The latest billionaire space circle jerk.

[Spongebob]

Yeah....so sayeth the shills from big oil.  A rumor that got started by it's inclusion in the 06 climate report.  Two sentences not found in the body, but the executive summary.  In it's full glory-

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e. This is a higher share than transport.

It was untrue when it was written, it's still untrue, but it made it's way into public perception as a fact.  The most appalling bit, though, is that even if we assumed it were true for shits and giggles - there's literally no way to tackle our climate crisis by producing less food.  We can switch off oil, we can't switch off eating - we're already hungry, and will only get hungrier in the face of these difficulties.

There's a lot of references to this from various universities, so I'm not sure why you believe it's something the oil companies created.  And regarding your question about having to eat; sure we have to eat, but we don't have to eat meat.  Before you go off, I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm not shaming anyone, but there are a lot of reasons why consuming meat products is bad for the environment.  I suppose I could be convinced to take meat off the table, but I would be lying if I said I wouldn't miss it.

[Ranjr]

The climate impacts from cattle are methane and deforestation.  Of course, while methane traps heat more efficiently, it breaks down much fast than CO2.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah....so sayeth the shills from big oil.  A rumor that got started by it's inclusion in the 06 climate report.  Two sentences not found in the body, but the executive summary.  In it's full glory-

It was untrue when it was written, it's still untrue, but it made it's way into public perception as a fact.  The most appalling bit, though, is that even if we assumed it were true for shits and giggles - there's literally no way to tackle our climate crisis by producing less food.  We can switch off oil, we can't switch off eating - we're already hungry, and will only get hungrier in the face of these difficulties.

There's a lot of references to this from various universities, so I'm not sure why you believe it's something the oil companies created.  And regarding your question about having to eat; sure we have to eat, but we don't have to eat meat.  Before you go off, I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm not shaming anyone, but there are a lot of reasons why consuming meat products is bad for the environment.  I suppose I could be convinced to take meat off the table, but I would be lying if I said I wouldn't miss it.

With respect to food, I think you'd find the situation more complicated than the notion that we don't have to eat meat.  We do.  We'd be raising livestock even if we didn't eat it.  

As far as the claim - it was demonstrably false and corrected by it's senior author.  Initially, the fao included emissions from fertilizer production, mechanical land conversion, feed production, and direct emissions from animals when they came up with the number.  In contrast, when they considered transport.....they ignored the manufacturing process of the vehicles, ignored service parts and requirements, ignored assembly, ignored road maintenance, ignored bridges...ignored...airports........ It was a massive fuckup, and it was corrected. Here in the us, just for specificity, the actual emissions due to livestock, is something like 4% or less - and that's with poor (environmental) practices. The authors immediately owned up to all of this - but it was too late.

(the us, btw, leads the world in sustainable livestock - there was a boom from the 60's to today similar to the field crop boom from the 40's to the 60's - if these practices were industry standard, raising livestock would be a carbon sink and fewer people would go hungry. We're uniquely situated to prevent the collapse of wild fish stocks.)

[Spongebob]

With respect to food, I think you'd find the situation more complicated than the notion that we don't have to eat meat.  We do.  We'd be raising livestock even if we didn't eat it.  

As far as the claim - it was demonstrably false and corrected by it's senior author.  Initially, the fao included emissions from fertilizer production, mechanical land conversion, feed production, and direct emissions from animals when they came up with the number.  In contrast, when they considered transport.....they ignored the manufacturing process of the vehicles, ignored service parts and requirements, ignored assembly, ignored road maintenance, ignored bridges...ignored...airports........  It was a massive fuckup, and it was corrected.  Here in the us, just for specificity, the actual emissions due to livestock, is something like 4% or less - and that's with poor (environmental) practices.  The authors immediately owned up to all of this - but it was too late.

(the us, btw, leads the world in sustainable livestock - there was a boom from the 60's to today similar to the field crop boom from the 40's to the 60's - if these practices were industry standard, raising livestock would be a carbon sink and fewer people would go hungry.  We're uniquely situated to prevent the collapse of wild fish stocks.)

So, state your sources.  I keep finding credible sources that support the claim, although the degree of severity varies by source.  I'm not convinced this is a conspiracy theory.
https://apnews.com/article/north-america...c8b98531d5
http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources...-emissions

I did find one source claiming emissions from cows made up less than 1% of methane, but it was from the Iowa Farm Bureau, so I don't consider that an unbiased source.  So at this point I would say the issue is still unsettled.

Regarding eating meat.  Are you saying humans MUST eat meat?  How do you explain all of those vegetarians out there?  Not just in the US, lots of cultures outside the US are largely vegetarian.  Again, before you accuse me of something I didn't say, I AM NOT a vegetarian and I have never advocated banning meat.  I'm simply asking you questions.  It is something I would consider if I was convinced it was an appropriate action for environmental improvement.  I will also admit that I'm conflicted about killing animals for my own sustenance, but my laziness is all I can really point to that prevents me from addressing it.

[Angrboda]

There are upsides and downsides to eating meat. It's more likely to result in a healthy, well-rounded diet, but it's also likely to increase the odds of cardiovascular disease. It does have the benefit of having proven itself through long experience, which vegetarianism has not. And vegetarianism requires a lot more effort, causing many to practice it poorly and compromise their health in the process. Theory and practice, as it were.

[The Grand Nudger]

None of those links repeat the demonstrably false claim, retracted by it's author. The last link directly contradicts it.

It was never true, and it wasn't like the author was involved in some conspiracy, he just got shit wrong and knew exactly how he'd gotten it wrong after the fact. The only bad faith involved was in the propaganda mills latching onto the claim and continuing to perpetuate it even after it's retraction. You can read all about it, from that lead author..here.

https://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0

Using a global life cycle approach, FAO estimated all direct and indirect emissions from livestock (cattle, buffaloes, goat, sheep, pigs and poultry) at 7.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent per year, or 14.5% of all anthropogenic emissions reported by the IPCC. In addition to rumen digestion and manure, life cycle emissions also include those from producing feed and forages, which the IPCC reports under crops and forestry, and those from processing and transporting meat, milk and eggs, which the IPCC reports under industry and transport. Hence, we cannot compare the transport sector’s 14% as calculated by the IPCC, to the 14.5% of livestock using the life cycle approach.

In coming up with the number..they not only miscalculated..but actually dumped the transport costs of the inputs and products into the livestock category...instead of.....transport....while borrowing and adding the costs under forestry and manufacturing. None of it is just out of the blue made up, but as far as accounting goes...it's akin to charging one department with the costs of the other department....and then charging those departments as well, in their respective analysis.

As far as the necessity of livestock - doesn't have anything to do with dietary requirements, and vegetarians also make use of livestock production. It has to do with land use and capacity and agricultural inputs. Of the necessity of livestock in commercial and sustainable agriculture - unless we just want to keep making food from oil. People have to eat meat because that's what they can produce where they're at, because we need the fertility, because we need the funds, because we need the food, because we want to get out of fossil fuel based production, because farmed protein is the only way to save wild stocks. You can see how harmful that miscalculation was and is to the reality of sustainable ag when you consider the models.

Iowas low number, for example, is likely to reflect a drop in feedlot operations year over year as the pastured market overtakes share. Last year, they saw an 18-35% reduction - continuing a trend.

[Spongebob]

@The Grand Nudger It sounds like the only thing that was wrong was the numbers in comparison to transport.  The primary point that livestock is a contributor is still true.

As far as the necessity of livestock - doesn't have anything to do with dietary requirements, and vegetarians also make use of livestock production. It has to do with land use and capacity and agricultural inputs. Of the necessity of livestock in commercial and sustainable agriculture - unless we just want to keep making food from oil. People have to eat meat because that's what they can produce where they're at, because we need the fertility, because we need the funds, because we need the food, because we want to get out of fossil fuel based production, because farmed protein is the only way to save wild stocks. You can see how harmful that miscalculation was and is to the reality of sustainable ag when you consider the models.

Yes, I'm aware that land use is the primary concern with livestock production.  It's also a major contributor to deforestation.  And I know that everyone uses some forms of livestock products, but the point is still valid.  Increased livestock = increased carbon footprint.  There are some new efficiencies in livestock production that seem to reduce the carbon footprint per animal, but I'm not sure I understand how it's happening.

People don't really have to eat meat, that's a myth.  Meat production in some parts of the world is far more expensive and less efficient and the land would be better served growing crops.  Growing crops to feed animals to feed humans is inherently less efficient than cutting out the middle-food and eating the crops.  And you think livestock production doesn't require fossil fuels?  Whut?

Raising some wild animals for food would certainly increase their likelihood of long term survival, that's clear with those that we do use.  No chance the cow is going extinct anytime soon.  But what's the likelihood that such practices expand to include the thousands of animals that are endangered?  Not possible, so it's a nonsequitur. 

Iowas low number, for example, is likely to reflect a drop in feedlot operations year over year as the pastured market overtakes share. Last year, they saw an 18-35% reduction - continuing a trend.

??  I'm at a loss to understand your point here.  Overall, you seem to be saying increasing livestock is good for the environment and people have to eat meat.  Is that what you mean to say?

[Ranjr]

Grain diet produces less methane than grass.  Not sure how pastures are helping there.  Holstein steers will still go to feedlots.

[Spongebob]

Grain diet produces less methane than grass.  Not sure how pastures are helping there.  Holstein steers will still go to feedlots.

Have you ever heard the desert island food puzzle ?  You are shipwrecked on a deserted island and all you have are two crates of corn flakes and a crate full of live chickens.  What do you do, eat some of the cornflakes and feed some to the birds until they are gone, then eat the chickens, or eat the birds first, then the cornflakes.  Answer: birds first.  You lose calories if they eat the corn flakes, then you eat them.

[Brian37]

Yeah....so sayeth the shills from big oil.  A rumor that got started by it's inclusion in the 06 climate report.  Two sentences not found in the body, but the executive summary.  In it's full glory-

It was untrue when it was written, it's still untrue, but it made it's way into public perception as a fact.  The most appalling bit, though, is that even if we assumed it were true for shits and giggles - there's literally no way to tackle our climate crisis by producing less food.  We can switch off oil, we can't switch off eating - we're already hungry, and will only get hungrier in the face of these difficulties.

There's a lot of references to this from various universities, so I'm not sure why you believe it's something the oil companies created.  And regarding your question about having to eat; sure we have to eat, but we don't have to eat meat.  Before you go off, I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm not shaming anyone, but there are a lot of reasons why consuming meat products is bad for the environment.  I suppose I could be convinced to take meat off the table, but I would be lying if I said I wouldn't miss it.

I don't have a problem with what people eat. But in reality, if it requires heat or deforestation, the real problem isn't eating animal or plant, the real problem is that our species is over consuming both, faster than the planet can handle what humans do.

I hate to say this, and I hope humans can pull their heads out of there asses collectively, but it looks like we are becoming a victim of our own success. 

If humans suddenly stopped eating animals, and only ate plants, that still would not solve the problem of demand.