189
The Comforting Lie of "Climate-Friendly Meat" (newrepublic.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/green@lemmy.ml
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

That's a cute fairy tale.

In the real world, over 5.6 million tons of nitrogen are applied to corn (40% of which is feedcorn, on top of 40% for ethanol. barely any for us vegans!) each year through chemical fertilizers, compared to a mere million tons of nitrogen from manure. A good amount is coming from cattle, like you said, but the reality is that the clear majority is artificial.

And regardless of whether it's natural or artificial, nitrates then wash into the rivers and waterways causing algae blooms, fish die-offs in rivers and lakes, drinking water pollution, ocean dead zones, coral bleaching and other habitat destruction, that shit even gets into the groundwater. In the human body it causes cancers, thyroid disease, birth defects, and probably more we don't know about.

Poison isn't better for you just because it's "natural" 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    At no point this was made a witch hunt on vegans.

    And are you trying to deny by default what I am stating as "fairy tale" or are you trying to build up on my immediate example.

    Yes, corn is a cash crop, along with soy and a couple other cereals. An heavily subsidized cash crop, already identified as a depleter of soils and water sources. Let's cut back on that front and incentivize the planting of rapeseed, as an example. Fulfils more environmentally useful roles than corn and provides a good chunk of useful and very important by-products.

    But all of this just to go back to my initial statement: cereals here get a fraction of fertilizers other crops receive and usually through the animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields. These are practices done by small, family scale farmers.

    And yes, the gross majority of nitrates are artificially added, often with no need. And let's also applaud the excelent marketing campaign create by fertilizer manufacturers, that objectively created a notion that it isn't factory made it isn't good.

    The muds removed from waste water management plants are phosphorous and nitrogen rich, a fraction of the cost of the synthetic fertilizers yet nobody will use it. Many countries import huge amounts of fertilizers while wasting a readily available resource. That is another bad practice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At no point this was made a witch hunt on vegans.

    You say that, but then you turn around and present animals that graze on the left overs and fallow fields as somehow "better" than the artificial fertilizers used in greenhouses. The reality is that we could use much less artificial fertilizer and also use less animal fertilizer. It all needs to be reduced and it's not healthy or good for the environment just because the pollutants come from animals.

    There's nothing wrong with greenhouses using artificial fertilizer, as long as they're using controlled amounts and aren't adding to nitrate pollution. And you know what? Greenhouses are usually way better about that, because they have very controlled growing operations!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Please tell that to Spain (I'll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for "deluxe" or exotic crops, covered the land.

    And you're trying to dog whistle. I could not care any less aboit the choices other people make towards their life, even more when it comes to dietary and philosophical options.

    What irks me is the often used resort to guilt/finger pointing by those who opt to choose for such different option.

    Now that that is out of the way, yes, we can aim at less animal production. The abuse of meat is not an healthy diet nor a sustainable one, which is my main concern. We can demand from agricultural producers - and impose - better practices, which make use of circular flow of resources, less use of agrochemicals and the use of best practices.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Please tell that to Spain (I’ll risk more countries suffer of the same problem) that has several valleys converted into glass bowls, as giant greenhouses, often for “deluxe” or exotic crops, covered the land.

    You're just kinda presenting this like I'm supposed to think it's bad.

    Shipping exotic crops from the equator is bad. I don't know if growing them in greenhouses is better, but that's basically the only alternative unless we stop people from eating this shit. Yes, all crops could be grown more efficiently (and locally!), but I have no idea why you think this means that meat has any place in the food system. You're just gesturing at greenhouses and using that as a justification.

    the use of best practices.

    The use of best practices means no meat. Full stop. Vegetable protein uses less water, energy, fertilizer, and produces fewer GHGs.

    I'm not dog whistling (what the hell do you think I'm trying to secretly say? that meat is bad for the environment?), this is literally a thread about the lie of climate-friendly meat. That shit is impossible and we should just stop eating that shit. It's easy, it's cheap, it's healthy, do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yes, I think you should find the idea of having hundreds of square kilometers of land covered in glass and plastic at least disturbing.

    And having exotic products shipped from their origin country and have it be expensive is an efficient way to control demand. But we have no time for reasonable solutions, so let's instead introduce species with the potencial to become invasive or taxing to the foreign environment beyond what local cultures are.

    The presence and use of animals in a farming setting, to the extent of my knowledge and understanding, is among the list of best practices available.

    And yes, you are dog whisling, from the moment you insinuated I was making my argument a witch hunt on vegans. You are trying to elicit a prescribed response from by actively introducing a completely unrelated topic into the conversation.

    We diverge on views and that is fine. I'm not waging a debate to move an audience nor you.

    I stated greenhouses consume more resources, on all levels, due to poor practices.

    You understand that, by default, raising animals, regardless of setting or purpose, is wrong.

    Understood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent