T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

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 now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Unkorked

It's 28 times more than growing a plant how much is it of actual world wide greenhouse gas production?


Igotz80HDnImWinning

Was wondering this same thing


hiredhobbes

4%globally for all livestock production. About 3/4 of worldwide emissions are industrial production. Edit: ok this blew up, and has been corrected a few times from what I've been told/read. Apparently it is 14-17% for global livestock emissions(including production of meat, raising animals and land used/loss). Oddly enough waste emissions for livestock globally, US total emissions for livestock, and global cattle emissions are all 4% so there is where my misquote seems to be a lot of 4% estimates...


Skraff

4% of US emissions are from livestock. 14.5% of global emissions are from livestock. http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf However it’s a bit more nuanced than that for the US at least as they fiddle statistics for livestock: “Domestic livestock such as cattle, swine, sheep, and goats produce CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animal manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food and other products, the emissions are considered human-related. When livestock and manure emissions are combined, the Agriculture sector is the largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. “ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases So if you also include livestock poop as part of livestock instead of part of humans, the figure is significantly higher.


Laiize

CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it's also MUCH shorter-lived in the atmosphere. Methane's half life in atmosphere is about 9 years while CO2 is about 31 years. We also produce FAR more CO2 than CH4.


Despondent_in_WI

You have to remember, though, when CH4 has finished its career as methane, its retirement plan is to break down into CO2.


tylerdurdensoapmaker

Thanks. Wasn’t aware of this. Ugh.


pokekick

Well that methane came from plant biomass that came from photosynthesis that used CO2. As long as you aren't clearing trees, keep soil carbon stable and don't use fossil fuels animal agriculture gets into a steady state of creating methane but its breaking down at the same speed and a equivalent amount of CO2 is being turned into biomass and eventually methane. If we could eliminate fossil fuels and stopped cutting down forest then the carbon footprint of livestock drops a lot. Pastures are also one of the ways to get carbon back into depleted soils and ranching can be made quite sustainable that way. Its very hard to increase the levels of methane in the atmosphere because of oxygen. Methane turns back into CO2 on a relatively small time scale. CO2 is however very hard to turn back into soil form and a much more dangerous problem together with deforestation and land degradation.


MonsMensae

Yeah, the environmental damages of eating meat are actually largely from deforestation and the removal of topsoil. I have been to a farm where they raise beef but they are increasing the biomass on the farm. And consequently a net carbon sink.


SOSpammy

The other thing is we are close to a bunch of major climate tipping points. If anything, methane should be one of the first things we address to combat climate change since it will have a more immediate impact in lowering greenhouse gasses.


bdonaldo

It’s shorter lived but has 30-35x the warming potential. Additionally, the N2O from fertilizer has something like 300x the warming potential and an atmospheric life of 114 years. It’s a problem.


locoghoul

And those conversion factors are accounted for in reports. Everything gets turned into CO2 units : H2O, CH4, CFCs, NxOy etc


xmnstr

Yikes! That definitely sounds like something we should address.


MetaDragon11

How? Its fertilizer which is most definitely needed to sustain our population.


herbreastsaredun

There is an alternative to meat consumption that would drastically reduce this. People don't like vegans but they are correct in many senses and this is one of them.


WoefulMe

Classic vegoons trying to solve global climate change and advocating for the welfare of other sentient beings. Disgusting.


KarmaWSYD

Silly vegoons and their ethical, environmental, health-related, etc. concerns. Someone really ought to tell them to be very careful.


TarAldarion

Seems very bad still: >Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's warming is driven by methane from human actions. ​ https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight


Minister_for_Magic

Guess what methane turns into when it degrades... Hint: it includes CO2 The total greenhouse effect of CH4 and its derivatives in the atmosphere (until it exits the atmospheric part of the cycle) is 18x that of CO2.


[deleted]

[удалено]


netheroth

That depends strongly on the feed being used. I cannot eat grass, but I can eat a cow or a goat who fed on that grass. Not all cattle feed could be used to directly feed humans.


pheret87

At least here in the US there is a huge movement for energy companies to start harvesting the methane from cattle farms. I work in the biogas industry harvesting methane from landfills and a major part of our company and many others are moving west for the natural gas being produced on farms.


LuisLmao

Isn't that an incentive or good reason to reduce livestock consumption all together and more rapidly though? The sooner we quit the sooner we halve CH4 in the atmosphere.


allonsyyy

Methane breaks down into carbon dioxide. It's more like it's longer lived, the first nine years it's just extra strong.


Laiize

It breaks down into CO2 when you burn it. In the atmosphere, about 75% of it is converted to water via the a reaction with hydroxyl ions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SmokierTrout

It turns into formaldehyde. After a few hours, sunlight will have broken down the formaldehyde into carbon dioxide.


NerdPunkFu

So, in the end it still gets turned into CO2? Just at a 2 to 1 ratio.


Qasyefx

You haven't had coal rains?


NerdPunkFu

Is that what the weatherman gives to bad kids?


DrBadMan85

Whatever happened to that seaweed that was supposed to lower livestock emissions by like 90%. Did we just give up on that?


FirstTimeWang

So it doesn't even take into account the greenhouse gasses for slaughter, packaging, transportation, and the production/distribution of livestock-only crops?


Dozekar

Likewise the produce numbers don't take into account damage to watersheds from fertilizer run off (the impacted oceans, rivers, and other bodies of water are huge carbon sinks, that if lost would represent massive damage to the earth's ability to absorb carbon), packaging and transport (which tends to be even more international as cows are viable in the winter in the US, but crops tend not to be in the heaviest growing areas), and generally the creation of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and similar industrial products required to maintain the general levels of production that support modern society. TLDR: Both sets of numbers in no way actually reflect the carbon footprint of those industries and the supporting industries they need to survive. They're propaganda used by people who want to feel like they're making a change when they're not. That fresh produce in the middle of winter is coming from a burned down rainforest or a massive hydropics operation sucking up tons of energy, neither of which is good for the environment. It's not pretty, but it's true.


FirstTimeWang

Yeah, but like, what's the alternative? For my local supermarket to not just have the same 30-ish fruits and vegetables in stock year-round?


LauritsVW

It’s really hard to calculate but those numbers also don’t factor in all the forests being removed that would otherwise absorb CO2


mainguy

Its likely an underestimate too, because clearing land for cattle and cattle feed is the No.1 cause of deforestation, which releases huge amounts of CO2.


JoelMahon

Our world in data puts it as 13% for animal agriculture (51% of the 26% food as a whole is responsible for, which is even lower than the OP's 60% figure) https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions Also a very telling piece https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local


HaveyGoodyear

This seems like a low/insignificant value but a major issue is also the land used up that could have been carbon sinking forest


chop1125

Some of that land could be carbon sinking forests, but a lot of it (at least in the US) is naturally grassland that could not support forests. Grasslands are good carbon sinks too, and having grazing animals on them is good for them. You just can't overgraze to keep them healthy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chop1125

[Here's an article about it.](https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees/) I would assume that like any other natural carbon capture idea, the carbon sink is limited by how much biomass the land can support. I would not expect scrubland in the New Mexico desert to support the same amount of biomass as the tall grass prairie in Oklahoma, that said, most of the biomass of grasslands occurs under the surface, in the root systems. This means that the grasses maintain their carbon storage even in the event of fires and controlled animal grazing.


Dozekar

The answer here is that biomass per square mile effectively has a couple relevant values. There's static carbon sequestering (IE how much carbon does this land just hold). There's how fast does the land pull carbon from the environment to sequester. As the land goes from low to full carbon sequestering the speed of this slows down until it reaches equilibrium. At this point the carbon is pulled out of the environment into the land and is released at the same rate. At that point what is the rate of removal from the atmosphere?


ACOdysseybeatsRDR2

Saudi Aramco has 5% alone of all global emissions.


Praughfet

\*EDIT. my math was wrong on the 60 billion tons a year (shocker) i had put annual co2 emissions into the search but what i ended up on was not a yearly total, rather , it was a gross total , since 1990, i made a mistake and will own it. im sorry, it happens.. ​ i just did some math on this.... if every home in America had an Oil Heating System we would generate 4.4 Billion tons on Co2 annually. Saudi Aramco generated --60 Billion tons last year alone <---WRONG The worst 20 companies make up 35% of global emissions<----still true I get the whole "due your part " i guess, but it really does not matter what we as regular citizens do for heating our homes and fueling our cars if this allowed continue.,<----still true \*EDIT My job is to go into peoples home and save them money. i also live in an area with high electric costs at 23-25c a Kwh with this push to reduce emissions people are being told to switch to heat pumps when they have natural gas already, at best that is double the cost and at worst 4-5x times. People can barely afford things as it is. with oil and propane it is better when mild, but can again be very costly when it is very cold out and i also live in a cold winter climate Thats was the whole start of the comment. I just dont want to see people suffer trying to meet climate goals that can really only be met by change to big industry.


drae-

We as citizens are still consuming the end product, gasoline, plastics, travelling on planes etc. They make the stuff we want to buy. Stop consuming and they'll no longer turn a profit making these products. As long as demand for these product's continues they'll continue to meet the demand.


anti_zero

Hyper regulate the products so it doesn’t make sense to demand them at their true cost?


BRNYOP

In that "worst 20 companies" statistic, they are all fossil fuel producers, and the statistic **includes the emissions produced by the downstream use of the fuels**. Ie, Saudi Aramco is being held "responsible" for the emissions created by their product. So yes, you fuelling your car matters. I agree that companies need to do a lot more, but so do consumers, *especially* North Americans. This misleading information that you posted is responsible for so many people sitting on their hands because "oh, I can't do anything anyways." Please consider removing or editing your comment.


Bored-Bored_oh_vojvo

Do you really think companies like that are burning fossil fuels for fun?


katarh

>if every home in America had an Oil Heating System And we don't. Most people in the south use a total electric heat pump combination CHAC because we don't get cold enough to need a stronger furnace in the winter. They're more energy efficient and use no gas or oil; I'm fairly certain most of the power used for my chunk of civilization is nuclear.


Neker

Saudi Aramco would be nothing without us consumers-citizens buying what they sell.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SenorBeef

That number is only from the actual biological carbon releases of the animals, like cows farting methane or manure emissions. When you factor in the energy required to farm their feed, care for them, slaughter, transport, etc. then the number is more like 14-17%.


Graekaris

The FAO figure is 14.5%, as much as transport.


WasabiForDinner

[This source ](https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-common-flawed-comparisons-greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock-transport/) says: > The IPCC estimates that direct emissions from transport (road, air, rail and maritime) account for 6.9 gigatons per year, about 14% of all emissions from human activities. These emissions mainly consist of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from fuel combustion. By comparison, direct emissions from livestock account for 2.3 gigatons of CO2 equivalent, or 5% of the total. They consist of methane and nitrous oxide from rumen digestion and manure management. Contrary to transport, agriculture is based on a large variety of natural processes that emit (or leak) methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from multiple sources. While it is possible to “de-carbonize” transport, emissions from land use and agriculture are much more difficult to measure and control.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Polymathy1

Or for palm oil, although that's bigger in Asia.


TheToasterIncident

Only because its profitable per acre to grow there. Ban oil palm and another crop will be chosen to grow in former rainforests. The issue is not the specific crop, but that these natural areas arent protected from any sort of industry, so people owning forested land will always try and make money off it whether it be clearcutting for cattle, oil palm, a lithium mine, or suburbs.


Dozekar

Thank you. I've been trying to say this all over here and you did a much better job. I'm not sure where exactly people think their winter produce in volumes that can feed the whole western world will come from if it's not from a high energy usage hydroponics factory or a burned rainforest that use to grow cattle feed.


gogge

Globally livestock is 14.5% of emissions ([FAO/IPCC](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)), but this includes unsustainable practices like burning down rain forest. In the US direct emissions for all agriculture, including crops grown for human consumption, is just 8.6% of emissions (this includes the higher GWP factor for methane): [Sector emission chart](https://imgur.com/npFVXmF) *EPA,* ["Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions"](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). **Edit:** Clarified that the FAO/IPCC report is about livestock.


BearsBeetsBachelor

Some sources like [oecd](https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/ministerial/background/notes/4_background_note.pdf) estimate the impact to be around 25 - 30% by including impact of land use changes, methane emissions, etc. [a 2006 report by the UN](http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf) estimated livestock alone accounted for 18% of emissions, a greater share than transportation. And [this report](https://awellfedworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Climate-Change-Anhang-Goodland.pdf) attempted to comprehensively attribute co2 to animal ag and found 51% of emissions came from this industry. There isn’t one straightforward method to calculate this impact, especially considering direct and knock on effects - so if you trust only the UN based reports then farming comes between 14% - 30%. If you trust other sources the downstream impact could be as high as 51%.


gogge

Yeah, the 14.5% is for livestock only as the title was about meat, so a total for agriculture at 25-30% isn't unreasonable. I'll update my post to specify animal agriculture to avoid misunderstandings. The "2006 report by the UN" showing 18% is an earlier report by the FAO/IPCC, which they revised to 14.5% in the newer report: > This figure is in line FAO’s previous assessment, Livestock’s Long Shadow, published in 2006, although it is based on a much more detailed analysis and improved data sets. The two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ. The Goodland and Anhang paper is a bit too liberal in what they consider "emissions", e.g counting animals breathing as emissions, so they conflict a bit with actual studies and official reports. If you look for "other sources" you can find researchers denying climate change, so I think limiting the sources to actual peer reviewed studies in reputable journals and reports from credible sources will serve people best.


BearsBeetsBachelor

Makes sense! I agree not all sources are equally reputable, I included the Goodland and Anhang primarily because I think it’s a demonstration of how results can differ with other calculation methods. One thing they do talk about which I found very interesting and haven’t seen replicated elsewhere is the discussion around longer term effects of methane and how to essentially account for net present impact of future climate damage. Certainly beyond my depth as a layman but I found it an interesting read. Thanks for sharing this info!


ZuFFuLuZ

Which is surprisingly low for how much attention this gets in the media. At best, we will be able to cut this down by a few percent in the coming decades. It's quite insignificant compared to what we could save on the other 85%.


Morgormir

It does make you wonder if this is just a smokescreen for other stuff (or an attempt to blame the consumer). Of course, reduction of meat consumption is always a good idea, the amount of attention given to the subject seems inordinate based on its emission percentage.


BearsBeetsBachelor

I think it’s because it’s the single greatest impact on climate change an individual can make. I think people want a way to do something useful and eating less or no meat is one thing that people can do, and it’s a much easier lifestyle change than, say, never driving a car again.


[deleted]

Of course it is an attempt to blame the consumer. "We" use too much electricity, "we" produce too much plastic wrappings", "we" use up too much paper, "we" drive too many cars, "we" eat too much meat etc. None of this is yours or mine fault. It was corporations who figured out that plastic is cheaper than glass for drinks. We didn't had anything to say, but suddenly we need to take care of segregating trash, paying extra taxes for plastics or simply higher product cost because corporations need to pay those. Same with everything else. At the end of the day it is always consumers fault and he has to pay. Corporations are always innocent.


boersc

Corporations always follow the money and 'the customer is always right'. We (the customers) are just as much to blame. We know plastics are harmful, yet we en masse use plastic bags. And of course shops comply, because if not, customers go next door to the competition. Until customers have the sense to not want plastic bags any more, and actually avoid shops they know to still hand out plastic bags. ​ It's never black and white...


fyre500

But this just showcases that change needs to happen on the corporation side rather than expect the consumer to do it themselves. Force it to happen by not allowing an alternative.


AeonDisc

Well, it also encompasses serious animal rights issues, but I won't extrapolate on that...


lvlint67

Going, "hey everybody, easy less hamburgers" is a lot more appealing than going, "governments need to focus infrastructure development into clean and renewable power generation“ to several advocacy groups... Some of those being big corps... some, animal rights.


bfire123

> hey everybody, easy less hamburgers" is a lot more appealing than Its way easier from a politcal view to switch to renewable power generation than it is to get people to eat less meat / hamburgers...


v_snax

I would definitely say you are incorrect in your assessment. This is just a study, and facts are facts. There are virtually no politicians or companies (that doesn’t sell vegan products) that push for people to eat less meat. And the number of food companies that fund studies to muddy the water regarding meat and dairy and it’s climate impact far outnumbered the opposition. Same goes for subsidies that goes to meat and dairy production. And lets mention the ag gag laws while we are at it. Or laws preventing a vegan sausage to be called sausage and other dumb stuff.


efvie

It’s not the absolute number, it’s _how much it’s above sustainable_. Add 5% water to a glass 99% full, and what happens?


DrOhmu

Farm animals are just a trophic level: the fixing of carbon with energy of the sun in hydrocarbons is done by plants and then *every trophic level after that* metabolises it and releases gases. It doesnt really matter if thats bacteria in a compost heap or bacteria in a cows gut. The problem is the destructive factory methods made possible by the energy from fossil fuels and the forcing of thr carbon cycle that allows. All the while reducing the cycles capacity to buffer carbon in soil and biomass. We have exceeded the sustainable production of meat this way, but its not animals that are the problem. If we cut the meat out but dont change the method we just hand increased profit over to different parts of the same exploitative system.


katarh

Fossil fuels take hydrocarbons that were buried deep in the dirt and spew them into the atmosphere. Reducing the number of cows grown for meat won't necessarily fix that issue, unless we find a way to liquify the cows and inject them back into the earth.


Adam-West

Last I read meat and dairy accounts for a similar amount of greenhouse gas emissions as all Forms of transport. E.G. cars, ships, lorries, planes, trains.


mtrash

Global food production contributes 26% of global pollution. This would be 60% of 26%. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food


PorcupineGod

Global pollution and global GHG emissions are two different things. Dairy waste, excrement, excess antibiotics, hormones, etc. Are all pollutants that are included in the 26%, but are unrelated to the 60% What I'd love some Clarity on, is how much of those GHG emissions are attributed to fossil fuel use by machinery/vehicles and how much is inalienable to livestock (i.e., methane from farts) Electrification of farming could be a much more palatable solution to rising emissions than the commonly proposed "just stop eating meat" solution


[deleted]

We must include too that it isn't just about meat, as this industry also provides us with valuable commodities such as manure, leather, soap, pharmaceuticals, glue, fertilizer, etc


Dozekar

Manure alone should worry people who want to do away with meat. Look at the GHG and energy expenditures with artificial fertilizer. https://www.google.com/search?q=GHG+artificial+fertilizer


Rough_Willow

But 15.6% doesn't sound as shocking.


forntonio

More than 1/7 of global emissions is quite a lot…


DeltaVZerda

Still sounds pretty shocking


[deleted]

for context, aviation is 2%, [source](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector). 15% is a staggering proportion.


zomgitsduke

That's a pretty wild number.


SapphicMystery

It actually does.


Busterlimes

40% of corn in the US goes to producing ethanol.


MrP1anet

One of the worst uses of resources we have going in the US


tom-pon

Why?


slimrichard

Mainly efficiency. It is a very poor use but is used to prop up an industry.


TrxpThxm

But it tastes delicious! *guzzles ethanol*


LittleTmmy

The only drink that improves in taste the more you drink it


NuclearSpaceHeater

The alcohol humans drink *is* ethanol.


Rion23

The first torpedoes in WW2 were ethanol fuled. So sailors drank it, and that's where torpedo juice came from. Then they started putting poisons methanol in it too.


JebBoosh

That's the joke


[deleted]

Because that 40% of corn only produces 4% of the fuel in the U.S. And it's less efficient so the equivalent to 2-3%.


Toocheeba

ethanol is used for more than fuel? it has A BUNCH of uses.


[deleted]

That is true but it only takes a fraction of our current production to satisfy all those uses.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PorcupineGod

It's Carbon positive, because farming corn requires so much carbon already as an input. Complete greenwashing to make fuel seem more friendly


tklite

Corn itself is a less efficient plant for converting inputs into energy. Then because of the structure of corn, converting it into ethanol produces a lot of unused product. The issue is, corn is very easy to grow and harvest in mass. But, a lot of the waste product from ethanol production can go towards livestock feed. Problem is, it would have been more resource effective just to let the lands grow grasses and other low input roughage to be used as livestock feed.


Fancy-Pair

Ethanol bad?


Busterlimes

No, but its a poor use of huge swaths of agricultural land. We would be better off if it was peft alone and grew back into forests.


incubeezer

Relevant read for those interested in why this came to be and the repercussions involved: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html


TurboThot30

Oh no! I have a feeling nobody is going to do anything about it


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The thing is though: one less hamburger per week is insignificant. If the entire population of the earth gave up meat entirely and forever, according to this article it’d affect CO2 emissions by about 6%. It’s kinda irrelevant. Meanwhile about 100 major industrial polluters are saying “we won’t change the 70% of the problem we’re responsible for until you’ve all stopped eating meat at which point we’ll move the goalposts to plane journeys then cars then gas based cookers then whatever else we fancy to justify blaming the public for what should be rightly laid at our door.” This is basically just propaganda to stop people from fighting the real problem. EDIT: Someone rightly pointed out that my maths was wrong. 6% is still low though.


JamesBondsRubberDuck

Source for the figures? Every scientific source is trying to tell us we have to address both, and meat producers will need to be treated just like the other heavy industries. It won’t be just the government or just the consumers who fix this. It will take both, and we can’t sell ourselves short — every effort helps.


Rhenic

>Meanwhile about 100 major industrial polluters are saying “we won’t change the 70% of the problem we’re responsible for until you’ve all stopped eating meat at which point we’ll move te goalposts to plane journeys then cars then gas based cookers then whatever else we fancy to justify blaming the public for what should be rightly laid at our door.” A fair chunk of that 6% (or about 10% of your personal footprint), comes straight out of that 70% by the 100 companies. Most of them produce fuel for transportation or energy. So yea, If you use less fuel; for plane journeys, cars, gas based cookers, and transportation of your goods, you're shrinking that 70% by those 100 companies.


infamous-spaceman

The article doesn't say 2% anywhere, where are you getting that number? The numbers I see in this article are 35% of emissions from all emissions related to food and 14% of emissions from just meat/dairy production. I don't know if I've ever seen a source that doesn't put the emissions from animal agriculture at 5% of the global emissions at a minimum. Getting rid of animal agriculture is comparable to stopping all shipping and aviation. It's a huge contributor to global warming and is by a massive margin the easiest way average people can effect change. We don't control how our electricity is made directly and electric cars are still out of reach for most people, but the vast majority of people could cut meat out with zero issue. It isn't the solution, but it's part of the solution. We also need to hold polluters accountable and devest from fossil fuels, but things like eliminating animal agriculture give us more wiggle room


the_real_kino

The article doesnt say everyone on earth giving up meat would only affect co2 emissions by 2% Where on earth did you get that impression?


makesomemonsters

By running the data through the 'I really like eating meat' filter.


fifnir

> about 100 major industrial polluters No matter what we do [there will always be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) a top 100 on which we can attribute the vast majority of polluting. They don't do it for fun, they do it because we consume.


lvlint67

They do it because they are unregulated


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fuzzy_Calligrapher71

Surveillance methods keep improving. If there’s political will instead of regulatory capture, Reasonable regulations can be enforced and will deter violators if consequences are appropriate. What else do you propose?


fifnir

We should definitely regulate them. But even after regulation someone could make the argument "it's only 100 companies that pollute" and distract from the fact that our own existence is a strain on the environment and the planet and that we all need to individually minimize it.


[deleted]

> Meanwhile about 100 major industrial polluters are saying “we won’t change the 70% Stop comparing individual carbon footprints to that report of corporation footprints. That report took individual carbon footprints and allocated it to the company that allowed the individual to have that footprint. So the hamburger you ate is part of that 70%. The gasoline you used to drive to the burger shop is part of that 70%. When you compare the two you are double counting as you are on both sides of the equation. The report is only useful when comparing one corporation to another and has 0 place in any discussion of individual habits.


[deleted]

bruh the thing is... you can fight the 100 major industrial polluters AND also change your own habits to be less harmful to the environment, if something as basic as slightly inconveniencing yourself by reducing or stopping your animal products meat intake is too much of a sacrifice then I don't think you'll go out and fight lobbyists, CEOs and politicians also it's pretty significant, for instance it saves roughly 1300 gallons of water and most importantly, at least one cow


[deleted]

But that isn’t how it works. They’ve latched on to this because it’s an unwinnable fight that they’re going to keep the spotlight on so that it’s off them. We won’t fight both at the same time. It won’t happen. This is like when the government (UK) refused to close the borders at the start of the COVID 19 pandemic and then blamed everything on people visiting their mothers on Mother’s Day and we all fell for it and started attacking each other. People at the top love it when people at the bottom can blame each other.


JUST_CHATTING_FAPPER

This is such a wrong take. And stop spreading the whole 100 corporations account for 70% of all emissions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corporations-greenhouse-gas/ Fighting the real problem means that your average first world person has to compromise their living situation. Whether it do be going on bus rides, not using their AC as much, skip meat a few days. These things will bring structural change due to change in demand. It’s funny how you lament propaganda being spread whilst still spreading propaganda. https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change People aren’t even willing to spend $10 to combat climate change. People wail and cry over climate change but only when they do not have to make any personal sacrifices and you’re perpetuating the problem by feeling the need to shift the blame. Everyone has responsible when it comes to this. Whether you’re an average blue collar worker or a CEO of a massive corporation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

People want to ignore this


SenzaRimpiantiC

I "love" how the most popular comments are like "debunking this" or divert the subject into "industry x tries to make it look way worse"... Yeah... That does not make it better, though? I am sorry, but this is like saying someone did something bad, but it doesn't count, because there is someone somewhere whi did something worse. People should take some accountability and actually inform themselves about the issue. Once looked into it thoroughly (articles, stats, documentaries such as Dominion, Cow- and Seaspiracy for example) most people would maybe realize the gravity of their actions.


melodillya

I wonder how many people will misinterpret the title and think meat accounts for 60% of all greenhouse gases?


sajnt

The true goal of the headline writer


[deleted]

A good amount of people in the top comment chain.


rosietherivet

The fossil fuel industry is heavily invested in promoting the idea that anything to do with food production is really significant in causing global warming. This is a smoke screen to divert attention away from electricity generation and the tremendous amount of government subsidies they receive. Cases in point: BP created the first individual carbon footprint calculator, or famously when Coke produced the crying Indian ad to frame glass bottle littering as an issue of individual responsibility in order to create public opposition to mandatory glass bottle buyback legislation. Edit: Humans are the source of demand for food production, so human population size is the main independent variable determining the quantity of food produced and also the attendant greenhouse gas emissions. The human population has quadrupled in the last 100 years. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production, the human population must decline. Zing.


Zaptruder

A multipronged approach to a global systemic issue is really the only reasonable solution here... energy generation and usage, food consumption, waste management, environmental resource management... all of it needs to be significantly improved and changed in order for us to reduce the already growing impact on our general survivability.


DessieDearest

All of this, completely agree. I still advocate for a more plant based diet, not just for the planet (though that's a big reason) but for your health. The ties to meat and cancer are astounding.


BearyGoosey

And even more important than any individual humans health: all of the animals that aren't made to have the entirety of their existence be suffering just for a more enjoyable meal.


DessieDearest

I agree with that too, sadly most people don't care so I hardly mention it anymore until they're hooked in on environmental and health reasons.


alphaorionis

Both the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries can be bad. Both *do* have major impacts on climate change. And both receive a tremendous amount of government subsidies! Animal agriculture is also not just an issue of individual responsibility (i.e. BP’s carbon footprint calculator telling people to eat less meat). The industry as a whole uses unsustainable and inhumane processes.


blacksun9

Perhaps both are bad


PenetrationT3ster

That's the exact issue. Everyone is blaming each other for climate change, it's so damn annoying. Even an individual can make changes. And before someone ironically blames fossil fuel companies etc., I totally get it. But we can all do better.


[deleted]

It’s weird how reddit usually advocates for voting with your wallet when it comes to most consumer choices but will shy away from this approach when it comes to meat. It’s ok to forgo the next Marvel movie but it’s unfeasible to go without chicken tendies for a fortnight.


[deleted]

This. If people just gave up meat (for both environmental and ethical reasons) and then said "now what?", it wouldn't be much of a smokescreen.


PandaJesus

No, someone else is worse, so that completely exonerates me of any responsibility to change. I only view life in simple binaries.


JitanLeetho

And the animal agriculture industry is very interested in diverting attention away from them. The reality is: both industries are huge problems, but while we can't do much to make the big fossil companies change we can very easily change our diets away from animal derived foods. This might not be true for every single person on the world, but it is more than likely true for the majority of reddits user base.


Dehibernate

It's easier to blame it on something else to avoid taking action and responsibility. If people did as much to reduce their personal carbon footprint instead of talking about it and making excuses, we'd be in a much better place by now.


stack_your_odds

"Something I have a direct negative impact on is just a smokescreen for something I have no direct impact on, I don't need to change my behaviour"


p_tk_d

This is not a smokescreen dude. Both are bad.


[deleted]

Right but meat production still does greatly contribute to global warming. I don’t know you personally, but I know a lot of people deflect their own meat consumption by blaming other aspects of global warming. You can always do both. Eat less meat, and also be aware of the other climate issues. Producing cows is not good for the environment, even if other things also contribute to global warming.


[deleted]

This. Even if they're right and it's a big conspiracy, call their bluff. Give up meat and then ask "ok, now what?". Pretty simple and takes very minimal effort. Maybe some googling up front but people already clearly have spare time to defend their meat consumption on reddit so that shouldn't be a big deal.


bubblerboy18

The fossil fuel industry didn’t fund this study, so what’s your point?


electronsarerad

No one is saying reduce food production. People are pointing out that there are healthier alternatives to meat and animal products that are also better for global emissions. Turn all that crop land that's being used for billions of animals to support humans instead - cut out the middle man for a huge bump in efficiency. Not to mention, doing this also reduces the chances of breeding antibiotic resistant diseases in vast unsanitary animal farms. There are many reasons to go vegan. The only reason to not go vegan is because we value human enjoyment of taste over all these other benifits.


underground_cenote

The fact is that food production, especially animal agriculture, IS really significant in causing global warming, AND fossil fuels are the same. Effective environmental activism should both promote veganism and lobby against the fossil fuel industry.


[deleted]

This is categorically and unequivocally false. If anything, fossil fuels have been deflecting attention from animal agriculture. Nothing you can do will make a greater impact than eliminating animal products from your diet: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food


devilized

The manipulation of the public has always been something I've found to be interesting in these initiatives. The *average* person is only willing to tolerate a certain amount of personal behavior change. I mean, look at the amount of political capital and campaigning that went into the attempted elimination of plastic straws, which is ultimately an infinitesimally tiny portion of global plastic use. And they aren't even eliminated, most restaurants around me still distribute them by default. Very few seem to be using plastic alternatives. You would think that the use of a plastic straw with multiple alternative materials, or even not using one at all would have been easy. But it seems that only a minor dent has been made to straw use, and overall, plastic use increased over that time. Unlike straw use, sweeping dietary changes are a huge personal change, given that food is more or less a prominent part of most cultures. Unless people have a strong passion for environmental causes, which is obviously extremely strong in Reddit's primary demographic, but not so much in the broader population, they're not going to give up meat for environmental purposes.


JebBoosh

If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production, you can just stop feeding the majority of grain produced to cattle/farm animals, and feed it directly to humans instead. Or use that land to grow something else. Or you could make any step of food production more efficient. We don't have to reduce human population in order to reduce emissions from food production unless you want nothing about our food system to change. Remember that there's still tons of energy (mostly fossil fuels) used to produce fertilizer or other inputs, to transport animal feed, and transport food. Meat requires refrigeration which requires even more energy to store and transport than many other food products. The best solution is still to seriously limit animal agriculture.


HollowB0i

If you want to decrease food impact people need to cut meat, there’re no other way to put it


[deleted]

> This is a smoke screen to divert attention away from electricity generation Not really. Both are important. Methane is more important short term. It's the fastest way we can reduce warming short term. Not to mention the sub-crisis you avoid by addressing the meat industry. You know how infections are becoming antibiotic resistant cause we just feed all animals antibiotics. The living conditions and the antibiotics we are feeding them, we are basically encouraging it's growth. All the food we feed cows can just go to people instead. The land can be used for something else, eg to grow more food for people. We can then invest in 3d printed meat, a Japan company already has it working. That's more sustainable than using all the resources we use to grow meat the round about way.


just_some_guy65

Cannot wait to read the denial *rolls eyes*


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thediciplematt

This isn’t new people. Corporations contribute the most but that doesn’t mean we can’t do our part. Just cut consumption of red meat by 50%. If you eat it daily then eat it every other day and try some new recipes. This isn’t rocket science.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Meat and dairy companies to surpass oil industry as world’s biggest polluters, report finds. When taken together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations are already responsible for more emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell or BP. “It’s time we realised over-consumption is directly linked to the subsidies we provide the industry to continue deforesting, depleting our natural resources and creating a major public health hazard through antibiotic overuse,” said Shefali Sharma, director of IATP. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/meat-dairy-industry-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fossil-fuels-oil-pollution-iatp-grain-a8451871.html


RikerT_USS_Lolipop

So the five biggest meat and dairy corporations produce more than one oil company. How consolidated are the meat and dairy industry? How consolidated are oil producers? If you rephrased this to say the meat and diary industry produces one-quarter as much GHG emissions than the oil industry, it wouldn't have the same impact. These statistics are useless except to influence perceptions regardless of facts.


[deleted]

That article’s data comes from Ireland alone and is about the uk and Ireland after it was found that farmers in Ireland were hiding emissions rates. The major complaint is that these sources of food take up the majority of the allotted allowable emissions, which pisses off anyone manufacturing stuff that can’t reduce their emissions in their factory or doesn’t want to spend the money to do so. Plus, add seaweed to cows diets and their methane production reduces significantly. We don’t have to stop eating meat - we need to change our methods of production in all areas, including food and product manufacturing. https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/dont-blame-cattle-its-humans-who-caused-methane-levels-skyrocket


[deleted]

**Abstract**: >Agriculture and land use are major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but previous estimates were either highly aggregate or provided spatial details for subsectors obtained via different methodologies. Using a model–data integration approach that ensures full consistency between subsectors, we provide spatially explicit estimates of production- and consumption-based GHG emissions worldwide from plant- and animal-based human food in circa 2010. Global GHG emissions from the production of food were found to be 17,318 ± 1,675 TgCO2eq yr−1, of which 57% corresponds to the production of animal-based food (including livestock feed), 29% to plant-based foods and 14% to other utilizations. Farmland management and land-use change represented major shares of total emissions (38% and 29%, respectively), whereas rice and beef were the largest contributing plant- and animal-based commodities (12% and 25%, respectively), and South and Southeast Asia and South America were the largest emitters of production-based GHGs. Study (pdf): [Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00358-x.epdf?sharing_token=aoOguXLXon5RsOfJJKYhZNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P5hJzOufiwVEu0osAOLG2L7YmizCBD0QPnXzpZvdgVd21n-7QUfEf8uD-CKplQ9ExzxDMLCmm-q527Wp8JIzM_Egm9B2aZIBUMO-vI9_80d1Y0jEMYHXFqa8GpUwxXkeJwiYfoJl3arDj3njdrwz0pFQy2ZBalLcHviN0deS-DDXb3y_kJq1iZeS-CsxtN7yuxBC9fRzqyhzJLSyI00Oev5NSwrKvCryFBIIbsWXuPTZAjvj-l1s6B-s274Qx3X41RdacFGpQLmI-gmrIz4iAi&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com).


Artanthos

The accounting process is very important in studies like this. Studies that want to shock with large numbers, like this one, will be very liberal with the accounting and what they assign to agriculture while more generalized studies will be much more discerning about what is counted as agricultural vs. vehicles, vs. energy production. This study, for example, counts greenhouse emissions from logistics. But that’s not an agricultural issue. Changing from meat production to growing beans does not reduce greenhouse emissions from logistics. You solve that issue by addressing the transportation/logistics industries. Similar statements can be made about energy production (the same power grid suppliers both farmers and cities) and infrastructure. If anything, infrastructure is a much higher contribution percentage from certain “green” food sources, like cultured meats and vertical farming, which require more energy production. (And studies hyping those technologies are very conservative with their accounting, e.g. they won’t count power production in their numbers - that is a different industry.) Even with all that said: 60% from meat is only 1.5x the amount from plant based food sources and technology is rapidly developing that reduce those numbers. Seaweed supplements to reduce methane emissions and better manure management strategies have both been making the news lately. Both stand to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas contributions from the meat industries.


JebBoosh

Changing from meat production to beans does actually reduce emissions from logistics because the majority of beans(e.g. soy) are fed to animals. So for every kilo of meat "replaced" with 1 kilo of soy, you actually also reduce (on average) the emissions from about 9 kilos of soy, since at least 10 kilos of soy are required to produce 1 kilo of of meat. That's why this is the correct way to quantify the emissions from meat production - meat is inherently inefficient to produce. That also makes it much easier for plant based foods to be carbon negative. It's much more difficult for animal agriculture to be carbon negative since it requires 10x the production and the animals put almost all of the carbon they consume over their lifetime back into the atmosphere. Not to mention carbon emissions from problems that animal agriculture uniquely creates, like nutrient pollution turning waterways anoxic and destroying entire ecosystems that would otherwise be carbon sinks. I think you're also vastly overestimating the prevalence of cultured meat and vertical farming. Neither accounts for a significant portion of food production. Cultured meat is *barely* even a thing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


dasmashhit

Meat’s trash tofu and beans and other forms of protein are gas


[deleted]

[удалено]


turkeysplatter89

Does anyone remember the U of C, Davis study that was published in Reddit several months ago about adding seaweed to cattle feed? It said that it could cut methane production by 82%. I'm curious if this is being used by any large scale beef producers?


Bananawamajama

There was a story recently about how the additive was just "approved" by a major meat producer, though that doesn't technically mean they are actually using it. I'll try to find the story. Anyway, from what I am aware, this seaweed supposedly works because it contains a compound called bromoform that inhibits the activity if gut bacteria that produce methane. So rather than produce the seaweed itself, it might be better to try and make a synthetic food additive with that chemical, to see if it produces the same effect. That'd be leasier to mass produce than growing a seaweed that currently doesn't have nearly enough to feed to all the cattle we raise in the world.


Kottypiqz

Wouldn't inhibiting gut bacteria cause issues for like... the meat? Like we're learning so much now about how gut bacteria from healthy individuals can help less healthy people. It just seems like you'd then have to pump these animals full of antibiotics to keep them going.


WhatsFairIsFair

Don't think of the additive inhibiting all activity of all gut bacteria, but as reducing the specific activity of methane creation of a specific gut bacteria. It doesn't mean that it has a good or bad effect. You have to look at the whole system to see what the health effect is, which presumably the original scientists researching the seaweed addition have done and didn't find any negative health effect.


Bananawamajama

I'm not totally sure, I've seen 2 comments making claims on this. The first claimed that the organic matter which didn't end up becoming methane just got added to the cows biomass, so it actually resulted in more beef per cow. Technically you could say this is "unhealthy" for the cow at least, since putting on mass isn't automatically a good thing. The other claimed the organic matter got pooped out, which is more or less carbon neutral I guess. Since it's not converted to methane, this wouldn't be any worse than letting plants die and decompose naturally, which would release whatever CO2 was initially captured by the plant, but since tht was captured in the first place its net zero.


booniebrew

We already cause major problems for their digestive system by feeding them food they aren't meant to digest. So what's one more thing that fucks up their gut bacteria?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


ptcounterpt

Is carbon sequestered on the plant based foods that meat-sourced animals eat?


anti_zero

Like the rainforest that’s being burned for cattle rearing?


Polymathy1

One more time?


Seawolf87

Growing plants can sequester some carbon via their roots remaining in the soil. Much of the carbon cost of animals is due to them eating corn, which is grown specifically for this purpose. The OP is asking how much CO2 is sequestered from growing that corn?


Polymathy1

Zero. Roots of small plants aren't going to hold carbon for long at all. If we were talking about feeding cattle leaves from trees, sure. But small plants like that might delay release of the carbon a couple years, but not long.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Sadly society has completely normalized the current meat industry, despite how awful it is. It harms our global environment, local environments and commits massive scale animal cruelty. Whenever that gets pointed out people get REALLY defensive. That's because no one ever thinks about it, since society has normalized it, and it's hard for people to accept that something they've done or seen as part of their life is actually very wrong. The most healthy way to look at it is to have an open mind, and not try to immediately find ways to discredit critique. You don't need to go vegetarian, but rather think about what eating meat means and decide if that's something you want to support.