To sum up, the impact of meat production isn't worth the (futile) political bother to pursue.
"Renewable" energy generation - current biofuels don't count - is about all that's going to save us, assuming we haven't already crossed a tipping point as some think.
...in the real world picture now developing, activists would surely be well advised to abandon their various marginal crusades - against meat, against mythical fat people, against wasted milk, against hosepipes and farting camels and coffee and all the rest of the silliness, and try to make a case for action that has some internal consistency.
The evidence is powerful. Eating a vegan diet, according to the study, is seven times more effective at reducing emissions than eating a local meat-based diet. A global vegan diet (of conventional crops) would reduce dietary emissions by 87 percent, compared to a token 8 percent for “sustainable meat and dairy.” In light of the fact that the overall environmental impact of livestock is greater than that of burning coal, natural gas, and crude oil, this 87 percent cut (94 percent if the plants were grown organically) would come pretty close to putting 350.org out of business, which I’m sure would make McKibben a happy man.
There’s much more to consider. Many consumers think they can substitute chicken for beef and make a meaningful difference in their dietary footprint. Not so. According to a 2010 study cited in the WPF report, such a substitution would achieve a “net reduction in environmental impact” of 5 to 13 percent. When it comes to lowering the costs of mitigating climate change, the study shows that a diet devoid of ruminants would reduce the costs of fighting climate change by 50 percent; a vegan diet would do so by over 80 percent. Overall, the point seems pretty strong: global veganism could do more than any other single action to reduce GHG emissions.
I figured you would, the fight against meat on an enviromental basis is a near trivial point you aren't going to win on. Pick your battle and expend your resources more wisely. Even if it is more impacting than they're saying, it isn't a fight you can win.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
I figured you would, the fight against meat on an enviromental basis is a near trivial point you aren't going to win on. Pick your battle and expend your resources more wisely. Even if it is more impacting than they're saying, it isn't a fight you can win.
Well then, I'll leave you people to your echo chamber thread.
it's not so much emissions as wasting resources. it takes a lot more resources in land, food and energy to raise animals for consumption than it does to just grow plants.
that said; keep away from my hamburgers you dirty hippies because I will stab you in the fucking eye with my barbeque fork if you even have a dream about taking my pork chops.
