Hacker News Reader

A note about diet:

There are some recent studies suggesting that globally, on average, the most environmentally friendly diets have some animal product component because of their ability to make use of landmass that we wouldn't be able to make use of directly. E.g., cattle can eat plants that grow in areas we can't grow human-friendly crops on.

I can't find citations to these studies offhand unfortunately. (this is an example but not what I had in mind: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522483/) But what I remember is that globally, the most environmentally friendly diets had some small animal product component.

This also probably varies a lot by location too, so it probably is the case that for some people, the best diet might be vegan; for others it might involve more animal product.

Just pointing this out, because there are nonpolitical-psychological-sociological reasons for a "soft" approach on plant-based-diets.

This is true, but from what I've read it is only true for places that are small scale and local. Anything large scale, like feeding a city, would benefit greatly from a reduction, or elimination, of animal products.

I think a key component here is just minimizing the meat-component of the diet.

Meat would not at all be a problem if produced in smaller amounts. The current level is just absurd waste (I would guess mostly to support fast-food production?), and we absolutely do not need this amount of meat in our diet.

It is, however, extremely nutritious, so a small meat consumption would both be sufficient and much more sustainable. Even just 1/10th of the current scale would likely reduce any problems to be insignificant.

Something like 75% of all non-meat food grown in the US is fed to animals for later eating. When you complain about soy destroying forests, you are complaining about meat consumption:

> Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop. In 2013, soybean exports reached record highs, exporting 43 million metric tons to overseas markets. China remains the largest export market for U.S. soybeans.

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...

You'll find this same thing over and over again when discussing clearing land for crop growth. The vast majority of it is to support meat production. Going vegan is probably the number one thing you can do to fight climate change and pollution in general, as an individual. Especially since switching would eliminate vast amounts of farming, and the associated chemicals and water loss. edit: and deforestation.

It is not a small thing, not at all, and to diminish it is to deny the massive sea of change that is required to actually fight climate change with 7B people on the planet.

Sure, there is a lot of cultural blowback against veganism, but I think it is manufactured via marketing, just like the anemic belief in climate change in the United States.

It's unfortunate that more people don't internalize this fact. One of the first things you learn in middle/high school ecology is that 90% of available energy is lost between each step in the food chain. Producers can only convert about 10% of the sun's energy to useful electrons in photosynthesis, herbivores only get 10% of the energy it takes to grow their food, and carnivores only get 10% of the energy herbivores take in. Some factors like the decreased non-predatory death improve those numbers for industrial agriculture but not by much.

In US agriculture, we have some estimates for the ratio of output calories to the input calories [1] that are astounding. For every 100 kcal of feed stock, we get ~19 kcal back from chicken, ~7 kcal from beef, and a whopping 1 kcal from shrimp.

Essentially, every 1000 kcal of beef takes 14,000 kcal of corn/soy/alfa-alfa and 1000 kcal of shrimp takes 100,000 kcal of whatever it is shrimp eat.

[1] From the book Diet, Energy, and Global Warming by Eshel and Martin

1. You mean "going vegetarian". Going vegan is something entirely different, and entirely unnecessary in this context.

2. Food is being massively overproduced, so a few thousand people boycutting meat is unlikely to even remotely affect the production amount, thus having no difference at all. A much bigger difference would be made by trying to fight food waste. Fight profit-optimization by over-production, go for local sellers rather than supermarkets with absurd over-stocking, etc.

3. You don't need to boycut meat to solve that problem. Just reduce it. From what I've read, the US consumes absurd amounts of meat, which fuels a giant meat production industry. If you cut the average meat consumption in half in the US, the meat industry would no longer be the primary consumer.

Meat itself is not to blame for the absurd over-production and over-consumption we see today. It is instead a result of the usual corporate greed, profit optimization, and our total ignorance for the side-effects of our convenience. Vegetarianism is entirely symptomatic treatment, rather than dealing with the root-cause.

(For the record, I respect the choice to not eat meat for other reasons, but I am only considering the environmental impact here.)

`. I don't mean "going vegetarian". I mean "going vegan". Milk, eggs, and fish have some of the same problems environmentally and ethically. When I say ethically, I don't just mean our responsibility not to bring harm to other species on the planet, although I feel that is important, but also our responsibility to future generations.

2. Yes, food is overproduced. Yes, too much food gets thrown away. However, this is massively dwarfed by the wasted food that we feed in animal lots, by a huge degree. Yes, me and my family going vegan doesn't have a huge impact, but it certainly massively reduces our carbon output, at a time when it just seems to be going up on a person to person basis. Last I checked, the amount that I was personally outputting was around 50% the US average. The only major difference was that I was vegan.

3. To maintain 7B people, most people will have to not eat meat, or eat it so sparingly as to be effectively vegan/vegetarian.

Let's present evidence:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

> A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.

> It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.

I don't care if you eat meat, but do it with honest realizations as to the cost. In a couple generations the costs will be clear, and our actions today regarding animal food production will be viewed for the atrocity that it is.

> avoiding one-time non-consumable items (one-time plates, forks, cups, cup-lids, straws, etc. are an absolute no-go—which means boycutting starbucks and similar if necessary)

Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns. For example, you can bring your own cup to get filled at Starbucks, instead of using one of their cups (which uses recycled content).[1]

> And even more importantly, getting others to do the same.

And that's the reason I'm commenting. Really, I could care less whether people go to Starbucks. I'm there once a month or two (but I do gets treats for the kids there about once a week). But if we are supposed to be willing to change our behavior to make a difference, we should definitely be willing to look into whether a company is trying to do something good for the environment before denigrating them as a problem with regard to the environment.

If a company is taking steps in the right direction, we should call that out as a positive example, to encourage them to do more and others to follow in their example. Ignoring their positive actions, or worse, using them as a negative example, will not encourage positive behavior on their part.

1: https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/cups-an...

> Starbucks gets a lot of flack, from a lot of directions, but it's worth noting that companies go that could contribute a lot to this problem, they do a lot to promote better usage patterns.

In that case, I do apologize. I have never in my life gone to a Starbucks, but my point was avoiding one-time use devices of any kind, regardless of what convenience it may bring, with the exception of when it is truly necessary (such as medical packaging).

However, do note that this also includes whatever one-time devices the company themselves use to run their service.

It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.

> It would be a quite standard PR stunt to present visible environmentally friendly options (that potentially largely go unused), while not doing anything at all to the less visible parts of the company.

Sure, but it's good to start somewhere. If we get companies competing on a level of environmental friendliness, then it quickly goes beyond being superficial, as those gains are quickly achieved and further ones are sought.

To some degree I think that's part of what's going on with Starbucks. They've positioned themselves as an environmentally aware company, and one that cares about world issues (carrying specific types of beans, etc). Part of this is obviously playing to their audience (and part is it starting in a locale and with a CEO that cater to these attitudes), but that's about all we can expect from most companies. Thankfully, it's something that can be worked with. If consumers express interest, companies will respond.

There's no reason for you to apologize, I just wanted to point out that we should be careful to not draw that line at those companies who are "good" or "great". We're at the level were we should be very welcoming of those that are only acceptable in their behavior with regard to this, but that's still worlds ahead of most, and that's how we move the average.

Spreading behaviour is so important. Which means it's important to make it "cool" to be environmentally conscious. I think people sometimes underestimate the cool factor when it comes to spreading ideas.

You can do all the cool but it is going to have no result when industry is responsible for a third of GHG, agriculture about a fourth and transportation a fifth.

To stop those takes regulations and laws. Major investments too which won't happen if not forced either.

Best targeted results for efficacy of behaviour modification at a fifth. Good luck. This with self-efficacy training. You cannot do that with everyone so you're bound to fail. Worse if people cannot adapt at all. Tell a guy they now go 50 miles to work by bike is not going to work at all.

You cannot destroy a mountain by removing a few shovels of ground. The action and change has to be both forced and massive.