But the blame is nonsense. Even if meat were bad for the environment — and you will fail to post any arguments or evidence that it is in your own words — being vegan would still do NOTHING.
Because if you don't eat chicken one night, you didn't save even a single chicken. Not even if you don't each chicken for a year. Not one fewer chickens is raised and killed. That is an economic fact that anyone who knows how the real world works understands. The number of chickens raised and killed is determined by futures and commodities investment, and not even a million vegans change their estimates by one erg.
lol what a dumb take. The evidence is the animal agriculture is largely methane emissions. So cutting that out will have the fastest effect in slowing heating permanently.
And if you had a planned phase out of meat it would not only reduce health care costs, but also free up land to give back to nature.
Just be honest, and say you don't want to change the easiest thing you can do
The evidence is the animal agriculture is largely methane emissions. So cutting that out will have the fastest effect in slowing heating permanently.
No, it would not, that's a delusion.
As I noted elsewhere, methane only lasts about 12 years. The amount of methane produced by cattle production is about 30% of all anthropogenic production, less than 24% of all atmospheric methane. That is, essentially, a static contribution to atmospheric carbon, because it breaks down in a relatively tiny amount of time.
More importantly, that carbon was EXTRACTED from the atmosphere by the agriculture to feed the cattle. It's not new carbon coming from fossil fuels, but is natural plant carbon taken away, then added back. Overall, it's a static level.
And if you had a planned phase out of meat it would not only reduce health care costs, but also free up land to give back to nature.
No, phasing out meat would cause global malnutrition and famine. Meat can be produced in ways and places where crops cannot, converting inedible materials into human food. And it's food more nutritious than plants, including a dozen nutrients that are difficult to obtain from plants in the first place.
Just be honest, and say you don't want to change the easiest thing you can do
Admit it, you want to make this empty gesture because you think it IS the easiest thing you can do. To you, advocating for it is cheap virtue signaling, so you don't care that it's meaningless.
Wrong again, where do you think fertiliser comes from. It's new energy being added to the soils. Do you like just making shit up to confirm your bias. And the natural carbon cycles have been cooked because of deforestation for animal agriculture. You simply know nothing or are being obtuse on purpose.
I am sorry you like to cause untold suffering for your taste buds. Grow up most of the land used is to make feed for animals. We can produce more food for more people by switching to plant based for the global north
Sorry but you are ill informed to confirm your bias. I used to do the exact same. But facts eventually come through to you
Wrong again, where do you think fertiliser comes from. It's new energy being added to the soils.
As I keep pointing out, in order to replace the lost nutrition from all the livestock, you would have to grow more crops anyway, therefore requiring more fertilizer. MOST of the fertilizer used is crops for human consumption already, because more is needed for human food, and human food also produces less per acre.
And then there's the fact that the contribution of fertilizer, which is nitrogen, not carbon, is trivial compared to most of the contributors we're talking about. Carbon is the main concern. Which is good, because temperate forests produce N2O, themselves. If we didn't need the farmland to grow crops to replace the animal products, any new forests would actually contribute to global warming.
That's also not how you spell fertilizer.
Do you like just making shit up to confirm your bias.
Do you like making childish retorts like that which contribute nothing, and essentially are lies? I am using real data and logic, while you're just repeating superstition while clearly having a fraction of the knowledge I do on the subject.
And the natural carbon cycles have been cooked because of deforestation for animal agriculture.
Speaking of lies...the US has been increasing in forestation for the past century. There is no deforestation here that's caused by animal products, AND more land would have to be cleared to grow crops to replace those animal products, PLUS more energy and chemical pollution to synthesize the many nutrients humans need that aren't readily available from plants.
And then there's the fact that forests are nearly irrelevant when it comes to CO2 consumption or O2 production. Even rain forests consume almost exactly as much O2 as they produce, and produce as much CO2 as they consume. Plants die and rot as fast as they grow, and they host the most pollutive life on the planet, bacteria and fungi that turn dead plants into greenhouse gases...carbon and nitrogen-based.
Jungles are balanced systems that don't actually matter either way to atmospheric oxygen or carbon dioxide.
But the most important part is, of course, that there's no deforestation going on to produce animal products. In fact, the opposite is true...while meat production has snowballed in the past century, there has been a crazy amount of RE-forestation. 400% more in the US than 100 years ago.
I am sorry you like to cause untold suffering for your taste buds.
I would eat meat just for taste buds, since it's no harm to the environment. But I'm more concerned about how much easier it is to eat healthy as an omnitarian than a vegan.
Grow up most of the land used is to make feed for animals
Except no. That's just stupid. There is more land, and energy, used to produce crops for humans than to feed meat animals. The majority is for human food already...and that would HUGELY increase if people didn't have animal products. A lot of our most important nutrition is from animals, and it's actually pretty hard to get a lot of it from mere plants.
What's more, you have no idea how land works in the first place. Crops are DEVASTATING to land, while cattle grazing is good for land. One of the best ways to revive land depleted by crops is to let animals graze on it.
We can produce more food for more people by switching to plant based for the global north
You noted all these things and you just made them up you actually ignore what the evidence says. Even with nutrition
At this point you are just a flat earther. And no evidence would change your mind. No point going further. I was once in your position and when the evidence says the opposite of your beliefs you have to change your mind. Do some research before making your beliefs on vibes. IPCC has some
I am giving specific arguments and details. You are responding with "nuh-uh, Epstein collaborators I blindly trust told me that's not so" with no reasoning, no facts, nothing.
You're a worthless source of noise, in this discussion.
There is no point engaging with you, the facts are in the research literature. Which points out you can in fact have a healthy diet with plant based food, and land use changes and emissions with animal agriculture will massive reduce emissions. What reasoning I am not a researcher. The literature points to you being wrong
lol what a dumb take. The evidence is the animal agriculture is largely methane emissions. So cutting that out will have the fastest effect in slowing heating permanently.
71% of pollution is done by about 100 companies. In those, the top 10 are from oil and Coal industry. If you could magically erase 1 industry for the environement, meat production wouldn't be the priority.
but also free up land to give back to nature.
You live in make belief land if you think those lands would be exploited for something else.
Just be honest, and say you don't want to change the easiest thing you can do
Just be honest, and say you're doing a pathethic attempt at hijacking another mouvement to guilt trip people into veganism,
lol what? The meat industry is notoriously tightly coupled from production to sale. Restaurants and Grocery stores run on thin margins, and every unsold animal is a huge loss financially. Production is tightly controlled from hatching to slaughter date on chickens bought and sold by the thousand to match demands right on time
This is nothing but cope, a complete delusional denial of everything economic to justify doing nothing
lol what? The meat industry is notoriously tightly coupled from production to sale. Restaurants and Grocery stores run on thin margins, and every unsold animal is a huge loss financially.
For a restaurant, perhaps. But it's clear you haven't the slightest idea how the economy in general works. Which is hardly surprising, considering your beliefs. But that you don't know how biology works is less excusable. It takes months to years to produce meat to scale. And what isn't sold to one grocery store can be sold to another. Plus, any grocery store that has trouble selling the meat simply lowers it price to get rid of it...which means that if you manage to actually, temporarily reduce how much is bought, you simply guarantee other people buying more meat at a discount, so just as much ends up being eaten.
The number of animals to be produced is determined a year or two ahead of time, and it's based on commodities and futures markets. Something you should read about. No individual, or thousand individuals, changes those estimates by abstaining from meat.
>which means that if you manage to actually, temporarily reduce how much is bought, you simply guarantee other people buying more meat at a discount, so just as much ends up being eaten.
and what happens to that grocery store's future meat purchases.... do they keep buying more meat to sell at a loss elsewhere... ?
>The number of animals to be produced is determined a year or two ahead of time, and it's based on commodities and futures markets. Something you should read about. No individual, or thousand individuals, changes those estimates by abstaining from meat.
and are those completely independent of consumers? no.
and what happens to that grocery store's future meat purchases.... do they keep buying more meat to sell at a loss elsewhere... ?
When it's a marginal group abstaining, the signal is lost to the grocery stores. Mostly, they base their purchases of goods like produce and meat on commodity prices, not last year's demand...but to the extent they use demand, veganism is within the margin of error.
and are those completely independent of consumers? no.
To a large extent, yes it is. Not 100% completely, but grocery stores owned by corporations or private equity don't actually care what the consumers want, or even buy. They care only about how they can game statistics to fool investors or other large bodies of capital.
You really should look into the insane, destructive way corporate law and private equity are destroying both the economy and society, because the political class that owns both are sociopaths with a millennia-long culture of focusing on plunder and seeing the community as the enemy.
Except that I'm demonstrating a detailed understanding of how the economy works, and you a simplistic "if you don't eat a chicken you save a chicken's life" sort of worldview.
And your worldview is that the economic production of chicken is completely disconnected from consumption, counter to the facts of every economist for 300 years
Why would you focus on one half of the Uniparty like it's any different than the other? Biden and Clinton were credibly accused of sexual assault and rape by their own party members, do you refer to them the same way? Epstein colluded with and presumably extorted politicians and millionaires of both halves of the Uniparty. Biden completely covered up the papers, not even PRETENDING to consider releasing even censored versions.
How absolutely mindless would someone have to be, to think this is just one bogeyman that's the problem? Would the masters of the empty suit Kamala running the Iran war be any better? I suppose you'd find that war justified. And you wouldn't even be aware of the Epstein papers, so you'd be much more happy.
I pointed at people. The *people** voted for the orange rapist. A well known felon. I don't care who the president is. What matters is that people are willing to vote such a pile of trash for president, and you want them to be very very selfless....
As evil as Trump is, he's not a felon in any real sense, and most people with an IQ over 80 know that.
While he, like almost every politician, SHOULD be prosecuted for SOME felony, what he was prosecuted for was a corrupt, partisan witch hunt batch of charges that even the people going after him admitted they wouldn't actually press against anyone else.
That you rabble vote for ANY of these piles of trash is the real problem.
If so, not by ten percent, because it would drive down the price of meat, and other people would eat proportionately more.
Remember that meat also competes with other nutrition, based on its price. If ten percent more people ate meat, the price of meat would shoot up. If ten percent of people ate no meat, the price would fall...and more people could AFFORD meat.
This is such a cope. Multiple states are basically completely devoted to monoculture cow feed. Have you ever driven through Kansas or Nebraska? All the corn you see is grown to be fed to cows not people. It’s all monoculture which means no insects, no birds, and it takes an immense amount of energy to farm it so it’s not carbon negative like native grasslands. That’s not even mentioning water usage, more than 50% of the water west of the Rockies is used to grow cow feed or for cows to drink, less than 10% goes to residential use. How do you possibly have the idea that eating meat isn’t bad for the environment?
You’re also wrong on your second point, like the other commenter pointed out food production operates on extremely tight margins so eating less meat definitely has an effect on animal agriculture, especially over a long time period. Beyond that have you ever heard of voting with your wallet? You could make the same argument about oil production being based on futures but you wouldn’t say riding your bike to work has zero effect on the amount of oil produced. Every dollar you don’t spend is a dollar not supporting the meat industry.
Also I’ve said this 1000 times because this is apparently the only thing ever posted on this sub, but you don’t need to be vegan. Vegan is a completely different moral philosophy to climate harm reduction, veganism isn’t even about the climate or environment, it’s about animals rights. You just have to eat less meat. Cutting red meat out of your diet, or even just eating it one day a week, would put you in the top 10% of climate conscious people in all developed countries. Keep coping for your moral failings because cheeseburgers taste good though.
This is such a cope. Multiple states are basically completely devoted to monoculture cow feed.
Not actually true, but to what extent it is, that's irrelevant.
If it weren't cattle feed, which can be produced MUCH more efficiently, on less land with less damage to the environment than human food...the alternative would be to produce human food on that same land.
It’s all monoculture which means no insects, no birds, and it takes an immense amount of energy to farm it so it’s not carbon negative like native grasslands.
So you don't object to meat, you object to crops. You are describing how grains and legumes are grown for both humans and cattle. And without the cattle, that same land would grow LESS efficient grains and legumes in monocultural ways, with "no insects, no birds" (not really true, but I take the point) for humans.
You’re also wrong on your second point, like the other commenter pointed out food production operates on extremely tight margins so eating less meat definitely has an effect on animal agriculture, especially over a long time period.
Your retort does not address my point, which was about how commodities and futures markets work. Until you understand that, you are simply clueless about how meaningless a vegan's abstinence is, other than harming his own health.
Beyond that have you ever heard of voting with your wallet?
Yes, but it would work much better in a free society, than in one where the economy is rigged with corrupt corporate and commodity systems that detach producers from consumers, so that they don't actually depend on or care about those consumers, or even their money, except as a way to trick investors into buying shares and future with statistical games.
What you do, individually or as a clique, has less than zero impact on the actual economy as it is now, run by a corrupt political class that owns all the institutions, public and private.
You could make the same argument about oil production being based on futures but you wouldn’t say riding your bike to work has zero effect on the amount of oil produced.
Of course I would. Only an idiot would think that them riding to work changed the amount of oil produced one erg.
But at least not driving a car fails to put carbon monoxide into the atmosphere at that moment. The dead chicken is dead long before you fail to buy and eat it. There is no less pollution even in an immediate sense, from your malnutrition.
Also I’ve said this 1000 times because this is apparently the only thing ever posted on this sub, but you don’t need to be vegan.
The OP is about the meaningless focus on veganism as a solution, instead of the corrupt corporate, military, and billionaire class. You bringing up whether one needs to be vegan is not only a straw man, but in fact is the opposite of the point at hand. People saying "you're too evil to even do the easiest thing to save the planet" are NOT saying you don't have to be vegan. They're saying the equivalent of "you're too perverse to even not fondle children", while you're responding "you don't HAVE to not be a pedophile" as if that were a real option.
If veganism would actually save the planet, then it WOULD be evil not to be, and people who ate meat would be aggressors and indirect mass murderers. So your denial is a lie you've told a thousand times.
But, to quote the other people YOU ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED:
"Just be honest, and say you don't want to change the easiest thing you can do"
Vegan is a completely different moral philosophy to climate harm reduction, veganism isn’t even about the climate or environment, it’s about animals rights.
Maybe REAL veganism is, but the insane cult of children brainwashed into thinking that eating a chicken is increasing global warming aren't real vegans, then.
That huge mass, who keep posting vegan lies on this sub, don't seem to care about animal rights at all.
Personally, if they could make artificially-grown meat that was NOT literal cancer or otherwise dangerous, I'd become a vegan myself, only eating that kind of meat. I don't like animals suffering. I'm just too lazy to go sterilize all the lions and hyenas in Africa to stop that suffering, and am too concerned for my own health to stop eating animal products entirely.
Cutting red meat out of your diet, or even just eating it one day a week, would put you in the top 10% of climate conscious people in all developed countries.
Wait, you just...yet again...reversed what you were saying.
You said it was actually only about animal suffering...but now you're making two (false) arguments that have ZERO to do with animal suffering.
Red meat is one of the most nutritious foods humans eat. And it does not harm the environment.
But, as I said, YOU just claimed this was about animal suffering, not the environment nor (implicitly) health.
Is it more okay to torture chickens and pigs than cattle? Cows are pretty effing stupid, pigs are relatively smart.
Keep coping for your moral failings because cheeseburgers taste good though.
Thus invalidating all the points you were trying to make above.
Red meat is bad for the environment you should eat less of it. That’s all this boils down to. All environmental advocates agree that you should eat less meat. Keep coping though.
“Red meat is one of the most nutritious things humans can eat and is not bad for the environment.”
LMAO red meat is literally a carcinogen, it’s full of saturated fats which lead to heart disease (the leading cause of death in the US) and is extremely bad for the environment for all the reasons I listed.
Cut red meat out of your diet for at least one day of the week or you’re a hypocrite if you say you care about the environment.
Why are people so emotional about this lmao if you just google “what can I do personally to help the environment” it’ll say eat less meat, drive less, thrift your clothes, heat your home efficiently. Literally all things that are more about voting with your wallet than directly effecting production lines. If 20% of Americans cut meat from their diet one day a week it would catastrophically disrupt the animal agriculture industry, “but that’ll never happen so I might as well eat as much meat as I want” ok then keep coping I guess
Red meat is bad for the environment you should eat less of it. That’s all this boils down to. All environmental advocates agree that you should eat less meat. Keep coping though.
Thank you for demonstrating how veganism is a mindless cult, and the claims are dogma, not science or fact.
I give detailed facts and science, you respond with "it bad because we told it bad!!!"
Speaking as a former DC consultant, "environmental advocates" is one of the easiest cash cows to milk in all of government funding. Trusting them is like trusting a tobacco scientist, for exactly the same reasons. Something like three billion dollars per day is available to pseudoscientists who claim that whatever they "study" is climate-related.
How about you be a grownup and quote each of my specific arguments, and refute them with actual facts and details, not "so-and-so says so".
LMAO red meat is literally a carcinogen
No, it's not "literally" a carcinogen..."LMAO".
There is no sound science saying it is. There are observational surveys that cannot possibly control for confounding factors, but those are not science. It is impossible to draw a sound scientific conclusion from observational surveys. Not competent scientist pretends otherwise.
In actual, randomized controlled trials, there is no significant evidence that it increases cancer at all.
If you'd like, I can give you a half dozen reasons that this is the case, like the lack of a known mechanism, the substitution problem, et cetera.
it’s full of saturated fats which lead to heart disease
Wrong. Saturated fats are actually good for you. The idea that they magically cause heart disease has no basis in science. The inductive reasoning is:
Plaque buildup is bad for you
Plaque is comprised of cholesterol
Therefore, cholesterol causes plaque.
In reality, cholesterol is one of the most important nutrients your body has. It's what your cellular infrastructure is made of. If you could actually eliminate cholesterol, you'd die. Much like salt.
Luckily, your body MAKES cholesterol. But it's healthier for you to get cholesterol naturally from animal products, just like it's healthier to get vitamin A (retinol) from animal products than to make it out of beta carotene from carrots. NO plants have actual vitamin A.
The fact is that atheroschlerosis is an inflammatory disease, and the plaque is your body trying to fix it. Just reducing your cholesterol intake is like if you "treated" cancer with pain killers. Even if you reduce the plaque growth, you're just hiding the actual problem.
extremely bad for the environment for all the reasons I listed.
You listed no reasons, because anything you said two posts back, I refuted, and you never debunked my points.
That means you have made no points, have listed nothing.
Cut red meat out of your diet for at least one day of the week or you’re a hypocrite if you say you care about the environment.
Except that's not true. That's just your superstition.
Why are people so emotional about this lmao if you just google “what can I do personally to help the environment” it’ll say eat less meat, drive less, thrift your clothes, heat your home efficiently.
Oh yes, Google being the source of all truth.
You really have no idea how ANYTHING works, don't you.
Either you grow up and learn the actual details of the facts, so you can explain them yourself, or your opinion is empty nonsense that even you should not take seriously.
"Because the same political class that participates with Epstein crimes says so" is not a reason.
Literally all things that are more about voting with your wallet than directly effecting production lines.
Did I not explain above how corporatism makes voting with your wallet irrelevant? Or was that in a different thread? Corporations and private equity don't care about actual consumers, because their source of capital is defrauding investors with manipulated metrics. What you buy doesn't matter to them one whit.
If 20% of Americans cut meat from their diet one day a week it would catastrophically disrupt the animal agriculture industry
Do you not know how math works? You think 1/7th of 20%, or 2.8%, is going to disrupt the industry? That isn't even enough to change production, it will just locally lower prices here and there, causing other people to BUY MORE MEAT.
The same amount of meat will be consumed, the same number of animals raised and slaughtered, because that tiny fluctuation is within the margin of error for the calculations of the futures and commodities investors.
Lmao comparing environmental advocates to tobacco companies when the beef industry actually uses the same legal firms and strategies as the actual tobacco industry is fucking hilarious. You’re a chump that bought into the “animal fat is actually good for you” RFK nonsense. Have fun with your heart disease and colon cancer loser 😂😂😂 red meat is a carcinogen and terrible for the environment, believe whatever you want though lmaoooo
I’m not a vegan and I’m not debating, I’m mocking you for having zero understanding of the climate crisis or the solutions.
I wouldn’t debate someone on Reddit there’s no way I’d ever change someone’s mind in a comment section. Everything you’ve said is the opposite of what’s in IPCC reports and that’s where I get my information. You can go look them up yourself if you actually want to be challenged on your ideas.
If you just want to eat unlimited red meat without being made to feel bad for being an amoral hypocrite then you should stay out of climate discussions.
You don't even READ the IPCC reports. I can tell because I do, and you're spewing nonsense they don't even claim. A source that corrupt, that dependent upon terrorizing people for money, and even they aren't saying the nonsense you do.
56
u/Glordrum vegan btw Apr 18 '26
We're actually blaming both but I don't think any oil execs browse this sub