Current Events > Is veganism even the most environmentally friendly approach?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or is that propaganda

Up

Our celebrities and a handful of doctors are pushing it through media, culture, music, and different forms of media, because it's like...so good for our environment and totally not propaganda.

Just be counter culture and go enjoy a burger. In & Out is fantastic.

---

puppy posted...

Our celebrities and a handful of doctors are pushing it through media, culture, music, and different forms of media, because it's like...so good for our environment and totally not propaganda.

Just be counter culture and go enjoy a burger. In & Out is fantastic.

What exactly do you think the point of pro-vegan propaganda would be? And yes, factory farms are a big contributor to climate change.

---

Like shit, the meat and dairy industries are powerful lobbies that influence even Congress, and the dairy industry does shit like pass laws (or try to) saying non-dairy milks can't be called milks, and you want to talk about vegan propaganda? lol

---

Hmmm agricultural scientist I know thinks the term factory farm is a red flag

MildEnergy posted...

Hmmm agricultural scientist I know thinks the term factory farm is a red flag

Nobody cares alt.

---

puppy posted...

Just be counter culture and go enjoy a burger

lol

meat consumption is anything but counter culture

---

Phynaster posted...

Nobody cares alt.

I love you rebel

I'm a proud and unswayable carnivore, but still...

New User
User Since: Mar 2021
Karma: 3
Active Posts: 33

---

Cannibalism is obviously the most environmentally conscious diet.

---

Yes

*US agriculture was modeled to determine impacts of removing farmed animals on food supply adequacy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The modeled system without animals increased total food production (23%), altered foods available for domestic consumption, and decreased agricultural US GHGs (28%), but only reduced total US GHG by 2.6 percentage units. Compared with systems with animals, diets formulated for the US population in the plants-only systems had greater excess of dietary energy and resulted in a greater number of deficiencies in essential nutrients. The results give insights into why decisions on modifications to agricultural systems must be made based on a description of direct and indirect effects of change and on a dietary, rather than an individual nutrient, basis.*

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301

Only 2.6 percent wtf.

Not to mention the malnutrition.

Malnutrition is not worth 2.6 percent or ghgs.

MildEnergy posted...

Not to mention the malnutrition.

Malnutrition is not worth 2.6 percent or ghgs.

Just plain lazy bait. At least put some effort into this.

---

Can you refute the study?

cuh posted...

In a hundred years time, our descendants will hide this shame of their ancestors

In a hundred years people will still be eating animals i bet

Up

I get that this is a troll topic but it's a good question because the answer isn't exactly as straightforward as people might think.

Essentially the idea that anyone can just switch to a healthy vegan diet is a little bit privileged, because it assumes you live in a place where water is abundant. In many dry parts of the world, the constraints are different, and the CO2 emissions don't look the same. Cattle has an important function - it has the ability to digest the vegetation that himans don't. It's a little rich for vegans from wet parts of the world to lecture people in drier areas about how they should eat more stuff that literally can't be farmed there.
These and other things are circumstances that have grown into shape for thousands of years, and food is central in pretty much any culture. That makes everything more complicated as well - forcing people to give up a big part of their cultural identity isn't an obvious or easy thing to do.

Another thing about veganism is the phenomenon of various "exotic" grains becoming fashionable in Europe and the US. The increased demand (and greed of the owners) has literally caused food shortages in various places in Latin America and Africa, because it's more profitable to export the grain than to make sure the locals are fed. This is a huge problem that vegans need to address (and many do!).

And of course there's the issue of massive corporations exploiting the interest for profit. Oatly is a great example of a brand that seems very good from a vegan and environmental perspective... until you realize that they use animal bones as fertilizer. They don't give a fuck about veganism, they see a way to make money off of vegans.

So all in all, yes, veganism is generally the most environmentally friendly approach, save for certain edge cases, but it's not sustainable as long as it's combined with global capitalism. However, all this is without taking animal rights into account. And like I alluded to earlier, figuring out a sustainable way to actually implement veganism more broadly is going to be really really tricky.

---

Phynaster posted...

What exactly do you think the point of pro-vegan propaganda would be? And yes, factory farms are a big contributor to climate change.

Surely you realize that there's money to be made by vegan brands in promoting their products as healthier and more sustainable than they are

---

If cows are causing a lot of the environmental problems, then is it not socially responsible to start eating more cow?

---

008Zulu posted...

If cows are causing a lot of the environmental problems, then is it not socially responsible to start eating more cow?

Great joke so funny

---

scar the 1 posted...

Great joke so funny

Why are you always so grumpy?

---

Kolibri X posted...

Why are you always so grumpy?

I'm not always grumpy, sometimes I'm not. Maybe you've missed those posts, or maybe you just remember the grumpy ones more.

---

That study showing only 2.6% GHG reduction is very controversial. The writers are connected to the animal agriculture industry and assumed we would use land unoptimally if we went vegan.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/bcf5nk/comment/ekq77z4

---

I can't imagine a cattle farm is any more environmentally damaging than something like an almond farm.

---

DocDelicious posted...

I can't imagine a cattle farm is any more environmentally damaging than something like an almond farm.

Almond production has its own problems but cattle is quite impactful environmentally speaking. There's no way around this: raising animals is wasteful compared to plants, from an energy perspective, because you're feeding animals with plants, and then consuming them for a fraction of the energy they ate. The exception would be free-roaming cattle that you don't feed (typically, like I mentioned earlier, in drier regions where the vegetation is not fit for human consumption). But that's not a cattle farm, and it doesn't scale.

---

Yeah but. A vegan diet cannot feed humanity

MildEnergy posted...

Yeah but. A vegan diet cannot feed humanity

I know you think that but. I'm not going to engage with you

---

scar the 1 posted...

I know you think that but. I'm not going to engage with you

Bro. Look at Americans. Look at our 40 percent and rising obesity rates.

The idea that people can healthily feed themselves on a vegan diet when most people in the most developed large country(yes, look at our gdp per capita compared to any nation in Europe with say 10 million or more people), cannot even feed themselves properly is laughable.

scar the 1 posted...

I'm not going to engage with you

---

Sorry guys but I am gonna eat meat.

---

Because you know I'm right lol.

If you need a doctor or a professional nutritionist to plan out a vegan diet for a child that's essentially a rich wh-westerner privilege.

MildEnergy posted...

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301

Only 2.6 percent wtf.

According to that (controversial) total food production would be up by 23%, while agricultural GHG emission would be down by 28%. Getting more food while emitting less GHG gases seems like a reasonable trade off, if you can solve the nutrients deficiencies issues. Using total GHG emission is pretty unfair given how little of the total is agricultural in origin.

JE19426 posted...

Getting more food while emitting less GHG gases seems like a reasonable trade off, if you can solve the nutrients deficiencies nutrients

Can you? Mind you, most of the developing world do not have access to doctors and are disproportionately young.

MildEnergy posted...

Can you? Mind you, most of the developing world do not have access to doctors and are disproportionately young.

I don't know why you are bringing up the the developing world, when the study only deals with the US's issues. The US can certainly help deal the the nutrients deficiencies issues. For instance they can encourage the fortification of vegan milk alternatives as currently happens in regards to milk.

JE19426 posted...

I don't know why you are bringing up the the developing world, when the study only deals with the US's issues. The US can certainly help deal the the nutrients deficiencies issues. For instance they can encourage the fortification of vegan milk alternatives as currently happens in regards to milk.

Because the developing world is growing and needs to eat meat.

Also.

MildEnergy posted...

Bro. Look at Americans. Look at our 40 percent and rising obesity rates.

The idea that people can healthily feed themselves on a vegan diet when most people in the most developed large country(yes, look at our gdp per capita compared to any nation in Europe with say 10 million or more people), cannot even feed themselves properly is laughable.

MildEnergy posted...

Because the developing world is growing

Sure, but the study that identifies the issue is focused entirely upon the US. The different needs and environments of the other countries can worsen or lessen the issue. People overeaten and becoming obese is a totally different issue to malnutrition, so I don't know why you brought that.

Isn't the excuse given for obesity in the usa poverty? How are the same poor Americans going to feed their kids a vegan diet if they are feeding them mcdonalds everyday?

Like wtf is a healthy vegan diet? Lolol

MildEnergy posted...

Like wtf is a healthy vegan diet? Lolol

If you don't know what healthy food is I would advise researching it on google.

Go to www.google.com
Type in "healthy food"
Read
Learn

Hope this helps!

---

Funkydog posted...

If you don't know what healthy food is I would advise researching it on google.

Go to www.google.com
Type in "healthy food"
Read
Learn

Hope this helps!

First few sites all recommend fish and eggs.

Its almost as if a vegan diet doesnt workm

Funkydog posted...

If you don't know what healthy food is I would advise researching it on google.

Go to www.google.com
Type in "healthy food"
Read
Learn

Hope this helps!

These instructions are actually a little unclear because in many places "healthy food" is actually code for "food that will make you skinny". Which is not the same.

I'm mentioning this because it's another complication in the conversation where many vegans cite bad science saying that meat is unhealthy. Obviously TC is trolling so I don't disagree with the response to him

---

scar the 1 posted...

Almond production has its own problems but cattle is quite impactful environmentally speaking. There's no way around this: raising animals is wasteful compared to plants, from an energy perspective, because you're feeding animals with plants, and then consuming them for a fraction of the energy they ate. The exception would be free-roaming cattle that you don't feed (typically, like I mentioned earlier, in drier regions where the vegetation is not fit for human consumption). But that's not a cattle farm, and it doesn't scale.

The thing is is that what cows and other animals naturally eat generally arent things that humans eat. Thats why animal husbandry became a thing, because it was easier to farm some plants that for a cow than it was to produce enough of whatever you actually can eat to sustain you.

And meanwhile, its the easiest way to convert that same plant matter into protein. Alternative protein sources historically and still even today arent available to most of the planet.

And ultimately, the destructive aspect of current CAFOs is that theyre unsustainable, not because raising animals is inherently destructive. Infinite growth is impossible in all industries, not just the meat industry, and thats a capitalism problem.

Fact of the matter is, meat should be 3-4x as expensive as it is right now and it should also be about 2-3x the quality. Most CAFOs overproduce the product to drive prices down (because consumers are accustomed to it) and in turn the meat turns out awful and less nutritious. But people are accustomed to it.

The cheapness of the product became disassociated from a substantive drop in quality because the cheap shit oversaturates the market and has been for decades.

---

CommonJoe posted...

The thing is is that what cows and other animals naturally eat generally arent things that humans eat. Thats why animal husbandry became a thing, because it was easier to farm some plants that for a cow than it was to produce enough of whatever you actually can eat to sustain you.

And meanwhile, its the easiest way to convert that same plant matter into protein. Alternative protein sources historically and still even today arent available to most of the planet.

And ultimately, the destructive aspect of current CAFOs is that theyre unsustainable, not because raising animals is inherently destructive. Infinite growth is impossible in all industries, not just the meat industry, and thats a capitalism problem.

Fact of the matter is, meat should be 3-4x as expensive as it is right now and it should also be about 2-3x the quality. Most CAFOs overproduce the product to drive prices down (because consumers are accustomed to it) and in turn the meat turns out awful and less nutritious. But people are accustomed to it.

The cheapness of the product became disassociated from a substantive drop in quality because the cheap shit oversaturates the market and has been for decades.

Yes, I mentioned this I think? Cattle that roam free and graze wild vegetation have a very low CO2 "footprint". But (and if I'm reading you right you're well aware of this) that's not how meat production is happening, nor is it feasible to produce the same volumes of meat that way. Essentially, the meat industry produces much lower energy per unit of area than vegetarian options would. The distinction is that in dry regions of the world, area isn't the constraint, water is. And cattle can digest plants that thrive in such dry environments, while humans can't.

---

BettyWhite posted...

Cannibalism is obviously the most environmentally conscious diet.

Goddamn it, Betty. Not only are you an alabaster fox, youre always right.

---

the only real environmentally friendly approach would be ending capitalism

---

Swing and a miss