Climate change and human responsibility

[Azure]

Again, it is simply impossible nor do we have the time to start telling people to make individual choices in order to slow or reduce the amount of carbon we emit.

I think you should really look into the research being done to continually lower the emissions created from livestock production. You would probably be surprised.

In fact, proper farming methods are key to sequestering massive amounts of C02 each year, and are much more practical as a solution to what we are facing then 'eat less meat people.'

A lot of those changes are pushed through on the policy level, not the individual one.

[Ozy_Flame]

We don't have time to tell people to start making individual choices? What? How long does it take to tell someone? No wonder you think 'why bother' with anything if China and India aren't doing it. Defeatism at it's worst.

I'll mention it one more time - change starts with the individual and bubbles upward. Carbon taxes and environmental policy are implemented by people motivated to do better. You need to accept this as the root of human ingenuity, cultural change, and community growth. Societal change happens when individuals make rational choices to implement it, and use social mechanisms to achieve it on a macro-level scale.

Now, if you have fantastic research on hand regarding livestock production and how it's less of a footprint than other dietary sources, I'd be happy to see data and science. Please provide the links to the research you are referring to.

[Azure]

It must be hard for you to wrap your head around the difference between policy changes that legislate things into effect like carbon taxes, energy production, transportation changes, etc, and a public message telling people to 'eat less meat.'

As for the research, it is quite clear that you haven't bothered to do a single bit of research on this subject, which is strange considering your dumb take on the matter. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Roehe's work shows that genetics can predict which animals will have the right microbe cocktail to produce the least methane. In other words, you can breed low-methane-producing cattle.

"We are predicting that we reduce methane by 50%," Roehe said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cows-me...ons-gas-study/

AgResearch’s aim is to develop this vaccine, along with other anti-methane methods, in an effort to allow us to continue eating meat and dairy products while lessening the impact the livestock industry has on the environment. Beef without blame, you might say; and cheese with a clear conscience.

But vaccination isn’t the only idea for cleaning up cows’ breath. Animals vary in their output of methane, and some at least of this variation is attributable to genetic differences. Eileen Wall, head of research at Scotland’s Rural College, explains that this offers scope for selective breeding for animals that produce less methane. She sees this not as something to be done in isolation, but as part of a wider breeding programme to develop healthier and more efficient sheep and cows – both these attributes also reduce the greenhouse gases generated per unit of meat and milk.

“Over the past 20 years we’ve already reduced the environmental footprint of milk and meat production in the UK by 20%,” she says. Breeding for low methane would simply be an add-on to existing programmes. She and her colleagues are experimenting with methods of doing just this.

Another alternative is to feed animals on a diet less to the liking of the archaea. This can be partially effective, says Phil Garnsworthy, who specialises in dairy cow nutrition at the University of Nottingham, so long as it continues to allow the animals to go on producing milk and meat.

“You can probably reduce methane by about 20-25% by altering diet,” he says. One study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, estimated it might be possible to reduce global methane emissions from cows by 15% by changing their diet. But Garnsworthy believes more may be possible. In the UK, he says, farmers mainly use grass-based silage.

“If you changed just to maize-based silage you might see a drop in methane production of 10%.”

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...-cow-emissions

Better breeding, genetics and nutrition have increased the efficiency of livestock production in the U.S. In the 1970s, 140 million head of cattle were needed to meet demand. Now, just 90 million head are required. At the same time, those 90 million cattle are producing more meat.

“We’re now feeding more people with fewer cattle,” Mitloehner said.

Researchers at UC Davis have projects in Vietnam, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso to boost livestock productivity through better nutrition. That may be critical going forward as demand for meat is rising in developing countries.

Kebreab, Mitloehner and other UC Davis scientists are looking for ways to make cows more sustainable and less gassy. One way to do that is to make their high-fiber diet easier to digest, so scientists often turn to feed supplements for this purpose. It sounds simple, but finding an affordable and nutritious additive has proved difficult.

However, Kebreab has succeeded in finding such a supplement by feeding dairy cattle a plant way off the trough menu: seaweed.

“We’ve done one trial and showed that there is up to a 60 percent reduction in methane emissionsby using 1 percent of seaweed in the diet,” Kebreab said. “This is a very surprising and promising development.”

https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/ma...re-sustainable

Meat consumption is rising across the globe, particularly in developing countries as they acquire more wealth, meaning that animal agriculture will likely continue to be part of a global diet. According to Mitloehner and others, it’s likely here to stay and necessary. Eliminating all cattle isn’t a realistic solution, so researchers in Mitloehner’s lab are working to reduce livestock’s methane emissions and impact on the environment. According to Mitloehner, the answers can be found in the world’s farmers modeling the efficiency advances American farmers have been making for decades. That is, increasing outputs while holding inputs steady. In addition, research into feed that will make cattle less gassy is proving itself promising.

Keeping animal agriculture’s methane emissions constant over time puts animal agriculture on the path to climate neutrality. Furthermore – and this is key – if the sector can reduce the level of methane emissions today by more than 10 percent, they will be contributing to global cooling. The reason is simple. Less methane means the natural carbon cycle is actively pulling from the stockpile of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Hence, the cooling effect.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/metha...imate-solution

Synthetic chemicals, such as antibiotics, are sometimes used to improve the efficiency of feed conversion in cattle, although it is not a recommended practice to use these additives to reduce methane emissions. There are legislative restrictions and human health concerns about using antibiotics as growth promotants in livestock.

There is potential for natural compounds and materials to reduce methane production in livestock, though these products have not been widely commercialised. Feeding one type of seaweed at 3% of the diet has resulted in up to 80% reduction in methane emissions from cattle.

Fats and oils show the most potential for practical application to farming systems and have shown methane emission reductions of 15–20%.

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-...feed-additives

And lastly, switching to plant based diets on the individual level. does not necessarily corollate with a big decrease in overall emissions despite the ruh rah about meat is bad.

Plant-based diets, researchers find, are cheaper than those that include meat. As a result, people often end up spending their money on things that use energy, like consumer products. This phenomenon is known as the rebound effect. If consumers respent their saved income on consumer goods, which require energy, the net energy savings would only be .07 percent, and the net carbon reduction just 2 percent. [47]

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...restry-sectors

From the same article.

Meat production roughly doubled in the United States since the early 1960s, and yet greenhouse gas emissions from livestock declined by 11 percent during the same period.[54] Producing a pound of beef in the U.S. today requires one-third less land, one-fifth less feed, and 30 percent fewer animals as the 1970s.[55]
.
American cow milk production in the U.S. today requires 90 percent as much land and 79 percent fewer animals as it did in 1944.[56] Fewer animals means two-thirds less methane, a potent greenhouse gas, per glass of milk today as compared to 1950.[57]

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...restry-sectors

Also, people have naturally been switching to eating more chicken, and there is nothing wrong with incentivizing that on a policy level. Chicken is generally healthier anyways, and MUCH easier to raise.

The problem here is thinking that 'telling' people to do something will actually result in any kind of significant change. There is no way we change anything without actual policy.

As an example, if the 1% seaweed in a diet equals 80% less methane emissions from cows, there is no reason the government could not start mandating that in areas where such a diet is readily possible.

Also, plant based foods are definitely growing. The world's largest pea processing facility just opened up in Manitoba, and by and large there is significant investment into that part of the industry. Reason for this? Government incentives within Manitoba to encourage more pea production. A lot of the byproducts of this plant will be used in the making of plant based foods like the impossible burger, whereas previously many of this ingredients were being brought in from France and other countries.

Policy based decisions to incentivize agriculture production to produce less carbon would be the smart approach, and given how bloody successful the North American agriculture industry is at becoming more efficient, I am almost certain it could be accomplished.

But simply telling people to buy the plant based burger? Meh, probably not going to get anywhere.

[Ozy_Flame]

Thanks for sending all the stuff. Unfortunately although most of those links demonstrate long-term reduction, livestock production still has far more intensive results than a non-meat diet. The carbon footprints of livestock consumption continues to be one of the most CO2 intensive methods of farming and agriculture. And in fact, personal choice at the grocery store is one of the best ways to make a statement. The almighty dollar speaks volumes to lower emissions in this industry. If you have sources on how livestock production can realistically compete with plant-based diets on a per capita emissions output basis, I'd be happy to listen.

Unfortunately you're still dead wrong on telling people to do something without policy. Good example? COVID-19 vaccinations. The majority of our country got them voluntarily without any mandated policy to do so. Why? Because people trust the science. Another one? Smoking. The majority of Canadian's don't smoke, and it's not because smoking is illegal. It's because they trust the science that smoking is bad. So really, your whole point about people need policy to change is just not true. For some things, sure - but people who see the negative effects of things like infections and diseases and understand the consequences of these make rational decisions. People can - and do - apply the same logic to things that have environmental consequences, and take personal responsibility for their actions that perpetuate that.

I must say though, that your response is quite thorough, and with the personal insults you included, you are really a dedicated meat lover and internet warrior!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

We don't have time to tell people to start making individual choices? What? How long does it take to tell someone? No wonder you think 'why bother' with anything if China and India aren't doing it. Defeatism at it's worst.

I'll mention it one more time - change starts with the individual and bubbles upward. Carbon taxes and environmental policy are implemented by people motivated to do better. You need to accept this as the root of human ingenuity, cultural change, and community growth. Societal change happens when individuals make rational choices to implement it, and use social mechanisms to achieve it on a macro-level scale.

Now, if you have fantastic research on hand regarding livestock production and how it's less of a footprint than other dietary sources, I'd be happy to see data and science. Please provide the links to the research you are referring to.

I think people have far less agency to create change.

A society is governed by economic and social forces beyond any individuals control and any actions to try to generate change likely fail given how much money is spent on driving certain behavioural outcomes.

In general it will be technology that drives change not people.

And even when people are successful at gaining influence I think who they are is fairly random. Someone like Greta now has influence but it’s mostly random chance that she has the stage she now has.

Individual actions don’t overcome the weight of the machine. I’ve been reading far too much Isaac Asimov lately and tend to side with Hunan beings being gas molecules much more than individual actors with ability to control outcomes.

Technology rather than sacrifice will drive success.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Thanks for sending all the stuff. Unfortunately although most of those links demonstrate long-term reduction, livestock production still has far more intensive results than a non-meat diet. The carbon footprints of livestock consumption continues to be one of the most CO2 intensive methods of farming and agriculture. And in fact, personal choice at the grocery store is one of the best ways to make a statement. The almighty dollar speaks volumes to lower emissions in this industry. If you have sources on how livestock production can realistically compete with plant-based diets on a per capita emissions output basis, I'd be happy to listen.

Unfortunately you're still dead wrong on telling people to do something without policy. Good example? COVID-19 vaccinations. The majority of our country got them voluntarily without any mandated policy to do so. Why? Because people trust the science. Another one? Smoking. The majority of Canadian's don't smoke, and it's not because smoking is illegal. It's because they trust the science that smoking is bad. So really, your whole point about people need policy to change is just not true. For some things, sure - but people who see the negative effects of things like infections and diseases and understand the consequences of these make rational decisions. People can - and do - apply the same logic to things that have environmental consequences, and take personal responsibility for their actions that perpetuate that.

I must say though, that your response is quite thorough, and with the personal insults you included, you are really a dedicated meat lover and internet warrior!

I think here's the crux of why I feel simply asking individuals to make the difference is bad policy:

Three-quarters (77%) of Canadians agree that human activities contribute to climate change. On the other hand, as many as one in ten (11%) do not believe that human activities have any meaningful impact on our climate.

Canadians love their meat, as fewer than three in ten (28% vs. 41% globally) say they would eat less meat in order to limit their own contribution to climate change, a figure which edges out only Australia (27%), the United States (27%), and Japan (23%). The same holds true for dairy, as just two in ten (22% vs. 35% globally) would eat and drink fewer dairy products in order to limit their contribution to climate change.

Just one in four (24%) Canadians are willing to avoid flying for the betterment of the environment, a figure which not only tracks well below the global average (41%) but is lowest, among all countries surveyed. Alas, Canadians want to see their government act on climate change, yet many do not want to have to take any actions of their own, to help the cause.

And this is pretty consistent everywhere. People by their nature are comsumption-aholics.


https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-and...As-Coronavirus



As for your smoking analogy, the real reason for the declines is policy not personal agency. That's been borne out in the data.

I don't think people choosing greener options is a bad idea, I just don't think waiting for that to happen will make industrial emissions drop at all

[Ozy_Flame]

Swing and a miss. That makes two who are are missing my point.

The smoking bit though, please do indulge me.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Swing and a miss. That makes two who are are missing my point.

The smoking bit though, please do indulge me.

I think I see your point now and we're doing the chicken and egg thing.



Decent summary here:

https://voxeu.org/article/impact-tob...tiation-europe

[CliffFletcher]

I don’t think we should expect individual private citizens to voluntarily make sacrifices to their lifestyles in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, governments should make it clear to the public that the changes we need to make to how our economies and societies function - changes that governments will have to mandate - will make our activities and purchases costlier across the board. If they try to pretend it will be a painless transition, the public backlash will all the stronger when it happens.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Thanks for sending all the stuff. Unfortunately although most of those links demonstrate long-term reduction, livestock production still has far more intensive results than a non-meat diet. The carbon footprints of livestock consumption continues to be one of the most CO2 intensive methods of farming and agriculture. And in fact, personal choice at the grocery store is one of the best ways to make a statement. The almighty dollar speaks volumes to lower emissions in this industry. If you have sources on how livestock production can realistically compete with plant-based diets on a per capita emissions output basis, I'd be happy to listen.

Unfortunately you're still dead wrong on telling people to do something without policy. Good example? COVID-19 vaccinations. The majority of our country got them voluntarily without any mandated policy to do so. Why? Because people trust the science. Another one? Smoking. The majority of Canadian's don't smoke, and it's not because smoking is illegal. It's because they trust the science that smoking is bad. So really, your whole point about people need policy to change is just not true. For some things, sure - but people who see the negative effects of things like infections and diseases and understand the consequences of these make rational decisions. People can - and do - apply the same logic to things that have environmental consequences, and take personal responsibility for their actions that perpetuate that.

I must say though, that your response is quite thorough, and with the personal insults you included, you are really a dedicated meat lover and internet warrior!

COVID is a perfect example of why 'telling' people to do something won't work.

We literally had to legislate policy to try and force people to get vaccinated in order to protect our health care system and save lives. We are seeing this throughout the entire world.

Thanks for proving your own point wrong.

[GGG]

One thing missing is that the further the consequence of an action is from the action itself the less incentivizing it is to act.

People don’t intentionally touch hot stoves because the consequence is immediate.
People choose to smoke because the immediate consequence of pleasure is greater than the long term addiction

Choosing to cut ghgs as an individual carries no benefit short or long term. There is no incentive therefore it’s not a rational choice at the individual level. What we are asking people to do is cut emissions based on the hope that their action will influence others.

This is a tragedy of the commons, the only logical individual response is to use the commons before your neighbours do.

[Ozy_Flame]

I see that degree from upstairs weekend college in doubling-down is proving useful to you!

The mental gymnastics on display here is truly amazing.

There was no law to force vaccinations. The majority of people got it willingly and their own volition. Laws in place to round up the stragglers who think they don't need to participate, much like why laws exist - The minority of people in a society need enforcement.

Christ, I don't know how many crayons are needed to draw this out for you.

I do commend you though, because usually right-wingers like yourself are the ones championing personal freedoms and strapping your own boots with no government help. Color me impressed.

[Azure]

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, enough people still didn't get vaccinated in order to make an actual difference. Alberta was what, 50% before it was mandated?

You can find similar situations across the world. But keep on telling everyone that if we'd just go around and politely ask people to stop eating meat (since you wrongly think that is where we should draw the line in the sand in order to save the planet) that they will actually listen.

The mental gymnastics are being done in your own head since your completely dumb and ridiculous point has been thoroughly proven wrong multiple times.

But hey, lets start with the labeling now.

[Ozy_Flame]

What was mandated? The vaccines? Vaccinations are not mandatory for Canadians. WTF are you smoking? The clear majority of Albertans and Canadians got their vaccinations willingly as they came available over 2021.

You have yet to refute the carbon footprint of livestock consumption is better or at least competitive with plant-based diets. Your links did not prove any of that.

You have lost this argument long ago when you couldn't provide evidence of this.

Like arguing with a bratty child at this point.

Hush.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thing missing is that the further the consequence of an action is from the action itself the less incentivizing it is to act.

People don’t intentionally touch hot stoves because the consequence is immediate.
People choose to smoke because the immediate consequence of pleasure is greater than the long term addiction

Choosing to cut ghgs as an individual carries no benefit short or long term. There is no incentive therefore it’s not a rational choice at the individual level. What we are asking people to do is cut emissions based on the hope that their action will influence others.

This is a tragedy of the commons, the only logical individual response is to use the commons before your neighbours do.

Nevermind the fact that it is simply impossible to make enough changes on an individual level that would actually make ANY difference when it comes to emissions levels.

The whole 'people should shower less, eat less meat, walk more, build smaller, consume less' is just stupidity being parroted by the elites while they bankroll dirty coal and make sure the fossil fuel industry stays propped up.

All they serve as are a nice distraction that the middle & lower class is at fault for the planet warming, since they are the ones that would most affected by those completely boneheaded and stupid individual choices.

Sad that people actually fall for it. Even more sad that they double down and insist 'omg people eat less meat or i'm going to die. '

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What was mandated? The vaccines? Vaccinations are not mandatory for Canadians. WTF are you smoking?

You have yet to refute the carbon footprint of livestock consumption is better or at least competitive with plant-based diets. Your links did not prove any of that.

You have lost this argument long ago when you couldn't provide evidence of this.

Like arguing with a bratty child at this point.

Hush.

Your argument was that people went and got vaccinated without government policy basically forcing them in that direction. You are wrong. Vaccine mandates were put in place to forcibly encourage people to get the jab because over 50% of people in many areas weren't going in that direction.

Many provinces with high vaccination rates have had vaccine mandates in place for a long time and there is a direct link between the mandates & increasing vaccination rates.

Considering this is a global issue, look at it from a global scale. Even in Europe they are having a tough time getting higher vaccine rates and have now opted to full and complete lockdowns & restrictions to prod people along.

The same can be said for telling people to make lifestyle choices on an individual level. Without legislation, it is useless.

[Ozy_Flame]

First of all, you need to stop with the gaslighting.

'omg people eat less meat or i'm going to die.'
- Azure

This just makes you look petty. No one is making this argument. Again, hush.

Second, there is no mandatory vaccine law. Again, the majority of Albertans and Canadians got their vaccines on their own volition. By June 2021, over 60% of Canadians had gotten the shot, and it would have been sooner had they been available earlier. There was no need to legislate they had to get it; people got it because they believed in the science.

Again, the majority of people don't need coercion. You create laws and enforcement for the stragglers, much like ANY law where the minority of society needs judicial intervention.

Of course it's not all or nothing when it comes to society. And no one is making that argument.

Honestly, my friend, step back and take a breath. You're doubling down, gaslighting, and embellishing but you have long since jumped the shark. Just, relax.

[PepsiFree]

It’s funny watching Azure argue in this thread that individual choice doesn’t matter and that encouraging people to make better individual choices for the environment is useless… while in the COVID thread he whines about the government not doing enough to encourage people to make healthier individual choices to reduce hospital strain.

“Individual choices? Well, only if it suits my argument!”

[Doctorfever]

I am not convinced that eating less beef will help with climate change. In fact, it might actually contribute to climate change.

Grasslands are one of nature’s best carbon sinks, beef graze on these grasslands. If we opt for more plant based foods, and less beef, the demand will require more grasslands are broke in favour of cultivated land. This can vastly reduce carbon capture. On top of that, in order to work the cultivated land, there is lots of fossil fuels used.

I know I won’t be feeling guilty when I pull some AAA T-bone steaks out of the freezer!!

Might head over the the bbq thread now!!

Enjoy your Alberta beef everyone!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I am not convinced that eating less beef will help with climate change. In fact, it might actually contribute to climate change.

Grasslands are one of nature’s best carbon sinks, beef graze on these grasslands. If we opt for more plant based foods, and less beef, the demand will require more grasslands are broke in favour of cultivated land. This can vastly reduce carbon capture. On top of that, in order to work the cultivated land, there is lots of fossil fuels used.

I know I won’t be feeling guilty when I pull some AAA T-bone steaks out of the freezer!!

Might head over the the bbq thread now!!

Enjoy your Alberta beef everyone!

Buy switching to plant base your net calories per acre of plowed land increases. So any increase in plowed land required would need to be driven by increased food demand.