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

[Funky_monks]

Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.

In the EU (and the UK) the emissions from the entire agricultural sector are 10%, 5.1 from cropping, 4.9 from livestock.

These figures are without the sequestration done by pasture, which is better at it than most trees, with the exception of ancient forest. Permanent pasture seems to sequester even more ghg if you lime it.

Enteric methane is a fraction of that - also it conveniently ignores that the methane cycle is a naturally occurring thing that ruminants do.

 

[Funky_monks]

One fifth is not a 'piddling amount' by any fucking measure and - unlike heating and power generation - it's not essential because there's plenty of readily available alternatives.

Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds

Production of meat worldwide causes twice the pollution of production of plant-based foods, a major new study has found

www.theguardian.com

Also, read your own article- those figures include packing, transport etc.
You can immediately slash those by buying local meat and not wrapping the stuff in plastic.
To suggest agriculture is responsible for or has any control over supply chains to retailers is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[editor]

Also, read your own article- those figures include packing, transport etc.
You can immediately slash those by buying local meat and not wrapping the stuff in plastic.

Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.

But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.

 

[xenon]

Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.

Come on this is daft. Reducing GHG emissions and use of fossil fuels across all sectors is what's needed.

That needant mean never eating meat. Reducing sure. I'm more interested in the environmental arguments about all our food production, how agriculture is managed. There's only a couple of posters on here who seem to have anything informative to say about any of that. The rest is the usual yawnsome stuff.

 

[Sue]

Trouble is that the climate damage is less than 20% from meat production. It's a piddling amount with far bigger fish to fry like transport, power generation and heating. Tackling those will have a much bigger affect on climate change than reducing meat consumption. It's like changing your lights for LEDs and then having the heating on full blast and opening the windows to regulate the temperature.

It's interesting though. There was a recent thread about people cutting down on car use and, strangely enough, loads of folk here really weren't up for that either.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.

But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.

I do, what you do (and are doing) is trying to say that something you do according to your own set of ethical values is also intrinsically better for the environment. It isn't.
You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef (see above graph) and that's not taking into account the hectares of plastic covering the planet to grow them.
Would I suggest people stopped eating veg?
No.

From the UK soya growers association website:

The Protein Problem​

The majority of plant based burgers, sausages, nuggets and steaks on the market today are made from some form of protein isolate, with the dominant varieties being soy and pea. Much of this is produced in the US and Canada, where both crops are grown in enormous quantities. Isolating protein from soya or pea is a large scale industrial process, requiring a good deal of energy and water. Often, solvents such as hexane are used and the resulting protein is highly processed, with an awful lot of environmental impact embedded into it. When making plant based products, these isolates can be extruded to give them texture, either in high moisture systems to make a meat like paste, or through a lower moisture system to produce the dried, textured vegetable protein known as TVP.


If you want to make vegetable based food products that replicate the texture of meat, these sort of extruded isolates are the best starting point. Currently however, there is a complete lack of processing facilities to isolate vegetable protein in the UK, meaning that the majority is imported from the US and Canada. It is perhaps not that well known that as the UK market for plant based products develops, most are made from protein grown thousands of miles away that has been put through a highly energy and water intensive process. A recent study on the environmental impact of soy protein isolates showed that many have a global warming potential higher than that of unprocessed pork and similar to beef, which is perhaps problematic for a manufacturing sector that trades on its environmental credentials.

 

[WouldBe]

And do you think that we have the luxury of ignoring all sources of climate damage which are not the biggest? Your argument is fatuous, that meat production isn’t the largest problem and might therefore just as well be ignored.

Where the fuck have I said it should be ignored?

You tackle the biggest problems first then work down.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I do, what you do (and are doing) is trying to say that something you do according to your own set of ethical values is also intrinsically better for the environment. It isn't.
You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef (see above graph) and that's not taking into account the hectares of plastic covering the planet to grow them.
Would I suggest people stopped eating veg?
No.

From the UK soya growers association website:

The Protein Problem​

The majority of plant based burgers, sausages, nuggets and steaks on the market today are made from some form of protein isolate, with the dominant varieties being soy and pea. Much of this is produced in the US and Canada, where both crops are grown in enormous quantities. Isolating protein from soya or pea is a large scale industrial process, requiring a good deal of energy and water. Often, solvents such as hexane are used and the resulting protein is highly processed, with an awful lot of environmental impact embedded into it. When making plant based products, these isolates can be extruded to give them texture, either in high moisture systems to make a meat like paste, or through a lower moisture system to produce the dried, textured vegetable protein known as TVP.


If you want to make vegetable based food products that replicate the texture of meat, these sort of extruded isolates are the best starting point. Currently however, there is a complete lack of processing facilities to isolate vegetable protein in the UK, meaning that the majority is imported from the US and Canada. It is perhaps not that well known that as the UK market for plant based products develops, most are made from protein grown thousands of miles away that has been put through a highly energy and water intensive process. A recent study on the environmental impact of soy protein isolates showed that many have a global warming potential higher than that of unprocessed pork and similar to beef, which is perhaps problematic for a manufacturing sector that trades on its environmental credentials.

That's not even taking into account the deforestation that these burgers will be causing. Then there's the monoculture problem, the artificial fertiliser problem, the pesticide problem, etc.

 

[pug]

Come on this is daft. Reducing GHG emissions and use of fossil fuels across all sectors is what's needed.

That needant mean never eating meat. Reducing sure. I'm more interested in the environmental arguments about all our food production, how agriculture is managed. There's only a couple of posters on here who seem to have anything informative to say about any of that. The rest is the usual yawnsome stuff.

I'm really interested in how agriculture can work to remove co2 from the atmosphere and store carbon in the soil.

 

[editor]

You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef

This is utter fucking deluded bollocks.

 

[xenon]

I'm really interested in how agriculture can work to remove co2 from the atmosphere and store carbon in the soil.

Yep. Better land management, farming has to be part of it, what ever's being grown or raised. I know jack about farming TBH but appreciate good info.

What ever happened to biochar / agrichar. Vaunted as a game changing solution. I think it has it's own problems and the claims were very over hyped, last I read.

 

[Spymaster]

You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef

As much fun as it is watching you incinerate Nutty Jeff and The Vegheads on these threads, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

 

[Funky_monks]

This is utter fucking deluded bollocks.

Not according to the graph I posted from the EUs "Farm to Fork" policy using the EUs own emissions statistics.
EU’s Farm to Fork strategy impacts climate, productivity, and trade

 

[Funky_monks]

As much fun as it is watching you incinerate Nutty Jeff and The Vegheads on these threads, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

Veg and Horticulture: 13.6%
Cattle: 6.8%
See the graph.
But, as I said, I don't think the answer is to stop eating veg.
I've talked about Horticulture on these kinds of threads before - it can be extremely environmentally damaging. But, the Guardian is not interested in that, it is, apparently mostly interested in ruminants.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Tillage farming is worse

Veg and Horticulture: 13.6%
Cattle: 6.8%
See the graph.
But, as I said, I don't think the answer is to stop eating veg.
I've talked about Horticulture on these kinds of threads before - it can be extremely environmentally damaging. But, the Guardian is not interested in that, it is, apparently mostly interested in ruminants.

Tillage farming releases more CO2 than most meat production creates. But let's not discuss that. Let's just point the finger at meat eaters.

 

[glitch hiker]

Yes. People can do lots of things. Like not buying shitty factory farm products.

But they do - in vast numbers - and your never-ending whataboutery isn't going to change that in the slightest. Try dealing with the reality of the situation rather than inviting wildly improbable alternative realities, like the notion of people in major cities suddenly buying expensive 'local meat' en masse or dishonestly divorcing all the essential processes that gets meat to the consumers' tables.

It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.

 

[Funky_monks]

Tillage farming is worse


Tillage farming releases more CO2 than most meat production creates. But let's not discuss that. Let's just point the finger at meat eaters.

Yes, so sensibly, we ought to direct drill where we can (Horticulture, again, particularly bad for using the plough, especially potatoes. You should see the soil lost onto the roads round here from spuds). If we direct drill, we can also use livestock to graze aftermaths, bringing fertility and reducing reliance on external inputs.

But that might actually involve animals and the abandonment of the idea that solutions to sustainably feeding the planet are as simple as just not producing meat.

That would be a sensible discussion and sensible discussions have no place here.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yes, so sensibly, we ought to direct drill where we can (Horticulture, again, particularly bad for using the plough, especially potatoes. You should see the soil lost onto the roads round here from spuds). If we direct drill, we can also use livestock to graze aftermaths, bringing fertility and reducing reliance on external inputs.

But that might actually involve animals and the abandonment of the idea that solutions to sustainably feeding the planet are as simple as just not producing meat.

That would be a sensible discussion and sensible discussions have no place here.

We can't continue pumping petrochemical fertilisers into the soil and into the water table. Un-tilled soil holds a massive amount of CO2, and along with all the other problems associated with tillage, we simply can't continue with it. It's absolutely unsustainable.
Monocultures aren't sustainable. Vegetables aren't sustainable. Nothing is sustainable the way capitalism dictates it must be done.
But let's blame meat eaters, because a graph in the Guardian says they're bad.

 

[editor]

It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.

Wait, what? How is the packaging and transportation of meat not connected to the meat production and distribution industry?

 

[editor]

Not according to the graph I posted from the EUs "Farm to Fork" policy using the EUs own emissions statistics.
EU’s Farm to Fork strategy impacts climate, productivity, and trade

"You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef"

You've lost the plot completely.

 

[CNT36]

I guess one place to look would be back here

They make clear in the paper that a lot of mitigation can take place to reduce these foods to the lower end of the impact scale. An example that stuck in the mind when I read (several of these threads ago) it was shallower rice paddies. It will probably require a reduction in the production of some of these foods where the mitigation is not sufficient. There will also be issues around other essential products created as a byproduct that still need to be produced im this way at least temporarily. Cutting back on meat is not the solution to agriculture contribution to climate change but it is likely to be a part of it.

 

[editor]

And just look at the shameful actions of the beef/animal feed industry. Absolute scum.

A tranche of leaked documents this week shines a light on the fevered lobbying efforts of polluting nations to muddy the waters of climate science.

Some of the world’s largest producers of coal, oil, beef, and animal feed attempted to water down a key climate change report from the world’s top scientists, according to documents seen by Greenpeace’s investigations outlet Unearthed.

Meanwhile Brazil and Argentina, both large producers of beef and animal feed, wanted references to the climate benefits of a plant-based diet stripped out.

Global demand for meat is a major driver of deforestation – and greenhouse gas emissions – in Brazil.

Beef producers and coal exporters are among nations lobbying for changes to key climate report

Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil producers, has called for phrases such as 'urgent and accelerated' action to phase out fossil fuel use to be 'eliminated' from the report

inews.co.uk

COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report

Countries are asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Funky_monks]

"You'd have more impact by not eating veg than beef"

You've lost the plot completely.

Not according to the EUs own statistics on Agricultural emissions, I haven't.

 

[editor]

Not according to the EUs own statistics on Agricultural emissions, I haven't.

No mate. You really have. You're in some weird kind of denial and it's not healthy.

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Food production accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It takes up half of the planet’s habitable surface.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

 

[DaphneM]

It's not whataboutery when the figures themsleves include things that aren't directly connnected to meat per se.

i dont think he understands what whataboutery means tbh

 

[Saul Goodman]

But look at this!

 

[Funky_monks]

No mate. You really have. You're in some weird kind of denial and it's not healthy.

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Food production accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It takes up half of the planet’s habitable surface.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

In case you missed it:

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Climate crisis is down to too much CO2 being released in to the atmosphere.

Plants take CO2 and turn it in to O2.
Animals take O2 and turn it in to CO2.

This thread is suggesting killing the plants and saving the animals, clearly the opposite is needed and needed now!

 

[Funky_monks]

Climate crisis is down to too much CO2 being released in to the atmosphere.

Plants take CO2 and turn it in to O2.
Animals take O2 and turn it in to CO2.

This thread is suggesting killing the plants and saving the animals, clearly the opposite is needed and needed now!

Sadly: photosynthetic inversion.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Sadly: photosynthetic inversion.

Wot?

You mean animals eating plants? Another reason to kill the fuckers.