Meat Is Horrible(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Meat Is Horrible
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/30/how-meat-is-destroying-the-planet-in-seven-charts/
11 comments
Countries should cease trying to increase their populations at the expense of quality of life. This is but one example of many where quality of life suffers and Soylent Green diets are suggested to accommodate the infinite growth crowd. I have a better idea - rather than creating a society that looks like some dystopian nightmare, we simply keep populations in check with the environment.
Or government could let people decide how many children they want to have and let them pay for their kids. It will automatically solve the problem in the long run. Governments trying to control it will lead to problems like they have in China (because having children was largely de-incentivised, they are going to have a big hole in the working population soon and have a lot of old people to support) and Europe (because they are incentivising population growth now, they are bound to increase a generation of population burst which will be a problem in the long run).
Perhaps if governments made more effort on birth control so people were more likely to control and decide rather than react to accidents and impulses. I imagine that far too often people have more children than they can afford and their attention is stretched too thin.
Countries with balanced or decreasing populations can't compete economically.
It's not possible to indefinitely increase population, besides, thanks to automation economic output is increasingly less human dependent.
>It may be delicious
Not to me, but let's see.
>2 degrees carbon budget limit
Woo... 2 degrees. We can totally consider establishing settlement in Mars but God forbid there is 2 degree change in climate on earth. It will be uninhabitable. NOT.
>Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States.
Oh yeah, because we were otherwise going to drink the river... or maybe it disappears when it is used in agriculture. Except it doesn't. Water is the most recyclable resource there is.
>carbon output from food production has increased by 47 percent from 2000 to 2012 — that’s an increase of 150 million tons of carbon dioxide
Except carbon that is emitted to the atmosphere doesn't stay there. It's called carbon cycle. If we are producing more meat, we will also have to produce more food for the animals... which comes from plants... which take CO2 from the atmosphere to grow.
You're fooling nobody. Don't get into our kitchen.
Not to me, but let's see.
>2 degrees carbon budget limit
Woo... 2 degrees. We can totally consider establishing settlement in Mars but God forbid there is 2 degree change in climate on earth. It will be uninhabitable. NOT.
>Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States.
Oh yeah, because we were otherwise going to drink the river... or maybe it disappears when it is used in agriculture. Except it doesn't. Water is the most recyclable resource there is.
>carbon output from food production has increased by 47 percent from 2000 to 2012 — that’s an increase of 150 million tons of carbon dioxide
Except carbon that is emitted to the atmosphere doesn't stay there. It's called carbon cycle. If we are producing more meat, we will also have to produce more food for the animals... which comes from plants... which take CO2 from the atmosphere to grow.
You're fooling nobody. Don't get into our kitchen.
There are also carbon emissions from producing ammonia fertilizer.
Yes, in which hydrocarbons, mostly methane, which is a biproduct of fossil fuel production, (which either has to be used or released to the environment), is used for getting the Hydrogen. If it's used, CO2 is emitted, which is much better than releasing CH4 to the environment.
Yes, methane leaks are a huge problem. But is it really accurate to consider methane etc used in ammonia production as waste?
Could some countries realistically just phase out (outlaw) most classes of meat production and consumption? IMO that's much more interesting than any taxation/disincentivization scheme.
No, for the same reason they couldn't phase out alcohol and drugs
I think public education could be enough here. Obviously, a campaign to reduce beef consumption would be far more successful than one to reduce or eliminate meat consumption. I eat meat and like it. I'd struggle to cut out all of it, but I could easily see myself making beef a thing to have at restaurants or special occasions only. More than happy to stick with chicken, pork and lamb (which I think is far more popular in Australia than the US?).
I feel like this problem would solve itself if livestock producers were encouraged (read: mandated) to move from factory farming to more traditional ranching. Lower density of livestock, more humane conditions, at least some carbon offset from pastures, etc. Prices might go up, which will likely hurt low-income carnivores, but that'll be the case with the proposed taxation approach, too.
[deleted]
Hum, Some people still think that they are made of gold?
The title should read "Industrial Farming is Horrible". Industrial crops aren't much better for the environment.
Citation needed? Others have already provided citations against your claim and the naive reasoning makes it seem obviously untrue: industrial livestock are fed industrial crops and so are worse than eating industrial crops oneself, and probably by a factor of at least 2.
My data-free immediate thought was, '...but industrial meat farming uses N times as many resources [land, water, petrochemicals] to produce the same number of nutrients/calories...'
Now I am interested if this is in fact true. I have certainly heard this argument made, and it is often alluded to e.g. in describing the problem in China of producing enough meat to satisfy an increasingly affluent society (the subtext being, 'with the same constrained resources').
Going to poke around a bit...
Now I am interested if this is in fact true. I have certainly heard this argument made, and it is often alluded to e.g. in describing the problem in China of producing enough meat to satisfy an increasingly affluent society (the subtext being, 'with the same constrained resources').
Going to poke around a bit...
TL;DR: it is in fact true. Best would be vegetarian diet; failing that, eliminating beef is a huge win.
QED if you are not vegetarian and have no interest in being, the 'greenest' thing to do is to reduce or eliminate beef consumption.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full is glum.
(I looked at resource usage, not the ethical side; fwiw I'm an ethics-motivated vegetarian myself.)
QED if you are not vegetarian and have no interest in being, the 'greenest' thing to do is to reduce or eliminate beef consumption.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full is glum.
(I looked at resource usage, not the ethical side; fwiw I'm an ethics-motivated vegetarian myself.)
Jane Goodall's book "Harvest for Hope" had some great statistics about the amount of water alone required to raise a kilogram of beef compared to chicken, rice, etc. I read it over ten years ago but I remember the numbers being jaw dropping. Health issues aside, beef puts a horrible load on the environment.
In my experience, out of the commonly-eaten meats, beef tends to be the priciest anyway.
But not nearly proportional to the ratios of energy/land/water consumption between vegetarian (or say chicken/fish) based food items and beef.
E.g., what's the difference in price between a burger made from ground beef vs a similar sandwich with grilled chicken?
E.g., what's the difference in price between a burger made from ground beef vs a similar sandwich with grilled chicken?
It is true in our overspecialized food production system, especially when byproducts like manure aren't counted as output.
In smaller, more diverse farms, animals contribute to the overall output because they improve land that is fallow, turn waste into food and manure and provide food that complements plants effectively in our diet.
We have the technology to farm this way, at scale, but it is politically infeasible and there won't be any demand for it until the specialized products of our current system become much more expensive.
In smaller, more diverse farms, animals contribute to the overall output because they improve land that is fallow, turn waste into food and manure and provide food that complements plants effectively in our diet.
We have the technology to farm this way, at scale, but it is politically infeasible and there won't be any demand for it until the specialized products of our current system become much more expensive.
I agree that meat farming, at least in the factory-style, is horrific. But this solution seems like it might make things worse.
If there's a meat tax, then farmers will have an incentive to cut even more corners, which might lead to even more cruel conditions.
Instead, maybe it makes sense to set a price floor for any operation over a certain number of animals. (IE, if you have more than 200 animals on your farm, you can't charge less than $10 a pound or something).
If there's a meat tax, then farmers will have an incentive to cut even more corners, which might lead to even more cruel conditions.
Instead, maybe it makes sense to set a price floor for any operation over a certain number of animals. (IE, if you have more than 200 animals on your farm, you can't charge less than $10 a pound or something).
I agree. Implementing this sort of thing seems like a prime candidate for the cobra effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
If they could cut corners they would already. Battery cages are a prime example. At least in the UK free range only took off when consumers pushed for it.
I think that government mandated minimum quality of life for the animal. Space, roaming, feed, water etc.
That would be good and humane way to reduce beef production and increase prices to reduce the demand but it would be costlier for government than setting up new tax.
Maybe we could do both? Tax the beef and use the money to enforce minimum quality of life for animals?
Even manufacturers could be not that upset because they could significantly increase price per unit.
Only group that would be angry could be beef consumers at least the ones that prefer quantity over quality and/or can't pay for quality.
Maybe we could do both? Tax the beef and use the money to enforce minimum quality of life for animals?
Even manufacturers could be not that upset because they could significantly increase price per unit.
Only group that would be angry could be beef consumers at least the ones that prefer quantity over quality and/or can't pay for quality.
I don't care about the price of beef - I only care about the animals living life free of needless cruelty.
I am not even convinced that it will be more expensive - the US is vast, there is lots of stuff to graze, instead of disposing of the manure it will be used as fertilizer and so on.
I am not even convinced that it will be more expensive - the US is vast, there is lots of stuff to graze, instead of disposing of the manure it will be used as fertilizer and so on.
Wouldn't you want less animals to be exposed to necessary cruelty? Higher price can help with that.
I'm no fan of more government regulation. Yet it seems clear that totally unregulated markets with uneducated consumers makes a mess of things
[deleted]
This isn't about meat, but rather farming methods.
Well, not really. meat is horrible in many ways, and the very few systems that aren't bad for the environment won't scale.
If all pasture was magically turned into carbon sinks (in my home country about 5% of natural pastures could be called carbon sinks. in some countries it is almost as high as 30%) we would still have to cut our meat consumption considerably - and that would be for sustaining the meat consumption of today and not meet the growing consumption in Asia.
If all pasture was magically turned into carbon sinks (in my home country about 5% of natural pastures could be called carbon sinks. in some countries it is almost as high as 30%) we would still have to cut our meat consumption considerably - and that would be for sustaining the meat consumption of today and not meet the growing consumption in Asia.
I'm sceptical about this, for a couple of first-year-physics reasons.
1. Matter is conserved. Before carbon can be farted out of a cow, it has to get in to the cow from somewhere else. I expect most of it was in the atmosphere a year beforehand, then got absorbed by pasture grass and eaten. So this year's farts will end up in next year's cows, and aren't like fossil fuel emissions.
2. Methane decays to carbon dioxide in a decade or two, so today's methane emissions are not really a worse problem than today's carbon dioxide emissions.
1. Matter is conserved. Before carbon can be farted out of a cow, it has to get in to the cow from somewhere else. I expect most of it was in the atmosphere a year beforehand, then got absorbed by pasture grass and eaten. So this year's farts will end up in next year's cows, and aren't like fossil fuel emissions.
2. Methane decays to carbon dioxide in a decade or two, so today's methane emissions are not really a worse problem than today's carbon dioxide emissions.
1. The CO2 issue is not that the cow eats carbon and its manure turns back into CO2. The issue is the land use changes and fossil fuel-derived energy used in the production and transportation of feed. Because the feed to usable meat ratio of beef is somewhere between 7:1 to 20:1, this is significantly more impactful than other foods.
2. CH4 may not have a long half-life, but it has 29x the warming potential of CO2. Methane is thought to contribute about 20% of the current anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Because of the anticipated positive feedbacks from warming, this is very important indeed.
2. CH4 may not have a long half-life, but it has 29x the warming potential of CO2. Methane is thought to contribute about 20% of the current anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Because of the anticipated positive feedbacks from warming, this is very important indeed.
>CH4 may not have a long half-life, but it has 29x the warming potential of CO2.
To be clear, methane has 451x the heat trapping ability, the 29x figure is the 100year impact that takes into account the methane breaking down.
To be clear, methane has 451x the heat trapping ability, the 29x figure is the 100year impact that takes into account the methane breaking down.
Thanks, that makes a big difference. Apparently you can't trust newspapers even on the orders of magnitude for these things.
I'm sure that's true, but the article explicitly says that 60% of the emissions it quotes are from digestion. It's hard to tell if there is a real problem hidden under the irrelevant data, or if this is propaganda from the animal welfare or energy industry lobbies.
It would be great if we could make a material difference to the greenhouse effect just by eating less meat, but that sounds a bit too good to be true.
It would be great if we could make a material difference to the greenhouse effect just by eating less meat, but that sounds a bit too good to be true.
> I'm sceptical about this, for a couple of first-year-physics reasons.
Hmm... I guess I'll trust the experts quoted in the article rather than some rando's vague impressions of first-year physics.
Hmm... I guess I'll trust the experts quoted in the article rather than some rando's vague impressions of first-year physics.
Sure. But It would be nice if they sorted out these obvious first-year-physics questions in the article. Just measuring farts isn't really significant.
Are there significantly more grazing animals on earth now than there was ever before, for instance?
It could very well be: I found this xkcd strip alarming as I had no idea that most animals where actually either people or their livestock. https://xkcd.com/1338/
But anyway. It's not the cows that are the problem, it's that the human population is growing. This is probably fixable, unless something like reactionary Islamists sends us back to the stone age. ( Right now that is the only scenario where I could see that the population would explode and then collapse into endless suffering, perhaps in Africa first.)
The fix is education, education and education.
Are there significantly more grazing animals on earth now than there was ever before, for instance?
It could very well be: I found this xkcd strip alarming as I had no idea that most animals where actually either people or their livestock. https://xkcd.com/1338/
But anyway. It's not the cows that are the problem, it's that the human population is growing. This is probably fixable, unless something like reactionary Islamists sends us back to the stone age. ( Right now that is the only scenario where I could see that the population would explode and then collapse into endless suffering, perhaps in Africa first.)
The fix is education, education and education.
Before carbon can be farted out of a cow, it has to get in to the cow from somewhere else.
In particular, it comes from the plant matter they digest. Which would otherwise be holding onto those carbon atoms, by and large. (Or releasing them to other organisms via natural decomposition processes). You know, like trees do.
Instead being shot into the atmosphere through the cows' hind quarters.
In particular, it comes from the plant matter they digest. Which would otherwise be holding onto those carbon atoms, by and large. (Or releasing them to other organisms via natural decomposition processes). You know, like trees do.
Instead being shot into the atmosphere through the cows' hind quarters.
Nitrogen fertilizers are made using natural gas. Tractors run on diesel. A lot of fossil carbon goes into feed.