Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[ddraig]

Funny, that's what I thought when I saw your thread title. Surely no one could be that ridiculous and ignorant in 2020 to be claiming that - if anyone - it is meat consumers, rather than meat producers, that are destroying the planet. Someone even helpfully pointed out that food transportation (though it depends on the specific food) has an insignificant impact on total greenhouse gas emissions, and I'm sure we can agree that the actual act of putting some meat into your mouth has a low impact as well, therefor almost all the impact is incurred at production.

As for faddish, there are many more ex-vegans than vegans, about 80% or so of vegans moves on to a different diet later. That's a sign of a fad diet. But calling it a fad diet was mostly an experiment to see how you would respond if it were your diet which was randomly "attacked." I obviously couldn't actually create a "Vegans are destroying class consciousness" thread anymore.

Any actual evidence for this total bullshit claim? Thanks

 

[two sheds]

Atmospheric methane has increased by about 150% since pre industrial times. The clues in industrial but has animal agriculture contributed nothing to this increase? Does diet not influence this? Could a change of diet not cancel out an overall decrease in numbers? Modern farmed ruminants are also quite different to their ancestors. D]o the deer that would replace farmed animals emit the same amount of methane? Would the reintroduction of predators help with this?

The study I refered to also talked about land use and I think water use now I think about it. I'll try and find it tomorrow.

Also has much more effect on global climate change than CO2

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated

www.scientificamerican.com

In those short decades [a decade or two that it's active], methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

as you were ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Atmospheric methane has increased by about 150% since pre industrial times. The clues in industrial but has animal agriculture contributed nothing to this increase? Does diet not influence this? Could a change of diet not cancel out an overall decrease in numbers? Modern farmed ruminants are also quite different to their ancestors. D]o the deer that would replace farmed animals emit the same amount of methane? Would the reintroduction of predators help with this?

The study I refered to also talked about land use and I think water use now I think about it. I'll try and find it tomorrow.

Just looked it up for bison. Bison emit as much or a bit more methane in their farts as cows per bum. There were 60 million in the US 200 years ago. There are 90 million cattle there today. So a small increase, but only a small one. Only 5 million sheep in the US, surprisingly - fewer than Wales.

 

[Larry Noppius]

Any actual evidence for this total bullshit claim? Thanks

A Summary Of Faunalytics' Study Of Current And Former Vegetarians And Vegans - Faunalytics

Our landmark study of lapsed and current vegetarians/vegans is an essential resource for animal advocates. Here we've compiled all of the related reports and resources in one place.

faunalytics.org

Initial Findings Reports (December 2014)

Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans: Initial Findings and Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans: Companion to the Initial Findings

• 84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Oh, so now you think you can give me a lecture on how to 'correctly' title a thread? The title is just fine, thanks, and very accurately reflects the article it is referencing.

You're not succeeding coz you haven't shown them this:



LOL

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also has much more effect on global climate change than CO2

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated

www.scientificamerican.com

as you were ...

It is at least short-lived, so we can reverse the damage, unlike with co2. Nine years .

Oh, and I was wrong about farts. It's the burps that do the damage. Wrong end.

 

[WouldBe]

Atmospheric methane has increased by about 150% since pre industrial times. The clues in industrial but has animal agriculture contributed nothing to this increase?

How much of the methane is down to escapes in the production and distribution of natural gas?

How much is produced from waste rotting in landfill sites? Where previously we produced very little waste.

How much is produced by the human waste from the vast increase in population since then?

There are a lot less horses around since then as well which will have reduced the amount of methane from animals.

 

[editor]

A Summary Of Faunalytics' Study Of Current And Former Vegetarians And Vegans - Faunalytics

Our landmark study of lapsed and current vegetarians/vegans is an essential resource for animal advocates. Here we've compiled all of the related reports and resources in one place.

faunalytics.org

So does this six year old American study say that 84% or vegetarians abandoned their diet? Or vegans? How does it count some vegans switched to being veggies?

Some interesting comment abut that study here:

Do 84% Of Vegans And Vegetarians Really Go Back To Eating Meat?

A popular 2014 study found that most vegans and vegetarians "quit" their plant-based diets and go back to eating meat. But how accurate is it?

www.plantbasednews.org

 

[WouldBe]

Both actually. That's why you can light your farts if you want to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So does this six year old American study say that 84% or vegetarians abandoned their diet? Or vegans? How does it count some vegans switched to being veggies?

Some interesting comment abut that study here:

Do 84% Of Vegans And Vegetarians Really Go Back To Eating Meat?

A popular 2014 study found that most vegans and vegetarians "quit" their plant-based diets and go back to eating meat. But how accurate is it?

www.plantbasednews.org

Do you really want to be associated with that?

if a vegetarian or vegan diet is only adopted for health reasons, then it isn't veganism at all, but a plant-based activity

They don't dispute the figures, btw.

'a plant-based activity'

Reminds me of the vegan police who used to knock around in anarchist circles. Miserable fuckers, mostly, chasing you out of their flat if you were wearing a leather jacket.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Both actually. That's why you can light your farts if you want to.

Can you light a burp?

 

[two sheds]

Can you light a burp?

which would suggest there's less methane in burps than farts

 

[ddraig]

Yeah clearly disingenuous stat (84%)

Why are you so angry with people who have a different diet than you "Larry"?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

which would suggest there's less methane in burps than farts

I dunno. Have you tried? I haven't. Am tempted. In the name of science.

 

[two sheds]

I dunno. Have you tried? I haven't. Am tempted. In the name of science.

That's actually something I've never been tempted by. Neither end.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's actually something I've never been tempted by. Neither end.

I can genuinely say, hand on heart, that it has never occurred to me to try to light my burp until this evening.

Could be quite a party trick if it worked. I reckon it would need to be a great big belch, though. Forcing a little thing isn't going to cut it.

 

[Larry Noppius]

So does this six year old American study say that 84% or vegetarians abandoned their diet? Or vegans? How does it count some vegans switched to being veggies?

I linked you to the study where you can find the answers to your questions.

Some interesting comment abut that study here:

Do 84% Of Vegans And Vegetarians Really Go Back To Eating Meat?

A popular 2014 study found that most vegans and vegetarians "quit" their plant-based diets and go back to eating meat. But how accurate is it?

www.plantbasednews.org

Yes it's certainly interesting that if you count people eating meat as vegetarian that you may get significantly lower relapse rates. Anyway, got any better data?

 

[ddraig]

Yeah clearly disingenuous stat (84%)

Why are you so angry with people who have a different diet than you "Larry"?

Larry Noppius

 

[Larry Noppius]

Larry Noppius

I saw it the first time and decided not to bother responding to it. That decision has not changed, and simply repeating it while tagging me won't change that decision. How about you first show that you're not trolling by actually refuting the data you requested and were provided with?

 

[editor]

Do you really want to be associated with that?

I said I found some of the comment interesting. I wasn't endorsing it or 'associating' myself with it, but nice bit of twisting.

Anecdotally, I found the findings of the EPIC-Oxford study more in line with my experiences, and I'm really not convinced that 84% of vegans and veggies all go back to eating meat in the UK given the current food trends, but I could be wrong. Not sure I care much either way to be honest.

Reminds me of the vegan police who used to knock around in anarchist circles. Miserable fuckers, mostly, chasing you out of their flat if you were wearing a leather jacket.

Ah good. Another bit of pointless vegan hating, this time dug up from your personal archives. Great stuff.

 

[Larry Noppius]

Anecdotally, I found the findings of the EPIC-Oxford study more in line with my experiences

Could you link us to this EPIC-Oxford study? If you had better data, why didn't you just link to it in the first place?

 

[editor]

Could you link us to this EPIC-Oxford study? If you had better data, why didn't you just link to it in the first place?

It was in the link I just posted that you said you'd read. Telling porkies. Tsk tsk.

 

[Larry Noppius]

It was in the link I just posted that you said you'd read. Telling porkies. Tsk tsk.

You linked to a website called "PlantBasedNews" and not to an Oxford study. I repeat, could you link us to this EPIC-Oxford study? And of course quote its relevant content.

 

[editor]

You linked to a website called "PlantBasedNews" and not to an Oxford study. I repeat, could you link us to this EPIC-Oxford study? And of course quote its relevant content.

If you hadn't bullshitted about reading the article you would have found the reference, you plum.

And who's the "us" you're speaking on behalf of here?

 

[Larry Noppius]

If you hadn't bullshitted about reading the article you would have found the reference, you plum.

I'm sorry that is still not a link to the data you appeal to and a citation of its relevant summary claims.

And who's the "us" you're speaking on behalf of here?

Everyone reading this thread, of course. For someone lecturing others about how forums work you seem a bit confused about who would be able to click a posted link, it's not only the single poster who requested it. ETA; If you only want to provide it to me rather than us then I believe the appropriate method would be a PM.

 

[editor]

I'm sorry that is still not a link to the data you appeal to and a citation of its relevant summary claims.

I cant help all of you if you can't use hyperlinks. I think I'm going to have to put you on ignore because you're just a big bag of frothing rage on an incredibly dull roadtrip of pointless pedantry.

Could you link us to this EPIC-Oxford study? If you had better data, why didn't you just link to it in the first place?

Oh, and I made absolutely no claim to have "better data." That is you misrepresenting what I said. I just stated that what I read of the EPIC-Oxford study was more in line with my own, personal experiences.

 

[Larry Noppius]

I cant help all of you if you can't use hyperlinks.

Not sure about others, but I surely can not see a hyperlink to an Oxford study in any of your posts.

Oh and btw, you do realize that checking the links in the article on that blog that you linked to is the first thing I did when you posted that? There are a total of 4 such links (ie with text "EPIC-Oxford study" or something similar) in the article, none of which is itself a link to the data.

I think I'm going to have to put you on ignore because you're just a big bag of frothing rage on an incredibly dull roadtrip of pointless pedantry.

Rage? Amused would be more like it.

 

[Larry Noppius]

In short, neither following the links in your post nor following the links in the blogpost you linked to got me to the actual data. But you claim to have seen it, you rather accepted those findings (making a decision about accepting or rejecting data on how well it confirms your previous beliefs is called confirmation bias, btw) so surely you could just look in your browser history and give us the actual link to the study.

 

[editor]

In short, neither following the links in your post nor following the links in the blogpost you linked to got me to the actual data. But you claim to have seen it....

You're lying again Larry. Is there a summary of their findings in that article? Why yes there is.

That is what I referred to in my one line comment. I wasn't basing any major arguments around the study at all, just commenting that it anecdotally reflected my own personal experiences. Sorry if that's too hard for you to understand.

 

[Larry Noppius]

You're lying again Larry. Is there a summary of their findings in that article? Why yes there is.

That is what I referred to in my one line comment. I wasn't basing any major arguments around the study at all, just commenting that it anecdotally reflected my own personal experiences. Sorry if that's too hard for you to understand.

You said you found the findings of the Oxford study more in line with your own personal experiences. But you actually meant that you found the findings of PlantBasedNews to be more in line with your personal experiences? Then why not just say that instead? Also, you could have saved us both some wasted time if you had just said "no" to the question "can you link us to this Oxford study?"