Can someone be pro environment and eat meat?

[Damajin]

Yes, that's me. Pro environment and also just placed an order for 120 lbs. of chicken. Around 8pm I'll be digging into 2.5 lbs of ground sirloin, good stuff.

There's pro environment and then there's environmental utopianism, which is where the issue that people have with meat usually are found.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Of course you can. You can eat your burger and still care about how the animal you are eating was treated, how the bun and veggies were sourced, and how the post consumer waste like the bun wrapper is handled. Anyway, I personally believe lab grown meats are going to be replacing a lot of the bovine sources we are using over the next 10 years so it will become a moot point for the US.

[ComputerNerd]

Yes. The carbon footprint of shipping produice is considerbaly less than producing meat.

What is or isn't "acceptable" though - and do you have any proof of that, aside from an assumption.
And that does not include the growing of the produce, which may not natural conditions.
What about greenhouses or other artificial conditions.
The "too much of something" argument is quite simply weak. because it is an arbitrary number thrown around.
The standards someone holds to be acceptable are defined by such an amount to demonise that which they are against, and support that they are not.

[Varaben]

Other source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/how...ute-to-gw.html

In addition to that knowledge, we haven't discussed side effects like deforestation for pastures, water polution, etc. And we havent even discussed other meatproducts Just hamburgers.... let's think about that for a second.

Can someone really be pro environment / claim they care about the environment while at the same time contributing to the biggest source of carbon footprint, deforestation and water pollution / waste by eating meat?

I find it hard to believe the average american eats 3 burgers a week.

- - - Updated - - -

At the very least a person would have to reduce their meat consumption if they cared about the environment.

I did just that quite awhile back. I avoid pork and beef products. I still eat birds and fish, but less than I used to. Right now I'm planning on dropping birds by the end of this year.

I have a really hard time staying full if I don't eat meat. I can eat an equivalent amount of calories of other food types, but meat keeps me full. How do you cope with not eating beef or pork and soon chicken?

[belfpala]

Have you looked into the damage that livestock production has been doing to water...even sea water?

Farming with amonia or phosphates does plenty of damage to ground water, lakes, rivers, and oceans too. Algea blooms, suffocate all the fish!

Any modern agriculture on a large scale is bad for the environment in some way.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it hard to believe the average american eats 3 burgers a week.

I would not find it hard to believe that the average american consumes three burgers worth of cow per week, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a really hard time staying full if I don't eat meat. I can eat an equivalent amount of calories of other food types, but meat keeps me full. How do you cope with not eating beef or pork and soon chicken?

Look up satiation and figure out what works for you. Meat does satiate, but plenty of other foods do as well.

[igualitarist]

So all the animals on the top of the food chain are anti environment ?

[belfpala]

It also depends on how large of a burger they have in mind. Some piddly McDonald's basic hamburger is like -5 grams of meat. Also, as you can't eat fewer than zero hamburgers per week, the average is very close to the absolute minimum already, which means there's a lot more room for the biggest consumers to drag the average up without an opportunity for the smallest consumers to reduce it by the same magnitude.

Yeah, the "standard" McD burger is 1.6oz, (a 1/10, as in 10 per pound). You get two of those patties in a Big Mac. That's more like 50 grams per patty, but close enough .

I consider a portion of meat to be 3-4 ounces (about 100 grams). Eating 9-12 ounces of beef per week seems like a reasonable average, given what you said about how that distributions work out. In a sample of 7 people, 6 of them eat no beef, and one eats 3 big macs every day. That sample averages 3 burgers per person. /shrug.

- - - Updated - - -

So all the animals on the top of the food chain are anti environment ?

We and other apex predators have caused other species to go extinct. So, sure.

[Blur4stuff]

I have a really hard time staying full if I don't eat meat. I can eat an equivalent amount of calories of other food types, but meat keeps me full. How do you cope with not eating beef or pork and soon chicken?

I know that feeling. I think it's the protein. I don't get it anymore, though. I make sure to eat stuff that has protein and/or fiber. Um... greek yogurt, beans, broccoli, nuts etc...

[Bodakane]

Actually its not. You have to look at it this way. with the evolution of humanity, we have drastically changed ecosystems through urbanization and natural resource collecting. Now you have vegans which are opposed to humans killing any type of living creature even though many of them live in places where animals used to graze but were displaced and killed or died off for humanities comfort. So now all these various creatures are forced to live in different habitats which forces other animals to different habitats and so on. Now, populations of these animals are thriving to points where it is dangerous to them so we as humans need to manage this through hunting and other conservation efforts.

By being a vegan, and not killing and eating animals, you (not you specifically unless you are a vegan) are doing far more damage to the ecosystem. Quite frankly if anything, its just selfish. Your fellow humans completely fucked these species over but you dont want to claim any responsibility for it nor do you want to be a part of what it will take to bring them down to manageable levels.

Especially when these creatures are either prey or predator to other species. There are far reaching consequences.

Stop. WADR, you're talking out your ass. You think you hit a thread of "knowledge" that sounds good when you say it fast...but I assure you, you're not the first and it doesn't.

First things first, you don't actually understand what a vegan's stance is. You're not a vegan, you probably don't even really know any vegans.

Secondly, none of our mass produced livestock animals are natural species. They've been bred and engineered to produce meat, milk, and eggs all at an unnatural pace. These animals would die out over time, which is perfectly fine.

Thirdly, you are right about how we've changed the ecosystem. You didn't explicitly say it, but I'm guessing you're also talking about hunting. There's nothing about the way that humans hunt that does fuck all for conservation. That shit is a straight up lie. Human hunting does nothing but ensures there'll be more hunting next year. It's a billion dollar industry managed in a way to propagate itself. When an actual predator hunts, it takes the sickest and weakest, ensuring the herd stays strong. When humans hunt, they take the strongest and the best. With deer for example, when the alpha buck is killed, there's a period of indiscriminate breeding until one buck becomes the new alpha. That creates MORE deer. In fact, studies have shown as deer lose their habitat and their herds become weaker through inferior breeding thanks to rack hunting, that the doe are producing twins more than before, in the hopes at least one will survive. Also, when people enter and stay in an area the first thing they do is remove all the natural predators and continue to try and keep them out.

- - - Updated - - -

What is or isn't "acceptable" though - and do you have any proof of that, aside from an assumption.
And that does not include the growing of the produce, which may not natural conditions.
What about greenhouses or other artificial conditions.
The "too much of something" argument is quite simply weak. because it is an arbitrary number thrown around.
The standards someone holds to be acceptable are defined by such an amount to demonise that which they are against, and support that they are not.

I posted this earlier in the thread:

I've seen different numbers.

I've seen that livestock and their byproducts account for 51% of all worldwide greenhouse emissions.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-1812909.html
http://www.animalfeedscience.com/art...517-7/abstract

We have to remember that there's around 15 billion livestock animals slaughtered every year for food.

[gyrados]

are you implying that if you eat meat you are anti environment? cause if so LOL

[Bodakane]

Farming with amonia or phosphates does plenty of damage to ground water, lakes, rivers, and oceans too. Algea blooms, suffocate all the fish!

Any modern agriculture on a large scale is bad for the environment in some way.

No one was arguing that. My comments were part of a conversation that was all about livestock production vs crop production.

I was explaining that crop production methods still need to be done for livestock production (since the livestock has to eat) and on top of that, you have the often worse pollution of the livestock production part too. For vegans, we are promoting less harm as no harm isn't really possible.

- - - Updated - - -

are you implying that if you eat meat you are anti environment? cause if so LOL

Some people may say that. But I won't.

I think you can care about the environment and still eat meat. My only thing, based on the numbers, is that if you care about the environment, the single biggest thing you, as one person, can do to improve it, is to go vegan.

[belfpala]

I think you can care about the environment and still eat meat. My only thing, based on the numbers, is that if you care about the environment, the single biggest thing you, as one person, can do to improve it, is to go vegan.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'd guess turning off my lights, selling my car, setting my thermostat to 60F in the winter and 75F in the summer, using multi-use bags, composting for my home garden, and limiting my portion sizes of meat would be more effective than going vegan.

I guess that's not a single thing, though.

[Noradin]

Yes.
Because not every place on earth is suitable for every use.

Best would be to eat just enough meat to naturally satisfy dietary needs and consume all the meat that is available locally without harming the enviroment.
If nobody would eat any meat, that would be bad for our enviroment, too, so stigmatising meat won't help us in the long run.

[Bodakane]

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'd guess turning off my lights, selling my car, setting my thermostat to 60F in the winter and 75F in the summer, using multi-use bags, composting for my home garden, and limiting my portion sizes of meat would be more effective than going vegan.

I guess that's not a single thing, though.

The numbers I've seen say livestock production accounts for 51% of all greenhouse emissions.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes.
Because not every place on earth is suitable for every use.

Best would be to eat just enough meat to naturally satisfy dietary needs and consume all the meat that is available locally without harming the enviroment.
If nobody would eat any meat, that would be bad for our enviroment, too, so stigmatising meat won't help us in the long run.

The bold is not true.

[belfpala]

The numbers I've seen say livestock production accounts for 51% of all greenhouse emissions.

51% of my greenhouse emissions?

[Bodakane]

51% of my greenhouse emissions?

Probably.....

[Heladys]

I care about the environment, but not enough to stop eating meat.

[Hiricine]

It really depends on how high the "environment" is on your priority list (and what aspects of the environment). If you're talking carbon emissions, you'd be better off quitting meat than quitting driving.

[Raelbo]

Your numbers aren't correct.

I didn't quote any numbers. I quoted principles and tried to explain them on a very basic level for someone who (clearly) has no scientific background.

You have a basic understanding of the process but you don't understand it on an actual practical level.

You don't seem to understand science. I don't know why you think you are qualified to argue this.

You don't understand the sheer amount of vegetation is takes to feed a cow or what even needs to be clear cut for grazing land.

Irrelevant to what I am talking about. Here you're talking about issues like deforestation, and I specifically talk about sustainable farming methods.

You have this false notion that X size of grassland filters the same amount of CO2 that cow produces in eating that X amount of grass.

You see, when you say something like this it just tells me you have no clue. Cows do not "magically" create CO2. They need carbon to make it and they get that carbon from the stuff they eat. By the laws of conservation of matter they cannot expel more carbon into the atmosphere than they consume from food. Unless you're suggesting that cows are nuclear reactors that convert other atoms into carbon atoms. And grass/grain (or whatever plant matter the cows end up eating) gets its carbon (which it uses together with water and sunlight to manufacture hydrocarbons) from CO2 in the atmosphere. So by the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics, any CO2 produced by cows or other animals has already been taken out of the atmosphere by the plants consumed by those animals in the first place. As long as those plant food sources are replenished, the nett effect on CO2 in the atmosphere has to be zero.

You also have no idea how long it takes to replenish the amount of grass that was eaten for there to be a steady amount of grass to sustain the cow's growth.

Irrelevant. This variable simply dictates what the upper limit of sustainable farming is possible. It doesn't affect the principle that a single cow can exist in a state of equilibrium with the environment - which is what I am talking about.

Then on top of all that, you are acting like the average cow of today is a naturally occurring animal that is suited to eat and sustain life in a natural way. They've been bred to produce more meat per square inch than a cow from even 20 years ago.

How is this relevant? A cow still has to consume plant mass in order to generate CO2. The process of generating that plant mass has to, by the fundamental laws of the universe, extract that same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Sustainable farming requires that this happen, so provided the farming techniques employed fit the criteria of being sustainable (which was a constraint I specified in my argument) then cows can never be nett contributors to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

I am not arguing that irresponsible farming methods aren't immensely damaging to the environment. What I am arguing is that if farmers employ responsible farming methods then it is entirely feasible to produce meat without that damage. Ergo, simply eating meat is not in and of itself damaging to environment, it's all about how that meat is farmed.

Again, you know a basic amount of stuff, the problem is you seem to have the arrogance to think that's enough.

In all honesty I seem to know a hell of a lot more than you do, so if I am indeed arrogant, that makes you even more so

In any given year there's a minimum of 25 billion farm animals on the planet...you think those are natural numbers? Natural enough that all the air scrubbers nature put out there can handle it?

Yes. Were that not the case, these animals would die of starvation because the amount of "air scrubbers" required to process the CO2 they produce is exactly equal to the amount of food they eat. This is very basic and fundamental law of chemistry.

PS: That term "air scrubbers" is an horrendous description of the process. In simple terms plants are more like batteries. They take CO2 and convert it into hydrocarbons. When those hydrocarbons break down, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. No plant can act like a continuous CO2 sink unless it is constantly growing in mass. In nature, plants only act as genuine carbon sinks when biomass is extracted from the environment and converted into fossil fuels. The rest (ie most) of the CO2 taken from the atmosphere by plants is returned to the atmosphere in time, whether by animals that eat the plants, fire, or the natural process of decomposition that happens to dead plant matter.

This is why CO2 is a problem today: Because humans have taken nearly half of the CO2 that was stored by nature over a period of a few billion years as fossil fuels and put it back into the atmosphere in less than a century, which has had a significant impact on the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is nearly 10 times as much Carbon stored as fossil fuel than exists in the total biosphere (ie organic matter living and dead which hasn't decomposed or been converted to fossil fuel).


PS: I think the fundamental problem with your thinking is that you imagine plants as entities working towards undoing the damage done by human activities that produce CO2, while in reality they are nothing of the sort. Plants exist in a state of equilibrium with animals when it comes to CO2 and plants cannot do anything to reverse the damage done by the burning of fossil fuels.

[Deleted]

Right, because polution and poisoning the rivers and oceans, are all about cows.