Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?

  • I’m already veggie or vegan as any right thinking person should be!

    Votes: 49 25.0%

  • I can take it or leave it, I won’t miss meat

    Votes: 31 15.8%

  • I’d give up meat if I could think what else to cook, but I can’t

    Votes: 7 3.6%

  • I’m reluctant to change, but I accept the need

    Votes: 34 17.3%

  • It’s unimaginable that I won’t have meat in most / all meals - I’ll probably starve

    Votes: 8 4.1%

  • Fuck the planet, I’ll be eating meat till I die or the planet explodes

    Votes: 6 3.1%

  • Poll fail, answer below

    Votes: 15 7.7%

  • Don’t believe the hype - meat will be available forever, nothing much will change

    Votes: 46 23.5%
  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
littlebabyjesus said:
I don't think you really understand the stuff you post up. Why not choose one of those links and talk us through it in your own words?

eg here's that study from the last link, which doesn't really say what the headline you quoted says it says. By their own figures, the reduction in GHG emissions with a shift away from meat would be 29-70% of about a quarter, so between less than 10% and a bit under 20%. (Note the levels of uncertainty there - that would need digging into.) It also comes up with these figures based on assumptions of future changes - 'a reference scenario for 2050'. What assumptions do they make to come up with that reference scenario? Again, need to dig into that a bit more to find out.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
Click to expand...
Very few of them actually differentiate  parts of crops grown for humans, but inedible so fed to stock and wholecrop, grown and fed in its entirety to livestock.

I've seen about one, so far and I think I posted it somewhere.
 
There are a fair few statistical summersaults going on in there as well. For example, that meat emissions could represent half of the GHG emissions we can make if we are to meet the 2050 targets. A good way to crowbar the figure 'half' in there.

But what does it mean? We're waaaaaay off meeting those targets, still headed in the wrong direction, and the vast bulk of the problem is still fossil fuel use.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I don't think you really understand the stuff you post up. Why not choose one of those links and talk us through it in your own words?
Click to expand...
Because I've got better things to do with my time. It's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses or a slippery rep from the tobacco industry in the 60s.
You're not interested in the solid science. You just want to keep om shoving your face fill of meat and feel goo about it.
littlebabyjesus said:
There are a fair few statistical summersaults going on in there as well. For example, that meat emissions could represent half of the GHG emissions we can make if we are to meet the 2050 targets. A good way to crowbar the figure 'half' in there.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Who to trust? Scientists, studies and credible research or the bias confirmation-laden opinions of a zero qualified meat eater in full denial like you? Tough call, eh?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
There are a fair few statistical summersaults going on in there as well. For example, that meat emissions could represent half of the GHG emissions we can make if we are to meet the 2050 targets. A good way to crowbar the figure 'half' in there.

But what does it mean? We're waaaaaay off meeting those targets, still headed in the wrong direction, and the vast bulk of the problem is still fossil fuel use.
Click to expand...

Is that the one that takes into account the emissions, not only from the farming, but the entire supply chain including manufacturing of packaging?

There's two i can think of like that, the amount of ridiculous assumptions in them is staggering.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I can tell you who will be delighted by the way meat is being blamed for climate change in this way and using this language. Oil companies.
Click to expand...
It's almost like they directly benefit from this, especially if they want to take up land to do a lot off offsetting too....

I've even seen one from an agricultural source suggesting that if we went plant based, the emissions would be equivalent to an aeroplane journey to the med every year.
Guilt free fossil fuel heavy holidays!
 
editor said:
The Whataboutery Crown is indeed yours for today.
Click to expand...
The studies your articles are based on (and in many cases are misreporting, but you wouldn't know that as you appear never to read the actual studies) don't actually disagree too much with my back of a fag box numbers. A total change to vegan diet by everyone would reduce GHG emission by perhaps 10%. This includes accounting for things like land use changes, and it also includes various assumptions about how well that transition is made.

Other transitions to better farming systems are also possible, of course, while not all animal farming is equal, of course. The various articles you link to make no mention of these things as they're not interested in exploring them. It's fundamentally dishonest imo to present the argument in this way. Here's what vegan looks like compared to the worst of the worst meat practices (in the case of one study, these are extrapolated into the future to paint an even worse picture) that everyone agrees need to change.

Meanwhile, FM brings up a good point - double-accounting ahoy as the petrol companies plant their trees, while people think that they have done their bit by cutting out meat when in reality that does hardly anything at all to deal with the problem. Terms like 'huge contribution' are not appropriate here.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The studies your articles are based on (and in many cases are misreporting, but you wouldn't know that as you appear never to read the actual studies) don't actually disagree too much with my back of a fag box numbers. A total change to vegan diet by everyone would reduce GHG emission by perhaps 10%. This includes accounting for things like land use changes, and it also includes various assumptions about how well that transition is made.

Other transitions to better farming systems are also possible, of course, while not all animal farming is equal, of course. The various articles you link to make no mention of these things as they're not interested in exploring them. It's fundamentally dishonest imo to present the argument in this way. Here's what vegan looks like compared to the worst of the worst meat practices (in the case of one study, these are extrapolated into the future to paint an even worse picture) that everyone agrees need to change.

Meanwhile, FM brings up a good point - double-accounting ahoy as the petrol companies plant their trees, while people think that they have done their bit by cutting out meat when in reality that does hardly anything at all to deal with the problem. Terms like 'huge contribution' are not appropriate here.
Click to expand...
What's 'misreported' here in this peer reviewed study:

The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change.
Click to expand...
journals.plos.org

Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century

Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global warming through ongoing emissions of the potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, and displacement of biomass carbon on the land used to support livestock. However, because estimates of the magnitude of the effect of ending animal...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
 
editor said:
What's 'misreported' here in this peer reviewed study:


journals.plos.org

Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century

Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global warming through ongoing emissions of the potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, and displacement of biomass carbon on the land used to support livestock. However, because estimates of the magnitude of the effect of ending animal...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
Click to expand...
You tell me why you think it's credible. Give me a brief summary in your own words.

Otherwise, given your past form, I will just have to assume that you haven't read it.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The studies your articles are based on (and in many cases are misreporting, but you wouldn't know that as you appear never to read the actual studies) don't actually disagree too much with my back of a fag box numbers. A total change to vegan diet by everyone would reduce GHG emission by perhaps 10%. This includes accounting for things like land use changes, and it also includes various assumptions about how well that transition is made.
Click to expand...
One of the benefits of being an academic who has, in the past actually done the job is that you can't help but try and apply the science.

If everyone goes vegan (assuming cropping and not some synthetic mycogloop manufactured by massive corps) we need to fertilise those crops somehow. It's a point I've made over and over but we do that one of two ways - synthetic fert made from fossil fuels or manure. Fossil fuels are finite, and the continuing use of them is amoral. Manure is not, it also builds soils, wheras synthetic fert does not and I just posted a research article which shows that manure allows lots more absorbtion of NO2 than synthetic fert.
 
Funky_monks said:
One of the benefits of being an academic who has, in the past actually done the job is that you can't help but try and apply the science.

If everyone goes vegan (assuming cropping and not some synthetic mycogloop manufactured by massive corps) we need to fertilise those crops somehow. It's a point I've made over and over but we do that one of two ways - synthetic fert made from fossil fuels or manure. Fossil fuels are finite, and the continuing use of them is amoral. Manure is not, it also builds soils, wheras synthetic fert does not and I just posted a research article which shows that manure allows lots more absorbtion of NO2 than synthetic fert.
Click to expand...
Yes, the consequences of the post-war Green Revolution are ignored in these links. They're not interested in looking at how a more integrated farming system could work, though. Not only better for the planet, also potentially increasing yields. And yeah, they're hand wavy at best about how agriculture without animals actually works.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You tell me why you think it's credible. Give me a brief summary in your own words.

Otherwise, given your past form, I will just have to assume that you haven't read it.
Click to expand...
I'll put peer reviewed science papers and research above your totally unqualified amateur guesswork every day of the week.

And you're beginning to sound more and more like a conspiracy nut, constantly batting away study after study that doesn't line up with your pro-meat agenda, complaining that the mainstream media is getting it all wrong (sound familiar?), and throwing around accusations of fundamentalism to people who disagree with you.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yes, the consequences of the post-war Green Revolution are ignored in these links. They're not interested in looking at how a more integrated farming system could work, though. Not only better for the planet, also potentially increasing yields. And yeah, they're hand wavy at best about how agriculture without animals actually works.
Click to expand...

Ive talked about it on here in some depth - that, to me is one of the biggest challenges facing agriculture. How do we feed everyone in a post fossil fuel derived fertiliser (and insect/fungicide) world?

You can't just force everyone to stop using them and go organic, that happened in Indonesia quite recently and as soon as you got a bad crop year, massive food shortages.

Agriculture is, by its nature incredibly slow to change, crops have a lead in time of the best part of a year at best, some might take years (fruit etc), it relies on the weather in a way that almost nothing else does.

There's no way we can achieve this without a slow transition, using methods, some very old, others very new, others not developed yet. An issue that compounds this is that we have a population in the west that have only ever known reliable agriculture propped up by synthetic fert and chemical pesticides/herbicides/fungicides, who have no idea how quickly and how disastrous food shortages can be. Indeed, we had so much food in the 90s (remember the EEC wine lake and butter mountain?) that it caused the EU to decouple subsidy from production and essentially pay farmers not to farm - this is what the single farm payment was. People are so used to plentiful, cheap food, and are so urbanised that they have no idea what it takes to produce it. Food prices rising in the way they have here is an example of what can happen with slight supply chain issues/fluctuations in global markets - imagine what could happen with massive crop failures.

This is why I labelled the people that think we should all just go plant based and stop farming the way we do as "starvation enthusiasts".
 
Funky_monks said:
Ive talked about it on here in some depth - that, to me is one of the biggest challenges facing agriculture. How do we feed everyone in a post fossil fuel derived fertiliser (and insect/fungicide) world?

You can't just force everyone to stop using them and go organic, that happened in Indonesia quite recently and as soon as you got a bad crop year, massive food shortages.

Agriculture is, by its nature incredibly slow to change, crops have a lead in time of the best part of a year at best, some might take years (fruit etc), it relies on the weather in a way that almost nothing else does.

There's no way we can achieve this without a slow transition, using methods, some very old, others very new, others not developed yet. An issue that compounds this is that we have a population in the west that have only ever known reliable agriculture propped up by synthetic fert and chemical pesticides/herbicides/fungicides, who have no idea how quickly and how disastrous food shortages can be. Indeed, we had so much food in the 90s (remember the EEC wine lake and butter mountain?) that it caused the EU to decouple subsidy from production and essentially pay farmers not to farm - this is what the single farm payment was. People are so used to plentiful, cheap food, and are so urbanised that they have no idea what it takes to produce it. Food prices rising in the way they have here is an example of what can happen with slight supply chain issues/fluctuations in global markets - imagine what could happen with massive crop failures.

This is why I labelled the people that think we should all just go plant based and stop farming the way we do as "starvation enthusiasts".
Click to expand...
why does it have to be a slow transition when the transition the other way was very quick?
 
editor said:
I'll put peer reviewed science papers and research above your totally unqualified amateur guesswork every day of the week.

And you're beginning to sound more and more like a conspiracy nut, constantly batting away study after study that doesn't line up with your pro-meat agenda, complaining that the mainstream media is getting it all wrong (sound familiar?), and throwing around accusations of fundamentalism to people who disagree with you.
Click to expand...
So you haven't read it then. Righto.

You have an agricultural scientist right here to talk to btw, but you refuse to engage. And I'm the one with the agenda??? :facepalm:
 
Pickman's model said:
why does it have to be a slow transition when the transition the other way was very quick?
Click to expand...
It wasn't that quick - we only started adapting the haber process to make synthetic fert in any volume post ww2 - the horse was still more common than the tractor in 1945. The transition took place 1945 to the 60s (possibly later) in the UK.

The transition has to be slow because:
  • We are now attempting to feed millions more people than we were in 1945
  • Any "wobbles" will lead to huge rises in the cost of food, post harvest 2023 is going to be interesting because the price of synthetic fert was so high that farmers used less, which will mean significantly reduced yields.
  • Importing masses of our food just passes our issues onto the developing world - we can't just accept yield loss for environmental reasons and just import more food from there, that has really poor outcomes for people and environment in those places.
  • Agriculture has long lead in times
  • Asset Fixity theory
  • We need to develop viable ways of doing things like controlling crop pests without chemicals. Plenty of advances coming along, but tech isn't there yet.
 
Spymaster said:
Wrong type of agricultural scientist.
Click to expand...
It is worth noting (again) that a lot of the output linked (Poore etc etc) comes from mathematicians who will make assumptions work up models and make calculations, without ever really thinking about either ecology or geography - why would they? It's not their field.

Most of the stuff I post comes from biologists, ecologists, agricultural scientists etc.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Poore and Nemecek would make a fortune if they were paid per citation.
Click to expand...
I think, if I recall correctly, its the most cited study ever, and its only been around four and a bit years.

I'd love to know if anyone was keeping tabs on how many lay press/social media advert posts it's been responsible for. I got bored of counting when I got to double figures from the Guardian alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
  • Poll
Is there the political will to do anything on climate change?
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
5K
RubyToogood
RubyToogood
A
  • Poll
How can you stay warm when...
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
Aladdin
A
ska invita
Air pollution level by UK postcode
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
geminisnake
geminisnake
Back
Top Bottom