abraxas

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

Thank you :)

I always like fact backup in response to zealous vegan nonsense. I wonder if any of them will notice/read since you replied to me. I thikn they're tunnel-vision on me at this point.

Though, you might or might not have realized that in your reply to me, you quoted things I had previously quoted from another person. You're on my side (and I'm cool with that).

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

A magic number is just slang for a number which has no obvious reason for its value.

Which number is a magic number to you? I thought I was clear in asking that question.

It seems obviously false to me when we factor in the land used for their food production

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cattle and most livestock can graze on marginal land. What land would be used for food production? Here's the land-use breakdown.

Like ~75% of the world’s soy is grown for animal feed https://ourworldindata.org/soy

That's not an accurate statement to the reference. 75% of soy crop is fed to animals. That's a very different reality. It still jives with the 86% of feed that is human inedible. How? Because a high percent of the soybean crop is inedible to humans, and there's been a huge influx (your link agrees) in demand for soy products in general. That soy waste a cheap option for feed. The alternative is burning..... but we cannot continue down this line without dropping the land use topic. 100% of the marginal use livestock diet COULD come from the marginal land. If we didn't need to get rid of this other stuff anyway.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

What? How are you comparing me to flat earth, far right, and antivax for criticizing your one source in the original comment?

You attacked education in general, based entirely specialized view of a subset of its funding, and not based on the content of its research.

And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up the ASI, which as far as I can tell isn’t related to the CLEAR Center other than being based at the same college.

As I mentioned, I couldn't see much of the article. I only know where much of the research comes from, and that UC Davis is a reputable institution. I should have figured I'd get the wrong UC Davis department. CLEAR center has the same situation going for it, however. It's primarily funded by organizations who objectively care about sustainability, but
as expected some of its funding comes from the industries that profit from its discoveries.

Here's the profile of the person being attacked by Mr. Hayek. He's an air quality specialist by background. Here's a fairly nuanced essay from him about this very topic. He actually agrees with some of the criticisms of private funding in research in general, but also points out that it's important to know why and how much financial interest is being provided. The CLEAR center, apparently, gets a lot more public money than most sustainability initiatives.

As he says in his penultimate line: "I welcome anyone to scrutinize our work; it stands on its own merits. In the meantime, my motivations are clear: to feed a growing world and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we can do so without destroying our planet."

As you quote:

Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock

I do not get that conclusion from what I've read of him. I'm sorry, I just don't. Yes, it's not fair that I say "the people I know who have been involved with him think he's on the up-and-up", but it's also hard to give weight to one person who simply disagrees with him on this issue.

And Mr. Hayek is the more honest response. I simply cannot find anything but unreasoned discussion in "However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate,” said Drew Shindell". Accurately calculating and reducing the effect of argricultural methane is valuable for its own sake, whether or not there are "high current emissions". Do you disagree? Do you think we should start throwing out the research because it leads to outcomes where we still have cattle? He's literally complaining about research he will not criticize the validity of. I'm sorry, I'm not ok with that.

The Clear Center’s argument also doesn’t account for the clearing of forests for cattle grazing, for example, or emissions from the production of cattle feed, Dr. Shindell said.

This is why I referred to the gishgallop elsewhere. I see no reason why anyone without an agenda would demand accounting for the clearing of forests in research about measuring and reducing the methane impact on cattle. UC Davis is not, as it would sound, releasing a bunch of studies with no purpose but to attack vegans. They are working on agricultural sustainability. If there's a real attack on all their research just being ignored for propaganda reasons, it would be the talk of all of science (again, like the antivaxers).

I'm sorry, but I trust in research and peer review, its outcomes, and its discoveries. It worked for cigarettes. It worked for global warming denial. And now it's starting to work against vegans, and vegans are getting scared.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

My argument on marginal land is prima facie so far. I picked it because it seems obviously true on the surface, so I can let you provide your points to try to blow it up. I'm referring to the land use problem, which is the often-cited vegan argument that livestock land could be instead used as forests or croplands to sequester carbon.

If you want to contest the 2/3 marginal land number, I'll cite a few references, but it seems an odd number to consider "magic"

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

If you want to discuss this you’re going to have to get more specific

Which part of this? Marginal land? That's a very specific topic. Why should we bring in 100 different variables unless you can show those variables matter to marginal land.

Or are you sayign there's some prima facie point I'm missing where "nothing but wild animals on marginal land" will produce more sustainable food than "cattle on marginal land"?

Or are you just trying to get me to provide enough information to overspecialize my rebuttal so that your side need only say "ok, everything but that"?

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

A lot of the vegans here are pushing for the end of all meat-eating, so a lot of the non-vegans here (like the guy you responded to about "eating that shit") feel like "nobody should be eating meat anymore" means "you shouldn't eat meat anymore".

Whether "you" is part of "nobody" is a challenging question. I've met plenty of vegans who push for meat bans, and plenty of vegans who otherwise somehow think "since veg tastes good and the only people who eat meat do so feeling guilty, we'll eventually all be vegan anyway". The former are a threat (sorry, they are), and the latter are not worth treating like one.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

Everyone knows that vegan who ended up in the hospital from malnutrition. In my case, 2 of "that vegan" were family members, and one was a friend. I'll be the first to admit that we non-vegans have to stop and remember that just because the unnecessary malnutrition rate is much higher in vegans, that doesn't mean many of you don't find ways to eat delicious and healthy.

There's some delicious vegan foods out there. It just takes a lot more work and can often be more expensive to hit the same tier of deliciousness of (for example) a perfectly cooked steak.

Perhaps you'll agree, though, that "fake-foods" are terrible? Like, a vegan burger is nothing compared to a nice angus (or venison!) patty with real aged cheddar. Or a carbonara with egg substitute vs the real thing.

I have had some incredible vegan foods (especially Indian or Lebanese) but an Impossible burger belongs in the trash IMO.

That I mean to say is, if someone really wants a Carbonara, there's nothing that can compare without using egg and some smoked meat. And if their diet has a lot of meals with those flavor profiles, it's easy for them to see vegan food as problematic. A meat-eater can have all the falafal they want.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

My one rule on this topic is never getting into a gishgallop. Vegan advocates love to play the roulette of swapping topics every time they lose ground on one, until they manage to win the argument having lost every piece of it by just tiring the other side out. You pick one of those topics, and I will field that topic only with you. It might surprise you, I will agree with you on some of them (like saving the Amazon).

But if you make me choose, I will choose land use because it's a slam-dunk. 2/3 of agriculture uses marginal land that cannot (and I believe should not) be made arable. If resources were spent changing that instead of vegans fighting with farmers, that number could approach 100%. There's important asterisks about that (both crops and livestock become more environmentally friendly if done close to each other due to their symbiotic relationship) that need to be kept up. But reducing livestock population directly WRT marginal land is wasteful.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

You understand the problem with "studies that agree with me are right, and studies that disagree with me are wrong", do you not? The OP who wrote the article is a vegan advocate.

And your NY Times article is interesting. But I come from the scientific world, and attacking scientific rigor of a reputable institution requires more than an NY Times article for me. Worse, you're only showing an argument targeting one university, one that (as far as I can tell dodging their damn paywall) isn't making any formal accusations of dishonesty or citing any bad research. If you're going to try to convince the educated world of a grand collegiate conspiracy to create junk science, you might as well be selling flat earth. Sorry.

This angle feels a lot like far-right rhetoric to me now. I'm not sure if you saw that. Of course there would be farming businesses funding a department of agricultural sustainability. Who do you think reaps the benefit of cheap and sustainable farming practices? Oh yeah, the farmers.

Here is UC Davis ASI's Funding year by year. They publish it. They're PROUD of it. Their largest private donor is a climate foundation. Most of their donor money comes in those who would represent sustainability as much (or more than) anything that would make them a giant shadow conspiracy like Marlboro of the 1950's.

But taking a step back. It's best to ask colleges and researchers. How reputable is UC Davis ASI? Can you find me a few that will put their reputation on the line to levy the implied accusation in that NY Times article? I have only met the opposite. This reeks of "antivax movement" to me.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans

Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat, then eco-vegans aren't eco at all (and should admit it to themselves) if they can't embrace that fact. The willful oversimplification of the environmental impacts of meat-eating is a Tell that a given vegan couldn't care less about the environment.

Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change

I'm an environmental activist that the vegans try to burn because I'm also an advocate for small aggriculture and local rancher protections. How is that not "dividing an already tiny population"? You should let the eco-vegans join our team for a while, too, if the environmental side matters to you.

You know who the eco-vegans would have marching side-by-side with them if they focused on the environmental impact instead of the animal rights side? BLOODY FREAKING RANCHERS . There'd be 10x the people fighting for the environment. Get us all hugging fluffy bunnies after we save the world. Seems reasonable enough for me.

EDIT: Whoops. Double-post unintended. Just ignore one or both or reply to both or whatever.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

Zero responsibility for doing my research and coming up to a different conclusion than you? Oh hell no. I take 100% responsibility for it. I live it. I breathe it. I know more about the environmental impact of meat than 9 out of every 10 vegans I end up dealing with on the internet.

The 10th is either not a jerk to me, or is clearly a zealot. I allow for zealotry (not happily). I'm not a fan of willful ignorance.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

To summarize his infographic. Pork, Chicken, and farmed seafood are better than some plant-based options, and worse than some other plant-based options. The graph seems to leave off some of the famous outliers (like wild-caught seafood).

Unfortunately the graph leaves out a lot of important variables, like the usability of the land (whether growing corn on an acre that can support a forest is better or worse than having pork on an acre that cannot support much plantlife). It also uses global averages, which leaves out situations where many regions may be looking at entirely different calculations.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

ITT people do all sorts of gymnastics instead of saying “I know but I just don’t care enough”

Because the reality is that there's more than two people in the world. Most people are neither vegans nor assholes who don't care enough. There's those of us who think vegans are wrong. It's funny how many environmental scientists are not in support of a world exodus towards veganism and yet my choice are "stop eating meat or admit you just don't care"

How about "having spent my life around cattle farms, I know more than the person talking to me on this topic so they can go fly a kite"? Or "I have cattle specialists with advanced degrees in my family and after long discussion with them, I see all the gaps that these half-ass arguments online are missing"

...no, you're right. We just don't care enough. Oh look, I just found a study that shows that eating vegetables might be bad for the climate. Stop eating vegetables too, or you "just don't care enough"

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

No one is telling you what to do, but the studies are undeniable

The studies have studies and experts denying them.. The rebuttals are a gamut of:

1. pointing out that the "eat less meat" conclusions are fraudulent misrepresentations of the facts
2. pointing out that only way cutting out meat in most developed countries would be good for the environment is if we also start ecologically re-engineering for a lower natural footprint than our regions ever had, since the livestock footprint nearly resembles that of pre-colonial days (here in the US, methane emission is within 20%)
3. pointing out that most attacks on meat-eating make the mistake of mathematically treating marginal land as if it could support a forest, when it cannot
4. And finally, pointing out that improvements in cattle diet shows dramatically more real-world promise than this contrived idea of forcing or coercing all humans to stop eating meat, with far fewer risks and side-effects to availability of balanced nutrition

Even if the oil industries weren’t such a massive environmental disaster, that wouldn’t change the wild levels of inefficiency and waste in animal agriculture

...in some countries like India. Here in the US, the cattle industry is fairly efficient, in a large part because it is highly profitable to be efficient. In my area, cattle is largely locally fed. That local feed will just as largely end up in a bonfire if we decided to wipe out the cattle population, and there would be a large increase in synthetic fertilizers that are themselves terrible for the environment. If we decided to keep the cattle population without eating them, you might be surprised to note that it would be worse for the climate than eating the cattle we have.

As a whole the meat industry is unsustainable

If that were true, it would be dying instead of dramatically improving in both margins, efficiency, and climate footprint in most countries.

whataboutism doesnt change the facts.

No. Whataboutism doesn't change the facts. On that, we can agree.

abraxas , 5 months ago to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. in Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

Anything someone feels forced to eat against their will is "shit". You'd have every right to call meat shit if someone made it the only food available to you.