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

[littlebabyjesus]

Some back of a fag packet calculations in case anyone's interested.

Since pre-industrial times, CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 130 ppm. In that time, CH4 has gone up about 1.2 ppm. Figures and measurement metrics vary wrt how much more potent CH4 is as a GHG, but let's call it 100 times as potent. That's upper-end. So 1 ppm of CH4 is equivalent to 120 ppm of CO2. The increase in CH4 has been almost as important to global warming as the increase in CO2.

Since 1990 (arbitrary cut-off point due to figures available), CO2 has gone up by approx 60 ppm, while CH4 has gone up by approx 0.15 ppm, equivalent to 15 ppm of CO2, so in recent decades, CO2's increase has been four times as important as that of CH4.

As for where that extra CH4 has come from, sources vary a bit in both figures and methodology, but they generally concur that about 27% is livestock, and about a third comes from fossil fuels. Given that most of the extra CO2 also comes from fossil fuels, you can add that to their accounts.

So while historically, the rise in methane has been nearly as important as the rise in CO2, in the last 30 years carbon dioxide rises have been the main concern, four times as bad. Add to that the fact that fossil fuels are also a major source of methane.

(CH4 turns into CO2 after about eight to nine years, but the amount of extra CO2 this creates is basically negligible.)

Sources, in case I've fucked up a decimal point.

Atmospheric methane - Wikipedia

Forests can't handle all the net-zero emissions plans – companies and countries expect nature to offset too much carbon

That last piece is a good critique of the bullshit that is carbon offset. It is good to plant trees but doing so does not offset the burning of fossil fuels. What it can do is reverse the damage caused by deforestation, but that's a bit different.

ETA:

Various figures are disputable here but others are not. The levels of CO2 vs CH4 I've quoted were both measured at Mauna Kea. Those rises are not disputable.

 

[Funky_monks]

As for where that extra CH4 has come from, sources vary a bit in both figures and methodology, but they generally concur that about 27% is livestock, and about a third comes from fossil fuels. Given that most of the extra CO2 also comes from fossil fuels, you can add that to their accounts.

But, unless I'm very much mistaken, there's no account of what biomass of animals was emitting methane in pre industrial times, we only keep count of farmed animals.

The great plains used to be home to some 40-50 million bison, lots of that is now under the plough and contains few ruminants, although lots has cattle on. The European bison has declined massively, bison hand rangelands have declined in Africa etc etc.

Rice production also emits methane.

We also see no figures for how much farmed grasslands sequester, either - is ruminant farming actually a net emitter? To work this out, youd need to know how much the pasture was sequestering.

 

[Funky_monks]

Oh look, another crank - funny how every time you get somebody who isn't a mathematician and has some knowledge of biology, they disagree with the likes of Poore and Nemecek.



"Walter Jehne is an internationally known Australian soil microbiologist and climate scientist and the founder of Healthy Soils Australia. He is passionate about educating farmers, policymakers and others about “the soil carbon sponge” and its crucial role in reversing and mitigating climate change. He has immense field and research experience in soils, grasslands, agriculture and forests at local, national (CSIRO and Science Adviser to Australia’s National Soil Advocate), and international (UN) level. Walter's specialisation is the role of soil microbes’ symbiotic processes in the ecology of diseases, plant health, nutrient and waste cycling, soil pedogenesis and the regeneration of bio-systems.
Decades of research have made him expert in plant root ecology, mycorrhizal fungi, glomalin, and soil carbon formation. He also has worked on biology's enormous influences in hydrological cycles, weather patterns, regional and global cooling, and cloud formation and rain precipitation. Recent work has focused on commercializing leading bio-innovations which will urgently help restore agro-ecosystems and urban agriculture and ecologies"

Fucking love a fungus, doing loads of reading about them (especially mycorrhizae) currently.

 

[WouldBe]

It's old news to me. I'm surprised you've only just learnt about it to be honest. It's also something that people who eat trendy hipster meat from zero impact small niche producers and butchers care about

I'm sure he's brought it up before years ago.

 

[editor]

Do you think the only knowledge I have about the food I eat is collated in a load of posts on Urban? On this thread, including trying to engage with you on the subject matter, I'm very aware that discussing it would be a waste of my time.
Too much of a comedy pissing match going on here, lots of willy waving.

Ah right. So you've never mentioned it, discussed it or brought it up in any manner here before?
Thanks for clarifying the matter.

 

[editor]

I'm sure he's brought it up before years ago.

Eight years ago, in fact, which makes friedaweed's backfiring point look even more laughable.

 

[butcher]

So you're making no effort to follow current scientific advice to cut back on your meat consumption?

No I focus my effort on supporting high welfare local producers, family run abbatoirs and trying to offer their products affordably to my local customers. I think I have always been open about that.

Why not turn vegan Ed? It has never been easier and it will mean you don't have to support the very systems you are so scathing about.

It would give you the moral high ground and I can't see the meat industry loosing sleep over it.

 

[editor]

No I focus my effort on supporting high welfare local producers, family run abbatoirs and trying to offer their products affordably to my local customers. I think I have always been open about that.

Why not turn vegan Ed? It has never been easier and it will mean you don't have to support the very systems you are so scathing about.

It would give you the moral high ground and I can't see the meat industry loosing sleep over it.

I'm really not going to take a lecture on morality and animal welfare from someone who lines their pockets by their involvement with the wholesale slaughtering of animals.

Still not sure what your rambling point has to do with antibiotics, mind, nor do I think the disgusting meat industry "looses" sleep over many questions of ethics, morality or animal welfare. Next you'll be telling me that those 'high welfare' animals actually want to be killed.

 

[butcher]

I would not dream of lecturing you on those subjects as it would be hypocritical.

However, regarding antibiotics, buying less meat from a retailer of high welfare and free range meat such as myself is part of the solution.

My chicken supplier is antibiotic free and growth promoter free, my pork is totally free range etc etc.

It is more expensive so you buy less quantity but value it more. It is a win win for us both Ed!

 

[DaphneM]

Do you think the only knowledge I have about the food I eat is collated in a load of posts on Urban? On this thread, including trying to engage with you on the subject matter, I'm very aware that discussing it would be a waste of my time.
Too much of a comedy pissing match going on here, lots of willy waving.

I pity the fool whose only knowledge they have about the food they eat is collated in a load of posts on Urban

 

[friedaweed]

Eight years ago, in fact, which makes friedaweed's backfiring point look even more laughable.

This is who you sound like on this thread..



Keep up the the good work. It's hilarious.

I pity the fool whose only knowledge they have about the food they eat is collated in a load of posts on Urban

I pity the fool who searches their own posts to pull tongues as well. It's not a good look really.

 

[CNT36]

Some back of a fag packet calculations in case anyone's interested.

Since pre-industrial times, CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 130 ppm. In that time, CH4 has gone up about 1.2 ppm. Figures and measurement metrics vary wrt how much more potent CH4 is as a GHG, but let's call it 100 times as potent. That's upper-end. So 1 ppm of CH4 is equivalent to 120 ppm of CO2. The increase in CH4 has been almost as important to global warming as the increase in CO2.

Since 1990 (arbitrary cut-off point due to figures available), CO2 has gone up by approx 60 ppm, while CH4 has gone up by approx 0.15 ppm, equivalent to 15 ppm of CO2, so in recent decades, CO2's increase has been four times as important as that of CH4.

As for where that extra CH4 has come from, sources vary a bit in both figures and methodology, but they generally concur that about 27% is livestock, and about a third comes from fossil fuels. Given that most of the extra CO2 also comes from fossil fuels, you can add that to their accounts.

So while historically, the rise in methane has been nearly as important as the rise in CO2, in the last 30 years carbon dioxide rises have been the main concern, four times as bad. Add to that the fact that fossil fuels are also a major source of methane.

(CH4 turns into CO2 after about eight to nine years, but the amount of extra CO2 this creates is basically negligible.)

Sources, in case I've fucked up a decimal point.

Atmospheric methane - Wikipedia

Forests can't handle all the net-zero emissions plans – companies and countries expect nature to offset too much carbon

That last piece is a good critique of the bullshit that is carbon offset. It is good to plant trees but doing so does not offset the burning of fossil fuels. What it can do is reverse the damage caused by deforestation, but that's a bit different.

ETA:

Various figures are disputable here but others are not. The levels of CO2 vs CH4 I've quoted were both measured at Mauna Kea. Those rises are not disputable.

It's worth mentioning that the huge amounts of methane released due to leaks in natural gas infrastructure is a major contributor to the rise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But, unless I'm very much mistaken, there's no account of what biomass of animals was emitting methane in pre industrial times, we only keep count of farmed animals.

The great plains used to be home to some 40-50 million bison, lots of that is now under the plough and contains few ruminants, although lots has cattle on. The European bison has declined massively, bison hand rangelands have declined in Africa etc etc.

Rice production also emits methane.

We also see no figures for how much farmed grasslands sequester, either - is ruminant farming actually a net emitter? To work this out, youd need to know how much the pasture was sequestering.

Yes there are a lot of uncertainties as to what has produced the changes. That the levels have gone up since pre-industrial times by those amounts isn't disputable. That's solid evidence from ice cores and then more recently from direct measurement.

One point to note given the the half-life of methane in the atmosphere is around 8 years is that what was emitted 100 years ago is basically irrelevant now. That's not the case with CO2 emissions, which have a half-life of more than 100 years. (NO2 is even longer.)

Global beef production has roughly doubled in the last 50 years. However, other sources of anthropogenic methane production have also gone up in that period. Natural gas production has quadrupled in the same period. The evidence still points at fossil fuel extraction and use as the main villain in this piece, even if you only confine yourself to considering methane.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's worth mentioning that the huge amounts of methane released due to leaks in natural gas infrastructure is a major contributor to the rise.

It's also worth mentioning that the figures quoted in articles related to this are uncertain. As this UN page says, 'there is neither a common technological approach to monitoring and recording methane emissions, nor a standard method for reporting them'. Given how oil and gas companies operate, it would not surprise me in the least if they were underreporting leakages - as stated here, 'The estimates are considered to be uncertain and are thought to be low.'

The Challenge | UNECE

 

[Funky_monks]

It's also worth mentioning that the figures quoted in articles related to this are uncertain. As this UN page says, 'there is neither a common technological approach to monitoring and recording methane emissions, nor a standard method for reporting them'. Given how oil and gas companies operate, it would not surprise me in the least if they were underreporting leakages - as stated here, 'The estimates are considered to be uncertain and are thought to be low.'

The Challenge | UNECE

Conversely - we haven't really grasped how much methane cattle emit. People are still coming up with ways of measuring it.

And, as per my video - how much is then being sequestered if they either are or are not at pasture.

One of the major critiques of Poore and Nemecek (aside from using GWP as opposed to GWP*) is that they treat every cattle operation like its a massive feed lot on concrete.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Conversely - we haven't really grasped how much methane cattle emit. People are still coming up with ways of measuring it.

And, as per my video - how much is then being sequestered if they either are or are not at pasture.

One of the major critiques of Poore and Nemecek (aside from using GWP as opposed to GWP*) is that they treat every cattle operation like its a massive feed lot on concrete.

Unfortunately this isn't helped by the fact that science reporting in most newspapers is awful. The Guardian is a serial offender. When you do your own journalism on subjects and look at the sources directly, you discover the real levels of uncertainty. Plus, of course, there is a lobby that wants red meat production to be linked to global heating, just as that same lobby is delighted by anything that suggests red meat causes cancer.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Unfortunately this isn't helped by the fact that science reporting in most newspapers is awful. The Guardian is a serial offender. When you do your own journalism on subjects and look at the sources directly, you discover the real levels of uncertainty. Plus, of course, there is a lobby that wants red meat production to be linked to global heating, just as that same lobby is delighted by anything that suggests red meat causes cancer.

Ah yes that shadowy cabal of lobbyists that include the IPCC, the UNFAO, the UNEP, the Food Climate Research Network, the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, the Environmental Change Institute, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, authors of well-designed peer-reviewed journal articles in the Lancet and Nature and multiple award-winning environmental journalist George Monbiot. All working for the nefarious Vegan Industrial Complex against the subaltern oppressed cattlemen yeoman of the land. Fuck taking them serious when you've got citizen journalist LBJ on the case and a subscription to Farmer's Weekly!

 

[WouldBe]

Conversely - we haven't really grasped how much methane cattle emit. People are still coming up with ways of measuring it.

Put some cows in an airtight barn with an air inlet and measure the methane in the extracted air.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Rather than appeal to authority, I prefer to look at the sources directly myself where possible. Don't you? Feel free to dispute or ignore anything I say. That's up to you.

 

[editor]

A reminder of the facts

Global meat consumption has increased significantly in recent decades, with per capita consumption almost doubling since the early 1960s, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Whereas an average of 23.1 kilograms (50.8 pounds) of meat per person were consumed annually in the '60s, the figure had risen to 43.2 kilograms in 2019. Studies show that wealthier countries tend to consume more meat. Projections show that per capita meat consumption in industrialized nations is projected to climb to 69.5 kilograms in 2022 — the projected figure for the developing world is just 27.6 kilograms.

How does livestock contribute to global warming?​

According to FAO data, 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock farming, an industry that emits not only carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) — two gases considered to play a similar role to CO2 in driving global warming. Though methane and nitrous oxide do not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, their respective climate warming potential is about 25 times and 300 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. To compare the impact of different greenhouse gases, a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) is typically calculated.

A 2021 study published in Nature Food did just this.

It found that that plant-based foods account for just 29% of greenhouse gases emitted by the global food industry. In contrast, 57% of greenhouse gas emission in the industry are linked to breeding and rearing cows, pigs and other livestock, as well as producing feed. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions in the food industry are said to result from beef production alone. This is followed by rice cultivation, which generates more greenhouse gases than pork, poultry, lamb, mutton and dairy production.

The meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes not only to global warming but also causes direct environmental pollution. People who eat a lot of meat can help fight the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.

Fact check: How bad is eating meat for the climate? – DW – 10/30/2022

More and more people are going vegeterian or vegan in an effort to help fight climate change. But is a meatless diet really better for the planet?

www.dw.com

 

[Spymaster]

I

Rather than appeal to authority, I prefer to look at the sources directly myself where possible. Don't you? Feel free to dispute or ignore anything I say. That's up to you.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Rather than appeal to authority, I prefer to look at the sources directly myself where possible. Feel free to dispute or ignore anything I say. That's up to you.

That's fair in general, but I was more taking aim at your conspiracy-laden claims about "a lobby that wants red meat production to be linked to global heating", as if that viewpoint is well grounded in scientific research and analysis by a broad array of experts with vastly greater knowledge about the subject than you or I.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's fair in general, but I was more taking aim at your conspiracy-laden claims about "a lobby that wants red meat production to be linked to global heating", as if that viewpoint is well grounded in scientific research and analysis by a broad array of experts with vastly greater knowledge about the subject than you or I.

I haven't disputed that animal farming is a net producer of greenhouse gases, although exactly how much is uncertain, as that UN article mentions. Specifically, how much of the increase in methane is attributable to ruminants isn't clear - the proportion attributable to oil and gas production may very well be larger than the one-third commonly quoted. Truth is that monitoring is not what it should be.

I do dispute this kind of language:

The meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes not only to global warming but also causes direct environmental pollution. People who eat a lot of meat can help fight the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.

'large share' = somewhere between 10 and 15%

'considerably reduce' = perhaps reduce by 10% tops if everyone on the planet went vegan tomorrow

And I object generally to this kind of analysis because it ignores the interconnected nature of farming (eg if you drink milk, you may as well eat veal if they're products of the same system) and it lumps bad farming in with better farming. It doesn't really touch on the question I'm interested in, which is how do we farm better?

 

[ddraig]

wriggle wriggle wriggle

 

[Spymaster]

I haven't disputed that animal farming is a net producer of greenhouse gases, although exactly how much is uncertain, as that UN article mentions. Specifically, how much of the increase in methane is attributable to ruminants isn't clear - the proportion attributable to oil and gas production may very well be larger than the one-third commonly quoted. Truth is that monitoring is not what it should be.

I do dispute this kind of language:



'large share' = somewhere between 10 and 15%

'considerably reduce' = perhaps reduce by 10% tops if everyone on the planet went vegan tomorrow

And I object generally to this kind of analysis because it ignores the interconnected nature of farming (eg if you drink milk, you may as well eat veal if they're products of the same system) and it lumps bad farming in with better farming. It doesn't really touch on the question I'm interested in, which is how do we farm better?

Only a painfully thick bellend could disagree with this!

 

[Pickman's model]

Only a painfully thick bellend could disagree with this!

i expect one will be along shortly

 

[Spymaster]

i expect one will be along shortly

Been and gone

 

[Pickman's model]

Been and gone

it's like buses, another one will be along shortly

 

[ddraig]

very "helpful to debate"!

 

[Funky_monks]

I haven't disputed that animal farming is a net producer of greenhouse gases, although exactly how much is uncertain, as that UN article mentions. Specifically, how much of the increase in methane is attributable to ruminants isn't clear - the proportion attributable to oil and gas production may very well be larger than the one-third commonly quoted. Truth is that monitoring is not what it should be.

I do dispute this kind of language:



'large share' = somewhere between 10 and 15%

'considerably reduce' = perhaps reduce by 10% tops if everyone on the planet went vegan tomorrow

And I object generally to this kind of analysis because it ignores the interconnected nature of farming (eg if you drink milk, you may as well eat veal if they're products of the same system) and it lumps bad farming in with better farming. It doesn't really touch on the question I'm interested in, which is how do we farm better?

I've posted articles in here from the UN defending animal agriculture