[ayngg]

Arguments that meat take an excessive amount of resources are disingenuous because those resources cannot simply be translated to other uses, examples being that the water use example many tout uses rainwater would fall anyways, that livestock will eventually urinate meaning it isn't actually lost, and land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways. Also there is a relationship between livestock, agriculture and human society where they all are able to use resources that each other cant, or provide benefit to each other. For example a huge amount of agriculture fertilizer comes from manure, and a huge amount of livestock feed comes from agricultural waste. Without livestock we now have to get fertilizer elsewhere, and all the byproducts that would become animal feed becomes waste.

In the grand scheme of things livestock produce an insignificant amount of ghg and that if all Americans stopped consuming beef, it would reduce the nations ghg emissions by ~2.5%, whereas transportation, power generation and construction contribute to the overwhelming amount of emissions (~80%).

If you want to look at reducing emissions from food, it is much easier to look at food waste, where ~40% of food in the US is wasted, and of that roughly 80% is produce like fruits, vegetables, tubers etc, meaning that even if there was a transformation to a purely vegan population, food waste would probably increase.

edit: I should reiterate that these are points in summary that are made in the video, not my personal opinion.

[emkoemko]

"land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways."

so what is it that they grow then cut and roll into those large objects? here they even grow corn for feed.

[wumpus]

You're talking about alfalfa, but, 1/2 of the meat in a cow comes from corn at the feedlot.

[tomp]

How would reducing food waste reduce emissions? After all food is just condensed CO2, eating it releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere the same as rotting. It’s a closed cycle.

[gregable]

True for the C from food, but the production process is energy intensive. Fertilizer production, tractors, etc all burn oil C which would otherwise have been left in the ground.

[iggldiggl]

> If you want to look at reducing emissions from food, it is much easier to look at food waste, where ~40% of food in the US is wasted, and of that roughly 80% is produce like fruits, vegetables, tubers etc, meaning that even if there was a transformation to a purely vegan population, food waste would probably increase.

Overproduction isn't ideal from that point of view, but on the other hand it is at least to some extent also a necessary hedge against bad harvests – if you don't overproduce compared to your average requirements, then any even just mildly bad harvest would immediately cause food shortages, and that's something you really really wouldn't want to happen.

[tomp]

Ah yeah, typical motte and bailey argument. First “meat is bad”, then you dismantle that, then “cattle feed is the problem”, then you dismantle that, then “food waste is the problem”, then you dismantle that, ultimately it always comes down to energy.

So, how about we solve energy instead (build nuclear powerplants)? Yet they still blame meat!

[manquer]

Some counter points:

1. The number is around 14.5% in direct global emissions [1] according to the FAO, I cannot find any reputable source saying anywhere as low as 2.5%

2. Beef has roughly ten times more carbon footprint as Chicken. Beef has by far the highest CO2 equivalent per KG of product among any food [2] at 99.8Kg CO2 Equivalent, lamb / mutton comes a distant second at around 40Kg and Pork / Poultry are around 12/9 respectively [3] .

3. Looking at American consumption and emissions in isolation is disingenuous, USA alone exported 2.2 Billion pounds and imported 4.4 Billion pounds of beef and cattle in 2020.

4. Beef related food production is the leading cause of deforestation in many countries including Brazil [4] and a lot of it is export driven. There is additional secondary emissions due to this type of deforestation .

5. In addition there is substantial growth in amount of meat consumes as a country develops the impact of this industry is not just current emissions [5]

6. A lot the byproducts that become animal feed can also become fertilizer, if used in feed stock then likely it is organic and therefore contains fertilizer components such as Potassium , Nitrates etc that can be processed as fertilizer .

7. Even if there was zero emissions related to consumption, it is inherently a extremely cruel industry, the conditions in dairy/ cattle/ chicken/pig farms are horrifyingly bad to the animals, and use breeds that have little genetic variety, create potential outbreak zones for many diseases.

8. Pigs and Cattle are very intelligent species, it is especially cruel to breed species of higher intelligence just for food even if there were only humane farms.

[1] http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

[4] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/1...

[5] https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/133/11/3907S/4818041

[ayngg]

Keep in mind, what I wrote essentially was condensed version of what was said in the video, which itself was in response to several other videos so the points made are specifically targeting other claims, there is a lot of nuance in delivery that I discarded for the sake of brevity, for example, but point 1 was addressing a claim another popular video discussing domestic (American) emissions of livestock agriculture. Some of your points are discussed in the video but I was really just giving cliff notes to the original responder.

[kinjba11]

Devil's advocate. I'll probably be down-voted, but note that ignoring details gives fuel to skeptics (as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g).

1. How is this 14.5% number calculated? Does it include deforestation? Grass-fed is far different than deforesting for grazing land or crop land.

For instance from the FAO PDF you quoted: "extensive livestock are often kept in remote environments where deforestation and land degradation reflect weaknesses in institutions and policies". The headline then should read "deforestation and bad land policy causes climate change" not "stop eating cows".

2. Again, how are these 10x numbers calculated? Comparing e.g. industrialized agriculture to inefficient agriculture in a third-world country is not going to convince skeptics. If beef production is extremely inefficient somewhere, we should fix that.

3. If country A emits 100x the CO2 production of country B for the same end result, that needs to be noted. If my neighbor has a giant gas-guzzling monster truck spewing emissions, my neighborhood is not at fault, it's just him.

4. Agree 100%. We should be addressing the deforestation. Saying "stop eating meat" is not the solution. "Don't buy food from Brazil grown on land that had rain forest last year" is more nuanced and probably easier to follow. Matter of fact, don't buy products made by totalitarian regimes, slaves, child labor, etc. We should know where and how our products are made. I'm not advocating "don't buy sneakers" because some sneakers are made in unethical ways.

5. Humans love meat, that fact is not changing anytime soon. We should advocate for more efficient (and yet more ethical). If we need to, governments should pass laws to make production sustainable similar to what is done to prevent overfishing.

6. We have a perfect machine, well studied and used for millennia, for converting corn husks and other inedible things that would otherwise be thrown away into fertilizer: cows. Bonus, in addition to fertilizer, you get milk, hides, bones, highly nutritious meat, etc.

7/8. Totally agree. More laws need to be passed to regulate this industry, it's truly sickening. All meat products should be twice as expensive or more as they currently are to account for this.