Plants that feed the cattle are overwhelmingly fertilized using fertilizer derived from petroleum products, so it’s not an accurate picture that the feed plants are carbon capture methods.
Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production.
This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.
The methane production issue is in addition to the plant/meat production inefficiencies.
> Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie.
Why is this a problem? Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability, have a better amino acid profile that better suits what humans require, and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants.
That's on top of the fact that a lot of those plant calories aren't even consumable by humans.
It's a problem because of the aforementioned disproportionate energy consumption.
> "Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability"
Hey look, you don't have to pitch me on meat -- I'm basically a carnivore. Personal preferences don't change the underlying engineering dynamics.
> "and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants."
I love meat and I'll defend it as stridently as anyone, but this just isn't a rational argument. I want meat in my diet, but I do not require it to live. There are many ways to achieve a balanced diet either with other animal products, or without meat altogether.
The really weird thing about diet is that many (most?) of calories a typical American consumes are in excess of a healthy amount and are hurting us rather than helping us. It's a very strange dynamic, because the vast majority of Americans suffer from excess nutrition -- not malnutrition.
These excesses not only hurt our health, they harm the environment. Fat people create far more greenhouse gasses per capita than thin people. I eat meat, but I also eat healthy portions -- which puts me far ahead of most people regardless of their diet in terms of the resulting carbon footprint.
Taurine, Creatine, Carnosine, and B12 are not found in significant amounts in plants. Heme Iron is much more bioavailable than Plant Iron or Iron supplements. Plant-based diets can also inhibit the absorption of many more nutrients, including Iron and B12. You cannot get the right type of omega-3 fatty acids through a normal plant-based diet, either, you must supplement it with an algae-based supplement.
In fact, a lot of nutrients that are abundant in meat and readily absorbed and processed by our bodies probably needs to be supplemented with a pill to get enough of it on a vegan diet. Choline can be found in plenty of vegetables, but are you actually getting enough of it? Incorporating meat into the diet makes it very easy to get enough of many nutrients that our body needs without having to take a half dozen supplements.
That doesn't even get into how a plant-based diet can negatively affect gut health and the composition of plants can inhibit nutrient activity and absorption. Nor does it get into how these diets can negatively affect children, either through the quality of nutrition derived from their mother's breast milk or from adhering to a plant-based diet in general.
Again, you don't have to convince me. I eat meat too.
I agree, meat calories are higher quality for a variety of reasons -- you don't need to argue this point to me.
My point is that these reasons are not essential reasons. You can survive without Taurine, Creatine, Carnosine because they are all synthesized by the body. Is it preferable to supplement with them in a diet? Yes. Are there more than a billion vegetarians on earth who don't supplement these? Also yes.
We can and should accept both of these facts:
1) Meat is a better calorie source.
2) Meat is less efficient in terms of energy consumption and this is a problem.
Rapeseed oil has alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which can be converted into eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), but the process to convert ALA to EPA/DHA is an inefficient one where only about 5-10% of what goes in gets converted. Much of the benefits of omega 3 are found in EPA/DHA and not in ALA, though ALA may also be beneficial.
So, kind of? but not really?
> Also, you make a lot of statements without scientific backup.
This isn't hard to look up nor is it particularly controversial.
> Afaik balanced plant based diet is healthy
It can be. It's just way harder to get the nutrients in the right amounts when compared to someone who is eating meat. Meat obviously has its own issues, but it's undeniable that it's an incredible source of protein that has the right composition of amino acids and has higher bioavailability in the nutrients your body needs. No one is going to accidentally eat a healthy and balanced vegan diet, you will almost certainly become deficient in B12 and potentially a lot of other essential vitamins and minerals. You'll also have issues with amino acids. Meats have a more complete profile that is easily used and absorbed by the body. Individual plant proteins may lack specific ones and the amount and quality of them is lower. Plants also can contain many different antinutrients that make it more difficult for your body to absorb nutrients. This is why plant-based protein powders are a higher quality protein source for vegans than just eating plants.
I have no dog in this fight, but will point out that asking for scientific backup and then using a word like "healthy" is kind of hypocritical. "Healthy" at best means nothing, and at worst is just a word to use to frame your agenda.
When people talk about reducing meat for environmental reasons they are usually implicitly referring to red meat. Chickens are great, they consume food waste and produce eggs.
Yes there are some people who think that the best way to save the planet is to drink as much almond milk as possible. But that is not the strongest form of the argument.
The way to "fix" meat consumption is to ensure that the externalities are accounted for in their cost (which currently isn't). In fact, this applies to _everything_, not just red meat.
Meat that has less externalities will surely be cheaper then - such as chicken/poultry, and even fish or insect proteins.
The fact that the paid cost of red meat for a consumer is not reflective of their true cost is the meat of the issue to me.
Does the majority of the calories consumed by the typical American come from meat? Looking at what is prevalent in supermarkets I would say most come from carbohydrates and sugars. Or is there data proving otherwise?
I think you're wildly overestimating the amount of calories consumed by "fat people" if you think it's more impactful than the 20x factor you mentioned for meats vs plants.
You need to produce much more plants to feed the animal first instead of directly feeding you. So to stay on topic (unlike your "quality") this process uses more fossil fuels.
> You need to produce much more plants to feed the animal first instead of directly feeding you.
Yes, but in the case of grazing, it's plant material we cannot eat. That's called nutrient recycling because it converts what cannot be processed by humans into something that is.
In grain diets, a lot of it is produced specifically to feed livestock. This probably at least in part due to the significant subsidies on corn in the United States. Ending corn subsidies would probably be beneficial to American diet both in it'd raise the price of meats and increase the price on HFCS and other corn product.
With that being said, agricultural byproduct can be fed to livestock which can help close nutrient loops. Things like stalks, leaves, husks. Also milling byproducts like wheat and rice bran. soybean and canola meal from oil production. Peels and pulp that are produced from production of juice and other fruit products can be used.
There's a lot of ways to shore up inefficiencies in producing livestock and other agriculture that can help make it more sustainable than it currently is.
> So to stay on topic (unlike your "quality") this process uses more fossil fuels.
Quality is part of the topic because the quality of nutrients is the utility that meat offers and it's from that we need to make judgements on whether or not it's worth producing.
My argument is obviously yes, the increased cost in terms of carbon footprint is worthwhile because meat is such a great source of nutrients that naturally aligns with the nutritional needs of humans in a way that is difficult to do with a solely plant-based diet. There's also not wholly understood benefits of meat, probably because it's become the new boogeyman, like fat was made out to be in the 20th century.
There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?
> Nutritional yeast is tasty and naturally has b12, and most cereals/grains are fortified with it.
Taurine, Carnosine, Creatine, and B12 don't exist in significant quantities outside of meat. Nutritional yeast is often supplemented with B12 but the bioavailability of it compared to animal protein is low. You will need to take an actual supplement to get the right amount of B12 your body needs to function optimally.
You'll also probably need to supplement calcium, iron (with kelp-based supplement), omega-3 fatty acids (with algae-based supplement), and Vitamin D because even though many of these are found in plants and even relatively high amounts, their bioavailability is low. Spinach is rich in iron but very little of it can actually be processed by the body.
> This just isn't true, you can get all amino acids from plant-based sources like soybeans, lentils, and peanuts.
The amino acid profile in plant sources do not mirror the needs of human beings. In order to achieve a complete amino acid profile you will need a combination of many protein sources like pea, hemp, soy, brown rice, and quinoa. In order to actually consume it and get what you need you'll likely need to make a mixture of protein powders because you won't consume the right amount just eating plant foods.
From your comment, a reader would be misled to think that these nutrients cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities outside meat. My post is not meant to be either pedantic or insightful but to correct that misconception.
It is being pedantic, but yes, to be more precise, it's animal products. It doesn't really change the conversation about how these aren't really found in food that vegans can eat (without fortification).
Verdverm's claim was that there are [essential] nutrients that are found only in meat. "Animal products" instead of "meat" is an entirely different claim. I explained how it isn't pedantic but clearing up a misunderstanding, one which you must believe also exists now that you've had to clarify that you weren't supporting verdverm's claim.
> This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.
It is quite obvious meat is used here in everyday colloquial sense. Especially when elsewhere in the greater thread people contrast meat with poultry.
I was responding to someone who was talking about them being vegan. The conversation was about vegan options, which fish isn't one of them. Please just stop, you didn't even have a real point to make in the first place.
In my store, the fish is right next to the butcher, in the same aisle...
Fishing is the primary source of plastic in the ocean, it has its environmental issues as well. That is before we talk about offshore fish farms, where the fish live in a cage their whole life, get fed subpar inputs, and generally resembles chicken farms. Not to mention that we have over fished the natural ocean to the point that the salmon food chain is in danger of collapse...
Most dietary deficiencies take many decades to play out. Vegans require many artificial supplements to fill the gaps. My questions is mainly, are these sufficient or are natural sources better?
I'd recommend checking out this Huberman podcast for a set of protocols for assessing your strength, endurance, and more. https://youtu.be/CyDLbrZK75U
tl;dr if you focus on one type of athletic ability, you are not optimizing correctly. For example, endurance athletes will have issues with bones and balance loss reactions later in life
Right. I'm not asking about studies about people that may or may not have chose veganism/vegetarianism at a certain point, but about large groups that exist that way for significant periods of time. People that seek out a certain diet are going to show better quality of life than people that don't, regardless if it's veganism or not.
I think the difference is largely uninteresting in this debate. Personally I enjoy eating meat and don't see myself giving it up entirely. I think there is a reasonable middle ground between 'we continue eating like we do now' and 'everybody will be forced at gunpoint into a vegan diet'. We could save enormous amounts of pollution and animal suffering by simply eating less meat. The existence of significant populations who have been living successfully as vegetarians or vegans for thousands of years simply demonstrates that we should not be overly concerned about side effects of reducing (not halting entirely!) our meat intake.
Suppose we (as in "the average first-world citizen") were to collectively half our meat consumption. Either by reducing portion size, or by eating it less often. The benefits would be amazing, and apart from people who make their living selling meat I don't see any real downsides.
Back when I was growing up I was used to eating meat virtually every day for dinner. These days I skip a few days each week, because I learned how to cook different stuff (and these days I have to pay for it myself, instead of my parents...).
There are no amino acids only found in meat. B12 is mostly only found in animal products, but some fungi have it.
As to metabolic equivalency, that is a very good question, studies so far indicate the accessibility of amino acids in plants to the human metabolic pathways varies within our species somewhat widely.
B12 is found in animal products because it's added to their diet. It doesn't come natural them. B12 you get from eating dirt, which we don't like to do.
B12 is not actually synthesized by animals, it is synthesized by bacteria. Most grain-fed livestock are heavily supplemented as well, with industrially fermented B12. You can just get the same industrially fermented B12 we inject livestock with. You don't have to inject it though.
> There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent?
Supplements are an easy solution, but I think what you're missing is that you don't necessarily need the massive amounts of those nutrients that is reflected by the meat industry. We certainly do not need to eat as much meat as the meat lobby wants us to eat. In fact, even by your nutrient argument, we need hardly any meat. In fact, of all the things we eat, the most amount of meat we'd need to eat, if we needed it at all, would be the smallest quantity amoung all those things. And really we don't necessarily need meat at all. Using a nutrient argument to support the eating of meat is a bad argument.
Maybe things have changed but when I was a bit into weightlifting maybe a decade ago, common knowledge back then was that some forms of protein (ie amino acids mix of specific types and ratios) can't be realistically substituted by normally eating humans. I mean unless you want to prepare all your meals with scales.
Its not about theory on paper, but what people actually eat on a given diet and how their body looks long term. Its a fact that ie vegans lack: B12, D3, iron, taurine, creatine, iodine, calcium, zinc and have generally lower mineral bone density. Given that people with alternate lifestyles tend to take much more care into what they eat and focus on eating healthily and are well aware of this shortcoming, that's not a good result.
I mean lets have discussion about morality, sustainability etc. but when it comes to nutrients, science doesn't seem to be in favor of these alternate diets.
I personally wish people grokked that just reducing portions would bring massive improvements for everybody, including the planet. We simply eat too much (and definitely too much meat of any type), and often to full when it should be about avoiding hunger. I see 0 activism there, its harder to sell books, programs and overpriced supplements to desperate people rather than telling them this simple hard truth and having them actually accept it and act accordingly.
> some forms of protein... can't be realistically substituted by normally eating humans.
uh...
> Its a fact that ie vegans lack: B12,
Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency by eating foods fortified with B12, including plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals, and B12 supplements
> D3,
The vegan source of vitamin D3 comes from algae, produces the most body-ready form of vitamin D3, cholecalciferol.
> iron,
Plant sources of iron include lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, kale, dried apricots and figs, raisins, quinoa and fortified breakfast cereal.
> taurine,
Nori, the papery-like seaweed product used in making sushi, has up to 1,300 milligrams of taurine per 100 grams.
> creatine,
Supplements are sufficient.
> iodine,
Sea vegetables such as kelp, nori, kombu, wakame, and arame provide more than enough daily iodine. Common vegan thickeners such as carrageenan and agar-agar contain the mineral, too.
> calcium,
Sources of well-absorbed calcium for vegans include calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra.
> zinc
Sources of zinc include beans, chickpeas, lentils, tofu, walnuts, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, wholemeal bread and quinoa.
> and have generally lower mineral bone density.
Vegans avoid lower BMD by consuming plenty of plant-based foods containing calcium and vitamin D.
Eating meat has its own health risks, including a higher risk of ischemic heart disease, pneumonia, diabetes, diverticular disease, colon polyps and colorectal cancer. On average, those who engage in regular consumption of meat (three or more times per week) experience more adverse health consequences compared to those who consume meat less regularly.
But the biggest problem with eating meat is that 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 make a significant difference in the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.
In conclusion, meat sucks. I'm not a vegan, but my biggest gripe is meat is shoved down everyone throats. Nearly single restaurant, at least on the east coast, pretty much only serves meat dishes. Becoming a vegan is difficult because meat is literally everywhere, and animal product is in nearly all food products in some form or other, and even a large number of non-food products.
And there is simply too much meat in the US. There is a cow for every 3.5 people. An average cow, including calves and adults, weighs more than 1000lbs and produces nearly 650lbs. of meat. That's roughly 185lbs. of meat for every man, woman and child in the US, which would take a year to consume eating a half a pound of meat every day.
It's too much. There's way, way too much meat, and it is hurting everyone, everywhere. So please, don't be so pro-meat. Eat less of it, much less. You'll live longer and healthier, and your sacrifice will benefit everyone.
So, basically, to avoid eating meat which is what we have been doing for thousands of years, we have to eat all kinds of pharmaceutical products to compensate the deficiencies of a plant based diet.
Are we accounting the costs of the production of these products in the comparison, and do we have conclusive, long term studies that suplements are as good as eating natural products? Apparently, the first suplements only appeared around 70 years ago.
Alternatively, we eat as much meat and figure out how to reduce emissions in other ways. Meat production is part of the equation but its focus in these discussions seems largely agenda-based than anything else. It's a convenient scapegoat.
> according to the (disputed) literature suggesting meat is necessary for a balanced diet.
Meat being necessary hinges on veganism being a legitimate replacement. Is veganism legitimate as a full-on replacement? No, it's not. At least not yet. If or when it does become that, then yeah, meat won't be necessary. Right now it's mostly a viable option for relatively healthy adults with a lot of money to spend.
Did you read my comment? It’s seems you are back to dichotomising to “just as much meat”
Vs véganisme.
Why not just eat less meat?! No matter how it’s produced, there is a basic physics to this that means it’s always going to use more land than growing plants.
Maybe you're misunderstanding. My point is that maybe meat production in itself isn't something that really needs to be reduced because there's 1) ways to reduce its carbon footprint, 2) it's worth the cost it has on emissions because of its high utility.
I understand your point now although I think both premises are entirely unreasonable. How about we find wsa to reduce emmisions first? There is no evidence of anyone successfully doing at present.
On the second point, I think you’d need to substantiate the utility of excess meat first. The evidence seems to go the other way.
> Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency by eating foods fortified with B12, including plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals, and B12 supplements
No, they probably won't get enough with just fortified foods. Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement.
> The vegan source of vitamin D3 comes from algae, produces the most body-ready form of vitamin D3, cholecalciferol.
This is true, except that people don't eat algae, so it's an additional supplement you need to take.
> Plant sources of iron include lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, kale, dried apricots and figs, raisins, quinoa and fortified breakfast cereal.
All of which have low bioavailability which is why so many vegans have iron anemia. In fact eating mostly fibrous plants and seeds likely inhibits iron uptake.
> Nori, the papery-like seaweed product used in making sushi, has up to 1,300 milligrams of taurine per 100 grams.
It's likely to have less and once again, the issue comes down to bioavailability. It doesn't matter that it's in there if it cannot be processed by the human body.
> Sources of well-absorbed calcium for vegans include calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra.
The phytates and oxalates in those inhibits calcium's bioavailability in these foods. You get it from supplements, once again.
> Sea vegetables such as kelp, nori, kombu, wakame, and arame provide more than enough daily iodine. Common vegan thickeners such as carrageenan and agar-agar contain the mineral, too.
You're more likely to meet your iodine needs from iodized salt. You need a reasonably large quantity of seaweed in your diet to actually meet your need for iodine. It's not problematic for some people, but it's just another list of things you need a specific amount of in order to just avoid malnutrition.
> Vegans avoid lower BMD by consuming plenty of plant-based foods containing calcium and vitamin D.
Yes, vegans have to jump through hoops to avoid malnutrition in their diet, which requires careful thought and planning. You do not avoid malnutrition just by eating a vegan diet and you will almost certainly be malnourished if you don't take supplements.
> But the biggest problem with eating meat is that meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions.
It's also responsible for providing a reliable source of high quality protein which better matches what a human body needs. Livestock is nutritionally one of the best sources of food available to human beings. It does contribute a significant portion of greenhouse emissions, but so does agriculture in general. 14% of the 25% that agriculture contributes is livestock. If you completely removed livestock from the equation, emissions share for plant agriculture would increase and you'd be introducing more considerations that could also increase emissions. If I were to guess, it'd still be a net positive for emissions, but not as significant as people like to think.
> In conclusion, meat sucks. I'm not a vegan, but my biggest gripe is meat is shoved down everyone throats.
No, meat is great. It's an almost perfect food for humans. Vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains are also great. Grains are probably the least great but they are important because they increase food security substantially and also serve as feed for livestock, which have their own benefits.
> Becoming a vegan is difficult because meat is literally everywhere, and animal product is in nearly all food products in some form or other, and even a large number of non-food products.
Vegan options are increasing a lot all over the country, including the East coast. But even if they weren't, eating out has a significantly higher carbon footprint than cooking a meal at home. You can cook for yourself which would decrease your carbon footprint along with your choice to eat vegan.
All you've done is contradicted the statements I've made, which are verifiably true. I'm not sure why you would waste your time. Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false. Eat all the meat you want. You've earned it.
> Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false.
No, they're not.
> Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement.
It obviously depends on how much of any given fortified B12 food you consume. Hypothetically yes, you could eat enough fortified foods to avoid the need for a pill, but it'd take a lot more intentional eating on the vegan's part. Most vegans should take a B12 supplement because it ensures that they're getting enough B12, while fortified foods have varied amounts of it.
> This is true, except that people don't eat algae, so it's an additional supplement you need to take.
I take this back, people do eat nori which is algae. It just doesn't contain vitamin d. Vegan would take a supplement, since vitamin D is not prevalent inside of plants. Another option might be UV-exposed mushrooms, but generally you either need fortified foods or a supplement. Vegan vitamin d supplements are produced from the algae you mentioned.
> All of which have low bioavailability which is why so many vegans have iron anemia. In fact eating mostly fibrous plants and seeds likely inhibits iron uptake.
Plant sources of iron do not contain heme iron, they contain non-heme iron, which is less bioavailable. 25% of heme iron and 17% of nonheme iron get absorbed, which seems insignificant until you realize exactly what that translates to in terms of how much material you need to consume to reach that.
The only source of 1300 mg claim that i saw was webmd... which is what you copied that sentence from.
> The phytates and oxalates in those inhibits calcium's bioavailability in these foods. You get it from supplements, once again.
Phytates play a larger role than oxalates. It's the same issue as with iron. Phytates bind with calcium which can prevent uptake.
Stop making impassioned statements trying to push an agenda you're unwilling to defend. My argument is defensible. It's quite possible I'm wrong about some of it, but it's certainly not driven by dogma.
What you're missing is vegans have made a big decision and take their diet seriously. The fact of the matter is most vegans do not have a B12 deficiency, nor any of the other unsupported criticisms you've made. I honestly don't know how they can be so disciplined, and my only criticism of them is their often saying "it's easy," because I personally find it impossible to get away from animal product. There have been a lot of studies and surveys, and vegans do it, they avoid meat and animal product, and they're not all anemic and suffering from low BMD, in fact most are perfectly healthy because, again, they're serious about diet and nutrition, and disciplined, and they know what to eat. I guarantee you that most if not all vegans are a good sight healthier than you or I. The evidence is available on the web if you would just search and cease trying to confirm your biases. You're just trying to justify your lifestyle. Don't bother, because no one cares.
> The fact of the matter is most vegans do not have a B12 deficiency
I didn't say they did. I did say they in all likelihood need to supplement their B12. This is well supported by vegans and nutritionists.
> nor any of the other unsupported criticisms you've made.
I have supported my claims, actually. The fact that you disagree with the science is your problem, not mine.
> The evidence is available on the web if you would just search and cease trying to confirm your biases.
Your absolute lack of intellectual curiosity indicates that the one that would benefit from these words is yourself. You haven't actually discredited anything I've said even though this is all pretty well studied stuff. It's also important information for people that you seem to admire so much, to ensure that they are getting the right nutrition. Your argument is basically "I know vegans and they don't have any issues resulting from their diet." It's not an argument and it does a disservice to vegans to talk about it with such dishonesty.
> You're just trying to justify your lifestyle. Don't bother, because no one cares.
No, I'm making a case for meat, which you seem to have a really toxic relationship with on top of you being incredibly ignorant to the actual data.
You seem to be making the wrong assumption that I'm trying to dissuade people from becoming vegan. That's not what I'm doing. I am making an argument that meat is an excellent source of nutrition that has extremely high utility so the increased energy required to produce it is worthwhile.
Well, that's not really possible. Meat is bad coming and going, objectively speaking. The only thing meat does have going for it is the energy provides, but at the cost of poor health and hurting literarily everyone. If meat producers weren't so greedy, and produced less, a lot less, only what was necessary, a lot of the harm that comes with meat could be mitigated, not the health risks, just the carbon contribution.
btw, any time I am mentioned, me personally, what I know or don't know, or what I am, etc. etc., a fallacious argument is being constructed. Fallacy is unpersuasive, fwiw.
> The only thing meat does have going for it is the energy provides
Meat doesn't simply provide energy, it's a very nutritious food source. Livestock can and should be part of making our agriculture more sustainable.
> but at the cost of poor health and hurting literarily everyone.
Yes, we've established that you think the meat is bad, except you've not actually provided any evidence that it is bad.
> If meat producers weren't so greedy, and produced less, a lot less, only what was necessary, a lot of the harm that comes with meat could be mitigated, not the health risks, just the carbon contribution.
If any industry that contributes to greenhouse emissions produced less of what is causing those greenhouse emissions, that'd be a net good, probably. It's a balancing act between what people need for survival and what's good for the earth itself. Obviously you think that meat should be produced at a small fraction of the rate it's being produced at now, but I think that's got little to do with the environmental impact given how demonstrably dogmatic you've been throughout this conversation.
> btw, any time I am mentioned, me personally, what I know or don't know, or what I am, etc. etc., a fallacious argument is being constructed. Fallacy is unpersuasive, fwiw.
You've literally said that vegans are likely more healthy than I am and that I'm just trying to justify my lifestyle. When confronted with actual facts, you rejected them as bunk science. The cognitive dissonance you're experience is apparent.
Fortunately, there are other means of fertilising. Green manures - generally annual legumes - are a good option. The difficulty is that this, and other organic approaches to fertilising and structuring soil, require a proportion of land to be allowed to lie fallow for a while.
In other words, fertilising the soil with fossil fuel derived products is just.. more profitable.
The solution is probably carbon pricing of some kind for fertilisers: the cost of organic farming needs to be roughly the same. Agricultural subsidies are already enormous, so some of them could be directed to food prices directly, to ease the transition for consumers.
Different activists have different goals. Assuming societal death is a goal is extremely uncharitable and wrong for the majority of activists.
For example, I believe that carbon emissions and the resulting climate change is the biggest climate issue we face.
I live in California, many people here are against damming because it will damage the natural environment where the reservoirs form. I think the reservoir damage is worth the “carbon cleanliness” of hydro power. Other people care more about preserving untouched nature more than the climate. They have different goals.
Still others think we should reduce consumption of resources like plastics because of their environmental impact. They may prefer more expensive or energy intense production methods and recycling methods.
Most activists won’t say something else is bad. Eg I think recycling is good, but I would prefer lower greenhouse emissions over lower trash. FWIW I don’t eat meat. It’s better for the environment, because it’s reduce emissions. It’s also less wasteful of water which is environmentally expensive. I don’t eat almonds for the same reasons. But I’d rather expend water if it reduced emissions, but I’m not sure of any examples where those are opposed, maybe with certain fabrics and their cost of production?
My jobs is also to reduce methane emissions at natural gas facilities, because in 2023 we need gas so let’s try to make it less polluting.
while that is true, that is minority, I see ALOT of activists that actibly hold contradictory positions.
For example I have seen, ALOT of people (and I know you are not one of them) "I dont drink dairy milk because it is bad for the earth, instead I drink Almond Milk"..... ehhhhhh
Supplanting Almond Milk for Cow milk is a good position if you are doing it for animal ethics, but do claim you are saving the earth by doing it is non-sense.
>> I think recycling is good, but I would prefer lower greenhouse emissions over lower trash
This is not a contradictory position, it is sad the recycling movement has lost its way soo much..
The movement is/was REDUCE>REUSE>RECYCLE... is not just recycling. Some how we have skipped the first 2 and just worry about the last one. Part of that is need for the economy for always be consuming... so there is incentives by both government and corporations to get people to buy less durable less fixable goods.
This is why right to repair is critical to the environmental movement, but here again I have seen alot of climate activists posting from their iPhone how it is dangerous to allow people to fix their property..
Solar panels & batteries are also made of toxic material. Mining & the material breakdown of these materials spead these toxins to the land they are deployed on.
Much of this material is also unethically mined. Children are coerced to mine some of this material.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news. You may be able to downvote this comment but you cannot downvote reality.
Deploying the solar panels does not spread those elements in any significant way. They are bound up in the structure of the panels. In any case it is orders of magnitude less toxins that what is produced in drilling for oil and gas and burning them. Coal is on another scale entirely producing massive amounts of toxic byproducts. Solar is just a fart in the wind in comparison.
Small amounts of cadmium and lead. Honestly you should not focus on that the batteries are the one that a legit argument is for imho. I’ve looked into why solar panels degrade over time and it’s mostly them physically being destroyed. The uv degradation happens very quickly and so isn’t gonna further ruin the panels output after its already been exposed a bit
I’m seeing more and more of this sentiment, particularly this simplistic tone which spreads FUD around the energy transition. I wonder where it is coming from.
But no, as somebody thoroughly on the left wing of the political spectrum, and a believer in most of the things you accuse climate activists of, I can attest that I’m a minority. I know a bunch of climate activists exists that have full faith that capitalism will solve the crises, some actually believe it has basically been solved (I call them climate optimists; and is a form of climate denialism).
However I do want to defend my camp here a little. Have you considered that perhaps we are right? GMO was supposed to end world hunger, or at least provide a global food security, it was pointed out at the time that no such thing would happen (as we already could have food security through more equal distribution). Now GMO is a pretty established technology that is rolled out in most of the world, and lo-and-behold, food security is still an issue.
Today I see nuclear power pitch similarly as a solution to global warming, however looking at the data, seeing different energy policies, where some countries keep building more reactors, others keep what they have, and some—but few—decommission and phase out nuclear power. What the data indicates is that nuclear power policy is pretty much irrelevant next to a policy of renewable proliferation and other energy savings measures. In other words it doesn’t matter. It can even be argued, because of the cost of nuclear power, that keeping them on is drawing away funds which could otherwise be used in more effective climate measures.
This is true, but if you use synthetic fertilizer, even if the fertilizer itself contains no carbon it still uses hydrogen split from methane. The carbon part has already gone into the atmosphere, which plants then pull down. You would need to sequester the carbon released during SMR for synthetic fertilizer to have no effect.
Fertilizer doesn't contribute methane. The carbon of the plants comes almost entirely out of the atmosphere.
The fertilizer contributes nitrogen and other minerals. Eliminating agricultural emissions should involve non fuel nitrogen fixation, not methane reduction.
