Hacker News Reader

Comment by QuantumAphid | Hacker News Reader

Not impressed by their logic. This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And they proceed boil this complex problem down into an anti-meat soundbite.

I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda.

Breakdown of sources of greenhouse gas emissions: How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming? https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...

View on HN

> I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda.

To follow that line of logic to its ultimate conclusion: "committing suicide is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019."

I'm really not a fan of the misanthropic philosophy around many of the proposed solutions. Not only is it, you know, anti-people.... Not only is it unnecessary considering the role than innovation and adaption can play... ...but it's also a complete dead-end politically. And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political support.

Forcing people to decide between say, kids or pets on the one hand and fighting climate change on the other, most people are going to choose their kids or pets every time. So making that kind of argument is highly counter-productive.

> And there's no way we can fight climate change effectively without political support.

Of course, that's true. But where does political support come from? It comes from the voters, who may be individuals making choices that spread to groups and communities and so on, along with social/political activism.

I personally bought two (used, on loan) EVs to replace two fossil cars. This sort of change is pretty easy since it requires no lifestyle change and the cost is roughly neutral. I've convinced two or three other people to also buy EVs; it's infectious.

Bravo on taking some action. Hopefully your electrical grid is powered by natural gas (or cleaner, sustainable sources) rather than coal-fired power plants. I also much prefer my EV to a combustion engine vehicle too and hope to stay electric.

Mostly nuclear, actually. Turns out the average US grid emissions is actually lower than natural gas due to about 37% of the US grid being emissions free.

I avoided making that Swiftian satire of a conclusion, but it did occur to me.

I think it makes sense to push for changes to the production of livestock as well as agriculture, to aggressively combat deforestation, and of course reduce emissions of road transportation, which is 10% of total emissions.

Pol Pot for environmentalist of the year.

> anti-meat agenda

I hate when people say that people with a valid viewpoint/lifestyle (vegetarianism, homosexuality, atheism) has an "agenda", it's disingenuous and biasing. Attack the methods and conclusions of the article, you're getting pretty close to ad-hominem.

> This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

So why do you immediately throw out "eating less meat" as one way to reduce some emissions? I'm not saying it's a big part, but it's pretty easy to not eat as much meat. I am a meat eater, but I don't understand why every other meat eater has to treat vegans/vegetarians like they want to take away your ability to breath oxygen.

I didn't throw out eating less meat. I don't disagree with that as being one of the ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But the fact remains that there are many ways of reducing emissions and author/publication makes this one specific recommendation the title of the article. It's a lot more complex than that, but this author has a preferred conclusion.

I didn't see anything in the article stating we shouldn't do other things as well. Of course this article is saying we should not eat meat, that's the point of the article. If the article was called "how to stop global climate change" and then said nothing but "don't eat meat", I would have more issues with it, but it is specifically focused on the issue of emissions from agricultural mammals.

The title says that this is the best thing we can do. It's not unreasonable to challenge this conclusion.

But you didn't challenge it was the best, which would have required you to submit another method that you think is better and then show evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com