469
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
(sentientmedia.org)
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
469 points (84.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5392 readers
202 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:
...in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.
If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.
No. Whataboutism doesn't change the facts. On that, we can agree.
It's kinda wild to post "it's not that bad... studies" funded by corporate interests in /climate. It's always the same old denial lines served from the same ole' boiler plate. Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too? Are the innovations of" clean coal" going to revive the industry so nothing has to change?
The wildly ineffecient ineffecient industry has long been supported by goverment subsides.
The obvious answer is to stop breeding them. Their numbers are this high because they are treated as a commodity.
As I said to the other guy, accusing the large percent of studies that disagree with you of being false is bad-faith far-right bullshit, and we had enough of that in 2020 with the anti-vaxxers. I have sworn off EVER giving that style of bullshit any more respect than it deserves.
I never said "benefit of the doubt". You're the one picking research based on whether you like its results. I'm the one reading the articles and studies on both sides.
Actually, let me use your reference to show my point. Do you know who the BIGGEST opponent of farm subsidies is? FARMERS.
You tell me why, and we'll continue this discussion. Otherwise, you just showed your hand, and it's a 2-7 off-suit high card.
Till when? In my country, the total methane impact from agriculture is only 20% higher than pre-colonial ecostasis. We will reach those numbers in 10 years. Are you saying my country needs to have LOWER methane emissions than it had 500 years ago all so we can support BP continuing to do whatever the fuck they want and still have a global temperature continue to rise? Because if the worst GHG footprint was my home country's agricultural industry, global warming wouldn't be a problem.
Which one of us is giving BP the benefit of the doubt, now? What percent of environmental spending are you really willing to do to reduce GHG emissions <5%?
Studies and experts funded by the livestock industry, yes. Why are the studies and experts always Mitloehner, I swear...
You understand the problem with "studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong", do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.
And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you're only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn't making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you're going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.
This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I'm not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.
Here is UC Davis ASI's Funding year by year. They publish it. They're PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950's.
But taking a step back. It's best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of "antivax movement" to me.
What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment? Like this isn't me bringing up criticism of some random researcher, it's specifically related to the "studies and experts" you referred to. And I'm not sure why you're bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn't related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.
In case you were unable to read the article due to the paywall, this is the most pertinent part:
The article does also cite critical researchers, since you asked:
You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.
As I mentioned, I couldn't see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I'd get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It's primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.
Here's the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He's an air quality specialist by background. Here's a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it's important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.
As he says in his penultimate line: "I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet."
As you quote:
I do not get that conclusion from what I've read of him. I'm sorry, I just don't. Yes, it's not fair that I say "the people I know who have been involved with him think he's on the up-and-up", but it's also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.
And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in "However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell". Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are "high current emissions". Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He's literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I'm sorry, I'm not ok with that.
This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there's a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).
I'm sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it's starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.
That does introduce a significant conflict of interest in regard to research, though.
The meat industry is not going to advocate for its own demise, and if that portion of the institution is dependent on the industry liking what the research is saying, they are not going to publish anything that would sour relations with their main source of funding.
Any study that is funded by the same people befitting from a positive outcome doesn't mean its bunk, but it should automatically, at the very least, be viewed with a highly critical and skeptical eye.
I disagree because their research is largely about improving sustainability, not about proving to vegans (who will never win anyway if we're honest) that meat is okay.
For that to be meaningful to a discussion about UC Davis' research, there needs to be a meaningful possibility that humanity is doomed without everyone going vegan. No matter how we coerce numbers, that's simply not the reality. If and when there is reputable research showing that meat is unsalvageable, then we can start the hard discussions. Until then, the idea that the industry that most benefits from research would be unable to ethically fund said research is just silly. Please check out the chain that led to an essay from one of the senior researchers of UC Davis' CLEAR center for more context.
None of UC Davis is dependent upon the meat industry. They receive some funding for some of their research from it. Because sustainability means lower cost and the meat industry likes lower cost. It's the same reason solar has started to win in the business sector. Better environment is good business. Yes, if there's a secret gotcha where the 1 millionth cow will suddenly explode with anthrax, there might be an argument. But despite some mild disagreements with "how much GHG is bad", there's not really much to criticize them for. And as a reminder, ALL food sources hit the environment in various ways, and many plants do the same worse than many animals. There's no smoking gun, so I would be incredibly hesitant to disqualify reputable science over it.
What about studies paid for largely by sustainability groups, but backed by businesses because the outcome isn't "positive" as much as "here's how you can reduce the methane impact of your livestock allowing you to efficiently scale your operations and produce more food for less money"? You can understand why the latter, far more common in research, is worth it to everyone.