davyd: vegetarianism is the new prius

Davyd (

davyd) wrote,
@ 2007-09-27 01:37:00

vegetarianism is the new prius
vegetarianism is the new prius

This planet consumes a lot of meat. Putting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, the amount of meat the population of this planet consumes is environmentally unsustainable in terms of carbon emissions, resource (water) usage and land usage. I have thought for a long time that meat (and other high-environmental impact foods) should be subject to an environment tax. That is to say, a tax that would cover things like carbon offsets, land rejuvenation and ensuring our water future. To my mind, a tax like this would have three benefits: (1) it would provide money to fund the projects mentioned; (2) it would encourage investment in sustainable industries, mitigating the problem; and (3) it would reduce the intake of meat back down to recommended levels, which I strongly suspect would result in a significant decrease in lifestyle diseases (diabetes, cardiac disease, obesity, etc.).

The problem is, as I see it, introducing a tax like this would be a surefire way to get yourself unelected. That, and the current Government are climate change skeptics. I read today that John Howard was promising farmers that the current drought will end. Kevin Rudd certainly isn't making that promise, maybe he doesn't know the right deities (in which case, can you really trust him?).

(Post a new comment)

	Quite honestly? (Anonymous) 2007-09-26 06:07 pm UTC (link)
	So? I wouldn't stop eating food. If the taxes would become too high I would steal etc to get food. I don't consider a meal that doesn't have meat as food. Period. It's all about taste, the wonderful inner tenderloin part of the moomoo that is perfectly medium and red and juicy :P~~~~~ (Reply to this)

	Eco Dictatorship (Anonymous) 2007-09-26 06:08 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, this won't work in democracy. Maybe it is time for some eco dictatorship? Would be better than the wars for the last remaining resources, won't it? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Quite honestly? davyd 2007-09-27 02:04 am UTC (link)
	I reckon. (Reply to this) (Parent)

meat consumption <-> carbon emission?
(Anonymous)
2007-09-26 06:09 pm UTC (link)

Apart from more scientific-philosophical matters that you should know about (e.g. the question of what is negative about carbon emission, and then please keep in mind to cite recent high-quality [cell, science, nature] scientific literature and not false generally-held beliefs that are not facts or michael moore or al gore), what is the relation between carbon emission and meat consumption?

We've been eating meat for millenia, why would it now, suddenly, cause disease such as diabetes? You probably mean badly-prepared meat, which basically shifts the whole argument into a political and sociological one rather than an agricultural or environmental one.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: meat consumption <-> carbon emission? ducts 2007-09-26 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think he means badly-prepared meat, he's talking about the agricultural and environmental impact that results when producing a kilo of meat takes the resources of producing many kilos of grain. Which is true. ...and it's the relative cheapness that has made these diseases of affluence more widespread. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: meat consumption <-> carbon emission?

davyd
2007-09-27 01:51 am UTC (link)

Within the 20th century, the intake of meat per capita increased five-fold. Within approximately the same time period we've seen a staggering rise in lifestyle diseases:c ardiac disease, obesity and diabetes (which is caused by being fat, not by eating too much sugar). So yes, while the most of human race has consumed some meat for our known history, that amount is nowhere near the amount consumed today.

If you look up the recommended daily intakes of meat, they're surprisingly low. Nutritionist recommend that you get most of your proteins and other requirements from vegetables. While meat contains a lot of useful proteins and minerals, it is also full of fats and colesterols which are not particularly good for you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: meat consumption <-> carbon emission?
(Anonymous)
2007-09-27 04:24 am UTC (link)

Your first sentence is a bit difficult to read, but I assume you're asking for evidence that meat production results in substantial carbon emissions and health effects. Here is a paper that talks about energy inputs in meat production:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S?ck=nck

And here's a (recent) paper that talks about emissions and health effects:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4PNF2PB-4&_user=1928923&_coverDate=09%2F14%2F2007&_alid=624459054&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=4886&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=12&_acct=C000055387&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1928923&md5=744727c27ffffc73288a5764bf510f6f

Also note that the general rule of thumb for energy conversion efficiency as one goes up the food chain is about 10%. A substantial amount of emissions (and energy inputs) in meat production goes towards growing the feed for the livestock to eat.

Also note that the argument isn't whether we eat meat or not, but HOW MUCH we eat. Excessive meat intake is a factor in some diseases. This is a critical point, because I can take anything to extreme and make it suddenly look bad. For example, water is good for you, but if you drink too much of it too quickly, you will die.

Mg

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	better approach (Anonymous) 2007-09-26 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	Limit the rights of people to reproduce and reduce the over-crowding problem, which also will reduce the amount of food consumed and other emissions caused by our unsustainable yet ever-growing population densities. We don't need people to consume less. We just need less people. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: better approach

davyd
2007-09-27 03:27 am UTC (link)

This is one of the most intellectually defunct arguments I've heard made with regards to sustainability.

If we enacted a global one child policy (ignoring how ridiculous this would be on a planet where we can't go a day without two groups of people fighting over something), the cycle time is see any significant effect from this is over 50 years. This ignores the problems with gender imbalance created by China's one child policy.

Additionally, there is currently a significant disparity between developed countries and developing countries. The United States is home to 5% of the world's population, but consumes ~25% of the planet's resources. As more developing countries, become developed countries, contention for resources will become even tighter.

While Governments should offer economic incentives to maintain sensible population policy, population control is not a panacea. The footprint of our consumption needs to be reduced.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: better approach - (Anonymous), 2007-09-28 02:55 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: better approach -

dgh, 2007-09-30 01:33 pm UTC (Expand)

	Fanatism (Anonymous) 2007-09-26 06:49 pm UTC (link)
	Hi, do you know that some population (e.g. Inuits) eats only meats and fishes ? Eating balanced foods is the right way. Seems you found your God : vegetables. And your Satan : meats … Cheers, (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Fanatism

stephiepenguin
2007-09-26 11:20 pm UTC (link)

And if everyone converted to an Inuit lifestyle, you don't think we'd ruin the planet? Not to mention, as you say the Inuits only eat meats and fishes, which they've been adapting their bodies to for generations. Your body is perhaps less adapted to only eating meats and fishes, and also I'm going to make the assumption that you're not killing your own meat, so do you even know where it comes from? What it's fed? What related issues are involved in bringing that food to your supermarket? I bet the Inuits can answer all of those questions for their own food.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Fanatism
(Anonymous)
2007-09-27 01:49 am UTC (link)

Sure, but the Inuit don't divert substantial land area, water supplies and resources simply for the growing of food to feed their farm animals. The argument here isn't about the intrinsic act of eating meat (as is your diversion), it is about the sustainability of our current meat centered diet - produced the way it currently is.

For most of the globe this approach is unsustainable - if not for the ecological problems it creates then for its complete dependence on fossil fuels, in an era where those are become increasingly scarce.

If the world population was say one billion, the problem might be far smaller, but we're at 6.6 at the moment and still rising.

Mg

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Meat eating

crb0r
2007-09-26 06:52 pm UTC (link)

Humans, as a whole, have bred a lot of meat in captivity.

If tomorrow, we all decided to stop eating meat, and further, stop killing animals (there's no point in having one without the other - if the cow is dead, why not eat its flesh?) I see the following possibilities:

Currently controlled levels of herd animals (e.g. cows) will balloon to unsustainable levels
The environmental strain on all these unchecked cows (need more grass, space) will be huge
The nitrogen produced by all the cows will accelerate global warming

That's only talking about cows, and assuming they don't rise up and kill us.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: Meat eating
(Anonymous)
2007-09-27 01:20 am UTC (link)

Sorry, but this argument seems to either be flame bait or a rationalization of your desire to eat meat. I'm assuming the latter.

Note firstly that Davyd isn't suggesting stopping eating meat completely, but reducing meat consumption. So your argument is just hyperbole.

The obvious solution to the problem is to reduce the cow population. The major way of doing that would be to reduce the demand for meat. The idea is that less demand would eventually mean less breeding and eventually a lower population. Though _initially_ it might result in a higher cow population.

I seriously doubt that the cow population would grow without humans maintaining it but if it were to do so, then obviously culling would be an appropriate measure.

Of course you could consider other animals to start with. Chickens for instance are completely dependant on feed provided by humans - (globally) mostly Soy, the production of which causes substantial deforestation in areas like Brazil.

Mg

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Meat eating -

crb0r, 2007-09-27 04:12 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Meat eating -

nbrown2, 2007-12-19 06:09 pm UTC (Expand)

	(Anonymous) 2007-09-26 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	The problem isn't meat consumption; it's overpopulation. If all the countries in southeast Asia lowered their populations to internally, sustainable levels (like China is currently doing), we wouldn't even be having this conversation. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

vegetus
2007-09-26 09:31 pm UTC (link)

Why only southeast Asia? What about Australia with its "one for the country" policy or the US with its "teaching contraception is against God" ideology? Overpopulation is a global issue.

Isn't interesting that developed western countries use significantly more resources per capita? And also heaps more meat.

Also I really suggest you read the United Nation's Livestock's Long Shadow report (you can download it from the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation website) which this article refers to. One thing it mentions is the large amount of resources wasted by developed countries on the livestock industry and the impact of the intensive methods that are favoured by developed nations. Basically more meat using unsustainable methods for fewer people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 01:06 am UTC (Expand)

	vegetarianism is the old Prius (Anonymous) 2007-09-26 07:56 pm UTC (link)
	Vegetarianism is the old Prius. Spending $15k to save $10k in gas. Eating an avacado from a thousand miles away instead of the cow 100 miles away. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: better approach

davyd
2007-09-27 01:59 am UTC (link)

Apparently (I can't substantiate this) co-op farms are the most productive way to produce vegetables. I would happily apply the same environmental tax to vegetables (based on their relative environmental footprint), but it would need to be applied seasonally based on what fruits and vegetables were growing locally and which ones had to be imported. To some extent, the market already dictates when I purchase the fruits and vegetables I do, because I'll intuatively opt for the cheaper priced items.

Secondly, that truck delivering avocados can be made carbon neutral with the application of design. No matter how hard you try, that cow won't be carbon neutral, even if the truck that delivers it is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: vegetarianism is the old Prius - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 04:05 am UTC (Expand)

Why take this so personally? o_0
(Anonymous)
2007-09-26 08:12 pm UTC (link)

Not sure why there is such a mean and unnecessary reaction to this. Really, why do people get so flamy on the Internet?

Davyd brings up a really good point here, that eating meat with the current population is unsustainable (truth). He also suggests a method to help with this. It may be flawed, but he mentions that as well. The point is that there _is_ a serious problem that needs addressing, not ignorance. However you want to handle it, that is fine.

Why do meat eaters have to take it so personally? To me, that makes no sense. Also, why flame davyd? He's more or less summarizing the article at the top. Go try to flame that author.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0

vegetus
2007-09-26 09:22 pm UTC (link)

It's because the non-vegetarians are feeling threatened. If they were really comfortable about the impact their mainstream lifestyle has on the environment they wouldn't feel like making such attacks.

But hey the persecution of vegetarians has occured since ancient greece, we were targeted for being heretic's by the christian church and more recently the modern meat industry has bagged us out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 01:39 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 -

vegetus, 2007-09-27 02:09 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 04:16 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 -

vegetus, 2007-09-27 04:49 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 05:28 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 - (Anonymous), 2007-09-27 06:31 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 -

vegetus, 2007-09-29 05:52 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 - (Anonymous), 2007-10-02 02:06 pm UTC (Expand)

Re: Why take this so personally? o_0 -

davyd, 2007-09-27 03:33 am UTC (Expand)

Heh
(Anonymous)
2007-09-26 08:51 pm UTC (link)

I agree with your post, mostly. But it sure brought out some of the crazies, huh?

I have a slightly different suggestion. Instead of taxing meat specifically (which, as you note, would be *wildly unpopular*), simply cancel the US Farm Bill (which would be merely *highly unpopular*).

This not only is less objectionable to many people, but it hits more directly at what we really want, which is less consumption of inefficient fuel in general. When we stop subsidizing crap that farmers grow today (to feed to animals), more of the true cost of meat will be passed along to consumers.

It would also reduce, say, Coca-Cola consumption, because the only reason that's cheaper than water is because HFCS is cheaper than water, which is only the case because the government subsidizes it so much with my tax money. Kill the US Farm Bill -- no fatties!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Heh davyd 2007-09-27 02:01 am UTC (link)
	I'm not familiar with the US Farm Bill, can you expand on this? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Heh - (Anonymous), 2007-09-29 11:26 pm UTC (Expand)

	vegetus 2007-09-26 09:15 pm UTC (link)
	Well put. I also really recommend reading the UN report which this article refers to- "Livestocks Long Shadow", it has heaps of really interesting stuff. Though from some of the responses, I do wonder if anyone actually went to read the article you linked to, or actually had a clue about sustainability in general. Also why is everyone posting anon? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dafwarg 2007-09-26 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	I was just going to comment that I thought there were a lot of anon posts :P It could be that there are a bunch of people who read Davyd's lj that don't have ljs... :P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) -

stephiepenguin, 2007-09-26 11:25 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) -

vegetus, 2007-09-27 01:03 am UTC (Expand)

	For every animal you don't eat... (Anonymous) 2007-09-27 12:56 am UTC (link)
	http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor (Reply to this)

	Tastes better, too leonbrooks 2007-09-27 11:58 am UTC (link)
	That’s more likely to be an effective motivator. (-: Oh, & it being cheaper. (-: & storing better. (-: & showing more colours. (-: &... well, you get the message. :-) :-) :-) :-) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Tastes better, too (Anonymous) 2007-10-01 09:21 am UTC (link)
	What? I know that meat tastes MUCH better than vegetables, but I had the idea that meat is more expensive, meat is more difficult to store and vegetables are more colorful. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Carbon source
(Anonymous)
2007-09-28 03:04 pm UTC (link)

Where is the carbon source for the carbon dioxide polluting the air because of meat eaters? The animals eat grain, which get all their carbon from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it is just a loop, absorb carbon dioxide and emit it back.

If you are referring to the carbon dioxide produced when burning fuel for the electricity and other power requirement for farming with respect to meat production, just consider meat eating as another form of entertainment. OK, it produces carbon dioxide, but so does watching a movie, using your PC...

--

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Carbon source

davyd
2007-09-28 03:33 pm UTC (link)

It's not quite this straightforward. It's true that plants do encyst carbon dioxide. This is converted into complex sugars with the application of solar energy (photosynthesis). Animals then consume this matter, breaking down the complex sugars to release the energy. Some of the matter is broken down into carbon dioxide, some of it is broken down into methane. Methane is significantly more damaging (23x worse) in terms of greenhouse contributions than carbon dioxide. Nitrogen containing compounds are converted into gases like nitrous oxide (296x worse than carbon dioxide).

My electricity consumption is matched in production of renewable power. Running my PC has no carbon footprint.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Carbon source - (Anonymous), 2007-10-01 07:55 am UTC (Expand)

Eh?

http://getopenid.com/gunny
2007-09-29 11:31 am UTC (link)

There's no clear data on how much water etc is "wasted" in the production of meat, but you gotta remember there is a hell of a lot more energy in a kilo of beef than in a kilo of wheat. Not to mention people will still want eggs, milk and leather: It would downright medically dangerous for a lot of people to go vegan.

That said, we should stick some post-mortem photos of obese people on fast food. That'd slow sales real quick.

(Reply to this)

	dgh 2007-09-30 01:36 pm UTC (link)
	"Putting the ethical considerations aside for a moment": surely carbon emissions are an ethical consideration, given the consequences of not reducing them. (Reply to this)

carbon taxes
(Anonymous)
2007-10-03 08:16 am UTC (link)

All industries should include a 'carbon tax' to offset their environmental impact, including the meat industry. However, the ethical and economical considerations are much greater than that of putting a tax on petrol.

If carbon tax is applied to petrol demand will ease slightly, however the big oil companies will still be diving into big vaults of money from a springboard. An appropriate tax-rate would make the petrol effectively a carbon neutral purchase. (assuming it's spent on offsets).

However, by adding a carbon tax on meat could significantly reduce the demand for meat, which would lead to increased hardships on australian farmers (who would absorb some of the tax). The question here is whether it is fair and equitable on these farmers to introduce such a tax, which could potentially send many out of business.

I agree entirely that the industry needs to offset it's emissions, and that the effects of reduced meat-eating is likely to have positive health outcomes, however I think the implementation would need to be carefully considered. Possibly a better solution is that the government could provide the carbon offset based on the annual production of meat. By doing this the meat industry would not be upset (which is a big political consideration for the government at the time), and farmers won't go out of business. Of course this wont reduce meat consumption, which is one of davyd's issues.

I think the Howard government is finally realising that the drought is coming to stay, now that they are offering big financial packages for farmers who leave the land to go to the city, of course it could be an election stunt, they seem to be throwing money everywhere at the moment (including $1m per day in tv advertising propaganda).

I should add that I love meat, so my response should be considered as having such a bias.

Chris m (posting anon because i don't have a live journal account)

(Reply to this)

Article in my opinion is biased
(Anonymous)
2007-11-12 07:29 am UTC (link)

Davyd,
Firstly, thanks for the blog and the work you do in the gnome/linux arena. In regards to this article though, you might want to do some research into how much methane production comes from rice production... Apparently it's on par with the methane emissions that farming land animals produce. Not to say that land animal production is good to the environment (it isn't). The only reason I mention this is that the "Vegetarianism is the new prius" article has been all over the internet as a justification for anti land animal discussions (and obviously the furthering of pro-vegetarianism agendas). Most don't choose to research anymore, they just read one article and have a new view on life. If only it were that easy. Below is a link detailing methane emissions from rice production (published 1993).
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-032/004-032.html
Personally I do think there are too many people on the planet and population growth is currently unsustainable. I also think nature will provide the solution (think plague). And on that happy note, I'm out.

Regards,
Plug

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs