Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pubelication t1_j4pl2sv wrote

Reply to comment by KorewaRise in Inside an insect farm: Are mealworms a sustainable meat alternative? by vpuetf

57% of that 14% is livestock, plant-based is 29%.

Let's pretend that all livestock disappears. Where the fuck do you think the emissions from livestock, which are mostly caused by transportation and farming machinery are going to go? Those people will need to eat something. In Europe for example, the only place that vegetables grow from Oct to Mar are in the very south (Spain, Italy, Greece), and heated greenhouses with artificial lighting. Livestock is available year-round locally and virtually unaffected by weather.

5

KorewaRise t1_j4rp3cx wrote

oh wow its almost like we're trying to find alternatives that pollute less, require less overhead and logistics. but based off this comment section y'all don't give a shit, you just want meat no matter the consequences

3

Pubelication t1_j4rprmi wrote

Okay, but like I mentioned, fruits/vegetables require much more logistics as they don't grow year-round, whereas a pig dgaf about winter if it has a pen.

3

KorewaRise t1_j4rtskp wrote

it also needs to shit, fart, eat, drink water, breathe, etc. animals need a metric fuck ton more resources than plants.

live stock uses 36% of all crops we grow for animal feed.

80% of ALL agricultural land goes toward livestock or their food.

it also takes YEARS to actually eat it, a fucking sweet potatoe takes like 90 days to grow.

we could easily feed the world 4 times over if we didn't have such a meat addiction, but we rather destroy the planet than quit eating as much meat.

5

nameTotallyUnique t1_j4q6bq9 wrote

Well for the 29% plant based to make since a big percentage of that is feeding the livestock. Else i would like to see the source on livestock emmision being smaller then plantbased.

0

Pubelication t1_j4q7gr5 wrote

It's not smaller, it's 57% vs 29%.

But if all people eating meat stopped, the emissions from plant farming to replace those calories would skyrocket. The only way to lower plant-based food emissions is to not ship it, which would mean almost the entire northern hemisphere would have no fruits or vegetables half the year, or they'd have to be grown in heated and artificially lit greenhouses, which again creates emissions.

It makes more sense to not ship meat around as much and buy local. In Europe that's caused by some countries subsidizing certain meat types and exporting them.

1

nameTotallyUnique t1_j4qakc1 wrote

Thanks for the clearup.

Well alot of the food to raise livestock is shipped anyhow. Yes shipping anything that can produced locally doesnt make to much sense. But i would assume that the emmissions of transportation of it using containerships is small compared to the production.

If all peole stopped eating meat we would certainly save emmission even if transported. And ofc plant based emmissions would go up. Same as if everyone stopped eating advocates and eat apples instead the emission for apples would go up but the total emmision that was for applea and advocatoes would deastical go down.

But yes eating locally makes sense and it's another debate. Plant based can easily be produced locally aswell.

1