Still, the most climate friendly meat are vegan alternatives.
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
333 points (96.4% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5307 readers
10 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yep, and for a source to back that up:
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
I’ve got this weird disease where my body can’t process fruits or veg, only meat, rice, pasta, and dairy.
I’m so excited for sustainable, lab-grown meat, I can’t even tell you. Living on rice and pasta alone sucks (even with dietary supplements), so I can’t ditch animal products.
They keep promising it, but every related headline is this bullshit. Hey corporate meat scientists: stop trying to make animal farming a thing in the future and start growing cloned steaks, please.
I'm vegan, and I hope lab grown gets so cheap for people like you that just want to taste some meat without the suffering. I may want to tray it form time to time, I'm not even half done exploring the recipes of the world.
It would be so great. We could even have delicacies that are super unethical now, all cloned from a totally uninvasive cell sample that the host animal doesn’t even notice. I’d probably even try Soylent Green if it was sustainable and uninvasive (lol).
We could even make new meats or clone extinct animal tissues. I’d absolutely try mammoth steak. If we have the technology (I think we do), we could even bring back extinct species of plants. I’d love to taste the banana we ate to extinction like 500 years ago that apparently tasted better than any banana alive today.
I get desperate cravings for shellfish after a while without non-legume proteins. Worldwide shellfish capture practices are abhorrent. Clone me shellfish and I’ll be happy forever.
e: sorry, I can’t eat much and I miss food. I got a bit triggered there and went off. Apologies for tmi.
to be supported with taxpayer dollars
Taxpayer funded factory farms? Why would anyone want their tax dollars going to a universally cruel industry, or to a company caught doing horrific things time and time again?
How about we subsidize more plant-based products? Make it more affordable and accessible, and this pesky beef problem will simply go away.
Unfortunately these factory farms already receive large subsidies in the US
Ah yes, socialism for corporations and for us peons, go fuck yourself-ism.
Just like how Marlboro lights don't cause as much cancer...
Pall Malls were marketed to pregnant women for stress control by people who played doctors on television as late as the early 1980s. You could even smoke in your hospital room.
We’ve come a long way, baby.
I never stopped wearing masks since the beginning, and get boosted every time it’s available.
I’ve always taken Covid seriously, same as the flu for which we get yearly boosters.
I’ll always be angry at antivaxxers that this thing that could have been contained like SARS was turned globally endemic because morons refuse to live in reality, so I’ll probably have to mask for the rest of my life (I have autoimmune issues that don’t play nice with Covid and I’d likely die very, very horribly, slowly and painfully drowning alone in an isolation room).
So yeah, I won’t forget who’s fault this is.
Is this that thing where the ranchers feed their cows some percentage of died seaweed to cut down on the methane emissions?
Because that's a thing.
It's better for the climate than not doing that, but still not as good as, you know, actually looking at overall beef production with a critical eye and maybe cutting back a bit.
This video spills the secrets of how to make believable chicken (and beef) flavors from plant products. We've known how to do this since the 60s.
We could replace all ground meat with plant products and the only thing missing would be the texture, and companies are actively working on that.
Feed additives are not mentioned in the article, but it's also worth noting how greatly misleading the claims you see about those are
What’s more, feeding cattle algae is really only practical where it’s least needed: on feedlots. This is where most cattle are crowded in the final months of their 1.5- to 2-year lives to rapidly put on weight before slaughter. There, algae feed additives can be churned into the cows’ grain and soy feed. But on feedlots, cattle already belch less methane—only 11 percent of their lifetime output
[...]
Unfortunately, adding the algae to diets on the pasture, where it’s most needed, isn’t a feasible option either. Out on grazing lands, it’s difficult to get cows to eat additives because they don’t like the taste of red algae unless it’s diluted into feed. And even if we did find ways to sneak algae in somehow, there’s a good chance their gut microbes would adapt and adjust, bringing their belches’ methane right back to high levels.
[...]
All told, if we accept the most promising claims of the algae boosters, we’re talking about an 80 percent reduction of methane among only 11 percent of all burps—roughly an 8.8 percent reduction total
Isn’t that a major oxymoron? If it involves an animal at scale, it can’t be particularly environmentally friendly. Which animal-based protein has the lowest environmental impact, besides insects? Eggs? Whey? Crustaceans? Fish? Can fish or crustaceans process soy?
Yes
Youtube has been going wild with the greenwashing, I keep getting ads for shit like this it's insufferable.
We use renewable- We're working towards- With your help we can save the envi- Our beef is- shut uuupppp
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tyson claims that its new “Climate-Smart Beef” program, to be supported with taxpayer dollars, has managed to cut 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from a tiny fraction of its cattle herd.
The 1.5 billion cows farmed worldwide for cheeseburgers and ice cream sundaes each year accelerate climate change in three main ways: they eat grass and/or grain, like corn and soy, causing them to burp out the highly potent greenhouse gas methane; they poop a lot, which releases the even more potent nitrous oxide, as does the synthetic fertilizer used to grow the grain they’re fed; and they take up a lot of land — a quarter of the planet is occupied by grazing livestock, some of which could be used to absorb carbon from the atmosphere if it weren’t deforested for meat production.
Among other practices, Tyson also lists “pasture rotation,” which entails moving cattle around more frequently with the goal of allowing grass to regrow, which can provide a number of environmental benefits, but many climate scientists are skeptical it can meaningfully reduce emissions.
When asked what benchmark the USDA uses to approve a 10 percent emissions reduction claim, the agency again said I would need to file a FOIA request, and didn’t answer questions about its verification process in time for the deadline for this story.
Meat and dairy production account for at least 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, leading many environmental scientists to conclude that eating more plant-based meals is one of the best actions people can take to fight climate change, and that governments could do much more to steer us in that direction.
In a recent online survey, conducted in partnership with market research consultancy firm Humantel, Vox polled consumers about which parts of the food sector they think contribute most to climate change.
The original article contains 1,494 words, the summary contains 304 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Important quote missed in the summary:
But even if we give Tyson and the USDA the benefit of the doubt, there’s a stubborn truth about beef: It’s so high in emissions that it can never really be “climate-friendly.”
Agreed. Entropy exist, but fortunately my priority is a cool society built for humans and their culture. So bring on the culinary delights, bring on Fois Gras. A society that cannot support that for every one is a society that has lost it's purpose. I don't exist to live in a dark closet and eat insects. I live to enjoy my life here, to enojoy my family, fireworks, freedom, and travel. Let's figure out how to make the things that are worth living for sustainable and get rid of things that Capitalism has imposed upon us (like car commuting culture).
Cool. I don't give a shit about Capitalist labels in the first place. Buy the meat for taste and quality. Grass Fed or even better, locally sourced, is all you need.
The impact of beef is still gigantic compared to other food sources, even if it's local or grass fed.
Actually you don't need to murder animals for food at all! It's amazing we can have this knowledge in our time on earth