Your help needed: "FOR" Votes for 2015 TSLA Prop 3 and 4

[deonb]

deonb, first of all, I'm not vegan, but Pescetarian. I'm trying to avoid meat whenever I can, primarily because of the insane amounts of water needed to produce pork or beef, which is unsustainable on a global scale (there's numerous studies stressing the water footprint of meat, check here the blog post, for example, Meat Water: the steaks are high (News-Blog for betterplace.org)) . And if there'a any doubt about this, there's MANY different ways of a healthy diet without any pork, beef, poultry, etc.

When articles make statements like this:
"a molecule of CO2 exhaled by livestock is no more natural than one from an auto tail pipe"

I stop reading until the study can produce a picture of a cow going around munching on crude oil or coal. If you do find such a cow, please stop it.

Also, this:
"An estimated 3.6 million children could be saved from malnutrition by a 50% reduction in meat consumption in developed countries."

This is very naïve. Children don't have malnutrition because there is a lack of food globally. Malnutrition is a local problem, stemming from socioeconomic and political climate. You don't solve that from a token action halfway across the world.

If we'd all cut our pork and beef consumption in half by next year, the number of livestock bred would be cut proportionately.

How? Lifestock are quite capable of breeding themselves. Are you thinking of some altruistic culling expedition, or just planning to starve them all to death? Or maybe look up a billion skirts and separate the sexes. How do you envision this happening?

I love how this argument always just ends with "they will magically disappear somehow".

But as Elon Musk has been arguing for years, it's the same with gasoline cars: There's a big market failure disrupting normal price mechanisms because nobody is paying the price for the environmental pollution of burning fossil fuels, and, for that matter, equally not for the pollution produced by the billions of livestock we humans breed, raise and feed every day for eventually killing and eating it.

Apples and Oranges.

Burning of fossil fuels is not a closed-loop system. Not yet at least - maybe somebody smart will come up with a way to make it one day, but until then this is a very dangerous chance to be taking.

Livestock production however is closed-loop - or at least it can be. Yeah, it's a tricky closed loop system - since you can't use manure until a specific time in the crop production cycle, you have to store it for potentially up to a year. And runoffs and overflows happen, which shouldn't. But regulate it and enforce it - no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[bonnie]

How? Lifestock are quite capable of breeding themselves. Are you thinking of some altruistic culling expedition, or just planning to starve them all to death? Or maybe look up a billion skirts and separate the sexes. How do you envision this happening?

deon. I know you don't fully believe this. There are breeding programs at most universities in cattle country focused on maximizing herds. It's a business. Breeding programs look for maximum number of calves per cow, cull out bulls (where do you think all those bully sticks come from?) as unnecessary, supplement feed (grass-fed costs more for a reason), add hormones in many cases to cause faster growth which translates to quicker to market, etc. Left to breed naturally without business interests propping up the whole herd, breeding would be limited to what a wild grassland would support. Cows wouldn't be roaming urban streets eating our lawns. (Well, except for my neighbor's cows who came to visit about a month ago...).

People eat less beef, there will be natural attrition. There will not be cows roaming about looking for trouble to get into. If you want less cows, put the bulls in another pen. Pretty sure it still works that way.

 

[ggr]

where do you think all those bully sticks come from?

Thank g*d the Model S doesn't need a floor mounted shifter...

 

[Newb]

deonb, thanks for the open discussion. Unfortunately, I have to disagree.

I think there are many illusions about today's agricultural businesses in general and meat production in particular. Don't want to offend or disturb anyone, so I won't link to videos about how breeding, raising and processing of cows/beef is done today. You can find the reports and first-hand videos yourself on youtube or other platforms to educate yourself about the business. In general, the romantic images of cattle farms most people have in their mind shall stay there if you want to continue to enjoy your steaks and burgers. So better don't do the research...

Just one important thing (which might be a spoiler) but I've got to clarify this because you continue to dwell on that: For the vast majority of steaks we enjoy today, there was no natural copulation involved in the breeding part of the production process, to put it technically. The majority of beef products from the biggest meat producers (for the USA, e.g. Tyson, Cargill, JBS, National Beef) began with artificial insemination.

On the closed-loop system: Maybe, you should do the research. It'd be awesome if meat production was a closed-loop system. It's really not. First, there's about 35 million cows bred and slaughtered every year in the U.S. Every single one of those exhales CO2 as part of their normal breathing. If humans wouldn't breed them, they wouldn't be there, consequently they wouldn't exhale CO2. Furthermore, every single cow releases between 70 to 120 kg of methane per year as part of its natural flatulence. This amounts to methane emissions which in some countries even surpass greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Those greenhouse gases are only in a small part absorbed by the plants needed to feed the cows. So there's no closed-loop greenhouse gas emission system. Second, the huge amounts of water used to produce the food for the cows, to fill the troughs, to clean the stables, for the slaughterhouses etc, are added to the system constantly. There's no closed-loop water system either. To sum up, there's no price for the greenhouse gases produced and for most of the agro-industry prices for water are highly subsidized in order to keep the steaks and burgers as inexpensive as they are. To me, this is not a level playing field / free market mechanisms in place. Not even close.

And I haven't even listed other environmental factors involved. If you'd like to discuss manure, please do some research on the amounts of excess manure in most countries of the world. You can't put any possible amount of manure on the field because those are already over-fertilized and ground water is contaminated with nitrate in many many countries around the world.

 

[deonb]

People eat less beef, there will be natural attrition

It won't be that simple. The first thing that happen when some people eat less beef is that the price of beef will fall, making it less expensive, and other people will just start eating it. But let's say you overcome that. The next thing that will happen is that it will impact the least efficient farmers first - the ones still having a modicum of decency. So you're effectively putting all the remainder of 40-cow dairies out of business, with only factory farmers remaining. If that STILL isn't enough to overcome that, and the price of beef drops to the point where it becomes completely unprofitable to keep the animals, the closing of the doors by the factory farmer won't be as kind as natural attrition.

deonb, thanks for the open discussion.

Ditto

I think there are many illusions about today's agricultural businesses in general and meat production in particular. Don't want to offend or disturb anyone, so I won't link to videos about how breeding, raising and processing of cows/beef is done today. You can find the reports and first-hand videos yourself on youtube or other platforms to educate yourself about the business. In general, the romantic images of cattle farms most people have in their mind shall stay there if you want to continue to enjoy your steaks and burgers. So better don't do the research...

I've been on quite a few farms. It's not nearly as bad as PETA makes it out to be. Sure, there are extreme cases that photograph well, but it's not representative of how every animal on every farm is treated. Having said that, I'd be happy if the U.S. would adopt the E.U regulations regarding treatment of livestock. I'll even vote with my wallet on this one.

On the closed-loop system: Maybe, you should do the research.

I did. Look at my previous posts... but I'll repeat some of that here:

Every single one of those exhales CO2 as part of their normal breathing. If humans wouldn't breed them, they wouldn't be there, consequently they wouldn't exhale CO2.

The carbon in the CO2s that cows breath out comes from plants which picked up CO2 from the atmosphere, most likely less than a year before that. If the cows weren't there to eat the plants, the leaves of those same plants would eventually fall off and start decomposing. The process of decomposition is bacteria that eat the plant leaves and releases... CO2. In the exact same amount that the cows would. It's pretty much as close loop as it gets.

In fact it's impossible for the normal animal/plant lifecycle alone to have any long-term effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Al Gore was wrong on this one - unfortunately planting more trees don't get rid of CO2. Now if you were to bury those trees, like with this study, you may get somewhere, but pretty sure you can also just bury manure and it having the same effect.

Furthermore, every single cow releases between 70 to 120 kg of methane per year as part of its natural flatulence

The Methane lifetime in the atmosphere is 9.6 years - 12 years at most. If you keep livestock population constant, methane levels will remain constant. Also closed loop. Of course if the livestock population keeps expanding, it's not sustainable, but nothing that expands is sustainable, by its very nature.

There's no closed-loop water system either.

Water is as closed-loop as it gets. No process we use today destroys it. All we do is move it around, and pollute it - the effects of both gets reversed by the sun. Of course to move it around requires massive amounts of energy, and we need to make sure that energy is from sustainable sources. Digging up T-Rex's to move water around is where the problem lies.

 

[wycolo]

"Your help needed": to pound a stake through the heart of this thread!!

And, no, not a steak. :tongue:
--

 

[bonnie]

It won't be that simple. The first thing that happen when some people eat less beef is that the price of beef will fall, making it less expensive, and other people will just start eating it. But let's say you overcome that. The next thing that will happen is that it will impact the least efficient farmers first - the ones still having a modicum of decency. So you're effectively putting all the remainder of 40-cow dairies out of business, with only factory farmers remaining. If that STILL isn't enough to overcome that, and the price of beef drops to the point where it becomes completely unprofitable to keep the animals, the closing of the doors by the factory farmer won't be as kind as natural attrition.

Yes, I see now how this is an impossible problem to solve.

I can't speak for others here, but I know that personally my consumption of red meats has declined drastically over the years to where it makes up a very small percentage of my protein (mostly sustainable fish now) - and my consumption of meat from factory farmed to small family farm has changed from almost exclusively factory farmed (can't help what parents fed me) to almost exclusively small family farm/grass fed (I don't question my hosts when I'm a guest in their house). So one data point that reduction in eating red meat has actually meant an increase in the coffers of family farms. My overall cost is the same, even though I'm buying less, because I've reduced my consumption. But I'm getting a higher quality food. A lot of people have done the same.

On a personal note, I'm not a vegan, but I respect (and admire) the consistency of their views. I can't defend my willingness to eat some animals, cherish others, and be horrified at others willingness to eat those animals I choose to cherish. It's inconsistent. Someday I'll evolve a little more fully & will likely end up vegetarian, not vegan, due to allergies to primary vegan protein sources (which makes it necessary to rely on dairy).

 

[deonb]

I can't speak for others here, but I know that personally my consumption of red meats has declined drastically over the years to where it makes up a very small percentage of my protein (mostly sustainable fish now)

I'm curious how do you justify the fish? I know your primary argument is that the animal is sentient, which seemingly apply to fish as well.


As for me, I won't eat dogs either, but I don't have any moral judgment on those who do. Or even those who eat human flesh. e.g. the Aghori monks of Varanasi. It seems like a good use of resources. And they seem to have a consistent argument - if the body is inconsequential, and only the soul matters, then it doesn't matter if you eat a body. That seems like something that should apply to other soul-based religions as well. (Not quite sure why it doesn't.)

I don't think cannibalism is a good wholesale idea, because you don't want to encourage the killing of humans (golden rule), but once dead, I don't see how the eating of one animal is specifically morally superior or inferior to eating any other animal. What matters is how we treat animals when they're alive.

So I know a common counter to that would be, well, if all animals are the same and you don't want to kill humans, why are you ok with killing other animals?

Simple. Evolutionary speaking: Because we won.

 

[Lloyd]

On the closed-loop system: Maybe, you should do the research. It'd be awesome if meat production was a closed-loop system. It's really not. First, there's about 35 million cows bred and slaughtered every year in the U.S. Every single one of those exhales CO2 as part of their normal breathing. If humans wouldn't breed them, they wouldn't be there, consequently they wouldn't exhale CO2. Furthermore, every single cow releases between 70 to 120 kg of methane per year as part of its natural flatulence. This amounts to methane emissions which in some countries even surpass greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Those greenhouse gases are only in a small part absorbed by the plants needed to feed the cows. So there's no closed-loop greenhouse gas emission system. Second, the huge amounts of water used to produce the food for the cows, to fill the troughs, to clean the stables, for the slaughterhouses etc, are added to the system constantly. There's no closed-loop water system either. To sum up, there's no price for the greenhouse gases produced and for most of the agro-industry prices for water are highly subsidized in order to keep the steaks and burgers as inexpensive as they are. To me, this is not a level playing field / free market mechanisms in place. Not even close.
.

Now subtract the amount of CO2 that would have been produced if the grass and plant matter they ate was left to rot in the field. I believe you will have a net ZERO, or close to it. Cows don't produce CO2 out of nothing! They eat cabon in the form of plant material that would eventually become C02 anyway. This is a silly argument.

 

[bonnie]

I'm curious how do you justify the fish? I know your primary argument is that the animal is sentient, which seemingly apply to fish as well.

That's just it. I'm not justifying the fish. Or the other animals I eat. I'm just trying to eat less and maybe someday (as I said), I'll evolve . And I applaud vegans for their consistency in beliefs (as I perceive it).

Simple. Evolutionary speaking: Because we won.

I prefer to think of it as not a competition, but a team sport. (Besides, not sure the rest of the animal kingdom would agree that we *won*. Declaring ourselves the winners doesn't make us the winners. Also consider that a large part of the living world is totally unaware of our existence and/or never knew there was a competition.)

 

[AudubonB]

As much as I've had to nail my hands down on my chair to keep this thread from continuing, I have to prise them loose after the prior post.

That is a wonderful concept, Bonnie: that biological evolution is not a competition, but a team sport. It certainly applies to, inter alia, humans, in that more than half of "our" cells aren't human at all, but belong to various microbes.

Is that your mental creation, or did you borrow it from another's?

 

[bonnie]

As much as I've had to nail my hands down on my chair to keep this thread from continuing, I have to prise them loose after the prior post.

That is a wonderful concept, Bonnie: that biological evolution is not a competition, but a team sport. It certainly applies to, inter alia, humans, in that more than half of "our" cells aren't human at all, but belong to various microbes.

Is that your mental creation, or did you borrow it from another's?

I think the specific wording is mine, but there are so many similar concepts that I cannot lay claim. I first started using it when my then-teenage son was learning to drive . (I seriously considered having it engraved on his windshield.) And thank YOU for further expanding upon it. You've given me new things to ponder today.

Driving aside, I've found it applies to so much in life. Especially in my life. Expanding further on it, the Theory of Abundance (vs. Theory of Scarcity) has been a cornerstone of my entire career & has served me well.

 

[deonb]

I think the specific wording is mine, but there are so many similar concepts that I cannot lay claim.

Actually here is a study in direct support of your theory:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062186

and a short summary of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQcKUJGZSM


Don't say I never did anything for you

 

[bonnie]

Thanks, deon

(You are a good example of how some people can disagree on TMC without making it personal. Nice role modeling.)

 

[ggr]

The carbon in the CO2s that cows breath out comes from plants which picked up CO2 from the atmosphere, most likely less than a year before that. If the cows weren't there to eat the plants, the leaves of those same plants would eventually fall off and start decomposing. The process of decomposition is bacteria that eat the plant leaves and releases... CO2. In the exact same amount that the cows would. It's pretty much as close loop as it gets.

I completely agree with you on almost all of this, but there is one place where it goes open loop; fossil fuels used for the agriculture. These add sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere, sort of proportionally to the amount of agriculture. Now, if we're prepared to go back to horse/water buffalo/elephant based plowing, I'd be 100% in agreement.

 

[deonb]

Aww.. Shucks Bonnie. You made me blush :redface:.

I completely agree with you on almost all of this, but there is one place where it goes open loop; fossil fuels used for the agriculture. These add sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere, sort of proportionally to the amount of agriculture. Now, if we're prepared to go back to horse/water buffalo/elephant based plowing, I'd be 100% in agreement.

Oh yeah, totally agree with you on that one. Don't think we can quite go back to the horse, but fossil fuel based agro systems need to go. Soon.

I know Deere has a couple of models that allow electrical attachments, but it still has a generator on the tractor itself. It's a start though.

It's going to need a Tesla level effort for that to get some traction on that industry. But maybe it's just a matter of building batteries cheap enough, and they'll come. This may also be a case where you'd need to tax the externality in order to really motivate the change.

 

[stopcrazypp]

On the subject of hierarchy, I think in general the ranking is:

humans > pets > endangered/cute animals > zoo animals > farm animals > food animals > others > insects/pests.

The farm animal/ food animal ranking is sometimes lower than the "others".

On the subject of dog meat, if it is raised like a farm/food animal, then people don't view them any different than eating beef, pork, or chicken. What is unethical about it is many times those dogs are stolen or kidnapped pets and the conditions they are kept in are far worse than the "factory farms" that people complain about here (factory farms have animals packed next to each other, but these dogs are often packed *on top* of each other).

 

[MsElectric]

So the question I really want an answer for is if these two people can again hijack another Shareholder meeting.

Has anything changed in this regard or can anyone get together with the rest of their family to take over a shareholder meeting to discuss their personal projects?

Could some people now get together and demand a Kosher or Halal Model S the same way two people demanded a Vegan Model S?

 

[Chris TX]

So the question I really want an answer for is if these two people can again hijack another Shareholder meeting.

Has anything changed in this regard or can anyone get together with the rest of their family to take over a shareholder meeting to discuss their personal projects?

Could some people now get together and demand a Kosher or Halal Model S the same way two people demanded a Vegan Model S?

That is a genuine concern, and I'm sure that will change in the future. Hijacking a meeting like that for a personal agenda really does a disservice to the company. The sheer amount of misinformation that was blathered about should never be tolerated. It was borderline heckling, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised it went on as long as it did.

What if the Sierra Club wanted to remove all the woodgrain from the interior? What if auto union members gathered to use the platform to demand union labor? If it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing (like 3&4) there's no need to waste everyone's time.

 

[bonnie]

So the question I really want an answer for is if these two people can again hijack another Shareholder meeting.

Has anything changed in this regard or can anyone get together with the rest of their family to take over a shareholder meeting to discuss their personal projects?

Could some people now get together and demand a Kosher or Halal Model S the same way two people demanded a Vegan Model S?

That will be up to Tesla and the rules that allow for shareholder proposals to be presented.