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

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't be a knob.

The figures they use come originally from a paper by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. They're scientists who worked for the World Bank.

https://awellfedworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Climate-Change-Anhang-Goodland.pdf

At the very least, it requires some work to refute the claims.

Probably the place where we can all find agreement is that the chopping down of forests needs to end as a matter of urgency.

 

[Funky_monks]

And... the significance? Why would they treat it any differently from any other methane from grazing ruminants? As you give the impression all ruminants are equal and that methane from farmed animals is used in the methane cycle causing no additional heating why would this matter?

The significance would be that a proportion is being sequestered as the animals graze, without even entering the atmospheric methane cycle and therefore attempts to discover this simply by trying to measure how much methane ruminants burp are likely to be overestimates.

 

[Funky_monks]

The figures they use come originally from a paper by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. They're scientists who worked for the World Bank.

https://awellfedworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Climate-Change-Anhang-Goodland.pdf

At the very least, it requires some work to refute the claims.

Probably the place where we can all find agreement is that the chopping down of forests needs to end as a matter of urgency.

But that's the point isn't it - nobody in their right mind has said that we ought to continue cutting down mature growth forests for cropping. That paper goes even further and seems to suggest that all trees that humans have cut down ever have in some way been for animal agriculture, also seems to take no account of them growing again........

 

[Pickman's model]

But that's the point isn't it - nobody in their right mind has said that we ought to continue cutting down mature growth forests for cropping. That paper goes even further and seems to suggest that all trees that humans have cut down ever have in some way been for animal agriculture, also seems to take no account of them growing again........

I shouldn't need to point this out but once you've cut down a tree you've killed it. It will not grow again.

 

[DaphneM]

I shouldn't need to point this out but once you've cut down a tree you've killed it. It will not grow again.

mighty oaks from little acorns grow​

 

[editor]

More science arriving at the same conclusion: eat less red meat

Additionally, the greater reduction in red meat consumption (50% compared with 35% under the Balanced Pathway) by 2050 results in greater consumption of fruits (17–18 g/day), vegetables (22–23 g/day), and legumes (5–7 g/day). Combined actions under the Balanced Pathway result in more than 2 million cumulative life-years gained over 2021–50; the estimated gain under the Widespread Engagement Pathway is greater, corresponding to nearly 2·5 million life-years gained by 2050 and 13·7 million life-years gained by 2100.

The Lancet: Impact on mortality of pathways to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in England and Wales: a multisectoral modelling study

And an African perspective:

A modelling study by the World Animal Protection on the impacts of excessive meat consumption on climate change compared findings from FAO data across the world mainly in Europe, the US, Thailand and Australia where chicken and beef are consumed in large quantities.

The study established that continuous consumption of meat at current levels is equivalent to having about 29 million vehicles on the road.

“We need to relook at that system; however, we do not have data on meat consumption in Africa but there are efforts to establish the current situation in Africa,” says the study.

According to the study, meat consumption needs to be reduced by 50 per cent by 2040 and meat that is consumed needs to come from high-welfare production systems. If this is implemented by 2040, it will lead to the elimination of about 210 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. This is equivalent to 45 million cars taken off the road.

Want to lower global warming? Eat less meat

According to FAO global meat consumption has increased significantly in recent decades, with per capita consumption almost doubling since the early 1960s.

www.standardmedia.co.ke

 

[Pickman's model]

mighty oaks from little acorns grow​

yes, they are new trees. not the same trees.

 

[Funky_monks]

I shouldn't need to point this out but once you've cut down a tree you've killed it. It will not grow again.

Depends how far you've cut it to be fair - tree stumps often regrow if you leave them, but also that wasn't what I meant and I think you probably know that.

"New ones grow to replace them" - better?

 

[Spymaster]

yes, they are new trees. not the same trees.

Some Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists may disagree with this.

 

[CNT36]

The significance would be that a proportion is being sequestered as the animals graze, without even entering the atmospheric methane cycle and therefore attempts to discover this simply by trying to measure how much methane ruminants burp are likely to be overestimates.

View attachment 360781

Though ruminant methane is already not an issue so it matters little beyond scientific curiosity (a good enough reason) for this thread unless the bacteria have some other beneficial role?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

More science arriving at the same conclusion: eat less red meat



The Lancet: Impact on mortality of pathways to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in England and Wales: a multisectoral modelling study

And an African perspective:

Want to lower global warming? Eat less meat

According to FAO global meat consumption has increased significantly in recent decades, with per capita consumption almost doubling since the early 1960s.

www.standardmedia.co.ke

Yeah but what do they know, they're only researchers with expertise in climate science. Surely we should look to 'The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock' whose signatories include such luminaries as
Beatrice Balvay of 'the French Livestock Institute', Marcio Martinello Sanches of 'Embrapa Beef Cattle', and Abdel Rahman Kilany of the 'Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority'. Really excellent relevant and impartial experts about the societal role of meat there!

 

[editor]

Yeah but what do they know, they're only researchers with expertise in climate science. Surely we should look to 'The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock' whose signatories include such luminaries as
Beatrice Balvay of 'the French Livestock Institute', Marcio Martinello Sanches of 'Embrapa Beef Cattle', and Abdel Rahman Kilany of the 'Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority'. Really excellent relevant and impartial experts about the societal role of meat there!

Looks legit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's the point isn't it - nobody in their right mind has said that we ought to continue cutting down mature growth forests for cropping. That paper goes even further and seems to suggest that all trees that humans have cut down ever have in some way been for animal agriculture, also seems to take no account of them growing again........

The article I linked to does make an interesting point that respiration also needs to be accounted for. In a rainforest, not only is there tons of carbon capture going on via trees, there is also tons of carbon release going on via respiration, rotting, etc.

On this point, it is the role of a landscape as a carbon sink that is most relevant - how much carbon is kept out of the atmosphere in the form of living organic matter. Same issue really as that with fossil fuels - it is emptying sinks that is the fundamental driver of long-term change.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah but what do they know, they're only researchers with expertise in climate science. Surely we should look to 'The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock' whose signatories include such luminaries as
Beatrice Balvay of 'the French Livestock Institute', Marcio Martinello Sanches of 'Embrapa Beef Cattle', and Abdel Rahman Kilany of the 'Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority'. Really excellent relevant and impartial experts about the societal role of meat there!

Says the fellow who's just quoted work by the illustrious Raven Deerbrook, of Direct Action Everywhere (who achieve the remarkable feat of managing to make PETA look comparatively sane) as authoratative!

 

[editor]

Raw Deal shows how consolidation and price-fixing make industry leaders rich, while manipulating consumer choice and harming the environment. Poor soil health, environmental injustice, the spread of antibiotic resistance, and public health issues in communities are among the concerns caused by this system.

According to a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), only three firms control 63 percent of pig processing in the U.S. Just two control 46 percent of cow slaughter and 38 percent of chicken processing. This consolidation in the processing stage alone makes food systems more vulnerable to climate change disruptions and disease outbreaks.

Sure looks grim in the US: Raw Deal Holds Nothing Back about Big Meat in the U.S.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Says the fellow who's just quoted work by the illustrious Raven Deerbrook, of Direct Action Everywhere (who achieve the remarkable feat of managing to make PETA look comparatively sane) as authoratative!

I hadn't heard of them before. Not huge in this country, I think it's safe to say. Website says that the nearest chapter to me is 140 miles away. I haven't watched their introductory video but I don't need to. The still from it showing civil rights protesters is enough to tell me what they are going to say. Objectionable on various levels.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I hadn't heard of them before. Not huge in this country, I think it's safe to say. Website says that the nearest chapter to me is 140 miles away. I haven't watched their introductory video but I don't need to. The still from it showing civil rights protesters is enough to tell me what they are going to say. Objectionable on various levels.

DXE has some incredibly smart and brave activists who are prepared to face jail for exposing cruelty and rescuing animals from the most brutal forms of confinement imaginable. One activist trespassed in order to expose 'ventilation shutdown' - the practice of literally mass cooking farm animals to death. The trespass charges against him were dropped right before the case was due to go to trial. Last year two of its activists were charged with - and acquitted of - burglary and theft after they liberated two sick and dying piglets from a Smithfield-run torture dungeon. They represented themselves in court and were able to get a jury in conservative, rural Utah (a state whose employment is heavily dependent on torture farms) to acquit them on all charges. That takes real skill and legal acumen. The article I posted a few pages back was another undercover expose from a DXE activist, documenting the agony pigs experience when they're gassed in slaughterhouses. They are interested in how activism can bring about social change, that's why they invoke and study past social movements that have been effective in bringing about social change.

 

[Spymaster]

I hadn't heard of them before. Not huge in this country, I think it's safe to say. Website says that the nearest chapter to me is 140 miles away. I haven't watched their introductory video but I don't need to. The still from it showing civil rights protesters is enough to tell me what they are going to say. Objectionable on various levels.


View attachment 360799

Christ almighty.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yeah but what do they know, they're only researchers with expertise in climate science. Surely we should look to 'The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock' whose signatories include such luminaries as
Beatrice Balvay of 'the French Livestock Institute', Marcio Martinello Sanches of 'Embrapa Beef Cattle', and Abdel Rahman Kilany of the 'Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority'. Really excellent relevant and impartial experts about the societal role of meat there!

There's 700 of us, you have to have a university e-mail address to sign it, and verify that you work in that sector via pure or whatever, so yes - all research scientists.

But, once again we are back to the 700 or so scientists who disagree are somehow "not legit", whereas the handful who are producing papers supporting the OP are the few truth tellers in the system.

I always thought a disdain for academics mostly came from the far right...Oh, wait....

 

[Jeff Robinson]

There's 700 of us, you have to have a university e-mail address to sign it, and verify that you work in that sector via pure or whatever, so yes - all research scientists.

Wrong, you only need to list an 'organisation' and the form permits verification through linkedin, public websites or document upload.

 

[Funky_monks]

Wrong, you only need to list an 'organisation' and the form permits verification through linkedin, public websites or document upload.

Er no - they verify your in the case of the UK your .ac.uk email.
Or are you suggesting people are somehow creating both false university email addresses and fraudulent LinkedIn profiles just to sign this thing.

Conspiracy theory incoming.....

I've literally signed it, you loon.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Er no - they verify your in the case of the UK your .ac.uk email.

I've literally signed it, you loon.

I guess you didn't understand the form, the e-mail field has no limitation to university addresses. Take a look at the signatories, many list organisations that are not universities!

Also, the fact that somebody as cavalier with evidence and data as you is a signature does not give me massive confidence in its authority.

 

[Funky_monks]

I guess you didn't understand the form, the e-mail field has no limitation to university websites. Take a look at the signatories, many list organisations that are not universities!

I've signed it, I know what the process is.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I've signed it, I know what the process is.

Evidently not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They are interested in how activism can bring about social change, that's why they invoke and study past social movements that have been effective in bringing about social change.

It's a bit more than that. They make an equivalence between the two causes.

We fought for the rights for black people, now we're fighting for the rights of animals. Except that's not really how it goes, is it? The first lesson of the US civil rights movement should be that black people fought for the rights of black people. And even the most extreme form of animal rights activism has trouble with the idea of not killing invasive species, say, or pests. There isn't an equivalence here. It falls down on several levels, some of them pretty objectionable.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's a bit more than that. They make an equivalence between the two causes.

We fought for the rights for black people, now we're fighting for the rights of animals. Except that's not really how it goes, is it? The first lesson of the US civil rights movement should be that black people fought for the rights of black people. And even the most extreme form of animal rights activism has trouble with the idea of not killing invasive species, say, or pests. There isn't an equivalence here. It falls down on several levels, some of them pretty objectionable.

Yes, there's not equivalence, but they don't claim there is. The indented text in your post would certainly be offensive and historically illiterate, but they don't say that or anything like it. You've drawn an erroneous inference from an image on a thumbnail.

 

[Funky_monks]

Evidently not.

Come back to keep when you've tried and failed to do so. Ta

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Come back to keep when you've tried and failed to do so. Ta

lol, why would I sign that piece of shit statement?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, there's not equivalence, but they don't claim there is. The indented text in your post would certainly be offensive and historically illiterate, but they don't say that or anything like it. You've drawn an erroneous inference from an image on a thumbnail.

Yes they do. They're banging on about '3.5%', but every single example they use involves activists working to free themselves from oppression. It's bullshit dressed up as 'science'.