this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
177 points (99.4% liked)
Climate
8969 readers
185 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless industry is brought to heel, we could reduce our footprint to 0 and still be totally fucked.
The lifestock industry alone is responsible for 15% to 20% of the greenhouse emissions, so wiping it out would make huge impact on it's own. Even if you forbade just cattle it would reduce 10% of global emissions.
Plus the emissions from agriculture moving to something else, still need the food.
Cows only convert 4% of the protein they eat into meat, and industrial level production relies heavily on agricultural production for that protein (most soy is produced to feed cows, for example).
If we removed industrial meat production, we would need far less farm land and consequently have less emissions from agriculture. We would also not have so much deforestation.
It’s something like 60-70% of land that could be freed and rewilded if we all just went vegan
almost no soy goes to cattle at all. and the vast majority of soy is pressed for oil. the waste product from that process is what is fed to livestock.
Almost no soy goes to cattle is one of the most fallacious statements I have ever read.
cattle get maybe 7% of the global soy crop, and most of that is the industrial waste from pressing soybeans for oil. we press some 85% of the global crop.
edit: omg. I have another stalker
Yes, you have a lot of terrible points, it's no surprise people like to dig into your history to see what other shitty points you have made.
I would love to see what study you have that shows that only 7% of global soy goes to cattle. Any research I have seen says that 70-80% goes to animal feed. Yes it may be processed for oils but that does not mean that it is not a protein source that is going to animals, when it could be going to humans.
wait until you look up our world and data's stats on soy end use
Or you could actually provide the study that proves it?
gladly
Yes, so 76% of soy is fed to livestock. What part of that aren't you getting?
you aren't get the part where 90% of that is industrial waste, nor the amount that goes to cattle.
How do you interpret "soybeans processed to soy cakes FOR FEED" as industrial waste. They are processed for digestibility, not as waste.
the soybeans are put in an oil press. the byproduct is what we feed to livestock. but it seems like you already understand almost no soy goes to cattle at all, so I don't know why you keep arguing
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Your initial statement was that almost no soy is fed directly to animals. If the oil was removed, the animals would not get the full nutrition from it that they need. You continue to demonstrate your arrogant lack of understand of understanding of the subject.
you actually don't know anything about how soy is used. you're exposing your ignorance.
Lol, ok, sure
this smacks of a horse-laugh fallacy
I said almost no soy goes to cattle. go back and reread
actual victim blaming now. I didn't make you stalk me.
The fact that you have a giant combative disclaimer on your profile about what you do and don't tolerate in discussions tells me all I need to know about you. Call it stalking if you like, but it doesn't make you right.
one of us is being combative, but it's not me.
You are responding to my comments multiple times, for no reason, which to me is combative. I'm just giving back what I'm getting.
I'm making statements of fact. you are interpreting them as combative
K