• chetradley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    It looks like you’re citing the EPA estimates for US GHG emissions by sector: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Unfortunately this is only a small part of the overall picture. For instance, it notably doesn’t include carbon sinks (areas that have a net reduction of GHG) like protected wild lands. One of the biggest climate issues is deforestation, since it not only produces emissions, but also damages the earth’s ability to sequester CO2. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/meat-industry-deforestation-cop26

    In fact, if you look at total land use, an alarming percentage of habitable land is being used to produce meat and dairy, accounting for a relatively small percentage of protein and calorie consumption.

    You also have to be careful using GHG emissions as your only metric. Animal agriculture is a major contributor to many of the environmental issues we face:

    Biodiversity loss and mass extinction attributed to deforestation and use of land for agriculture.

    Antibiotic resistant bacteria resulting from overuse of antibiotics to promote livestock growth.

    Eutrophication and dead zones from fertilizers used to produce animal feed and runoff from farms.

    Zoonotic diseases which very often originate in livestock before jumping to humans: see swine flu, avian flu, etc.

    Additionally, the claim that eliminating livestock would result in a 1:1 replacement in wild mammals is patently false. Livestock is farmed intensively, whereas wild animals live in areas that are, again, carbon sinks. Just looking at the numbers, wild mammals are only a tiny fraction of mammalian biomass, with the vast majority being humans and livestock.

    Considering the greater picture, the best bet is for those who are able to eliminate their consumption of animal products to do so.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      He was actually unfairly charitable be looking at global figures. Unfortunately, the “meat problem” is largely Africa, India, and China. Yes, about 20% of US meat comes from those regions because it is cheaper. But it is entirely sustainable for countries like the US, one of the largest meat consumers, to produce all the meat we consume and stay well within reasonable greenhouse gas footprints.

      Your reply to him unfaortunately made the same mistakes his statements did. If you laser-focus at the countries where most vegans are pushing to make changes, it takes bad-faith analysis of figures to see the meat industry as anything but entirely sustainable.

      People who want meat-eating to stop have an agenda. People who want to farm meat have an agenda. You have to look through TWO agendas, not just one, to find the real answers.

      • Fleur__@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m baffled as to why you would say this after a comment that is literally just objective truths