Study: 100% of meat and dairy companies have lobbied against environmental and climate policies
medium.com
All 10 of the largest U.S. meat and dairy companies have lobbied against environmental and climate policies, resisting climate regulations, including rules on greenhouse gases and emissions reporting. This is according to a study by New York University, which examined the political influence of the 10 largest meat and dairy companies in the United States.
You are viewing a single comment
agriculture is only about 20% of global emissions, but I would be fine with it being 100%: we need to eat.
Except it's mostly animal agriculture that's destroying the planet. Animals are not at all efficient in converting crops to meat, dairy and eggs. It can take up to 16 kilograms of plants to create 1 kilogram of certain animal products. 77% of agricultural land is used to farm animals, despite it providing just 18% of the world's caloric intake. Researchers at the University of Oxford have found that if everyone went vegan, global farmland use could be reduced by 75%, the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined. Just imagine how much land could be rewilded.
And no, you absolutely don't need animal products in your diet to be healthy and thrive.
livestock mostly graze on plants we can't eat or are fed parts of plants that we can't or won't eat.
Globally livestock consume about 6 billion tonnes of feed annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. Producing 1 kg of boneless meat still requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
and most of this 86% could be converted to other uses, including human-edible feed.
what i said was true. what you said doesn't change that.
Yes it is true, but it still is a moot point because "producing 1 kg of boneless meat still requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed."
it's not moot. it's absolutely true.
I already told you it is true, but it means nothing. Animal agriculture is still an incredibly big part of the problem fucking up the planet right now. I think I have supplied you with enough data for that by now. Maybe read it?
it's cute that you think i dont read OWID
since all of agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions, and we need to eat, i disagree with your analysis.
You can disagree all you want, but climate scientists say it is so:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201603-plant-based-diets/
Perhaps you might want to start citing sources?
the study published july this year doesn't say what the fluff piece says it does. it says production of different products has different emmissions, and those consumed by vegans are lower. it doesn't say being vegan reduces the more harmful production levels.
why would i? cutting up yours is plenty of fun.
And this is where I stop communicating with you. Maybe you should reflect on why it is so important to you to be right about something that is so destructive to the planet. Something you want to deny, but don't want to supply any sources for. While at the same time every comment I have written you is backed by sources. You're an asshole.
i don't need to provide any sources, since you haven't actually provided any sources that support your claim.
You’re an asshole.
i just AM right. if i were wrong, i'd admit it.
neither of those studies support the thesis that it's "mostly animal agriculture that's destroying the planet"
you don't know what i or anyone else needs, so kindly stop patronizing.
It's not patronising. It is just stating a fact.
https://www.andeal.org/vault/2440/web/JADA_VEG.pdf
the american dietetic association no longer exists. it's now the academy of nutrition and dietetics. this is no longer their position.
I know they've changed their name, but they've not changed their position.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
that position expired 2 years ago.
people need more than nutrients.
Like what? What do people need that they can't get from a vegan diet?
some people might be able to meet all their needs with a vegan diet. i would bet most people cannot.
there is no reason to believe lands would be rewilded, even if they "could" be
If you could free up a land mass the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined, don't you think we could plants some trees?
just because we could doesn't mean we would. why wouldn't we turn it into shopping malls?
Have you stopped and wondered how big a land mass the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined is? I am not sure how many shopping malls you have in mind.
i don't see why you think we would rewild the land instead of making money on it.
so?
So it's inefficient like hell and causing a shit ton of greenhouse gasses. Have a look at the impact of some of these foods: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#explore-data-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food
agriculture is only about 20% of our emissions and we need to eat. i'd be fine if it were 100%.
You'd be fine with it being 100% even if it only needs to be 3% or 4% instead of 20%? Nice.
if we eliminate every other sector's emissions, then agriculture would necessarily grow as a proportion, even if the absolute emissions stayed the same.
that's a lie.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#explore-data-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food
what i said was true and your link doesn't contradict that.
I meant it in the context of agriculture. Out of the 20% global emissions caused by agriculture, most of it is caused by animal agriculture. I believe the stat is 18%.
do you have a plan to eliminate animal agriculture?
We should definitely update the perverse incentive structure we have right now.
this seems more like a platitude than a plan
2018 poore-nemecek doesn't say you should go vegan. it says the industry needs to change and make less animal products.
Ok, you wait for the industry to change, while making the planet and its inhabitants die in the mean time. Take no responsibility and complain about large corporations fucking up the planet, while simultaneously funding them.
you can't shift the blame onto me. i know whos fucking up the planet.
Nice projection. I am not shifting blame, but since you've said this it shows you're obviously dealing with some massive cognitive dissonance. I have only been providing facts and sources dude. Animal agriculture is a massive source of problems for the planet. Besides all the things I have already told you: what do you think the leading causes of mass extincition, deforestation and global ocean and freshwater eutrophication are? Right...
wrong.
that's a lie. the comment to which i was responding was pure rhetoric.
industry.