Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Spymaster]

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

No!

There was a tongue in cheek sarcastic remark which of course has to be taken literally, as per ...

 

[Spymaster]

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

It's kickback. One particular psycho-vegan on here is very fond of calling meat-eaters "carnists" but it seems they get all sensitive when they're called similarly silly names

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, right here:

It's not a great strategy in a discussion/argument to pick on the very weakest point of the 'opposing' side and only attack that, particularly when that point was very clearly not to be taken altogether seriously, hence the

Far better to find the opponent's strongest point and have a go at that.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes, right here:

And you think that was a serious suggestion, do you?

 

[Poot]

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.

I have no interest in going round in circles but petrochemical fertiliser isn't the only option.

 

[Funky_monks]

I have no interest in going round in circles but petrochemical fertiliser isn't the only option.

Yeah, there's also manure and slurry.
Crop rotation with legumes alone does ok for restoring N but not so much P or K.

 

[editor]

It's not a great strategy in a discussion/argument to pick on the very weakest point of the 'opposing' side and only attack that, particularly when that point was very clearly not to be taken altogether seriously, hence the

Far better to find the opponent's strongest point and have a go at that.

I was asked a direct question and answered it, and I see little in this poster's position to suggest he thinks otherwise. And you've completely misunderstood the meaning of that emoji.

Getting a lecture about posting etiquette is a bit rich coming from you too, seeing as you just completely ignored the long list of studies that rebutted your claim that I'd made a 'mis-statement of what the science says.' The science backs up exactly what I said.

 

[Larry Noppius]

I was asked a direct question and answered it, and I see little in this poster's position to suggest he thinks otherwise.

Getting a lecture about posting etiquette is a bit rich coming from you too, seeing as you just completely ignored the long list of studies that rebutted your claim that I'd made a 'mis-statement of what the science says.' The science backs up exactly what I said.

As you are completely ignoring Funky_monks' response to your list. That response included a question that you have ignored, perhaps you could answer it now? The question was: Have you read the IPCC report?

 

[editor]

As you are completely ignoring Funky_monks' response to your list. That response included a question that you have ignored, perhaps you could answer it now? The question was: Have you read the IPCC report?

As far as I can see he just quoted my entire post with no comment.

Does his opinion trump all the reports included in my post then?

 

[Larry Noppius]

As far as I can see he just quoted my entire post with no comment.

He inserted his comments in the quote after each reference.

 

[editor]

He inserted his comments in the quote after each reference.

See my post above.

 

[Funky_monks]

As far as I can see he just quoted my entire post with no comment.

Does his opinion trump all the reports included in my post then?

I commented under each reference - mostly from my recollection of them from the last time I read them

 

[Larry Noppius]

See my post above.

Have you or have you not read the actual IPCC report?

As to your question of whether his opinion trumps the opinion of the journalist you refer to, the answer is yes, yes it does. That is, assuming Funky_monks isn't lying about having actual professional expertise in the subject.

 

[editor]

Have you or have you not read the actual IPCC report?

As to your question of whether his opinion trumps the opinion of the journalist you refer to, the answer is yes, yes it does. That is, assuming Funky_monks isn't lying about having actual professional expertise in the subject.

Oh, we have Paxman in the house. No, I haven't read it in full, but I have read many studies on the subject. Have you read it in full?

And no, I don't accept that an anonymous poster on a board trumps reports and articles on studies and peer reviewed science with his one-line dismissals. Bit weird that you do, to be honest.

 

[Funky_monks]

Have you or have you not read the actual IPCC report?

As to your question of whether his opinion trumps the opinion of the journalist you refer to, the answer is yes, yes it does. That is, assuming Funky_monks isn't lying about having actual professional expertise in the subject.

I'm an agricultural sciences lecturer, for what it's worth - although my specialisms are sheep, pigs and poultry, so don't ask me too many agronomy questions.

If I could be bothered, I suppose I could deliver my first year undergrad "sustainable ag" module online during lockdown.....

 

[Larry Noppius]

Oh, we have Paxman in the house. And no, I don't accept that an anonymous poster on a board trumps reports and articles on studies and peer reviewed science. But weird that you do, to be honest.

I'll take that as a no regarding having read the IPCC report. How about a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists refuting this claim about meat consumption being the main driver behind climate change? The statement is as a review of a propaganda film called Cowspiracy but it's regarding the same claim. Have you noted how Funky_monks' comment on your link is in agreement with that statement?

 

[Spymaster]

I'm an agricultural sciences lecturer

Boom!

 

[Funky_monks]

I'll take that as a no regarding having read the IPCC report. How about a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists refuting this claim about meat consumption being the main driver behind climate change? The statement is as a review of a propaganda film called Cowspiracy but it's regarding the same claim. Have you noted how Funky_monks' comment on your link is in agreement with that statement?

I can remember first reading either that article (or one like it) and then having to go back and read the IPCC report because I thought I'd missed something.

As far as I remember, the IPCC report mentions soils a fair amount, but has very little on livestock production.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

That simply is true. Any scientific study worth its salt that you care to link to (rather than just relying on a subeditor's choice of pithy headline) will examine the systems we have in place and identify the problems with them. If they want to talk about real and practical political and social solutions for changing those systems (something scientists are very often much less good at), then they might rather simplistically say 'we need to eat less meat', but that would be because the system they are proposing changing over to would itself contain less meat production. But as has been repeated over and over, not all meat production is equal, as, indeed, not all plant production is equal. 'We need to eat less meat' is perhaps useful as a slogan. Perhaps. Bit like 'stay inside, protect the NHS', which doesn't mean that you're literally damaging the NHS every time you go outside.

At its worst - and you are guilty of this approach - such sloganeering can make it appear that the problem here is consumer choices, that it's all 'our fault'. Again, the analogy with the current crisis would be the government trying to blame people's behaviour for the state we're in at the moment, when it was a system-level failure that in fact caused the crisis.

 

[editor]

Bit like 'stay inside, protect the NHS', which doesn't mean that you're literally damaging the NHS every time you go outside.

It's really not, you know.

 

[Larry Noppius]

Boom!

That much was clear after the claim of legume rotation replenishing N but not P or K. A claim so specific is either the bluff of the century hoping nobody would check or a sign of actual relevant expertise.

 

[8ball]

Wouldbe - that was very naughty!!

 

[Funky_monks]

That much was clear after the claim of legume rotation replenishing N but not P or K. A claim so specific is either the bluff of the century hoping nobody would check or a sign of actual relevant expertise.

I knew that sharing a desk with our agronomist would learn me something.

 

[8ball]

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

Let's settle on 'veg*ns'.

Then we can just differ on pronunciation, which doesn't show up on screen, and have a look at some of this science shizz.

 

[Spymaster]

... relying on a subeditor's choice of pithy headline ...

This really is the extent of all these "peer reviewed studies".

 

[ddraig]

I was asked a direct question and answered it, and I see little in this poster's position to suggest he thinks otherwise. And you've completely misunderstood the meaning of that emoji.

Getting a lecture about posting etiquette is a bit rich coming from you too, seeing as you just completely ignored the long list of studies that rebutted your claim that I'd made a 'mis-statement of what the science says.' The science backs up exactly what I said.

LBJ doesn't do links (in the main) just prattles on like they know and with "authority" on loads of threads, including the covid ones worryingly

 

[CNT36]

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.

A minor point but outside of a packed lunch I doubt much tofu or even soy is flown anywhere. Road, rail or freight is a far more likely means of transport. Research has shown that emissions from meat produced locally even is worse than most other types of food produced elsewhere as long as it is not flown.

 

[Spymaster]

LBJ doesn't do links (in the main) just prattles on like they know and with "authority" on loads of threads, including the covid ones worryingly

Give it up man. You guys have been comprehensively dismantled on this thread.

 

[Funky_monks]

A minor point but outside of a packed lunch I doubt much tofu or even soy is flown anywhere. Road, rail or freight is a far more likely means of transport. Research has shown that emissions from meat produced locally even is worse than most other types of food produced elsewhere as long as it is not flown.

What emissions though?
Methane from ruminants is a massive red herring.

 

[ddraig]

"only joking" "ner ner gotcha" "lolz"