The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
Having everyone not be vegan is a “problem” So is Emission from high meat usage/husbandry of cows, sheep and goats. I don’t know a better word than whataboutism to describe that.
I don’t think it’s super easy on an individual basis. I think for regular people it’ll be a really difficult transition. However, given the solutions we’re coming up with, and with the effects we’re having on the environment … it’s definitely easier relatively speaking.
I think that even cutting meat out a few days a week or going vegetarian than full-blown vegan would have a great effect too. Probably both on health and the environment.
I don’t think it’s super easy on an individual basis. I think for regular people it’ll be a really difficult transition.
Change is often difficult, but going vegan isn’t a change that I’d say is too hard, or even a little hard, for most people.
20 years ago, it was fairly easy to transition. And that was with a complete lack of resources, or the multitude of dairy-free, meat-free, and vegan products we now see available in pretty much any store and restaurant.
There are also so many organizations these days that can help with the transition, lay out meal plans, etc. It honestly couldn’t be easier, especially when you consider that most people would also be saving money by cutting out animal products from their diet.
Yes, go vegan a few days a week if that helps (most find a slow transition to be more difficult). See how easy it is. Then go full vegan.
If we didn’t have a global climate crisis to deal with, then it might not be as pressing of an issue. But it really is something we all ought to be doing at a bare minimum. As soon as possible.
It really is not! Vegan diets require an awareness of nutrition that isn’t trivial. It’s not hard to do, but it takes a level of planning! It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
Agreed, though the odd egg or chunk of meat helps a lot with nutrition. Supplementing with nutritional yeast, flaxseeds, chiaseeds, green leafy vegetables… you have to be more aware about iron, B vitamins, omega fatty acids than you would be with a diet that includes eggs, dairy, and meat.
I advocate people reduce meat, but without a good fundamental knowledge, it’s a little risky to go full vegan.
This perspective always confuses me. There are thousands of things we need to be doing to help slow down this awful path we’re on.
But if we make any progress on any issue that isn’t one of the top 10 issues, people come out and make noise as if there is a single person working on solving all these problems, and by them progressing this one thing meant everything else was on hold.
Because many companies are making minor, cheap solutions so they can sell carbon tax credits. Many green projects are just another profit generation scheme. Very rarely is any real change being worked on.
What? Government incentives drive company decisions all the time. The US highway system, EV, semiconductors, oil, pretty much every major development in modern society is backed by government incentives.
Big farm companies will engage in “burp reduction,” gain carbon tax credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then sell them to fossil fuel companies for a huge profit. Any minor benefit immediately becomes a net negative for the environment overall.
“…beef cattle operations with an opportunity to generate offset credits that they can sell.”
This creates a market for selling beef cattle credits. They have to sell the credits to someone. Do you think a company that is also engaging in these incentives would buy the credits? Or maybe the credits would be purchased by companies that aren’t helping the environment? It’s the second one, btw.
Wrongo. Carbon emissions are nowhere near as damaging to our continued life on earth as much as the waste dumping that’s destroying the oceans. So this is a minor issue on the lesser issue of climate change. The only reason anyone cares about carbon emissions is because carbon tax credits are a huge market. No one is discussing how to stop dumping waste.
they will finance farmers to feed cows some stuff reducing burping but there’s not a word in implication on animals/humans. Like wheat mutation that allowed larger yields but spiked gluten content this has the same potential. How about “stop feeding animals crap they are not supposed to eat”? We’ve had A LOT of bizon and other ruminants grazing this land before we’ve exterminated them with no methane effects seemingly. So perhaps it’s worth looking at sustainable husbandry rather than feedlots and factory farms?
We are a somewhat advanced civilization in possession of math and other science knowledge. Can we not figure out optimal balance instead of jacking everything up in our failure? I mean you’re right extensive replaced with expansive is not much of a solution but we can estimate what kind of load can ecosystem truly sustain. Say, we return the bison and other mammal numbers back to what they used to be, then we measure population growth deriving reasonable ratio for animal consumption at which animal numbers can remain relatively stable. However that will not remove all the other sources of pollution. I just want us to stop “experimenting” on ourselves, animals and environment when we really have no idea what are we doing. In science you go back to previously known good state and reevaluate hypothesis… we’re not doing that, we’re just doubling down on insanity 🙁
Cow is not the only meat. Small example: we use lots of machinery for manicuring lawns, fields etc. This is pollution plain and simple. We use mechanized methods for clearing the brush. Having goats/sheep/other grazers covers both needs without heavy impact on pollution. While it is possible that eat less meat is a thing one has to take into account a lot of other things. Among which eat less period. Obesity pandemic around the globe exacerbates the issue - larger humans consume more calories thus require more production. Food waste is rampant. Estimates pin spoilage at 40%. So, no, I say we should address core issues before we can declare that all options have been exhausted and now we’ve got to cut on meat consumption.
despite the fact that you decided to just ignore arguments I’ve just laid out, I’ll bite. It is not trivial. In certain areas/regions growing vegetables is more difficult than rearing animals that can convert inedible grass/brush into consumable calories. Trucking in non-meat alternatives is carbon intensive. In other words problem lies with industrial food priduction and distribution regardless of kind of food. If food had to travel 1000 miles to get to your table on top of intensive methods of growing it - it’s carbon footprint is enormous. Also industrial food production implies heavy fossils use at every stage. It’s solving the symptom rather than the cause. Which is why I’d rather see cause addressed before we can turn to symptoms.
What do we do outlaw beef? Until we can create a true facsimile through plants or lab grown meat it will just be an albatross around our necks in the culture war.
Cows are the largest source of methane on earth, and if you can add 1% algae to their feed or something to make them produce less we would be stupid to miss it.
Nah, tax the shit out of me. I live in Québec, I can take it. I spent 6 months this year working directly, or indirectly, in response to climate disasters.
Removing beef would be better than marginal increases in burps.
Removing cars would be better than burps.
Removing oil and gas extraction would do better than burps.
Make hard choices, incremental increases shouldn’t be news.
NATO is making Canada the home of the headquarters for fighting climate change, think they’re doing that because we’re good at it?
We could tax greenhouse gas emissions to internalize the environmental cost.
If the beef burger would cost 2x more than the plant-based burger (which basically tastes the same but has 90% fewer emissions), most people would choose the plant-based one. That would massively reduce food related ghg emissions, and also create a huge incentive to develop better alternatives/lab meat.
This. The simplest path toward a sustainable economy is doing away with the externalisation of costs on products that’re killing us.
I can’t agree with you on those plant-based burgers though. In no way do they taste the same. If you tax the shit out of cow meat though, it’s likely that someone will be able to develop a better alternative.
Yup. I’ve had a few versions of both Beyond Meat and Impossible burgers. They’re both better than what came before, but critically, I didn’t like them. They certainly weren’t comparable to actual cow.
…and I’m cool with that. Mass farming cows is killing us, so we need to drastically reduce that industry down to boutique level so that a “real” burger costs 5-10× what it does now. I just hope that we can do better than the current candidates. My personal hope is that the lab grown meat will be a fitting replacement.
Lab Grown meat makes sense to me. find the tastiest cell lines and replicate. So much waste in cattle farming, and nasty shit going into the cows to keep them viable.
Firstly, climate change requires multiple solutions, this is just one of many. Secondly, methane is one of the gasses we can make the most change the quickest with. Thirdly, cow burps contain a lot of methane and it’s pretty easy to reduce that with food supplements . It’s actually pretty clever. Not sure why you’re being so dismissive.
For some people, it seems that any change that isn’t a 100% solution is wrong.
We’ve become so extreme in our conversations vs. being moderate to the point that people hate you for finding common ground. They want you to say they’re right and that’s it.
It’s like that with everything now, people are becoming silly and can’t see that most problems don’t have a single, perfect solution.
Like, “seatbelts don’t stop every possible vehicular fatality.” Right, but their pretty good, and they’re part of a suite of safety features that, taken together, make a difference.
We’ve become so extreme in our conversations vs. being moderate to the point that people hate you for finding common ground. They want you to say they’re right and that’s it.
if they are even listening to what you say in the first place. you can literally tell them what they’re right about and they demand that you address other aspects of their comments.
It's not the best, nor is it the only. It's one aspect across the entirety of human enterprise, and unlike an individual person, countries and societies are able to implement multiple initiatives at once.
Add comment