Our impact on the natural environment and climate change are an important issue. Our daily activities, the way we drive and what we eat are factors that are directly related to global warming and its effects
In the same context, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are compared to emissions from transportation systems and vehicle movement. However, the comparison is not accurate because only the direct emissions of the transport systems are taken into account as opposed to the direct and indirect emissions from livestock. In the past, I have already referred to the need to differentiate and separate the correct approach to transitioning to vegetarian food, and the need to allow native groups and herders who subsist mainly on animal protein to continue to exist in the traditional way of life at least until it is possible to improve their living conditions without harming tradition and certainly without harming their nutritional security.
It turns out that on this issue there are differences of opinion between two important bodies:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" http://www.ipcc.ch - IPCC, and "International Food and Agriculture Organization” – FAO.
The intergovernmental body on climate change identifies the human activities that cause climate change while separating the branches of industry and transportation from agriculture and monitors it.
According to IPCC estimates, the direct emissions from transportation (land, sea, air) are almost 7 gigatons each year, which constitute about 14% of all emissions from human activity. The main emissions are of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides that are created in internal combustion engines. In contrast, the emissions from the livestock sector are about 2.3 gigatons, which is about 5% of all emissions. Livestock emits methane and nitrogen oxides due to ruminant activity and manure handling. Unlike transportation, agriculture is based on a wide variety of natural processes from which methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide are emitted from many different sources. While there is a possibility to neutralize the emissions ("de-carbonize") from transportation, neutralizing and regulating emissions from agriculture is much more difficult.
The FAO personnel refer to the issue with the understanding that there are "life cycles" of emissions from the livestock sector. The direct and indirect emissions are much larger and reach 7 gigatons per year. According to this organization, these emissions make up about 14% of all emissions. The reference to "life cycles" takes into account the emissions from food crops for farm animals, the transport of food for animals and the transport of finished products, and the effect of deforestation to develop new pastures. Therefore, the comparison of emissions between transportation and farm animals is wrong.
According to the FAO, despite the IPCC's systematicity in the environmental vulnerability assessments, there is no consideration of the life cycle of the transportation industry, this is mainly due to a lack of data from all over the world. PAccording to several studies, including reports by theIPCC, emissions from transportation increase a lot when you calculate the "life cycle" of fuel and cars. For example, when you add to the calculation the production of fuel or the scrapping of old tools. For example, when calculating the life cycle of carbon emissions from the transportation industry The result will be 2.5 times higher than the current figure.
Comparing the emissions between transportation and farm animals raises another problem: wealthy consumers who consider the "carbon footprint" have options to travel less or choose low-carbon foods. not like that Close to a billion people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition, for whom milk, meat and eggs are required and essential foods. Many of those living in extreme poverty are shepherds or "small" farmers who depend on farm animals to provide their food and ensure their existence. The wrong comparison and the negative communication may affect development and investment plans in the direction in which their food insecurity will increase.
The preoccupation with emissions from farm animals comes about because more resources are needed to produce meat compared to other foods. In addition to this, improper land use causes methane emissions, which is a warming factor 25 times greater than carbon dioxide, but its lifespan is shorter than that of carbon dioxide, which means that reducing methane emissions will have an effect in a short time.
There are already countries, mainly in Latin America, where there are projects to "develop" farm animals and breeding methods that will reduce emissions (http://www.fao.org/3/I8098EN/i8098en.pdf). This is mainly through proper soil cultivation and appropriate pasture growing while seed rotation and proper handling of waste by-products. These projects also allow for environmental, social and economic benefits such as improving and preserving biodiversity, improving the hydrological system, and of course improving the living conditions of those involved in the project.
The world needs consumers who are aware of their food choices and also manufacturers and companies that will develop "low carbon" foods. The limited breeding of farm animals at the same time as the development of breeding methods will allow food security on the one hand and a reduction in emissions on the other hand.
Which brings us back to the second paragraph in the list according to which: along with the transition to vegetarianism, it is appropriate to consider traditional societies where the majority of food comes from animals.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
8 תגובות
Asaf,
Really, the message of the article is not that clear.
It's already two people, so maybe there's something to it...
and in addition a question,
Does counting the "life cycle" of emissions in livestock include the negative value of assimilation and nitrification in growing livestock food?
(Probably yes, but it is not clear from the article and I would be happy to clarify)
א
And if you still want to continue a futile argument
Try arguing with this:
http://www.ipcc.ch – IPCC,
and this:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
and this :
http://www.fao.org/3/I8098EN/i8098en.pdf
and this:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-4.html
and this:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/meta
and this:
http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/
Successfully !
A –
"Expensive",
So much text that refers to things that are not?
Too bad ,
Maybe instead of reading "three times" without understanding
Memorize the last paragraph
And maybe (probably) then you will understand the main point of the list
Maybe then you will understand that with the exception of the personal attack on the writer,
(which you know nothing about),
except for inaccuracies in "facts" and "data"
There is nothing in your comments...
my father
I marvel at you for what you wrote.
First of all, an inability to digest cellulose really does not indicate a non-vegetarian animal.
There are many vegetarian animals that cannot break down cellulose. None of our "relatives" alive today can break down cellulose and they all feed at least mainly on plant food or only on plant food, and none of them is a definite carnivore.
But I understand you. You owe yourself some excuse for cooperating with something you understand is wrong. So it would probably be pointless for me to refer you to studies that show that vegans are healthier. And evidence that the opposite studies were funded by the industry itself.
You must believe that veganism causes terrible and terrible damage to health. No matter how many healthy vegan people you see around you. Self-convincing is a much easier thing than changing life expectancy.
In order to switch to veganism, you need substitutes for the proteins found in meat, and vegans often suffer from deficiencies and need to take nutritional supplements derived from, among other things, animals.
Besides, man is not a vegetarian and his stomach is not able to eat cellulose.
Additionally
Encouraging a transition to veganism requires almost no financial resources and maybe even the opposite and can lead to savings.
It is enough for the state to stop supporting, subsidizing and controlling prices for this harmful industry. and give the same protection to the substitutes industry. Even without subsidies, only control over the prices of these products.
Their production is much cheaper and they are expensive only because of the lack of supervision.
And a transition of the western world to veganism will only benefit the countries of the third world because the global food price will decrease. With the areas used to grow fodder, you can feed Africa 10 times.
Another thing collected.
And I apologize in advance for being blunt.
There is something wrong with your values. The kind of distortions that are often found in devout religious people in many religions. And maybe you are also a devout religious person in an ecological religion.
I am also against harming the environment. But the difference is that I want to prevent harm to the cause because it will cause suffering (for any living being capable of feeling suffering) but it seems to me that it is different with you. You are opposed to harming the environment simply because it is at the top of your scale of values (like I can't reason why I am opposed to causing suffering. I'm just against it). This leads to the examination of everything whether it is moral according to the ecology in it. For example, a hunter for pleasure. While you express disdain for "vegan" arguments.
In the past you also wrote that vegans are a "religion" and therefore you oppose them.
So no, we are not "religious", it is you. And you know what if my "religion" is not to cause suffering (first of all to humans but also to animals) I have no problem with that.
Asaf
I read the article three times and I still don't understand what you want to say.
That eating meat is not so polluting? Because they didn't count the indirect damage of the oil industry?
You understand that the whole comparison to transportation is just to illustrate the magnitude of the pollution.
It is not that what is on the agenda is to abolish the digestion of meat or to abolish the use of transportation, and you have to decide on only one of the things.
Even environmental damage that is greater than the "direct" damage of all transportation alone is a huge damage.
And unlike transportation, a person cannot completely stop using it. Just reduce by using public transportation, giving up owning a car (with all your commitment to protecting the environment, I find it hard to believe that you even did that) and living in the city and not in an "ecological" settlement (which in practice causes much more pollution).
Changing rings is something that anyone can do at a very low personal cost. But maybe this is precisely the problem with veganism, that it requires you to take actual action and not just call others to take unrealistic action like birth control. I doubt that either, if you married yourself and only have one child (after all, in order to reduce humanity, you are not allowed to have more than one child)
Or calls against "consumer economy" as if there is another type of economy. As if in the past an economy did not depend on consumption. But talking is free and why even try to understand concepts if you can etch.
Also the whole discussion about traditional companies that you are so anxious about sounds like a lame excuse.
I have never seen a demonstration of vegans in front of a Bedouin camp. They are protesting in the city calling on people like you to stop consuming an immoral product that is unhealthy and also seriously harms the environment. Veganism does not harm anything in traditional societies. And in general most of the meat is consumed in developed countries and the big meat producers are also developed countries. For the most part in traditional societies animal food is a much smaller part of the menu compared to developed countries because it is much more expensive. (The big problem is the countries that are becoming more and more developed that cause the world's meat consumption to soar and with it the accompanying pollution)
Yes, milk is an excellent example of what a person who is dying of hunger needs..
What more? A little honey would save them from death? bullshit.
The last thing hunger needs is milk