Comment by wtdata | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtdata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Let's please stop with the vegan fallacy. Cutting all meat production (and it's support industries) in USA and EU together, would have an impact of the global emissions of only 1%. [1] [2]

The more we try to mix personal ideologies (i.e. animal rights) with climate change, the more we are going to make the public at large ignore everything about the theme.

P.S: If you are really after a personal action to fight climate change, take public transportation to work, or better go by bicycle. [3] That - unlike veganism, actually makes a huge difference.

EDIT: Added links with the actual facts supporting both points. USA Meat Industry and associated industries emits 3% of their country total.[1] Same for every highly developed country due to very high efficiency of the process. Transportation on the other side, accounts for 27% of the country total in USA. [3] USA and EU together account for 20% of the world total emissions [2]

[1] citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.3630&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

[3] https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...

1) You're confusing vegetarianism with veganism. Veganism is more than just meat.

2) Your 1% figure is not sourced and allegedly only involves USA & EU. Global climate changes demands global solutions, the EU and USA together can't solve everything.

3) The best estimate if you want to put a number on it is closer to 15% [1]. Of course, you can't eliminate all of that with veganism because animals produce other non-food items that are useful, such as fertilizers.

I'm all for cycling and public transport, agree on that. Don't agree that veganism doesn't make a (huge) difference. The animal rights argument is something that you brought into this discussion. Total straw man.

I'd like to add: fly only if really necessary and try to offset carbon emissions from flying if you must fly.

[1] Start reading here and follow the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

Not sure what your source is, but this contradicts Drawdown:

> Shifting to a diet rich in plants is a demand-side solution to global warming that runs counter to the meat-centric Western diet on the rise globally. That diet comes with a steep climate price tag: one-fifth of global emissions. If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

> Plant-rich diets reduce emissions and also tend to be healthier, leading to lower rates of chronic disease. According to a 2016 study, business-as-usual emissions could be reduced by as much as 70 percent through adopting a vegan diet and 63 percent for a vegetarian diet, which includes cheese, milk, and eggs. $1 trillion in annual health-care costs and lost productivity would be saved.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet

Do you have a source on the 1%? Everything I've read supports an individuals veganism being roughly equivalent to a typical individual's transportation. And land for crops for cattle is currently the leading cause of deforestation.

> Cutting all meat production (and it's support industries) in USA and EU together, would have an impact of the global emissions of only 1%.

The problem lies in meat production using deforested areas. A lot of processed meat, eg fast food, ready meals, etc, comes from such sources.

As your 2nd link highlights, deforestation & meat production are 2 of the top 3 CO2 emission concerns, so meat imported from such sources is a double hit.

What source says cutting all meat production in USA and EU would impact global emissions by 1%?

United States Cattlemen's Association.

You are completely wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com