>But... It does. 220lbs of methane per cow on average.

Already being captured for energy. VC funds are all over this

> I'm not saying I'm not in said "bug camp"

So you are saying you are in the bug camp, got it.

>but you're arguing that transport of plants, using fossil fuels, even remotely touches the amount of fossil fuels...[meat]

Hyperbole and no accounting. You have no idea. Scale production and see what happens. Have you any data to validate your assessment?

> grassland that could be significantly more productive

How so? Do you believe all grassland on earth should be appropriated for "best use" to increase productivity? Why would you believe that? Are you aware that allowing cattle to forage in forests helps prevent wildfires and enriches the soil increasing undergrowth and biodiversity. The practice is largely banned in state and national parks thanks to zealots of ecowarriors and bug campers.

>We don't need meat

What we need is trivial. We don't need cars or shoes or knowledge.

Meat can be considered a byproduct of an immensely useful material that lasts indefinitely, has been harnessed by possibly every culture to exist and has uses that every person requires.

Leather.

You need to read Oryx and Crake before you destroy the world.

> Meat can be considered a byproduct of an immensely useful material that lasts indefinitely, has been harnessed by possibly every culture to exist and has uses that every person requires.

Meat is the flesh of sentient living beings with feelings and their own rich internal lives. Their bodies do not belong to us to strip for parts as we see fit. Though people throughout history have often eaten meat, there have also been many cultures that do not (about half of India is vegetarian for example). In the developed world, our factory farms have become brutal inhumane places of horrors with no connection to the indigenous uses of animals you reference.

> has uses that every person requires.

In the developed world it is false to say that every person requires animal products, as we surely don't. Most people can thrive on a plant based diet, no need to destroy the lives of thinking beings for their meals or shoes.

Omnivore. This is the way it is and will be. Humans have survived due to this feature.

We are not ruminants. We don't have multiple stomachs.

Your emotions are the deciding factor in your position. I implore you to look at the animal kingdom with honesty and not a disney-washed, Blue Planet version for children.

Nature is harsh and awful. Animals often die by incredibly vicious means from predators. Gored and crushed in their jaws.

We are humane to a fault. Now people are so disconnected from the reality of nature, they expect to impose restrictions based on their emotions. I find this argumemt to be lacking substance.

The developed world you highlight is dependent on petrochemicals. Everything you have and use. Leather is one of the very few durable goods that is not.

Yes, animals often die by predators who have no alternative. This is the way of nature. But humans DO have alternatives. We absolutely do not need to lock up animals in cages and kill them with machines. We don't need to use them at all.

Sure, you can say compassion is an emotion. But can you really even be a part of society without compassion? To say we should be willing to enslave and kill animals because we should set our compassion aside... why? Why do you argue for a world without compassion? Yes nature is brutal. And yet we have child seats for cars because we don't expect to expose our children to random brutality. What about a pig or a cow makes you feel it deserves brutality when we will work so hard to shield one another from the same?

We don't live in the jungle. That is not the point of society. We do care for one another, and compassion drives many aspects of our society. I see no reason it should not play in to what we eat.

> We are not ruminants. We don't have multiple stomachs.

This doesn't have anything to do with veganism. Vegans don't eat grass from the ground. We don't need multiple stomachs. This is a straw man.

Looks like you're newer, but your snarky / assumptive comments can be placed on other social networks.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Feel free to answer any of my questions, none of them were rhetorical.

Many people are eager to make their opinions the de facto law of the land. In reality they have rarely done any searching outside of their emotions.

They same people then cling to statutory protection when their ignorance is displayed

OK, let's debunk your BS point by point...

> Already being captured for energy. VC funds are all over this

There are roughly a billion cows on the planet. I live in the midwest. If VC funds (not sure what this means exactly) are all over this - then why have I not seen thousands of cows wearing ridiculous contraptions to sequester said methane? Show me the data.

> So you are saying you are in the bug camp, got it.

This is ignorance at it's finest - I'm not promoting bugs as food, nor am I discouraging it. Your comment is ignorant and assumptive at best and provides no value to your response other than to show little thought around the topic.

> Hyperbole and no accounting. You have no idea. Scale production and see what happens. Have you any data to validate your assessment?

https://livestockdata.org/data-object/livestock-and-greenhou... https://grain.org/article/entries/5976-emissions-impossible-... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/09/animal-based-food-vs-... https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...

Again, your arguments have no context and no basis. This information is widely available and is suppressed by dairy and meat industries - no different than tobacco or big oil has done.

> How so? Do you believe all grassland on earth should be appropriated for "best use" to increase productivity? Why would you believe that? Are you aware that allowing cattle to forage in forests helps prevent wildfires and enriches the soil increasing undergrowth and biodiversity. The practice is largely banned in state and national parks thanks to zealots of ecowarriors and bug campers.

It seems you haven't looked at the environmental impact that is caused by the supporting agriculture, which is required, to support livestock at our current consumption levels.

There's over 90 million of acres per year plated for "feed" corn. 90 million acres that are used for singular feed crops. 90 million acres that have fertilizer and pest control applications annually to keep the machine in motion. And you're proposing just letting the cows "forage in forests". Laughable at best, considering there are over 94 million cows in the US alone. Your idea is probably banned because cows are also, not natural wildlife in state and natural parks. There's something called the food chain and cows would be prime, and easy, targets for many predators. So your idea would disrupt the food chain and provide, basically, no value. And yet you claim that "it's because these practices are banned". Again, a biased and unfounded point of view that you've provided zero data to support.

https://petkeen.com/how-many-cows-in-us/

> What we need is trivial. We don't need cars or shoes or knowledge. > Meat can be considered a byproduct of an immensely useful material that lasts indefinitely, has been harnessed by possibly every culture to exist and has uses that every person requires. > Leather.

I don't know where to start with this because you're all over the place. First you start with a strawman that, seemingly, implies you live a minimal lifestyle of which you don't have a car, shoe, or cognizance? The idea that we don't need "knowledge" basically proves the point: your commentary is drivel.

> You need to read Oryx and Crake before you destroy the world.

Please provide sources.

We should focus all of this energy that goes into shaming people for eating meat into passing a revenue-neutral carbon tax with border adjustment, and explaining why it's a good idea, despite the large amount of inflation that would result. The price increases that flow through the supply chain would push people into more carbon neutral ways of raising beef (and decreasing beef consumption significantly, as the price goes up significantly). Shaming people for eating what they like just causes them to get defensive and dig their heels in, it's counterproductive.

Carbon tax is a political tool and doesn't achieve anything in reality other than penalizing the first world while the rest get a pass, including China.

Really, look into who proposes a carbon tax. It isn't scientists

It doesn’t penalize first world nations, the carbon tax includes a carbon tax on all imports, called a “border carbon adjustment”. This includes things like long distance transport, so it’s actually fairly protectionist for the US vs Chinese manufacturing.

It’s proposed by a huge assortment of economists, including a lot of heavyweights: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

How many credits does a corporation receive? By what measure do newly founded companies assess their carbon expense?

Economists!? Honestly not the group I would defer to at this particular moment in time. We are on the precipice of a possible global finance collapse thanks to their pseudoscience

It’s not measured with credits afaik, taxation happens at the time of carbon extraction from the ground or at the border if extracted elsewhere, or at the border for imported goods that haven’t had a carbon tax applied, to avoid disadvantageous local manufacturing. Inside the country it’s totally transparent, the price is just baked into fuel/goods made with fuel, from that initial tax. Things that use a lot of fuel get a lot more expensive, things that already used clean energy likely stay about the same, citizens get the receipts back, split evenly, so if you consume less carbon than average, you come out ahead. Corps don’t get rebates/credits.

Make sense? Obviously a ridiculously tall order politically, maybe impossible, the rich would take the brunt, but it’ll also be harder for the middle/upper middle class to jet across the country.

I’m also pessimistic about MMT and it’s effects, but I’d view that as more of a political necessity to keep the music going for debtor nations than something most economists thought was actually ideal. No one has the stomach for austerity, and it frankly would probably be catastrophic anyway, we just have to try to inflate our debt away without hitting hyperinflation.

>Obviously a ridiculously tall order politically, maybe impossible

Maybe..?

We have to transition away from growth economy and inflation, neither is sustainable. We're hitting the end of the line in under 100 years.

If debt is fake and we're just using time to diminish it, then let's just do that and stop robbing people of their wealth. Likely impossible for politicians and economists to allow this either

> Carbon tax is a political tool and doesn't achieve anything in reality other than penalizing the first world while the rest get a pass, including China

Half of china;s pollution comes from producing shit that we consume. We outsourced out pollution, and then have the gull to complain about it.

You know where 99% of all electric busses are? In China. You know which country has more electrified rail than the rest of the world combined? China. You know which country has the highest percentage of it's population take high sspeed train isntead of flying? China.

You're taking this in the entirely wrong direction.

China has deplorable pollution, this is a fact. Busses and rail aside.

The first world pays them to make cheap goods without regulation so that we can wash our hands and keep clean.

Changes nothing about carbon tax

You are taking this in the. entirely wrong direction.

China pollutes 3x less per person than US does, even taking into account the fact that they prodice our good. Their government actually takes climate change seriously and they invest more in clean technologies than we do.

Other have commented that you are wrong about how carbon tax works as well

This 'china the boogieman' and 'we will keep polluting untill china closes the last coal power plant' is the political fongerpointing of the lowerst sort.

Industrially? China pollutes less than the US per capita?

Well, the US doesn't have 900 million peasants to dilute our numbers. Moreover, at 3:1, China is still a greater gross polluter, if you take the reporting from China at face value. From other data collected in China where there is 1. Profit 2. Political repercussion - the outputs always seem to match up with the government prescribed allowable limits....

Those arguments are assuming the carbon tax will work as it is on paper. I am assured by ever other treaty that China and other 3rd world countries will be granted exemption.

China is not even the point. It's the whole "Third World" status protectionism racket.

The entire program will not work unless the entire world plays by the same rules and adheres to the same standards. This will not happen

There have been 26 Climate conferences, and USA has broken it's promices every single time. You quit the paris accord, while China is on track to meet its climate change goals nine years early.

Get your head out of your rear, and stop complaining about farmers in 3rd world countries who 'will be granted exemption' so they can go from having 1 farting cow to 2 farting cows and actually afford a meal every day - they still produce less pollution in their lifetime than you do in a year.

I am sorry for being rude, but you are a total hypocrite, and untill you sort out your shit, no other country is interested in what you have to say.

Our 'shit' includes maintaining order in international commerce. No on else is doing that other than our little helpers in the UN and we fund most of their part.

I'm not complaining about farmers. You have based your entire position on assumptions that not everyone in the world agrees with.

Had you thought about that? Have you thought that there are significant reasons why some countries would gladly accept 'climate change'??

Your premise is that everyone is going to do this reduction in output and gladly yoke themselves with an individual accounting for their global expenditure. How utterly foolish.

The climate accords you so poignantly mentioned are attended by private jet riding elites that have NO intention of reducing their quality of life.

When you choose to step into the light of reality, I'll gladly meet you

I was totally with you until: "We have access to plenty of what we need to thrive via plants without bugs".

Has there ever been research done on this? Historically humans depended on animal protein for essential amino acids. It seems far-fetched to suggest we could scale up quinoa to 7+ billion humans given current global realities.

Humans naturally consume animal protein out of biological necessity. This has only changed for people who have the necessary resources to follow incredibly regimented and expensive vegan diets.

India has 1.4 billion people, and on average, they only consume 3.6 kg of meat per year. That said, they do consume a lot of dairy, so I'm not sure they're that much better from a greenhouse gas perspective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_co...

I was actually thinking of places like India in my original comment. Dairy is how those billion nourish themselves. Not just amino acids but important vitamins and minerals as well.

A world where "we have plenty for what we need with just plants" may be a possible world, but it's not the one we live in now. It seems like it would require immense effort to get there.

To be clear I'm not saying: don't eat meat.

What I'm saying is you don't need to eat it 2-3 times per day. I don't eat meat by choice.

> Historically humans depended on animal protein for essential amino acids. It seems far-fetched to suggest we could scale up quinoa to 7+ billion humans given current global realities.

I'm curious how you think we're feeding those 7+ billion today? If you're saying that animal production globally is efficient with respect to natural resources and waste, well that's even crazier than growing plants via alternative farming methods.

> Humans naturally consume animal protein out of biological necessity.

This is where the argument is lost on me. I'm not sure what point is being made here but it reads as if you're saying prehistoric humans got their protein through animals and animals only. This just isn't true and some research has stated only 40-50% of protein was acquired via animals. But the real problem here is that sales and marketing has led us to believe that we need more protein. Way more than we actually need. So much so that we're polluting via urine because of overconsumption of protein [0].

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-too-much-p...

There are certain amino acids that are almost exclusively found in animal protein. That's why I made the comment about quinoa. Getting complete nutrition exclusively from plants just isn't something that humans evolved doing.

I eat meat only a few days a week, and typically only for dinner. So we are in agreement there.

I don't even have the same concerns about a vegetarian diet. Dairy and eggs have everything you need and in large quantities.

Veganism is a luxury lifestyle in 2022. If you aren't meticulous about your shopping, cooking, and consumption, it will make you profoundly ill given enough time.

> Getting complete nutrition exclusively from plants just isn't something that humans evolved doing.

Agreed. I haven't eaten red or white meat for over 5 years now. I'm not strict about animal oils / fats tainting my food intake. I also still consume eggs/dairy/fish. The difference being I consume very little of those things. I may eat fish 2 times per week at the most. I eat maybe 2-4 eggs per week (both cooked and used as an ingredient). Dairy I don't consume other than as an ingredient or the very occasional dessert (ice cream).

I've only improved my health during that time. And as you get older it's interesting to see peers continue to overconsume and pay the price accordingly.

We don't need to be vegans to make a significant improvement on our planet. But what's considered "normal" from a dietary standpoint today is nowhere near a truly healthful diet nor is it treading lightly on our ecosystem.

The "normal" American diet is a complete disaster, absolutely. Conspicuous overconsumption of meat is also a luxury lifestyle. That will become more clear to more people in the coming decades as the rest of the world increases its meat consumption to match that of more developed countries.

For the overwhelming majority of history, the overwhelming majority of humans have gotten most of their nutrients from plants.

There are tens of millions of healthy vegans. Not everyone can be healthy on a pure vegan or even vegetarian diet, but very nearly everyone can do just fine on a couple of meals a month that involve cows, chicken/duck once a week, and an egg every day or two.

If you need large amounts of non bean/grain/hemp protein for some reason then chicken is still vastly better than beef, and insects are totally an option.

>For the overwhelming majority of history, the overwhelming majority of humans have gotten most of their nutrients from plants.

If you are going to make a claim about the overwhelming majority of anything it should come with a source.

Statements like "Humans naturally consume animal protein out of biological necessity. This has only changed for people who have the necessary resources to follow incredibly regimented and expensive vegan diets." as a justification for eating >100kg of meat a year require sourcing when india and china exist. Even extant hunter gatherer societies from warm areas rarely derive more than half of their calories from meat.

Well, sure, the other commenter should reference as well, but this is whataboutism. Another commenter not using a source does not exclude you from providing evidence for your claims.

Please provide evidence that less than half of caloric intake for hunter gatherers came from meat instead of making additional claims without reference.

Yeah, some people can't afford rice, beans, and peanut butter, so they have to eat steak instead :(

https://tools.myfooddata.com/protein-calculator/174914-17429...

Straw man argument. I'm talking about mixing in dairy and eggs, not exclusively eating steak, the most extreme example of carbon intensive food production.

There is quite a happy medium out there between veganism and a Jordan Peterson-style carnivore diet.

Wait, hold on.

Do you actually believe that humans can function optimally on only rice, beans, and peanut butter?

Hemp seeds contain all essential amino acids and are famously easy to produce.

How many grams of hemp seeds would you have to ingest to receive the same amount of amino acids in weight compared to a beef steak?

And how much phytate does hemp seed contain? 4g/100g. Good luck with mineral absorption.

Proportion of amino acids isn't the only important metric.

The methane argument is idiotic.

The methane a cow farts is not ex novo, but was part (albeit transformed) of the ecosystem already. It's like complaining about cows wasting water. And if we were not eating meat, these cows would still eat grass and fart methane.

Methane is bad when it's added to the natural ecosystem, like extracting petroleum from a hole underground and burning it.

No, all these cows are created only for human use eat. They are not here by natural process, not part of natural ecosystem.

What? Do you know that those cow's are literally bred for our consumption? They wouldn't exist otherwise.