• @Doorbook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    It is amazing how the focus shift from blaming gas and oil industries and focus on food. Blaming individuals, with a sub message ( you are the reason for climate change because you buy animal products) while big corporations and their investors, and ceos continue enjoying their massive wealth.

    Disclaimer, didn’t read the article but the title it triggering…

    • @usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Why we can’t ignore the meat industry’s climate impact

      We also need to address fossil fuels, but the meat industry is large enough in emissions to make us miss climate targets even if fossil fuels were eliminated today

      To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

      (emphasis mine)

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

      There’s not really a way around consumption being reduced. It’s going to be hard to implement any systematic solutions to reducing meat consumption if people don’t take that step themselves too


      The environment is more than just greenhouse gases emissions

      But I should also point out that there’s more to the environment than just climate change which is why I would suggest at least skimming things before commenting for the future. The article and even its title (“across a range of environmental measures”) include much more than just greenhouse gas emissions.

      on the environmental impact of their diets was assessed in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, water pollution risk and biodiversity loss.

      […]

      The impacts of vegans were a quarter of those of high meat eaters for greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, just 27% of the impacts for water pollution, 46% for water use and 34% for biodiversity.


      Other studies and environmental metrics

      Why best case production of animal products still come out worse than worse-case production of plants

      Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

      https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

      Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

      […]

      Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

      Deforestation

      Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation

      https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/

      Draining desert’s water

      Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle-feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers

      https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs

      Biodiversity loss

      Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/16/most-damaging-farm-products-organic-pasture-fed-beef-lamb

      Increased synthetic fertilizer usage for animal products

      Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528

      Etc.

      There’s a number more but this comment is already getting too long

      • @purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        Industry also drives people’s demands fwiw, without lobbying, subsidy, advertising, and the cultural dominance of meat production those things have brought about, meat consumption wouldn’t be anywhere near what it is today

    • @purahna@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      ✨it’s both✨

      Both are driven by corporations but both can also be impacted somewhat - both by reducing carbon and harming corporation’s profits - with individual choice making. Both will also ultimately only be fully rectified by a new economic order.