Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Poot]

This is indeed a big factor that gets forgotten in an oversimplified "meat bad, veggies good" position. Even locally sourced beef is still going to beat flying in tofu from halfway across the world. Another aspect that gets forgotten a lot is that there is a large variability within the meat and vegetable categories, some meat sources are more environmentally friendly than some vegetable sources.

I agree to a point. I think banning the import of certain crops is an inevitability. There are human rights concerns as well as environmental ones with things like cashew nuts for example. But livestock take up a lot of space and a lot of resources and create a lot of greenhouse gases. Ironically, global warming means that we can now grow crops locally that we couldn't before, though, so hopefully we can have a greater variety of crops. And if you take out the fields of livestock, you end up with a wider choice locally, too. For example, London cauliflowers probably come from Cornwall, but there are definitely areas closer where you could grow cruciferous veg.

 

[Funky_monks]

Large quantities of those crops feed livestock.

How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?

This is all a bit ingenuous.

It's not that simple though is it? Take soy for example - when rainforest is cleared to grow soya, the producers are after the oil. It is the rest of the plant (some 80 odd percent of it) is suitable for feeding livestock and not a lot else.
Until very recently, Brazilian soy byproducts fed chicken in Brazil and the rest was exported to China to feed pigs.

The system whereby we turn sunlight into protien via the medium of plants fed to animals is pretty ingenious and so far industrially produced foods have failed to match it.

 

[editor]

You must be reading a different thread from me.

Oh I could point you in the direction of endless posts which have absolutely nothing to do with discussing the topic here. If I could be bothered, which I can't.

Seems strange that you say you failed to notice all those disruptive posts but it got so bad, I even came close to closing the thread recently because it seemed that there was no chance of having a sensible discussion, but at least it has got back on track.

For now, at least.

 

[Spymaster]

You must be reading a different thread from me. I see a discussion of the ways in which meat production fits in to farming currently, how it could do so in a better system, and what kinds of outcomes we want to achieve. Everyone will have different ideas about that, clearly, but it's an exploration of the issues introduced in the OP. Odd kind of trash.

Quite. It's turned into a genuine discussion and exchange rather than a simple trolling of meat eaters. That was never supposed to happen!

 

[editor]

I agree to a point. I think banning the import of certain crops is an inevitability. There are human rights concerns as well as environmental ones with things like cashew nuts for example. But livestock take up a lot of space and a lot of resources and create a lot of greenhouse gases. Ironically, global warming means that we can now grow crops locally that we couldn't before, though, so hopefully we can have a greater variety of crops. And if you take out the fields of livestock, you end up with a wider choice locally, too. For example, London cauliflowers probably come from Cornwall, but there are definitely areas closer where you could grow cruciferous veg.

Cornwall used to be famous for its vast supply of broccoli (special trains used to haul it into London), but over half comes from the EU now.

 

[Funky_monks]

There are other questions there. For instance, should we do anything with it? Should we be aiming to farm every bit of land that can be farmed?

While I agree with the broad thrust that land needs to be used smartly everywhere in order to continue to feed the world's population and further drive down malnutrition (it's not all bad news on this front - the number of well-nourished people in the world is at a record high right now), there is also a harder question to do with how much land, if any, we should be leaving alone. Not just for carbon emissions purposes, but simply for its own sake, and also for the more utilitarian but related issue to do with maintaining a healthy biodiversity.

No, I don't think we should be farming all land that could be farmed - but the land that should be farmed less intensively is that in more "brittle" environments - ie more subject to drought etc, which is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
There's vast areas of land suitable only for livestock production. Alaska is quite a good example, having a tiny amount of cropping land on a vast landmass.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree to a point. I think banning the import of certain crops is an inevitability. There are human rights concerns as well as environmental ones with things like cashew nuts for example. But livestock take up a lot of space and a lot of resources and create a lot of greenhouse gases. Ironically, global warming means that we can now grow crops locally that we couldn't before, though, so hopefully we can have a greater variety of crops. And if you take out the fields of livestock, you end up with a wider choice locally, too. For example, London cauliflowers probably come from Cornwall, but there are definitely areas closer where you could grow cruciferous veg.

We all need to love the cauliflower more. Perfect veg to grow in the UK.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, I don't think we should be farming all land that could be farmed - but the land that should be farmed less intensively is that in more "brittle" environments - ie more subject to drought etc, which is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
There's vast areas of land suitable only for livestock production. Alaska is quite a good example, having a tiny amount of cropping land on a vast landmass.

i think it would be a very bad idea to turn all of alaska over to livestock production.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, I don't think we should be farming all land that could be farmed - but the land that should be farmed less intensively is that in more "brittle" environments - ie more subject to drought etc, which is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
There's vast areas of land suitable only for livestock production. Alaska is quite a good example, having a tiny amount of cropping land on a vast landmass.

Yep that makes sense, and needs to be thrown into the localism mix as well. In some cases it does make sense to produce and export.

 

[Funky_monks]

You can't be this thick, can you? The science is pretty straightforward on the devastating impact of intensive meat diets, and at no point has any scientist anywhere concluded that the answer is to eat yet more meat.

Except it isn't.
The generalisation of it and the way it's reported makes it seem that way, but as I've said before on other threads, the reduction of environmental/Agricultural science to give "one size fits all" global solutions is ridiculous because it intrinsically supposes that land is uniform and entirely negates geography.

Its quite literally my job to read the science as pertains to agriculture.

 

[Funky_monks]

i think it would be a very bad idea to turn all of alaska over to livestock production.

Almost all of Alaska's land suitable for agriculture does grow livestock - mostly cattle.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You can't be this thick, can you? The science is pretty straightforward on the devastating impact of intensive meat diets, and at no point has any scientist anywhere concluded that the answer is to eat yet more meat.

That's a slight, but important, mis-statement of what the science says. The science says that worldwide food production as it is currently constituted is having a devastating impact. Now that system is set up to cater, among other things, to a large number of people who eat meat, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that diets with high meat content are having that devastating impact. You could as easily, and with more justification, say that the capitalist mode of production as applied to agriculture is having a devastating impact. That's a more meaningful way to put it, I would think, as it then includes the non-meat bits that are also highly problematic, such as almond production or palm oil production.

 

[editor]

That's a slight, but important, mis-statement of what the science says. The science says that worldwide food production as it is currently constituted is having a devastating impact. Now that system is set up to cater, among other things, to a large number of people who eat meat, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that diets with high meat content are having that devastating impact.

No, that's simply not true. Scientists have repeatedly and consistently stated that reducing meat consumption is at the core of reversing environmental changes.

And in answer the part of my statement you've quoted, they have never insisted that eating more meat is the solution.

How much would giving up meat help the environment?

Going vegan for two-thirds of meals could cut food-related carbon emissions by 60%

www.economist.com

Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet

The report on global land use and agriculture comes amid accelerating deforestation in the Amazon.

www.nature.com

Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report

To feed a growing global population and curtail climate change, scientists say we need to radically change our food systems.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Plant-based diet can fight climate change - UN

A major report says the West's high consumption of meat is fuelling global warming.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019

Eating meat has a hefty impact on the environment from fueling climate change to polluting landscapes and waterways

www.theguardian.com

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock - it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland

www.theguardian.com

Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges

Taxes may be needed to curb eating meat and dairy in the effort to combat climate change.

www.bbc.co.uk

Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake

Western diets are characterised by a high intake of meat, dairy products and eggs, causing an intake of saturated fat and red meat in quantities that …

www.sciencedirect.com

*along with all the other obvious stuff like reducing air miles etc.

 

[WouldBe]

Large quantities of those crops feed livestock.

How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?

This is all a bit ingenuous.

Not sure I believe that as it appears to show that virtually no food for direct human consumption is grown in Europe.

 

[Funky_monks]

No, that's simply not true. Scientists have repeatedly and consistently stated that reducing meat consumption is at the core of reversing environmental changes.

And in answer the part of my statement you've quoted, they have never insisted that eating more meat is the solution.

How much would giving up meat help the environment?

Going vegan for two-thirds of meals could cut food-related carbon emissions by 60%

www.economist.com

This is based on US feedlot beef production which is intrinsically less sustainable than pasture produced beef (like the majority of european beef) and once again completey ignores the ammount of carbon sequestered by the pasture used to graze that beef before it goes to the feedlot for finishing.

Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet

The report on global land use and agriculture comes amid accelerating deforestation in the Amazon.

www.nature.com

Have you read the IPCC report? I have and theres hardly a mention of meat production - it deals with GHG emissions in ag as a whole.

Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report

To feed a growing global population and curtail climate change, scientists say we need to radically change our food systems.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Yes, it does - trying to graze cattle in brittle environments leads to soil loss, which is the focus of the article.

Plant-based diet can fight climate change - UN

A major report says the West's high consumption of meat is fuelling global warming.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is true, insomuch as imported meat causes deforestation etc - nothing to do with home produced meat

Why eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019

Eating meat has a hefty impact on the environment from fueling climate change to polluting landscapes and waterways

www.theguardian.com

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock - it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland

www.theguardian.com

This study did not claim this - industry and transport are responsible for far more GHG than ag - completely disingenuous - this was right about the time C4 ran its George Monbiot special on the same subject (conicidentally just after C4 had bought lots of shares in a meatless meat company)

Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges

Taxes may be needed to curb eating meat and dairy in the effort to combat climate change.

www.bbc.co.uk

Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake

Western diets are characterised by a high intake of meat, dairy products and eggs, causing an intake of saturated fat and red meat in quantities that …

www.sciencedirect.com

This study is based on calculations of hypotheticals - it's the same generalisation trap that metanalyses often fall into. Also, doesn't answer the question of where thks cropping land to grow foods for human consumption is coming from.

*along with all the other obvious stuff like reducing air miles etc.

 

[WouldBe]

Well said. Unfortunately some of the vegigans on here don't want to hear that their evidence and beliefs maybe wrong.

It's alright saying 'all land used for livestock should be turned over to directly edible crops' but I've had to point out there is no way you could get a tractor on a lot of the land, particularly used to graze sheep, and even if you could a lot of the soil is only a few inches deep so wouldn't be able to support the growth of crops any way.

 

[ddraig]

The amount of meat eaters who have relentlessly tried to trash this thread, week after week, is quite depressing and makes you wonder what their motivation is. It's not like the notion of an intensive meat diet being bad for the environment is even slightly controversial - it's something that has been supported by study after study, yet only a few hours ago, we get a post concluding, "Looks like we need to eat more meat then."

bit like the dickheads you get on feminist threads and discussions, sad

 

[ddraig]

It's not that simple though is it? Take soy for example - when rainforest is cleared to grow soya, the producers are after the oil. It is the rest of the plant (some 80 odd percent of it) is suitable for feeding livestock and not a lot else.
Until very recently, Brazilian soy byproducts fed chicken in Brazil and the rest was exported to China to feed pigs.

The system whereby we turn sunlight into protien via the medium of plants fed to animals is pretty ingenious and so far industrially produced foods have failed to match it.

link?

 

[Larry Noppius]

No, that's simply not true. Scientists have repeatedly and consistently stated that reducing meat consumption is at the core of reversing environmental changes.

{...}

One can note that only 1 out of 8 of your references is to an actual primary scientific source.

 

[Funky_monks]

link?

Brazilian soybean exports' top countries of destination 2019 | Statista
Soybean Processing - Crown Iron Works

 

[ddraig]

Brazilian soybean exports' top countries of destination 2019 | Statista

thanks, it doesn't seem to mention the oil in your post unless I've missed it
e2a or an 80% figure

 

[Funky_monks]

thanks, it doesn't seem to mention the oil in your post unless I've missed it

Just added one about the process

 

[editor]

One can note that only 1 out of 8 of your references is to an actual primary scientific source.

Does that matter? The articles reference multiple studies, so if you're going to dismiss those, let's see your reasons why.

 

[editor]

Well said. Unfortunately some of the vegigans on here don't want to hear that their evidence and beliefs maybe wrong.

What the fuck is this 'vegigans' nonsense? Oh, and could you produce some credible science to back up your claim that eating more meat is some kind of practical solution? Thanks.

 

[Funky_monks]

What the fuck is this 'vegigans' nonsense? Oh, and could you produce some credible science to back up your claim that eating more meat is some kind of practical solution? Thanks.

Has anyone, anywhere claimed that eating more meat is a practical solution to anything?

Thought not.

 

[Poot]

Well said. Unfortunately some of the vegigans on here don't want to hear that their evidence and beliefs maybe wrong.

It's alright saying 'all land used for livestock should be turned over to directly edible crops' but I've had to point out there is no way you could get a tractor on a lot of the land, particularly used to graze sheep, and even if you could a lot of the soil is only a few inches deep so wouldn't be able to support the growth of crops any way.

Fucking hell, will you stop it with the 'vegigans'? It's not even a word!

 

[Larry Noppius]

Does that matter? The articles reference multiple studies, so if you're going to dismiss those, let's see your reasons why.

It kind of does, yes. Popular media misrepresenting scientific findings, either deliberately or through incompetence (journalists aren't scientists after all), is pretty much what they always do. If you're going to argue that your claims are based on science then reference the actual science, not a newspaper article about it.

 

[editor]

Fucking hell, will you stop it with the 'vegigans'? It's not even a word!

It's pathetic, isn't it?

 

[Funky_monks]

Well said. Unfortunately some of the vegigans on here don't want to hear that their evidence and beliefs maybe wrong.

It's alright saying 'all land used for livestock should be turned over to directly edible crops' but I've had to point out there is no way you could get a tractor on a lot of the land, particularly used to graze sheep, and even if you could a lot of the soil is only a few inches deep so wouldn't be able to support the growth of crops any way.

There's lots of soils totally unsuitable for crop production, but this seems to have escaped a lot of people.
And, of those, many would be well managed with animals in rotation as opposed to a reliance on petrochemical fertiliser.

 

[editor]

Has anyone, anywhere claimed that eating more meat is a practical solution to anything?

Thought not.

Yes, right here:

So producing meat produces less GHG than producing crops. Looks like we need to eat more meat then.