mklarmann

The situation is not that simple. There is a Swiss historian discussing the case in great detail. For anyone who feels that something is odd about this - have a look. I am sorry it is in German so... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sMfNmx0wKo

I am impressed how respectfully you make this point. I would advocate strongly against imperialistic views to solve these problems.

Am I a bit wimpy, when I have to think about all the animals that live in these forest, right now being burned alive?

I have a hard time grasping why, again, people are so damn greedy. For the quick money, basically destroy this precious resource of the amazon forest. I am really angry. I stand with the people, that care about this and want it to end [1]

I do hope, that this Mr. "Trump of the Tropics", listens to his colleagues in Germany, France, etc. and just stops.

I cannot consume any more beef from south america, knowing this is happening because of it.

[1]: https://twitter.com/violadavis/status/1164720036021321728?s=...

The study misses out to report on the increased production of N2O. Which really does not help.

Actually by knocking out the bacteria, they can see a slight uptake (5%) in feed efficiency of the cows. So part of it is put into fat and muscle.

This study [1] does indeed not reference N2O. So this make me suspicious:

The garlic study [2], states: "Garlic contains allicin, diallylsulide, dialyldisulfide and allyl mercaptan, which affect rumen methanogens, decreasing rumen CH4 and acetate production and increasing rumen propionate and butyrate production (Busquet et al., 2005)."

Allicin is not referenced in the sea-weed study. One would have to study the exact mechanism [3], to be conclusive.

[1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[2]: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2858/effect-of-garlic-...

[3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714447/

There is a similar product made from garlic, that is encapsulated so it just doesn't wash out with the cows saliva, that has a similar effect. You need about 50kg of it per cow, and it kills the methane producing bacteria. Yet the issue (which they no not fully communicate publicly, but one of the lead scientists told me in private), I guess is the same as with the seaweed. It is not all about reducing methane. We need to do a CO2eq calculations, which includes nitrous oxide at a much higher factor.

And there is much more of this GHG coming out of the treated cow. Which almost cancel the methan reduction effect.

Minimal in terms of were we need at least reduce too. = max one portion per week

Na, I think it is downvoted because it is pretty neo-liberal, to assume that population control is the solution, because it implicitly neglects that most emissions are caused by the richest people. Reducing those rich people would well be a fair point, though.

The 60% is indeed what we studied for cows here in Switzerland. It is clearly related to the amount of time they live longer (18 instead of 11 month). You can check the source here: http://www.eaternity.org/blog/smart-chefs-research-results

This report was generated by the IPCC on request of the international community at the COP in Paris, after they pointed out, that no information was available about 1.5 degree target (the first special report), and food and land was missing (second special report). There is a third one coming about the arctic as far as I remember.

I do recommend the studies of the global burden of disease project as an authority for what is healthy [1] Springman, cited on chapter 5 of the report, goes into depth relying on those evidences for modeling the potential diets. [2]

That is what the IPCC references. Great work, published in nature, peer reviewed and pretty solid science.

[1]: http://www.healthdata.org/gbd [2]: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

To actually reach our climate targets, even better would be a mandatory carbon budget, and trading of contingents. This would mean the price perfectly adjusts to were it should be.

You can access health and CO₂ informations on almost all foods here: https://app.eaternity.ch/login

Good evidence is given by the global burden of disease project. Funded by Bill&Melinda Gates, over 2000 scientists aggregated 15‘000 publications into the largest epidemiological study. Addressing 14 health risks concerning your diet into actual life years lost (DALY) respective per region, age, gender. Unsaturated fats is not the biggest contributor, but nevertheless.

http://www.healthdata.org/gbd

This topic has gained substantial scientific evidence. More people have come to turns that the facts only point to possible solutions for the climate were we substantially eat less meat.

Having you eat even more meat makes you indirectly responsible for people’s death. It might not be right. But in the near future (2-3 years) you might feel ashamed of what you said right now.

This sounds rather short sighted to me. Changing our diet towards lower meat consumption (like we had 50 years ago - max. 1 portion of meat per week), has been shown to come with substantial health benefits. It is a no brainer that we should go there. Because the alternative is so much more detrimental for the human race. Being struck by climate change means we would have around 500 million people who need to migrate, besides other catastrophic effects.

Yeah chicken is the best farmed animal on CO₂. They burn less themselves because they can cuddle and have it warm. And don’t need to run around. ... in their small cages

Why is this thread a [dupe] ?

I challenge your opinion:

I wouldn’t call the world consensus of the IPCC poor science. It is actually the opposite: the best science we have available.

The report goes into depth about the health benefits these diets have also.

Springman, as cited in the report did a lot of calculations around this. He ended up with the minimal requirement for the average earth citizen with one portion of red meat per week. Check his definition of a flexitarien diet.

The same people who currently hold the right to destroy this planet and make it uninhabitable for all future generations.

Our studies have shown, that about 10% are first movers (willing to give up benefits, to become climate friendly eaters) and 80% will go with the default when it is acceptable. The last 10% would still need to be coerced actively by some kind of restriction.

Trouble with organic is that those cows live longer, hence cause about 60% more Methan emissions, till they are slaughtered.

Commonly and economic allocation is done. Each food is attributed those emissions to the share they have caused it by the money that was spend for it by the consumer. The question is: why was there a additional cow in the first place. Part of it was the butter.

Yes that is the point. If you account for calories, proteins and fats (as essential nutrients next to let’s say water and dry weight), butter doesn’t look that bad. It is still worse than average, so - check: app.eaternity.ch

Isn’t the face of the earth mostly shaped by our consumer choices (including where you put you pension and savings). Everything else (like military, etc.) does only contribute minor. Who else if not us?

Well, that is why it so important that we have the IPCC, and now this special report. Food causes 25-30% of human made GHG emissions. Large part for deforestation, Methan emissions of ruminants and animal feed. Without including the transportation, packaging, etc. in the calculation it is still 23%. As you can read in chapter 5 of the report.

Specifically - and this is much more important right now: 1/10 of GHGs compared to their meat counterparts.

This would ignore the fact that almost all emissions are caused by the richest 10%. Reducing this population would be more effective.