Folk generally want banned the shit they themselves don’t do. It’s very easy for vegetarians to point to meat eaters and for cyclists to point to car drivers and folk who never fly to point at those that do. Nobody is truly innocent in this mess, are they? If we’re boiling it all down to an issue of individual actions we’re all saints and all guilty.

 

[bcuster]

There's a lesson in this for all of us:

 

[Funky_monks]

I'd be really interested to know what that "lesson" is, especially since pandas would have become extinct were it not for human efforts to save them - they are also to lazy to shag most of the time.......

 

[Funky_monks]

Folk generally want banned the shit they themselves don’t do. It’s very easy for vegetarians to point to meat eaters and for cyclists to point to car drivers and folk who never fly to point at those that do. Nobody is truly innocent in this mess, are they? If we’re boiling it all down to an issue of individual actions we’re all saints and all guilty.

It doesn't negate that the cause of human made global warming is is taking carbon sequestered from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it back into the atmosphere by burning it.

 

[WouldBe]

I'd be really interested to know what that "lesson" is, especially since pandas would have become extinct were it not for human efforts to save them - they are also to lazy to shag most of the time.......

Viagra and red bull.

 

[bcuster]

It doesn't negate that the cause of human made global warming is is taking carbon sequestered from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it back into the atmosphere by burning it.

Adaptive feeding habits. The pandas became vegetarian because they learned it was unnecessary to kill their fellow creatures in order to survive. This resulted in a quieter, more relaxed and peaceful lifestyle for themselves…

 

[Funky_monks]

Adaptive feeding habits. The pandas became vegetarian because they learned it was unnecessary to kill their fellow creatures in order to survive. This resulted in a quieter, more relaxed and peaceful lifestyle for themselves…

But they didn't survive - that's the point, without captive breeding programmes they'd be extinct.

 

[bcuster]

But they didn't survive - that's the point, without captive breeding programmes they'd be extinct.

Humans will not extinct if we adjust our diets in accordance with ecological and ethical considerations

 

[stavros]

Drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels is the only way to tackle the climate crisis.

Appreciating that I'm taking just one sentence of your post, I think it can be read without the surrounding context.

I don't think there's a choice of singular actions, one alone of which will address the issues we face, now and to a much greater extent in the future. Reduction of fossil fuel use is vital, as is the reduction of animal food and drink. Whether one or the other has a greater positive effect doesn't matter, and their summed effect is greater.

 

[iona]

Humans will not extinct if we adjust our diets in accordance with ecological and ethical considerations

Are you claiming pandas don't eat meat due to "ecological and ethical considerations" then?

Or are humans and pandas not eating meat in fact two totally separate things that happen for different reasons and have different outcomes, rather than comparable scenarios we could learn a lesson from?

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Adaptive feeding habits. The pandas became vegetarian because they learned it was unnecessary to kill their fellow creatures in order to survive. This resulted in a quieter, more relaxed and peaceful lifestyle for themselves…

No, pandas are useless evolutionary dead ends and only survive due to human intervention.

 

[bcuster]

No, pandas are useless evolutionary dead ends and only survive due to human intervention.

I think pandas can and do survive in the wild. I understand that they didn’t make a conscious choice to change their diet; their instinctual choice to do so saved them as a species. Humans can make the same choice, consciously, and accomplish the same end; enhance the environment and act in a more ethical manner.

 

[newme]

I think pandas can and do survive in the wild. I understand that they didn’t make a conscious choice to change their diet; their instinctual choice to do so saved them as a species. Humans can make the same choice, consciously, and accomplish the same end; enhance the environment and act in a more ethical manner.

It didn't save shit lol we had to intervene as they were shite at the only two things they needed to do, eat and fuck.

 

[editor]

The Swiss government says that their citizens is 'eating three times too much” meat and wants them to cut back drastically. Which sounds like a very sensible idea.

Less meat
A range of measures should help achieve these targets. These include reducing food waste throughout the supply chain, managing water sparingly and reducing the sector's energy consumption by using renewable energies. As far as consumers are concerned, the key is to raise awareness.

A change in behaviour is needed, Michael Beer of the FOSV emphasised to the media, particularly with regard to meat consumption. "Two to three portions of meat a week is a maximum from a health point of view. We are eating three times too much," said Beer.

Government's New Climate Strategy Wants Swiss To Eat Less Meat

Português (pt) Nova estratégia climática do governo quer que suíços comam menos carne <ul> <li /> Share <li /> Facebook <li /> Twitter

menafn.com

 

[editor]

While in the UK, a Climate Change Committee report suggests incentives to ‘reduce their desire to consume meat’ and make ‘low-carbon diet choices.’

A CCC summary of the proposals lists “reducing high-carbon foods in people’s diets (e.g. meat and dairy)” as the first of eight “key areas” in the report.
It states: “Providing information about a food’s impact on one’s health, the environment, or animal welfare is not an effective way to change diets in isolation. Information-based interventions work best in combination with other approaches, such as making plant-based foods more available, convenient, attractive, and affordable.
“Policymakers may achieve this by making plant-based options more visible and the default in supermarkets and restaurants, alongside introducing financial incentives (e.g. reducing the price of plant-based foods).”

https://archive.ph/z0H0l#selection-2507.0-2515.214

 

[butcher]

Might explain a few things...............

Media hub - BMJ Group

Explore the latest published research, corporate updates, and insights from BMJ Group. Stay informed about cutting-edge scientific studies, medical innovations, and our impact on global healthcare.

www.bmj.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Appreciating that I'm taking just one sentence of your post, I think it can be read without the surrounding context.

I don't think there's a choice of singular actions, one alone of which will address the issues we face, now and to a much greater extent in the future. Reduction of fossil fuel use is vital, as is the reduction of animal food and drink. Whether one or the other has a greater positive effect doesn't matter, and their summed effect is greater.

They're not really equivalent.

Massive reduction of fossil fuel use is vital because it is adding new carbon to the carbon cycle. Carrying on at our current levels leads to continued global warming. Even steady reduction in fossil fuel use leads to continued global warming, it just slows the rate of increase.

The contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas levels is still pretty disputed territory, but even going by figures claiming 20% contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, carrying on with current practices doesn't add to global warming. If you're talking about farming as it is practised today, the most you can say is that it added to the carbon cycle at some point in the past when land was cleared, etc, and that can perhaps be reversed if current farming practices are changed.

That's a fundamental difference. One is adding new carbon to the carbon cycle while the other isn't. One is an emergency in which the longer we delay, the more damage is done. The other isn't.

 

[butcher]

Of course the building industry could do more as well:

Concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint

Concrete will be crucial for much-needed climate-resilient construction. But the cement industry must set out its plan for decarbonization.

www.nature.com

 

[editor]

Of course the building industry could do more as well:

Concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint

Concrete will be crucial for much-needed climate-resilient construction. But the cement industry must set out its plan for decarbonization.

www.nature.com

Concrete, eh?

That's class-leading whataboutery right there. Well done.

 

[editor]

Might explain a few things...............

Media hub - BMJ Group

Explore the latest published research, corporate updates, and insights from BMJ Group. Stay informed about cutting-edge scientific studies, medical innovations, and our impact on global healthcare.

www.bmj.com

What might it 'explain,' exactly? Please explain.

 

[stavros]

They're not really equivalent.

And nor are they in competition; we don't have to choose one or the other, and can do both.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And nor are they in competition; we don't have to choose one or the other, and can do both.

They're not in competition because they're not in the same race. The burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change. It will continue to cause global heating until we stop doing it. That's the emergency. Focusing on agriculture wrt climate change is an irrelevant distraction that is likely to produce bad answers as to what needs changing (UPSIDE Burger anyone?). Climate change isn't the reason we need to radically reform how we do agriculture.

 

[editor]

Climate Change Committee: we need to eat less meet
Response: but what about concrete?!!!!

 

[stavros]

Climate change isn't the reason we need to radically reform how we do agriculture.

The way you've worded that implies there is a single reason, which I don't think is true. Agriculture and the food system is not my area of expertise, but I'm sure there can be multiple reforms which complement both one another, and the wider environmental and social problems.

 

[JimW]

Poor old pandas, it hasn't been their diet that's the problem, it's gross habitat loss and the isolation of groups as they can no longer get to each other. Hence Qingling corridor programme.