97% of the cattle is grown on feedlots, not grass IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. So massive amounts of corn and soy are wasted IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (as the original article THAT EXCLUSIVELY TALKS ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA notes growing soy for cattle feed leads to massiva amounts of deforestation)
I fail to see how this is the case, but perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make? What you're referring to is about colonialism, whereas here the USA is very much incentivized to work within its own borders, on its own food industry. It just so happens that climate change is a global problem as well, and the USA being a large rich country it has more causal influence on the outcome of climate change.
No it's not. The US must lead in reducing environmental destruction and emissions because it leads in producing environmental destruction and emissions (per capita.)
Why does per capita matters? The resources of the Earth are limited, and don't rise with the population. Focusing on the per capita means that we shouldn't take into account overpopulation because they don't consume much, for now. That doesn't sound right.
Presumably 97% of cattle are dependent on feed imports. After all, it means the huge non arable grasslands of the USA that people pretend are super important aren't enough to feed them.
> Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.
Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.
> Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do".
I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.
> Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste
It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.
Again, America is not the only country in the world and is not the country that I was talking about when I said "beef in countries where it's not a problem".
> Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein
I doubt that's true. Meat has always been rich people's food, especially beef, and people like consuming like rich people.
> which could come from many other sources besides dead animals
Is the problem ecological or moral here? If the dead animals were more efficient than the other sources (which they sometimes are), would it still be a problem?
Most americans are consuming 100+ grams of protein a day (its very likely all of that coming from meat - I don't know anyone who consumes a lot of beans).[1] Average person needs about .36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.[2]
When they are grazing on non-arable land and the alternative is to produce no food at all here.
About proteins, from the article you linked (the Harvard one):
> For a relatively active adult, a daily protein intake to meet the RDA would supply as little as 10% of his or her total daily calories. In comparison, the average American consumes around 16% of his or her daily calories in the form of protein, from both plant and animal sources.
> Based on the totality of the research presented at the summit, Rodriguez estimates that taking in up to twice the RDA of protein "is a safe and good range to aim for." This equates roughly to 15% to 25% of total daily calories, although it could be above or below this range depending on your age, sex, and activity level.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Americans are eating too much proteins, considering the article is not saying it, or even saying the opposite.
Most americans would not meet suggested exercise levels for "relatively active" even if that was at the 30 min. per day level.
16% is 60% more than 10%. Most americans are consuming meat for at least 2 meals a day, possibly 3 for those who are eating sausage or bacon for breakfast.
The general point is that americans consume way more meat than what they actually need. This has been promoted heavily in the high protein diet fads recently. Educating people on what they actually need for a healthy diet would go a long way and cost a lot less than alternatives like lab-grown meat.
Your article suggested that you could aim for 15-25% and not 10%. 16% is at the bottom of that range. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
People eat more meat than they need. Most people would be healthier if they consumed less of it or none and substituted vegetables/beans/nuts for those calories while still getting proper amounts of protein from non-meat sources.
Reducing meat consumption reduces a bunch of other consumption of resources letting people get their calories more efficiently.
> Meat is considered one of the prime factors contributing to the current biodiversity loss crisis.
> the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, and in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.
> farmers would reduce their land use of feed crops; currently representing about 75% of US land use, and would reduce the use of fertilizer due to the lower land areas and crop yields needed. A transition to a more plant based diet is also projected to improve health, which can lead to reductions in healthcare GHG emissions, currently standing at 8% of US emissions [1]
What's not to understand? Stop eating meat. We don't need lab-grown meat. We don't need meat substitutes.
I don't understand why you're mixing a health claim that you failed to prove with an environmental claim that I agree with. If your point is that using arable land to grow cattle or cattle feed is a waste, then I agree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating meat for health reasons, then I wasn't convinced by what you showed me, and disagree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating meat for moral reasons (as in animal rights), then I disagree with you. If your point is that we should stop eating all meat for environmental reasons, then I disagree with you, as not all meat has the same impact, and I think we should avoid blanket statements like that, especially when they are mostly based on what happens in the USA and not around the world. If your point is that we should stop eating meat that has the most ecological impact, like American or Brazilian beef, then I agree. If your point is not any of those things, then I failed to understand it.
China emits less than half the greenhouse gases per capita irt the US. The US should begin by emitting at the rate of China, then we can all reduce together.
Why? If China wants to emit more greenhouse gases per capita, they could reduce their population and maintain the same emissions on the country level. What you're proposing is biaised in favor of countries with large populations.
reply