(November 25, 2019 at 2:46 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure, np. Where would you like to begin? Lobbying pressure on environmental studies, the issue of the conventional model, creative accounting in carbon footprints, or misconceptions about the global methane and/or co2 budget and the role that livestock plays?

(there are, easily, hundreds of other factors, local, regional, and global - but those are the big four)

There's also the more positive track - explaining all of the ways that livestock production is an essential component of any plan to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel consumption through multiple, simultaneous avenues.

You seem to be in the minority on this one. I can't find a source that agrees with you that isn't trying to sell me something. Unless you're going to start saying I shouldn't believe scientific studies that I find confirming my POV because there's financial pressure to skew the results - which is the exact argument climate change deniers use.

Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet



To be fair, this study says that meat eaters had a larger footprint than vegans and vegetarians, with exceptions. Where and how you source your food matters, and what you eat (local pastured beef vs. fake soy hot dogs) affects environmental impact.

Indeed it does, which is a great argument for making more informed consumer choices regardless of what you're putting on your plate.

Speaking of, we produce more meat today with lower herd sizes, and thus lower potential carbon footprint than ever before, and the trend isn't slowing down. Meanwhile, in the absence of livestock production, the carbon footprint of agriculture must, by necessity, increase. We tear through soil faster than nature can replace it (and not by a little), our only recourse being to amend the land. This, also, increases the amount of co2 in the atmospehere. Additionally, corn and cropland are incapable of locking as much co2 as pasture....and more than 2/3rds of our agricultural land is marginal, suitable for nothing else. The benefits of improved grazing don't just stop there, or with more food, it's a way to actively reverse desertification.

(and yes, most of the marquee studies are funded by interested lobbies, but in this case you have the factory farm lobby in a knife fight with the fossil fuel lobby - they deserve each other, lol. I think we can dispense with any talk of climate change denial, since neither of us are interested in that - but I can show you how and why each side in this knife fight cooks their books to implicate the other...and how both sides cook their books to sweep the fullest extent of consumer choices under the rug.)

---

I couldn;t find any table that explained how the values were derived...but this sentence from the abstract explained why.

Quote:A focus on a specific population, even though participants belong to four geographically distant areas in Italy, and the fact that seasonality, farming and cattle rearing typology, and food production methods were not taken into account for the environmental impact evaluation should be considered the main weaknesses of this study.

A study of the environmental impact of diets..that doesn't take into account the specific environmental impact of production methodologies....? That's, impressive. Can't really comment any further on that account. Except to say that you should link a study that actually can support your pov, if that's what you intend to do, regardless of the level of confidence you place in those studies for whatever reason. I would even suggest that you don't need -any- specific scientific study to understand why the climate change angle for veganism is a non starter. The flaw in the argument isn't in the specifics, it's properly basic.

(November 25, 2019 at 3:32 pm)Tom Fearnley Wrote:

(November 25, 2019 at 2:57 pm)LastPoet Wrote: If you think I would spend my time with kids, you are wrong. I would've chosen my career as a kindergarden teacher.

What? I'm 34.

You understand that this statement of yours isn't serving you a bit? 34 and with a childish attitude?

Sounded like a "I'll add 20 years" statement.

Whether you are anti-eating meat or pro-eating meat--hunting it makes no difference.

(November 27, 2019 at 5:15 pm)ThinkingIsThinking Wrote: Whether you are anti-eating meat or pro-eating meat--hunting it makes no difference.

1. I've never hunted anything that couldn't hunt me back.

2. I've killed my dinner more than once. MMMM, bacon!

(November 27, 2019 at 6:33 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 27, 2019 at 5:15 pm)ThinkingIsThinking Wrote: Whether you are anti-eating meat or pro-eating meat--hunting it makes no difference.

1. I've never hunted anything that couldn't hunt me back.

2. I've killed my dinner more than once. MMMM, bacon!

So have I.

Shepherd’s pie. First peel two shepherds...

I'm sure your recipe for Cock-a-Leekie soup is terrifying.

Boru

(November 27, 2019 at 6:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm sure your recipe for Cock-a-Leekie soup is terrifying.

Boru

Shouldn’t eat things that leekie...

(November 27, 2019 at 6:33 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 27, 2019 at 5:15 pm)ThinkingIsThinking Wrote: Whether you are anti-eating meat or pro-eating meat--hunting it makes no difference.

1. I've never hunted anything that couldn't hunt me back.

2. I've killed my dinner more than once. MMMM, bacon!

I meant that it makes no MORAL difference.