this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
-6 points (28.6% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

109 readers
20 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

Meat Heals.

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME

We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type


Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods


Meta

Carnivore Resource List

If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.

[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Explained like I'm 5 - Cows don't pollute

A. Cows don't create carbon, they perform neither nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. They can't create elements.

B. Everything that comes out of a cow, must have gone into the cow.

C. Grass grows using carbon from the environment.

D. Cows eat grass, because they are a ruminant.

E. All the gas that comes out of a cow went into the cow as grass.

F. Therefore all the carbon that come out of a cow first has to be captured by grass to go into the cow.

G. Cows are part of a natural biocycle, they do not create pollution.

H. If cows don't eat the grass something will - animals, fire, microbes, and the biocycle will continue.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mitchie151@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They don't create elements, they create molecules. They don't pull methane out of grass, grass doesn't pull methane out of the air. Grass pulls CO2 out of the air and it is fermented by microbes into methane (CH4). Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 although it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time before it does break down back into carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

In a sense, yes, everything on earth is basically a closed loop and it all eventually balances out. The amount of each element remains stable. The problem is that things like mass farming of cows shifts the balance of those elements.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What's really cool though is Australian marsupials that eat grass (notably kangaroos, Wallabies, and wombats don't make methane. They have more efficient bacteria fermenting their grass so the only gas they emit is CO2

Right now cattle fore gut microbes are being engineered to add the efficient genes from the marsupial microbes. If it works and the cattle tolerate the modified bacteria it will solve the methane problem

I also note that the methane isn't a big problem, cattle methane is probably tiny compared to fossil methane ("natural gas") leaks, but we don't know because leakage is enormously underreported

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Methane (CH4) is significantly more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere: by a factor of 28 over a 100-year time frame based on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report estimate (IPCC 2013). Over the last 250 years, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere increased by 161.9 percent (IPCC 2013; NOAA/ESRL 2024b). Within the United States, the main anthropogenic sources of CH4 include enteric fermentation from domestic livestock, natural gas systems, landfills, domestic livestock manure management, flooded land, coal mining, and petroleum systems (see Figure ES-8).

Significant trends for the largest sources of anthropogenic CH4 emissions include the following:

  • Enteric fermentation was the largest anthropogenic source of CH4 emissions in the United States in 2022, accounting for 27.4 percent of total CH4 emissions and 3.0 percent of total gross emissions. Emissions have increased by 5.2 percent (9.5 MMT CO2 Eq.) since 1990. This increase in emissions from 1990 to 2022 generally follows the increasing trends in cattle populations.
  • Natural gas systems were the second largest anthropogenic source category of CH4 emissions in the United States in 2022, accounting for 24.6 percent of total CH4 emissions and 2.7 percent of total gross emissions. Emissions have decreased by 20.9 percent (45.7 MMT CO2 Eq.) since 1990, largely due to decreases in emissions from distribution, transmission, and storage.

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf

Methane from cows and other livestock is absolutely a big problem, it's more than all the known gas leaks from fossil fuels in the United States. There are probably a lot more gas leaks we don't know about, but that doesn't diminish just how much methane we know livestock produces.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Did you miss the party where I said it is active research to remove the methane?

Did you not look into it at all and not find that it is a cheap fix?

Are you a robot just restating your one factoid ("methane bad") in response to anything?

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe in the future, cows won't produce methane and we'll just have to worry about land use and the efficiency of raising cows for food. But historically and presently, they produce a huge amount of methane and contribute significantly to climate change.

I also note that the methane isn’t a big problem, cattle methane is probably tiny compared to fossil methane

This specifically is why I replied to you: you didn't know something, made a guess, and were very wrong about it.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

you didn't know something, made a guess, and were very wrong about it.

I actually said we don't know, and your response pretended we do. Great job of clearing things up. We don't know because gas extraction companies don't report their leaks

[–] jet@hackertalks.com -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

and yet the methane overhead of a cow is stable, and doesn't grow over time, its not a net contributor.

If grass based enteric methane was a existential threat to life we would be culling all ruminants, preventing all grassland fires, draining all wetlands... throwing a anthropogenic label on methane like the grass wont grow and be eaten if humans were not involved isn't consistent.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

and yet the methane overhead of a cow is stable, and doesn’t grow over time, its not a net contributor.

Emissions have increased by 5.2 percent (9.5 MMT CO2 Eq.) since 1990. This increase in emissions from 1990 to 2022 generally follows the increasing trends in cattle populations.

You really just don't bother reading things if they go against your world view, don't you?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 3 days ago

I wonder what else has increased in the last 32 years.....

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Cows produce particularly high amounts of methane, not just because they're big, but per unit of mass.

And methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, much worse than carbon dioxide.

In nature, methane does get formed, but in lower quantities. More carbon ends up being carbon dioxide instead.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Methane has a 10 year linger time, a stable herd has a stable methane overhead.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Methane (CH4) in the Earth's atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 over a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent as CO2, and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year time frame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Converting CO~2~ to grass then methane is significantly worse than having it go back as CO~2~ in a stable cycle. We need to rapidly stop greenhouse gas emissions in the next few decades, because we're already starting to see how bad climate change is going to be.

Also, the population of cows currently on earth is unnaturally high, and convincing more people to adopt a carnivore diet would only raise it more.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

methane has a 10 year linger time, a cow as a static methane overhead, it is not a net contributor

. We need to rapidly stop greenhouse gas emissions in the next few decades, because we’re already starting to see how bad climate change is going to be.

Agreed, we can be better - but attacking food that keeps people healthy isn't the way to achive that. Sick people are expensive and the medical industry is a massive polluter

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Also, the population of cows currently on earth is unnaturally high, and convincing more people to adopt a carnivore diet would only raise it more.

I don't know if you just don't bother reading things or if you silently disagree with and ignore them.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don’t know if you just don’t bother reading things or if you silently disagree with and ignore them.

it was a non-sequitur, it had nothing to do with the biocycle.

Also, the population of cows currently on earth is unnaturally high, and convincing more people to adopt a carnivore diet would only raise it more.

I don't see this as a problem, we have a billion people with type 2 diabetes, getting them off carbs would have a huge improvement in their lives, health, and environmental impact (being sick is expensive).

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

it was a non-sequitur, it had nothing to do with the biocycle.

Because your post is about pollutants, remember? Cows produce excessive amounts of methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

I don’t see this as a problem, we have a billion people with type 2 diabetes, getting them off carbs would have a huge improvement in their lives, health, and environmental impact (being sick is expensive).

I don't know why I bother talking to you.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Cows produce excessive amounts of methane,

Cows don't produce excessive amounts of methane, they produce just has much as they have before humans intervened, they have a stable methane overhead.

I don’t know why I bother talking to you.

Nor I, please block this community and move on with your life.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Before humans intervened, there weren't so many cows, and other elements of the environment managed to offset their ecological harms.

Now it's not possible. You can't just grow as many cows as you want and say "well, in before times things were alright". They were precisely because there was less cows. The fact that methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever doesn't help, because at any given time, there's enough cows to maintain high levels of it. It's not that we keep on accumulating it for all eternity, it's that current levels are not sustainable and we keep on maintaining them (and you seemingly suggest we should have more cows to maintain a carnivore diet, i.e. exacerbate the issue dramatically).

In fact, a lot of the ecological harms will pass once we start producing less of certain chemicals. Take ozone layer as a common example. Ozone holes were spreading rapidly due to use of several interfering chemicals widely used in refrigeration, compression etc. Once they were banned worldwide, ozone layer came back to normal, because these chemicals don't stay there forever. But for the time of their life in the armpsphere they caused massive harm. Same idea.

It is a very well established scientific fact that cows heavily contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, and that greenhouse equivalent of pretty much any other food that exists is way lower. Like, fifty times lower for some staple plant-based food sources, and 2-4 times lower for other animal-based food. It has been measured many times and is a clear scientific consensus. Claiming cows don't hurt the environment is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It is a very well established scientific fact that cows heavily contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, and that greenhouse equivalent of pretty much any other food that exists is way lower. Like, fifty times lower for some staple plant-based food sources, and 2-4 times lower for other animal-based food.

The entire point of this post is to make such reductionist thinking apparent at a foundational level. You can't take a single slice of the biocycle and claim net effect.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

We can, though. By isolating contributing variables and comparing them to other options, we can isolate the ecological footprint of an animal per unit of body mass or useful produce.

We know how much methane cows vs other animals produce per unit of body mass, and we know cows are very high methane producers, even by ruminant standards - and cows are the most extensively farmed ruminants, too.

The carbon that enters the animal ends up either carbon dioxide, methane, or more complex carbon structures that can eventually become one or the other (and, over a very long term, it all eventually becomes carbon dioxide). Humans, for example, lean more on the carbon dioxide side, while cows emit a lot of methane. Advanced farms even use cow manure as a fuel source, though most of methane enters the atmosphere anyway. Natural decomposition of plants in the soil by soil bacteria is, in turn, less methane-emitting than either the processes happening in the rumen, or even in the human digestive system. Add to that all the maintanence overhead of cattle feed and farm management, and the differences will exacerbate even further.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, even when corrected for it's atmospheric lifespan, and hurts environment more than carbon dioxide.

All animals have more of such footprint compared to plant-soil bacteria cycle, but cows are exceptionally bad. This is why, from an ecological standpoint, beef and dairy consumption should be reduced, of not eliminated entirely.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

ecological footprint of an animal per unit of body mass or useful produce.

Sure, and if you look at unit of bioavailable protein, ruminants win. https://www.aleph2020.org/

Natural decomposition of plants in the soil by soil bacteria is, in turn, less methane-emitting than either the processes happening in the rumen, or even in the human digestive system.

except in high water environments (swamps and bogs). You need to also account for wild ruminants who eat the grass even if cattle are not around.

All animals have more of such footprint compared to plant-soil bacteria cycle,

You also need to account for the bioavailability disparity between a whole food plant based diet and a whole food animal based diet. 3kg vs 0.5kg in daily food. That is about a 6x food volume difference, lots of people get focused looking on calories, but if we seriously are trying to remove all ruminants from the food supply then we need to look at all essential nutrition, factor in the cost of medical care for people who have issues with plant based nutrition (such as type 2 diabetics who suffer under carbohydrate load, of which there are a billion).

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, and if you look at unit of bioavailable protein, ruminants win.

No, they don't. According to this paper:

  • Eggs - 113% DIAAS
  • Beef - 111% DIAAS
  • Soy - 90% DIAAS
  • Pea - 82% DIAAS

At the same time, the CO2 equivalent per 1kg of product (source):

  • Beef (beef herd) - 99 kg
  • Beef (dairy herd) - 33 kg
  • Eggs - 4,7 kg
  • Tofu (processed soy) - 3,2 kg
  • Pea - 0,98 kg

Chicken eggs are slightly more bioavailable than beef, while being responsible for 7-21 times less emissions. Peas can be a hundred times less polluting, while being a relatively good protein source.

Except in high water environments (swamps and bogs).

Which agricultural lands typically are not.

You need to also account for wild ruminants

Total population of wild ruminants sits at around 75 million. The farm count is 3,6 billion, which is 48 times that. Wild rumimants, thereby, constitute around 2% of total ruminant population, the other 98% are domesticated. (source)

You also need to account for the bioavailability disparity between a whole food plant based diet and a whole food animal based diet. 3kg vs 0,5 kg in daily food.

Maintaining a vegan diet is more complex than simply removing meat and leaving the rest the same. One of the several points healthy vegan diets focus on is, exactly, gaining enough protein. For that, there are various protein-rich plants and processed products, protein isolates, yeast products. Moreover, vegan diet typically requires adding vitamin B12, as it is the most limiting factor of plant-based diets. Luckily, industrial bacteria can produce it very efficiently.

That said, eliminating animal food is not necessary. Poultry, pork, eggs, fish are all much better ecologically than beef. Beef is exceptionally bad from an ecological standpoint, and there are other, much better sources of same nutrients.

Type II diabetics

Vegan diet is not a contraindication for people with Type II diabetes, although basic meal planning, as always, is advised. In fact, vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health of such patients (source)

Going forward, I would like to ask you to provide academic/authoritative sources instead of linking to advocacy groups, which are highly biased.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

does anyone else want to explain the problems with poore-nemecek 2018 or....

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'm afraid there's only two of us left, so you'll have to.

In any case, if you have a particular gripe with Poore and Nemecek, there's no shortage of papers coming to similar conclusions, like this one, this other one, and a myriad more. Same can't be said of the opposite.

As things stand, arguing that beef is eco-friendly is as scientifically fringe as saying the Earth is flat. Certain attempts (nutritional, organizational, technological etc.) are made to reduce the ecological footprint of cows, but it remains huge nonetheless. You can't make cows less cows.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

one of them relies directly on poore-nemecek, and the other commits the same blunder as them: combining disparately methodized LCA studies

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Only in one part, while sourcing the rest on other works, of which there's plenty, the other is a review article, and of course methods will have to differ somewhat.

I specifically go through review articles to show the studies are actually more than plentiful. You can look them up more thoroughly before dismissing. They all speak of the same picture, and it's about as clear as "the water is wet".

I provided you with a vast pool of studies to confirm what should be obvious to anyone who had at least school-grade biology. I would be much pleased if you could gather scientifically-backed points to the opposite. Show me research that demonstrates cows are actually not ecological disaster and are at least on par with pigs and chicken, or better yet, plant foods on ecological footprint, since that's the basis of your original claim.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

the conclusion might be correct, but these "studies" are junk science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] username_1@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

By this logic steam engines are good too: firewood -- engine -- atmosphere -- firewood again.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

Yes, but fire also produces particulate pollution

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 5 days ago

from the perspective of renewable energy - yes, if you only burn wood that just grew and you find a steady state (i.e. you only burn what grew that year).. yeah, it's sustainable.

air quality and human lung issues don't encourage consistent burning in places where people live, but yeah forest fires happen, so the cycle is sound. The fuel will be used by animals, microbes, or fire.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

One could argue that this doesn't apply with grain fed cows... I agree, don't feed cows grain...

One could also argue about methane rather then just carbon, methane is short lived, so a stable herd has a stable methane overhead... not to mention other animals and microbes eating that grass will also produce methane...

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Methane has a average atmospheric lifetime of 10-12 years according to wikipedia. So yes, over a long period, a stable herd will have a stable methane cloud I guess.

But

  • What happens when we increase production of beef? More methane.
  • How can we reduce the amount of methane (and greenhouse effect)? By producing less beef.
[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We aren't increasing production. Who cares what would happen if the thing that isn't happening happens

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We aren't increasing production.

As in people who consume beef aren't increasing the production of beef? How so? Do you mean to say that supply and demand are unlinked?

Who cares what would happen if the thing that isn't happening happens

Where's the peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is maybe one person eating only meat for every ten eating vegan, and people eating only meat don't eat more beef than what used to be normal before veganism appeared as a response to the climate crisis, we just eat a lot more fat

You need about as many cattle to feed us as you do to feed a turn of the 20th century person.

When you hear zero carbers talk of how much meat they eat they mean both the lean and the fat

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, nothing wrong with any of that.

But global demand for beef is rising, and therefore so is production. No matter how you shape your diet, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

No judgement from me, I think that's completely my own and your own prerogative. But I think it's important we make the decision based on facts.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Global demand for beef isn't increasing in the English speaking world. It's probably the masses of China increasing beef intake

Luckily they also are world leaders in renewable energy

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Global demand for beef isn't increasing in the English speaking world. It's probably the masses of China increasing beef intake. Luckily they also are world leaders in renewable energy.

Sure. That also doesn't change the fact that no matter where in the world you are, no matter how much energy is produced renewably, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

Once the planet has stopped heating catastrophically, there might be some budget of GHG that we can spend on producing and eating meat more or less sustainably. But until then, it's all part of increasing the pressure.

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

First of all, this point holds whether you eat meat once a year, or every day. It's not about more or less than the average, each piece of meat contributes.

Second, interesting point, I'd love to read more about the numbers going into that calculation if you can link them.

And just to make it clear: no judgement, these are just facts you need to make an informed decision.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Once the planet has stopped heating catastrophically, there might be some budget of GHG that we can spend on producing and eating meat more or less sustainably. But until then, it’s all part of increasing the pressure.

ok, following this logic, let's turn off all electricity generation, air travel, shipping, etc... food is foundational to society and health, we can't deny the planet healthy food and expect to solve all our other problems.

I’d love to read more about the numbers going into that calculation if you can link them.

https://www.aleph2020.org/

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

ok, following this logic, let's turn off all electricity generation, air travel, shipping, etc...

I agree. We should look at all sources of emission as try to reduce them, starting with those that have highest GHG impact with lowest societal value.

food is foundational to society and health, we can't deny the planet healthy food and expect to solve all our other problems.

Agreed!

https://www.aleph2020.org/

Thanks! I can't find the numbers you refer, could you link them directly? Is Aleph 2020 a pro meat production project?

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The ALEPH 2020 initiative was launched in 2020, with the support of an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The ALEPH acronym refers to Animal-sourced foods and Livestock: Ethics, Planet, and Health. ‘Aleph’ is also the first letter of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, which later morphed into the Greek 'Alpha' and Latin 'A'. Originally, the letter was derived from the West Semitic word for 'ox' depicted in a Proto-Sinaitic glyph, obtained from an Egyptian hieroglyph showing a bovine head. As such, it not only represented a vocal sound and scriptural element, but also notions of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity. Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held these connotations.

Recently, however, there is a remarkable tendency to invert their original meaning, especially in the urban centres of high-income countries. Their consumption is increasingly being represented as unethical and harmful to both our health and the planet, to the point that some advocate a diet without or with only low amounts of animal source foods, and in some cases even the end of livestock farming.

We argue that these astonishing claims are not only counter-intuitive but also that their scientific foundations are misinterpreted and presented out of context. By addressing the topics of ethics (animal health), sustainability (planetary health), and nutrition (human health), we claim that livestock and the foods derived thereof have an important role to play in future food systems.

Here, for your convenience, the text on the page about what ALEPH is. Did you not look too far downwards?

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, I did, though it is not clear to me whether the group is meant to be a neutral observer of food production (as implied by "interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts" and working based on "scientific foundations"), or an explicitly pro meat production lobby organisation as e.g. indicated through sentences like "Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held [connotations of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity]."

How would you describe them? And could you link the numbers you mentioned?

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, since the description is clear. Perhaps you'd prefer to ascribe labels to them, such as "pro meat production lobby organization," instead?

Also, since I've not mentioned any numbers, I won't be able to link them.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Sorry, mistook you for Jet I guess. They linked the Alpeh 2020 site as a substantiation of this claim, but I can't find it on the website:

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

In terms of the description of Aleph 2020, I don't find it clear sorry. Digging in further, they write

ALEPH2020's interdisciplinary scientific consortium consists of 44 experts who endorse, review, and/or provide the website's content.

So it's a scientific consortium with a website.

on a non-remunerated basis, [the founder] serves on the Scientific Board of World Farmers' Organization, the FAO/COAG Sub-Committee on Livestock, and the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup of the European Parliament

With a political element and connections to the World Farmers' Organisation?

Vegan activists advocate for eradicating livestock entirely, deeming it an immoral exploitation even with welfare measures in place. Some wish to pursue this through coercion, seeking legal enforcement of a 'vegan project'.

With sections on policy and ethics?

And graphics about how mainstream reporting is a vegan tech conspiracy?

It's an interesting project, but I'm not sure how to understand it. It's not a neutral research effort like CERN, it's not a farmer lobby, it's not an activist organisation like Amnesty. I guess it's like a very long opinion piece? Or how would you classify it?

I think classification is useful in terms of how the text should be read - a text from Amnesty should be read differently from a text from CERN.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To what end, so we can game GWP-20 while ignoring the lion's share of GWP-100 from industry, all the while getting sicker and losing topsoil?

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No need to ignore GWP-100 or GWP-20 or accept losing topsoil. We can reduce the carbon footprint from beef production and from other food production and work on sustainable and healthy diets for all.

We probably have to do all of them at the same time, in fact.

But I don't know how we best fight climate change. My point was just that eating less beef translates into a clear and significant reduction of pressure on the climate. What you do with that fact is up to you.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unless I'm reading what you've said wrongly it's remarkable you think most GWP-100 is from food production.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I don't think most of GWP-100 is from food production. I think food production is a significant part of human GHG emissions. But I don't think it's the majority.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ruminant meat is essential to human health, there are lots of sick people in the world (almost a billion t2ds) and the climate impact of maintaining sick people is quite high. Getting the sick people off carbs and onto meat would really help everyone, including the climate.

We need ruminants to make topsoil, you can't remove them and create top soil.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Sure - if we reduce the meat production to what is medically necessary and required for topsoil, I'm sure that would be a major reduction in livestock and climate pressure.

I am not saying get rid of all meat. I'm saying that each piece of meat you eat is increasing the pressure on the climate.

Ruminant meat is essential to human health

But what do you mean "essential"? What about the people that live long, healthy lives without it?