69
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
69 points (96.0% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5234 readers
42 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The cows are bad it seems, but it's glossing over natural gas companies not maintaining their infrastructure of leaky pipes. They are both larger emission producers, and completely unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Edit: It's hard to feel that the environmental debate has been hijacked. Even when an article lists 2 higher sources of methane production with corporate leakage in gas pipes, the focus is solely on beef. Is this industrial astroturfing, or vegans that have their own skin in the game so to speak and this isn't about the environment. The environment is a complex topic that requires multifaceted solutions to solving different contributory factors, yet it's been condensed down to this weird meat eating witch hunt.
I don't agree with the statement cows are bad. I think that factory / industrial farming at this scale presents an unnatural concentration of conditions that allow methane levels to be checked and highlighted. Its like if you judged the emmisions of all cars based off of the redneck that just rolled coal through an intersection.
I think the methane issue, if it was framed correctly, would be used to boost the endorsement and possibly subsidization of small farms that raise beef in a more generally traditional way (pasture grazing) or in ways that are more in the vein of permacultue.
Yes, doing so will likely raise the cost of the meat you buy at the store. But beef on pasture, especially when teamed up with chickens and other livestock create a much more balanced system that doesn't impact the ecology in such an acute manner.
I'm concerned that the argument being made about beef overlooks more significant sources of greenhouse gases that aren't tied to our food supply. There is an underlying assumption that we can't go back to farming on a small scale and spin down the general economy so that we could all live simpler and more ballanced lives.
The powers that be will never push for that. They need our behemoth economic output to help keep their thumb on the world through miltary, political and economic force. But, one can't help but recognize that we've become a significantly unwell society. I don't think this all boils down to old people simply being out of touch with themselves or that it wasn't OK to acknologe mental illness. I think our collective illness is one born of the pressures we all face from the GDP graph always needing to go higher and higher.
I just look at it like this. Families used to get by on 50 acres with a few livestock and would run minimal power equipment to manage it all. Their localized impact to the atmosphere was significantly smaller than all of our modernized, centralized methods. I'm not saying we all need to be farmers. But I do think the past has some valuable points to reference from the standpoint of reducing our individual carbon footprints and thereby reducing the incentive for companies to make more stuff that we don't really need if it wasn't in support of our fast paced highly commercialized way of life.
Sorry for the long wandering rant. I'll go back to yelling at the clouds.
Power tools are not the main source of emissions for raising cattle. Methane emissions happen in ruminents from digestion. Grazing-only production actually has overall higher methane emissions due to longer growing times and lower slaughter weight. Further, it does not scale well in the slightest. For instance, the US would need a 4x reduction in beef consumption using 100% of available land (if you want to avoid high deforestation pressure, you would need even more reduction)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
More broadly
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
citation needed
I gave one in my comment? There's a quote with a source there
not for that claim