Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Oggy385 t1_jb8n2l7 wrote

6% on meat 4% on agriculture solis 1,5% on rice fields 60% on energy usage because people still burn fosil fuels for transportation (16%) and to produce electricity (42%) for housing (18%) and industry (24%)

Not to mention 1/3 of food goes to waste. 2/3 of electricity produced is from fosil fuels.

And yet agenda is to stop eating meat and to boycot nuclear energy.

22

Single_Pick1468 t1_jb92rox wrote

Another interesting fact is that we all adopted a plant based diet we would have an area of Africa at our disposal. Did I hear new forests and wildlife?

7

Dellyg78 t1_jbhe94w wrote

Yeah I’ll leave those vegan Oreos and junk food to everyone else. I’ll take my meat thanks

0

Woody3000v2 t1_jcb90ql wrote

It's a campaign so the rich people can eat meat but we all have to get diabetes to save the planet.

0

Suspicious_Diver4234 t1_jb62ctp wrote

That's a pretty staggering number. We should start to move towards more sustainable food sources in order to help reduce our global carbon footprint.

9

BGAL7090 t1_jb6b4n2 wrote

We should stop subsidizing meat and dairy.

36

jotsea2 t1_jb6f8lo wrote

And sugar

And petroleum

24

Capn_Zelnick t1_jb6lmwn wrote

The fact that the USA has been subsidizing sugar and corn since nearly the inception of the country is nutty. I am certain it stimulated growth back then, but we really don't need it now, especially when considering there are better things on which to spend that money. Hell, good luck finding any prepared foodstuff that doesn't have an unreasonable amount of added sugars and/or syrups.

14

WellWrested t1_jb8w1oi wrote

I believe this started seriously with Earl Butz in the 1970s.

1

hiimsubclavian t1_jb96k2w wrote

> The fact that the USA has been subsidizing sugar and corn since nearly the inception of the country is nutty.

I say it's sweet and corny. Corn and corn syrup aren't exactly huge contributors to climate change, and America values its food security. There are worse things to spend tax dollars on.

1

tfks t1_jb91oti wrote

In most cases, allowing a business to flounder and die is fine. In the case that the business is producing something that your population would die without (food) allowing the business to flounder and die is maybe not a good idea. The hilarious amount of corn produced in the USA means that the entire rest of the world's agriculture could fail or be made unavailable and the US would still have a good supply. This protects against disaster, war, and other geopolitical events.

Obviously there are negative consequences to subsidizing corn (and other foods) to this degree, but I think it's important to temper any assessments with the fact that the subsidies are meant to prevent mass starvation should things go terribly wrong in the world.

0

Capn_Zelnick t1_jb9b2fk wrote

I don't suggest that the corn industry, or any other industry already discussed in different threads that has significant concequences to its subsidizing, die, just that we really don't have to spend this much on food security in order to still have a huge advantage in that regard over the rest of the world.

1

tfks t1_jb9ggh0 wrote

The industry doesn't have to die. I did also use the word flounder. These industries need to be subsidized enough that they could provide food rations to the American people in times of catastrophe. If they're below that threshold and the global food supply becomes significantly restricted, it risks economic and societal collapse. Is the subsidy balanced in that way? I honestly don't know and I've never once seen anyone addressing that in these threads about food subsidies.

0

Cleriisy t1_jb822x2 wrote

We should subsidize, but at the customer end not the producer end. I don't think I'm willing to take away easy, cheap protein from poor people. Milk in particular seems so important to me because it's no prep. But I'm not poor and I think the shelf price should reflect the real cost to produce.

1

squidbattletanks t1_jb8vduc wrote

Meat is the more expensive protein source. Legumes are far and away healthier and cheaper than meat, not to mention cheaper to produce and requiring a smaller land area to grow.

7

[deleted] t1_jb6hkhp wrote

Milk isn't THAT bad and it's so popular I think I'd leave it alone and focus on other improvements. Sometimes you just have to judge the popularity of something and find an alternative approach.

Soo maybe keep milk subsidies around but get more serious about CO2 extraction so we can tax the corporations and still have decent food.

EVs and solar panels work because they produce a superior outcome, they sell themselves. Making milk expensive without some kind of good subsite is more likely to turn people against climate reform than do much good, imo.

As much of a science and engineering problem climate change may seem like, it's mostly a human behavior problem and that's really what makes it so hard because we have to plan that people will only adapt so far ahead of time and we have to kind of lure them in when trying to prevent disaster because really only actual disaster would motivate them enough to be likely to give up meat and milk.

I think at best we can get them to mildly reduce meat and dairy intake, to be realistic about things. Otherwise you probably get voted out and get anti climate extremists.

At the end of the day reduction of emissions, lifestyle and even population really isn't enough to stop the warming, so you're going to have to use CO2 extraction and probably solar blocking/reflection. This means we should balance some of these changes against their popularity or face the rathe of human behavior.

So we should develop alternatives like we did for power generation or transit BEFORE we drive up food prices without options. Better plant based alternatives or better ways to manage the GHG from the product, but NOT high food prices.

The fastest path to global instability is high food prices, so lets no do that as much as possible please.

−9

BGAL7090 t1_jb6l9qo wrote

Whenever people talk to me about "what can we do about climate change"?

Any amount of "tax the corporations" or "introduce legislature to combat CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions" is met with a collective meh

So I developed a catchier "take all the govt money out of animal husbandry" because it's a snappy way to indicate that there is a lot of tax money already going to those industries - both directly and indirectly - that would barely or inadequately be compensated for by taxing them. A tax would only ever be paid for by the customer anyways, so why create the option of more loopholes that would further exacerbate the wealth disparity if we can just dry up the teat they've been suckling at for decades?

I don't have all (or any of) the answers, I'm just a vegetarian really tired of having to pay more for meals that should cost less simply because it's not a cultural norm yet.

Mods, I'm sorry if this comment isn't sciency enough. If we were good enough at self-policing there wouldn't be any need for you, and thank you for doing the necessary, uncompensated work.

plz don't delete

9

squidbattletanks t1_jb9b4ml wrote

Yessss, nothing is more infuriating than tofu being more expensive that meat and in general that plant-based alternatives are more expensive than animal products!

We need to stop the subsidies to animal products now!

2

Fishermans_Worf t1_jb6xdbm wrote

>Milk isn't THAT bad and it's so popular I think I'd leave it alone and focus on other improvements. Sometimes you just have to judge the popularity of something and find an alternative approach.

Milk only looks terrible because it's compared to beverages with little nutritional value. I don't think it's intentional. People just compare "milk" with "milk" and many people are trained to think "calories=bad" so if they do glance at the nutrition profile it's easy to think "ah—milk=less healthy!"

Of course animal milk takes more energy to produce. There's more energy in it!

When you actually want the nutrition milk offers instead of hydration, it suddenly becomes a whole lot greener. We didn't start drinking milk to mellow out our coffee or quench our thirst, we started drinking it because it's nutritious food.

(Let us also not forget that milk is a local product and transportation of heavy things like unitised liquids over long distances have huge carbon costs.)

−5

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb6mij5 wrote

Ah yes....let's place the blame for global warming on regular people, checks notes....eating.

7

Mutex70 t1_jb845gb wrote

This isn't "blaming" anyone. This is research into the causes of global warming so we can decide what to do about it.

Putting our heads in the sand and saying "well, we should just ignore that source of global warming because it's due to 'regular people eating'" is abject stupidity. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Yes, there are multiple causes of global warming. Identifying how much our current method of food production contributes to the problem is important.

15

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb84fdj wrote

The solution would be to make more sustainable foods more affordable than normal food otherwise it's just high horsing.

3

Mutex70 t1_jb86db8 wrote

Sustainable foods are already largely cheaper than "normal food".

i.e. peas, lentils, grains and tofu are already cheaper than meat, and contribute far less greenhouse gases.

>However, we also found that technologically available improvements to production practices, decarbonization of the energy sector, health-motivated changes in dietary habits and reductions in food waste could together decrease the anticipated warming by >55% compared with sustained dietary consumption rates, avoiding 0.5 °C relative to a business-as-usual baseline for a high-population-growth scenario. Further avoided warming potential lies within residual emissions that could be addressed by reductions in food loss throughout production stages or future technological innovations.

Basically: improve production processes, stop using fossil fuels to farm, encourage healthier diets and reduce food waste.

8

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb88975 wrote

You really gotta start hitting higher protein counts per lb to get people to switch IMO.

2

Poop_Tube t1_jb8amf9 wrote

Most people are conditioned to think they need to eat a lot more protein than necessary.

10

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb8bjxg wrote

Everyone is different. I need roughly 3000 calories between maintenance, work, and the gym and I know if I ate enough tofu to hit my protein goal I'd be gagging.

−1

Single_Pick1468 t1_jb92xnd wrote

You are in a state of protein fog induced by the animal agriculture. You have been scammed.

8

Crypto-Cajun t1_jbab317 wrote

Protein fog? What are you talking about? If you go to the gym you legitimately benefit from quite high protein levels. This is well supported. The benefits extend beyond the gym as well.

2

squidbattletanks t1_jb8vkxs wrote

It is easy to hit a high number of proteins on a vegan diet. I can hit the daily requirements of a bodybuilder in terms of protein without protein supplements or other drastic methods. A lot of lentils even have a higher or the same protein content per 100 grams than meat.

7

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb9e82i wrote

You're hitting close to 200g of protein without supplements on a vegan diet? Not calling you a liar but what's your meal plan look like on a daily basis?

2

GodG0AT t1_jb93p40 wrote

But vegan protein is only halve as bioavailable as meat protein so you need to eat double. Also you need to hit all aminoacids

−5

squidbattletanks t1_jb9ap1g wrote

Soy has almost one to one the same bioavailability as meat along with pea protein, oatmeal, peanuts, rice and not far behind chickpeas. Furthermore eating animal based protein correlates with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and mortality rates. Lastly, the amino acids are not hard to hit, studies show that vegans do get all necessary amino acids and further more these amino acids are not hard to get. Most foods contain a bit of all necessary amino acids and rice and beans alone cover the daily recommended intake.

6

gfx_bsct t1_jb9uu50 wrote

Beans/lentils/split peas are already like $0.99 a pound

5

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb9vzev wrote

You ever tried to eat 180g of protein from beans and lentils in a day?

2

gfx_bsct t1_jb9winx wrote

Actually, I eat 175g a day on a plant based diet. Mostly beans, lentils and whole grains. I supplement with protein powder, but only 1 serving

7

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb9wsvg wrote

What protein powder are you using? I'm sure it's doable with supplements but most powders are either super expensive or dairy based which goes against this article.

1

gfx_bsct t1_jb9xpbu wrote

I used a blend from truenutrition.com, half soy protein, and half pea protein. With shipping comes about to about $16 a pound because I buy a large quantity at once. Protein powder is pretty expensive in general, but it's not a food that most people need. Most people don't even need 100g of protein a day, because they aren't strength training.

5

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb9xx16 wrote

Honestly that's not a terrible price. Cheap cheap whey is still like 50 bucks for a 5lb thing.

1

gfx_bsct t1_jb9y684 wrote

I think a lot of the cost of plant-based protein powders comes from all the extras they put in: flavoring, "super greens", mushroom powders, etc.

1

Cheetahs_never_win t1_jb8bgv1 wrote

"If we continue eating full rations, we'll be out of food in 2 months and starve. If we supplement 50% we can survive to harvest and produce food and rations."

"Eating things that produce cow farts at present projections means we'll boil alive in 80 years. If we dial it back, we'll survive to 140 years and hopefully have a solution."

You said checks notes they said we're not allowed to eat anything.

9

Normal-Flower4437 t1_jb8l9y7 wrote

When we blame energy providers (fossil fuels etc) and corporations, we are by extension also somewhat blaming people for consuming (checks notes) …hospitals, food storage and preparation, movement of goods, building of housing, etc.

2

Playingwithmyrod t1_jb9ecb7 wrote

Corporations are the ones with the available resources to enact change. Struggling families buying the cheapest available food and goods are not.

0

Plant__Eater OP t1_jb5xlot wrote

Abstract:

>Food consumption is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and evaluating its future warming impact is crucial for guiding climate mitigation action. However, the lack of granularity in reporting food item emissions and the widespread use of oversimplified metrics such as CO2 equivalents have complicated interpretation. We resolve these challenges by developing a global food consumption GHG emissions inventory separated by individual gas species and employing a reduced-complexity climate model, evaluating the associated future warming contribution and potential benefits from certain mitigation measures. We find that global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). However, over 55% of anticipated warming can be avoided from simultaneous improvements to production practices, the universal adoption of a healthy diet and consumer- and retail-level food waste reductions.

5

Im_BothSadAndHappy t1_jb6boly wrote

Question, is this already in the models of the 2.7c warming by 2100 or is it added to it making it over 3c?

4

SemanticTriangle t1_jb6ix7v wrote

Oh, we're not on the 2.7C trajectory, my dude. Check the commercial disclosures of fossil fuel extraction companies and the governments giving them permits. We're likely heading for 4+ or worse if we don't get a deus ex machina or a sufficiently large and sudden ice sheet slip. There's no sign of restraint on the extraction side.

Example.

Also check McGlade and Nature 2015, and Ekins' 2021 follow-up.

9

BurnerAcc2020 t1_jba251t wrote

That example is nearly 7 years old, my dude, and says nothing about 4 C.

Here is something from the same year which does, though.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-016-0013-9

And here is something much more recent.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049022000524

Better get on with the program.

https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/

3

SemanticTriangle t1_jbapww3 wrote

Climate action tracker explicitly measures policy and current action on emissions, not extraction, do they not? Based on their 'CAT emissions gap' visualisation, they seem to extrapolate current consumption emissions into the future to arrive at 2.2-3.4C by 2100. Is there a section of this (I agree, excellent) resource that tracks committed emissions against commercial disclosures?

1

Plant__Eater OP t1_jb5wpvv wrote

Title is a direct quote from the abstract.

3

mikevago t1_jb8frtw wrote

Cutting beef out of your diet is the single best thing you can do for the environment. Not only are cows a big direct contributor to climate change (largely through farting out methane at an alarming rate), the biggest driver of deforestation is grazing land (that's where most of the damage to the Amazon has come from), and cows use a disproporationate amount of fresh water, between the animals themselves, and all the grain they eat.

3

Earthling1a t1_jb82ya3 wrote

Good thing the global population isn't still exploding.

​

oh wait

2

BurnerAcc2020 t1_jba1rzw wrote

The figure in the headline already refers to SSP3, which assumes end-of-century population of 12 billion. According to the current population projections, that's nearly 2 billion too high.

2

AntiTyph t1_jbbdhjk wrote

They also have an SSP1 pathway in the paper which still results in 0.38-0.67C of warming. They also include a rough estimate for zero population growth from 2020 levels... which is still ~ 0.3C of warming.

1

BurnerAcc2020 t1_jbochod wrote

I mean, SSP1 results in a slight decline in population at the end of the century, so it being similar to no-growth scenario isn't too surprising. However, the more important part is that SSP1 already assumes that the current dietary patterns (the focus of the paper) are not sustained, and pretty much all the interventions they recommend are implemented.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681

> In comparison, the SSP1 scenario features a sustainable land transformation with comparatively little pressure on land resources due to low population projections, healthy diets with limited food waste, and high agricultural productivity.

> Population growth and food demand is a strong driver of future CH4 emissions across the SSPs. It is thus not surprising that CH4 emissions are highest in the SSP3 baseline and lowest in SSP1.

So, it's unfortunate that some people appear to read this paper as if it discovers a completely new source of warming. It doesn't; it's more like a reanalysis of the existing projections narrowly focused on a specific hypothetical & set of interventions.

3

Ok-Distribution-9509 t1_jbbrjv3 wrote

To the people spouting "overpopulation" we as humans at the moment do nothing but overproduce, and if it doesn't sell fast enough it gets tossed to the garbage most of the time. Overpopulation is a myth

2

squidbattletanks t1_jbdvim2 wrote

This is so true. The overpopulation myth is just a way to ignore the actual problems we have to address in society.

1

AutoModerator t1_jb5wfr8 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

WellWrested t1_jb8w4iw wrote

If you could stop eating that'd be great.

Seriously though, this will be hard to fix

1

spaghoni t1_jb9d587 wrote

The saddest thing about this is how much of the food produced gets thrown away.

1

bonerb0ys t1_jb8ai81 wrote

Methane degrades in under 10 years. We would need to do nothing when the worst of all the predictions is happening.

−1

RubyTigerII t1_jb8tlsl wrote

The only real answer to climate change is less people. PERIOD

−1

TheArcticFox444 t1_jb9xa5w wrote

>Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100.

Or, lower our population numbers. (That's what the future has planned for us.)

−1

Slipstriker9 t1_jb9lnqg wrote

If we stopped eating cows, pigs, chickens they would suffer the same decline as other wild animals and most likely far worse as they are demesticated and have no servival instincts left. Yes mostly they would go on the extinction list within 5 to 10 years. Not to mention the insane increase in population of preditors like coyotes.

−2

MaybeACoder007 t1_jb6z7v1 wrote

This is why we need to switch to a different food source or have global rations of the food supply.

−3

seztomabel t1_jb760cz wrote

Or just feed the cattle seaweed.

−3

MaybeACoder007 t1_jb76bl3 wrote

I mean, dredging for seaweed can cause the PH of the ocean to change and that can be worse.

3

seztomabel t1_jb779ac wrote

Maybe so, but seeking solutions in the direction of being supportive of humanity rather than restriction and deprivation, are the solutions we need.

0

MaybeACoder007 t1_jb7adm8 wrote

The problem with some solutions is they cause more problems than they solve.

Seaweed was one of those solutions we we forced to look at in Environmental Science 301.

It’s not that seaweed is bad it’s that on a large scale it starts to cause more issues than It solves. Always aim to do less harm than more :)

0

seztomabel t1_jb7b90q wrote

Ah, thank you for elaborating.

I have read that seaweed is not a silver bullet, but it still seems viable just requires additional research and effort in accounting for complexities you describe. Nothing is easy.

Reduction efforts like the ones that you initially called for, and that most in the realm of sustainability often call for, also have the possibility to cause more harm than good as well.

Of course there are no easy solutions here, but there is this sort of anti-humanity sentiment that characterizes many "solutions", which are not productive (that's being charitable).

0

M142Man t1_jb60nxy wrote

I don't think we should be going after food production when Norfolk Southern is derailing all over Ohio.

−4

Timorio t1_jb68nmi wrote

I don't think we should go after isolated incidents when billions of animals are senselessly suffering.

−1

M142Man t1_jb6gj6a wrote

Chemical spills are not isolated incidents. We literally have entire Federal agencies that spend a huge amount of time, energy, and resources combating them.

2

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_jb86r2d wrote

Wow the rich want us to stop eating all together so they can keep living their extravagant lives. How about we eat them instead?

−4

Normal-Flower4437 t1_jb8ldge wrote

If you’re the average Reddit user, you are most likely rich by global standards.

7

dumnezero t1_jb91skv wrote

If you can read this text, you're likely in the world top 10%.

4

Normal-Flower4437 t1_jb926h2 wrote

The majority of people using phrases like “the global 1%” are in the global 10%. And they’re disappointed about dropping from the 97th percentile to the 96th.

4

[deleted] t1_jb68vz8 wrote

[removed]

−7

[deleted] t1_jb6bc1y wrote

[removed]

6

[deleted] t1_jb6c1sb wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_jb6krqm wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_jb8eymp wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_jb8vqr7 wrote

[removed]

1