He says: refraining from consuming animal products, argues Foer, is one of the most significant actions individuals can take to help prevent global warming, along with driving less, flying less, and having fewer children.
But, Agricultural production makes up 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions.[1]
The largest categories are:
- Transportation: 29%
- Electricity: 28%
- Industry: 22%
- Commercial and Residential: 12%
- Ag: 9%
As for individual action on climate change am I the only one feeling like things are so focused on beef production when, looking at the grand scheme of things you should start biking everywhere you go, quit taking flights across the country, put some solar panels on your roof and stop buying stuff you throw away?
Wouldn't each of those actions have, potentially, a far bigger impact on climate change than just beef reduction?
I think that it's also the most practical (though that may just be for in terms of my current situation):
Driving and air travel are the most convenient ways to get around, solar panels require a significant investment (and unless you own your own home or have come to an agreement with your landlord, impossible), and most disposable things (eg. cheap electronics or plastics) are required for those on lower incomes.
But going vegetarian usually results in cheaper meals, and the are normally just as simple to make as non-vegetarian options.
Not to poke holes here but that link shows agricultural emissions with animal manure [aka feces] (14% of the 9%) and livestock ruminants [aka farts and other digestive processes] (~33% of the 9%). So, about 47% of that 9% is directly related to livestock with the remainder actually being from farming related to food.
If you believe that the millions of plains bison that roamed the grasslands of North America led to topsoil reduction... you'd be wrong. Industrial feedlot and processing plant meat production is nothing like meat should/can be raised. You just don't know it; you've been decieved.
If you believe that children raised and mentored by loving parents, training them to "move the needle" beyond what their parents were able to accomplish is a net negative to humanity and the biosphere... you'd be wrong. Sad little oppressed kids being primarily deceived by their "peers" and generally ignored by parents/teachers isn't education. You just don't know it; you've been deceived.
I'll deny the hateful, screeching, dark, negative dialectic of the climate apocalypsists all day long... because it's wrong. 7 billion humans caring for their family lands can repair the planet; 7 billion downtrodden subjects of liberty- and wealth-robbing tyrant governments; not so much.
As for me and my house, we'll put on our hardhats and break out our engineering skills, and push back against the selfish, nihilistic "totalitarian impulse" of the ignorant elitists, sending ranting little girls to the UN in an attempt to deny us the ability and capacity to do the R&D that actually improves our planet.
Let the down-voting begin... Don't be deceived, though; the smugly superior, soft-handed, flabby chattering political class who are ready, willing and able to sacrifice you to accomplish their little totalitarian redistribution schemes won't shed a tear when the time comes to march you up to the chopping block or execution wall.
Its only then that it'll dawn on you: they said they were loving and accepting of us, but they actually hated us. Your neighbors, however, love you and need you: exactly the opposite of what we've all been deceived into believing.
> I think the best thing that we could possibly do is simply require meat to cost what it actually costs. The price is heavily subsidized for the factory farm industry, mostly to corn and grain, but also through not requiring any environmental regulation.
This is the meat of it for me.
What I don't understand is that most activists seem to push the "regulation" angle, when perhaps the simplest solution is to just stop artificially reducing the cost of meat. If we simply stopped subsidizing dairy, corn, and other agriculture products and instituted a tax on methane pollution (start small and work our way up to an estimate of the damage it causes), we'd see a decline in demand for animal products. Or maybe we'll see some innovation in reducing the impact of raising meat products (I saw something somewhat recently about decreasing methane production for cattle by adjusting diet).
But no, we have this weird conflict between "climate change believers" and "climate change deniers", and both want to use government to force their will in different ways. It's weird because simply making things cost what they cost to produce would do more to help fix climate change than all of the bickering on both sides. This should be an area that liberals and conservatives can agree on: less government involvement in business is a conservative taking point, and ending agricultural subsidies is a liberal talking point, so why aren't we doing it? Let's cut oil subsidies as well while we're at it.
If we "just" internalized all the externalities then rich people would still eat meat, still drive, still fly, etc. while many people would have to give up those things. It might make inequality much more visible. There's also a moral angle that even "bad" people could "automatically" become green without having to change their minds about anything.
I already see that happening in places like new york and california. The most trendy resturants are the ones that flunt the green image, and charge you as much or more to be seen there as for the food.
7 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 30.6 ms ] threadBut, Agricultural production makes up 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions.[1]
The largest categories are: - Transportation: 29% - Electricity: 28% - Industry: 22% - Commercial and Residential: 12% - Ag: 9%
As for individual action on climate change am I the only one feeling like things are so focused on beef production when, looking at the grand scheme of things you should start biking everywhere you go, quit taking flights across the country, put some solar panels on your roof and stop buying stuff you throw away?
Wouldn't each of those actions have, potentially, a far bigger impact on climate change than just beef reduction?
[1]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
I think that it's also the most practical (though that may just be for in terms of my current situation):
Driving and air travel are the most convenient ways to get around, solar panels require a significant investment (and unless you own your own home or have come to an agreement with your landlord, impossible), and most disposable things (eg. cheap electronics or plastics) are required for those on lower incomes.
But going vegetarian usually results in cheaper meals, and the are normally just as simple to make as non-vegetarian options.
If you believe that children raised and mentored by loving parents, training them to "move the needle" beyond what their parents were able to accomplish is a net negative to humanity and the biosphere... you'd be wrong. Sad little oppressed kids being primarily deceived by their "peers" and generally ignored by parents/teachers isn't education. You just don't know it; you've been deceived.
I'll deny the hateful, screeching, dark, negative dialectic of the climate apocalypsists all day long... because it's wrong. 7 billion humans caring for their family lands can repair the planet; 7 billion downtrodden subjects of liberty- and wealth-robbing tyrant governments; not so much.
As for me and my house, we'll put on our hardhats and break out our engineering skills, and push back against the selfish, nihilistic "totalitarian impulse" of the ignorant elitists, sending ranting little girls to the UN in an attempt to deny us the ability and capacity to do the R&D that actually improves our planet.
Let the down-voting begin... Don't be deceived, though; the smugly superior, soft-handed, flabby chattering political class who are ready, willing and able to sacrifice you to accomplish their little totalitarian redistribution schemes won't shed a tear when the time comes to march you up to the chopping block or execution wall.
Its only then that it'll dawn on you: they said they were loving and accepting of us, but they actually hated us. Your neighbors, however, love you and need you: exactly the opposite of what we've all been deceived into believing.
This is the meat of it for me.
What I don't understand is that most activists seem to push the "regulation" angle, when perhaps the simplest solution is to just stop artificially reducing the cost of meat. If we simply stopped subsidizing dairy, corn, and other agriculture products and instituted a tax on methane pollution (start small and work our way up to an estimate of the damage it causes), we'd see a decline in demand for animal products. Or maybe we'll see some innovation in reducing the impact of raising meat products (I saw something somewhat recently about decreasing methane production for cattle by adjusting diet).
But no, we have this weird conflict between "climate change believers" and "climate change deniers", and both want to use government to force their will in different ways. It's weird because simply making things cost what they cost to produce would do more to help fix climate change than all of the bickering on both sides. This should be an area that liberals and conservatives can agree on: less government involvement in business is a conservative taking point, and ending agricultural subsidies is a liberal talking point, so why aren't we doing it? Let's cut oil subsidies as well while we're at it.