Veganism/Leather etc. out of Market Action

[AWDtsla]

Sounds like you don't like the potential conclusion so you're ignoring the data, sort of like the anti EV crowd tried to do. I haven't seen @KarenRei do much faulty analysis of data.

Yeah, after years of v8's and turbochargers and premium brand name gasoline I switched to a electric car costing in excess of twice as much as any car I've owned, because I can't change my mind?

On the contrary the human tendency to self-flagellate over something they think is good vs bad, is VERY natural. I must punish myself to save the planet, and I've found out just how to punish myself? If you convince me otherwise, my life will turn out to be a lie

Here's a non-rhetorical first principles question: How much methane production comes from livestock farming, versus how much is tolerated as normal leakage from our aging natural gas infrastructure? Versus how much methane was let go in the california natural gas disasters of 2016?

 

[JRP3]

I think the idea is to reduce all of it, natural gas leakage and use, and livestock methane. Not sure what you mean by "punish myself", plenty of evidence that reducing meat consumption has health benefits, so you are in fact helping yourself, and there is so much good food which doesn't require killing an animal that it shouldn't feel like punishment. Note, I'm not a vegan but have drastically reduced my animal consumption in recent years, (no cows or pigs, minimal chicken and seafood), and don't feel like I've sacrificed anything.

 

[bhtooefr]

I'm going to call whataboutism here - the topic is methane emissions from ruminants, which are wholly unrelated to methane emissions from natural gas pipelines.

Both are harmful to the environment and should be reduced, and reducing one doesn't preclude reducing the other.

 

[AWDtsla]

I think the idea is to reduce all of it, natural gas leakage and use, and livestock methane. Not sure what you mean by "punish myself", plenty of evidence that reducing meat consumption has health benefits, so you are in fact helping yourself, and there is so much good food which doesn't require killing an animal that it shouldn't feel like punishment. Note, I'm not a vegan but have drastically reduced my animal consumption in recent years, (no cows or pigs, minimal chicken and seafood), and don't feel like I've sacrificed anything.

As far as I can tell, meat is nearly the perfect food. Mass farming of crops has led to to varying inflammatory and metabolic syndromes like diabetes and obesity becoming rampant in the west. A good mix of protein/fat and occasional fruit was replaced with an absolute onslaught of carbohydrates, led in part by the US's "food pyramid" which told you what to eat for political/economic reasons, not health reasons.

I'm going to call whataboutism here - the topic is methane emissions from ruminants, which are wholly unrelated to methane emissions from natural gas pipelines.

Both are harmful to the environment and should be reduced, and reducing one doesn't preclude reducing the other.

That would be a huge mistake.
1. Sounds like you're not actually willing to talk about first principles effects
2. If natural gas leaks are a 1000x worse than livestock methane, your statement is plain foolish. It's like republicans trying eliminate a million dollars of aid to poor school kids in the face of several trillion dollars of military obligations. Don't be them.
3. If I take your statement on it's face, you need to figure out how to stop farting. Because clearly methane from 7.4 billion people is still "harmful to the environment" and "should be reduced". It's like reductio ad absurdum, and I didn't even need the reductio.

 

[bhtooefr]

Except what you're doing is excusing the ruminants emissions because "look, the pipelines are so much worse!"

In my case, I'm advocating for only ceasing farming of ruminants of meat, as something that helps - I'm not even advocating vegetarianism here, the numbers look fine to me for pork and poultry, for instance, and they even look fine for dairy despite the methane emissions from ruminants. (And, hunting for ruminants - e.g. deer - is fine, as it doesn't create significant new emissions, and in fact reduces emissions.)

Separately, I do advocate for phasing out the whole thing where it's normal to burn things for fuel, especially fossil fuels such as natural gas. Attention can be directed to more than one thing at once.

 

[AWDtsla]

Except what you're doing is excusing the ruminants emissions because "look, the pipelines are so much worse!"

I plainly asked a question about data to see what the proportions of the effects MIGHT be, even considering the half-life of methane in atmosphere. But apparently no one here is willing to answer it. At the end of the day methane from livestock is still in the active carbon cycle, and methane leaks are introducing new carbon in the the active carbon cycle, you could still show a massive enough effect to matter, but again no one seems to be interested in showing this.

If you guys are unwilling to look at the data because it might go against your conclusions, there is no further need for discussion.

In my case, I'm advocating for only ceasing farming of ruminants of meat, as something that helps - I'm not even advocating vegetarianism here, the numbers look fine to me for pork and poultry, for instance, and they even look fine for dairy despite the methane emissions from ruminants. (And, hunting for ruminants - e.g. deer - is fine, as it doesn't create significant new emissions, and in fact reduces emissions.)

Anyone can advocate anything. Show it with science. Real science, not trying to astound people with BS numbers.

Attention can be directed to more than one thing at once.

It's like voting for Jill Stein in 2016. Completely oblivious. To me cow methane seems like the Jill Stein of climate change, until proven otherwise.

 

[abasile]

In my case, I'm advocating for only ceasing farming of ruminants of meat, as something that helps - I'm not even advocating vegetarianism here, the numbers look fine to me for pork and poultry, for instance, and they even look fine for dairy despite the methane emissions from ruminants. (And, hunting for ruminants - e.g. deer - is fine, as it doesn't create significant new emissions, and in fact reduces emissions.)

Personally, I've been avoiding red meat and dairy for both personal health and environmental reasons. (I'm not saying that avoiding dairy is good for everyone, but it seems to be helpful given my particular DNA. And I agree that the emissions associated with pork production are much better than beef.)

However, I don't see any good reason to stop consuming poultry. Granted, many poultry farms treat their animals quite poorly, and it's best to acquire meat from good farms. But I don't have any philosophical objections to slaughtering chickens, turkeys, and fish for food. Poultry is a tasty, cost-effective, easy source of protein. As my average, daily caloric requirements are on the high side, I appreciate that!

 

[JRP3]

Poultry is a tasty, cost-effective, easy source of protein

So are beans of course, cheaper too.

 

[AWDtsla]

Another shot in the dark: what's the effective greenhouse gas effect (GHG potential vs CO2 including time decayed response through half-life in atmosphere, in excess of normal CO2 in the active carbon cycle) of natural decomposition of dead foliage in soil vs rumination of that material in cow guts?

You guys might be interested in this product: https://homebiogas.com/

 

[ggr]

Show it with science. Real science, not trying to astound people with BS numbers.

Geez, guys, how hard is it to google?
Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Source: EPA before it was gutted.

 

[abasile]

Another shot in the dark: what's the effective greenhouse gas effect (GHG potential vs CO2 including time decayed response through half-life in atmosphere, in excess of normal CO2 in the active carbon cycle) of natural decomposition of dead foliage in soil vs rumination of that material in cow guts?

In the long run, I would expect that there would be no significant net contribution to global warming from cattle that graze exclusively on natural pastureland.

However, most cattle are fed copious amounts of grain, the production of which is reliant on fossil fuels. Basically, cattle serve as a very inefficient conduit for energy needed to power human beings. Also, in developing nations, carbon-rich rainforests are frequently burned to make room for cattle.

You guys might be interested in this product: https://homebiogas.com/

That looks like a cool product! That said, I'd prefer to continue using our clean, efficient electric induction range for cooking. It would be nice if our existing natural gas furnace could be configured to use biogas when available, but that might be a tall order. It'd likely be simpler and overall cleaner to just install an electric heat pump.

So, what I think I'd like to see is a small electric generator fueled by biogas as it becomes available from the composting system. The generator would just feed into my Powerwalls.

 

[renim]

>JRP3

I thought i might compare some key foods i eat and the energy used for travel.

i tend to eat a lot of greens, meats and fats

oh, since i do keto, i eat a lot of greens, a lot
this was normalised to a toyota type load, not a supermarket load, but the principle still stands.

for instance,
choy (chinese vegetable) is 81kj per 100gram and highly crushable, even though it is sourced only 125km away, for every mj of energy spent on transport, i only get to consume 0.26mj of food energy. very bad

compared to butter
is 3040kj per 100gram, and very stackable, even though it is sourced 250km away, for every mj of energy spent on transport, i only get to consume 24mj of food energy. very good

its basically 2 orders of magnitude difference, all i did was source choy from toowomba, brocolli and beef from kingaroy, and butter from screnic rim. (actually scenic rim butter would be half the distance, but i doubled it to fudge for uncertainty of milk factory)

this should be common sense, 9 out of 10 primitive societies (masai, aboriginal, native american indian, inuit etc) had a very high animal content diet, yet they used no diesel.

and as far as longevity is concerned, currently the worlds longest lived society are also the worlds highest meat eaters, so its probably not unhealthy.

 

[guidooo]

I thought i might compare some key foods i eat and the energy used for travel.

Eat what you wish you to eat, we all make choices in life.

And with that being said, seems to me that the "average" vegetarian appreciates choy & broccoli for other reasons than their energy content. And that energy use for transport of the end product is only one component of a story.

Edible kilocalories produced from kilocalories of energy required for cultivation are: 18.1% for chicken, 6.7% for grass-fed beef, 5.7% for farmed salmon, and 0.9% for shrimp. In contrast, potatoes yield 123%, corn produce 250%, and soy results in 415% of input calories converted to calories able to be utilized by humans

Ecological efficiency - Wikipedia

The hunter-gatherers did have a pretty funny lifestyle.

 

[AWDtsla]

Ecological efficiency - Wikipedia

The hunter-gatherers did have a pretty funny lifestyle.

That's an amazingly lazy wikipedia page. Claiming a blunt 10% efficiency everytime an organism consumes. I doubt that's universally true, although I'd guesstimate the efficiency is quite low in most cases. No reference provided. Also pulling some magic with the >100% efficiency claims for plants. I'm pretty sure neither corn nor potatoes actually consume anything except sunlight and CO2. Incidental minerals in soil aren't really moving up in energy states, are they? They're primarily a solar powered hydrocarbon generator.

TL;DR better to use solar panels to make sunlight directly power things instead of feeding humans *anything*, plant or animal.

 

[guidooo]

Claiming a blunt 10% efficiency everytime an organism consumes. I doubt that's universally true

It isn't and i agree with your guesstimate. For me it's a great rule of thumb.

They're primarily a solar powered hydrocarbon generator.

That's why plants are called producers within an ecosystem and it makes the magic come true (magic hint: incoming sunny shine not counted as energy required for cultivation).
If you want to read into it, the paper wikipedia refers to can be found over here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1

better to use solar panels to make sunlight directly power things instead of feeding humans *anything*

You maybe right, but since we didn't evolve into beings who can use solar light or (solar) electricity directly for the energy needs of maintaining our physical body, who or what is going to make those panels and for what purpose ?

 

[renim]

I....
If you want to read into it, the paper wikipedia refers to can be found over here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1....

the studies that imply that 'veganism' is somehow sustainably superior to omnivore diets are making similar mistake as LCA analysis of EVs https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

a failure to get first principles correct,

For my own diet, i can now see that there is no way the green vegetables will ever be sustainable compared to meat and butter, (unless I grow my own). the transport energy burden is just too great, ranging from 10x to 100x difference (10x is broccoli to beef), (100x is choy to butter). and this is reflected in how the indigenous people consumed their calories, should we really impose a moral judgement on kangaroos eating grass or cows eating grass? that would be bizarre, yet it is foundational to these analysis, that is why they don't see how the error becomes deeply embedded within their calcs,

its not hard to do, buy veges that are traceable back to a packing shed and back calculate.
same with fruit
similar with milk, meat even cheese/butter.

its much harder with processed foods, perhaps the texturised wheat protein is from China or Kansas, the sugar is from Brazil or Australia, the vegetable oil from Canada or China, the HFCS from USA, back calculating from an ingredient list is approximately an exercise in self delusion, but at least it exposes some of the complexity that is involved.

simply stated, our ancestors (who were in tune with nature) could only eat local, generally ate seasonal, and included lots of meat, somehow they did all this without relying on electrical refrigeration, diesel or petrol transportation, GMO, artificial fertilizers, or pesticides.

 

[AWDtsla]

the studies that imply that 'veganism' is somehow sustainably superior to omnivore diets are making similar mistake as LCA analysis of EVs https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

a failure to get first principles correct,

I still contend they do this on purpose.

For my own diet, i can now see that there is no way the green vegetables will ever be sustainable compared to meat and butter, (unless I grow my own). the transport energy burden is just too great, ranging from 10x to 100x difference (10x is broccoli to beef), (100x is choy to butter). and this is reflected in how the indigenous people consumed their calories, should we really impose a moral judgement on kangaroos eating grass or cows eating grass? that would be bizarre, yet it is foundational to these analysis, that is why they don't see how the error becomes deeply embedded within their calcs,

Ruminants turn indigestible high energy carbon molecules such as grass into dense and nutritious foods. The analysis would have to be quite thorough and serious to show a net negative effect. I would go further to say that if this is a problem, then the human consuming it's products is the bigger problem. Why do we have the right to say the cow shouldn't exist, but we should?

 

[JRP3]

and as far as longevity is concerned, currently the worlds longest lived society are also the worlds highest meat eaters, so its probably not unhealthy.

Source?

 

[JRP3]

For my own diet, i can now see that there is no way the green vegetables will ever be sustainable compared to meat and butter, (unless I grow my own). the transport energy burden is just too great, ranging from 10x to 100x difference (10x is broccoli to beef), (100x is choy to butter).

Why not compare to beans instead of broccoli or choy?

 

[AWDtsla]

Why not compare to beans instead of broccoli or choy?

1. Did you know the reason people need fiber in their diets is to deal with excessively carby foods that don't want to move through your gut? You actually need 0 fiber if you eat nothing but meat.

2. Dietary cholesterol is not bad for you, in fact it is required.

3. Water consumption metrics like that (thanks COWspiracy) do really dumb things like take all the rainfall for a piece of land on which one cow grazes as the "water consumption" for the animal. The absurdity, it's unbelievable. When you lie, go big, no one will question it.

That's enough for now.