[Will_Parker]

From https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...

"Animal agriculture is responsible for 13–18% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and less in developed countries (e.g. 3% in the USA). Fossil fuel combustion for energy and transportation is responsible for approximately 64% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally, and more in developed countries (e.g. 80% in the USA)."

I think in the USA, it would be more productive to address the 80% as higher priority than reducing the 3%. I think this veganism initiative is also more driven by morality and political partisanship than by an effort to find a realistic and practical solution to GHG emissions. And this can backfire: I believe that a reason why nearly half the country will not even openly admit there is a problem, is because they fear the consequences of political over-reaction more than the problem itself.

[martius]

Eating less meat is not veganism. It's not even vegetarianism.

It's not the first time that I'm seeing reactions about this report to focus on veganism. I don't understand where it comes from: the word "vegan" is absent from the article and the IPCC report doesn't recommend a any diet.

I understand debate about this report and the impact of agriculture and breeding, but I don't understand why the debate is centered around veganism.

[noetic_techy]

If you trace the origin of most of these low meat consumption pushes, its often vegan groups with an agenda trying to get the governments ear. Problem is, the recommendations and studies they site don't stand up to real scrutiny. For example they often say you should not exceed the RDA for meat consumption, without realizing that an RDA is the bare minimum to not be nutrient deficient. It is by no means the optimal level of protein consumption and likely a detrimental recommendations for the vast majority. When called out on it, they will pull the GHG card, but at 3% of US GHG emission even that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Then they pull the morality card, without realized that row crop harvest kill vastly more small animals per harvest. Its all rooted in bias, plane and simple. The most vocal are the vegans and they make a convincing surface argument.

[wolfv]

There is no RDA for meat consumption.

[moreranchplease]

most row crops are used to feed livestock.

[MegaDeKay]

Indeed. It is not an all or nothing kind of thing. I've been eating less meat lately for a number of reasons, but I'm far from being vegan.

The Skeptical Science link doesn't seem to touch on water usage, only focusing on greenhouse gas emissions. Groundwater decline and depletion is another factor that should be kept in mind as people consider their food choices.

[shlant]

unfortunately, many vegans DO make it seem like an all or nothing issue. The amount of people I know who hate on Reducetarianism is infuriating and incredibly "anti-vegan" to use their own language.

[shlant]

it's a knee jerk reaction when people hear "eat less meat" they think "vegans". It's easier to downplay facts and argue against ghosts when you can associate what you don't like hearing with people who are commonly hated.

[DominikPeters]

Is that 3% number associated with meat production in the USA or with meat consumption in the USA? If it's the former, then 3% would be an underestimate of the impact of reducing meat consumption, since the 3% doesn't include the emissions impact of feed and livestock that is imported.

[vasco]

That is true, but I think the point stands. As (mostly) programmers we're quick to understand and make use of practical rules like Ahmdal's law[1] for optimizing software, and know that you always start by looking at the parts that take the longest. Yet in real life we're sometimes tempted to optimize at the fringes first and ignore the obvious biggest contributing factors first.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law#Serial_programs

[shlant]

or maybe it's possible to address multiple sources of a problem simultaneously?

I see this "not as bad as" fallacy again and again in various different discussions and it is mainly used to downplay issues by comparing them to something worse. There is absolutely no reason we cannot discuss and address one issue without it taking away from other (possibly more impactful) issues. Some issues have less impact but are easier to to solve, and some have more impact but are harder to solve. We absolutely can (and should) work to address them at the same time.

[vasco]

If one is 3% and the other 80%, any effort put on the 3% is only useful to distract from the 80%. It's wasted time. So ideally you don't do both, you focus on the things that matter.

[shlant]

> any effort put on the 3% is only useful to distract from the 80%

How is it a distraction to address the percentage (however small) that we can have as individuals while the larger problems are solved through legislation/technological advancements? They are not mutually exclusive. It's not like people/organizations/governments can only think about/propose/implement one change at a time. It's like making the argument that nobody can do any work on smaller bug fixes while the main code branch is being compiled. Both contribute to the success of the whole, but neither are mutually exclusive given enough manpower (which the world undoubtably has). You can certainly work on hobby projects at home without it taking away from your work in the office.

when we are at a tipping point for climate change and every bit of reduction in greenhouse gases matters, plus the fact that most of the contributors aren't easily affected at an individual level, there is no reason to not address both simultaneously. How most individual humans currently live is unsustainable, period. If we actually want to ensure the continued survival as a species on this planet, we are going to have to change our individual habits at some point. There is no amount of carbon capture/tax that can undo or prevent the destruction of the planets natural resources. You have to address the underlying unsustainability, not just treat the symptom.

[bluesign]

I think it is also related to efficiency, most gain with minimum efforts

[taffer]

That 3% figure prbably doesn't take the global supply chain, deforestation and consumption shift towards western diets in developping and emerging economies into account.

At least in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's Global Calculator[1], the food lever seems to be much more powerful than your comment suggests.

[1] http://tool.globalcalculator.org

[therealdrag0]

Woah. I always thought it was more than that. EPA puts it at only 9% https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...

[henryaj]

It's more than that because of land use changes caused by animal agriculture: https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1159831081798864898...

[maximente]

well, we know that animal agriculture results in deforestation. so it's not so simple.

one would need to calculate both the carbon output of animal agriculture and - crucially - the carbon that will /permanently/ not be captured via loss of land that serves as a carbon sink (Amazon rain forest is the big one) that results as demand for additional animal agriculture increases.

[therealdrag0]

And cross that with our other values like morality or deforestation's contribution to animal species extinction.

[bontaq]

With those statistics, it's funny. The solution is buses and green energy, but those cost money.

[neves]

And the burden is in the developed countries, not in the developing ones.

[LinuxBender]

I would also be curious to find (I can't find any stats) on how much carbon is put back into circulation when people metabolize hydrated carbon a.k.a. carbohydrates. I've done my part to stop consuming carbohydrates and it was not easy.