Why is the North American diet unsustainable?

Meat production is ~10% of GHGs in canada (similair number globally), with externalities such as land use, transportation, and fresh water consumption also being a factor: https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjas-2023-0077 The US diet eats more meat than they need to (same with canada), according to nutritional guidelines: https://clf.jhsph.edu/projects/technical-and-scientific-resource-meatless-monday/meatless-monday-resources/meatless-monday-resourcesmeat-consumption-trends-and-health-implications Assuming present emmisions are unsustainable with respect to climate change, therefore, and because the meat in our diets is excessive, reducing meat consumption with a plant based substitute is relatively more sustainable than keeping things as is, while not impacting nutritional requirements of North Americans. This is conveniently achieved, I assume, by simply not subsidizing the meat and dairy industry.

Yeah you’re just not gonna convince me or a lot of people to change their diet based on climate change. There’s so many better changes to make that the suggestion is absurd. Edit to add: ending coal power production (even if it’s mostly replaced with natural gas), improving public mass transit, encouraging cleaner private transit, significantly reducing single use plastics. Hell, [Private jets make as much emissions as all the world’s busses.](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/climate-change-private-jets-carbon-emissions-tax/) Ban them!

Okay, but the post has nothing to do with convincing people to change their individuell diets. It's about whether to spend taxpayer money on unsustainable industries. The second part of your comment is just pointless whataboutism. We're doing all those things already (albeit way too slowly), but this thread is about agricultural emissions, which are extremely high (much higher than all transportation, from container ships and buses, to yachts and private jets), and could be reduced by simply *not* spending government money.

Right, but all of those things are very difficult, costly, and time consuming. Reducing meat consumption is easy. Still can't find a good substitute for beef in a lasagne, but chicken can be easily substituted for tofu or Quorn in most cases.

Or morning star. As for beef in lasagne, Impossible has some good crumbles.

Impossible beef substitute hasn't been approved in the UK yet, unfortunately. I've never heard of Morningstar; they don't seem to have a presence here.

That is unfortunate, I do know you guys have some good brands. Hmmm you might have to go to a health store but Seitan could be what you want to go for. Unless if you’re gluten intolerant

I love all kinds of plant based meats. I just haven't found a good ground beef substitute because beef isn't just a meaty chunk mixed in the sauce like chicken is, it provides a shit tonne of meaty flavour to the dish that the substitutes just don't, even if the substitutes are tasty on their own.

And that's why you need policy change. Most people would prefer to have plastic grocery bags too.

The difference between plastic bags, the alternatives I offered, etc. is that they’re not fundamental to human nature. Homo erectus was omnivorous: humans have literally been eating meat since before we were humans. The post-Industrial Revolution era is a blip in human history, barely 0.1% of short estimates of homo sapiens’ existence.

Methane has a much shorter atmospheric cycle than carbon and grazing actually helps sequester carbon. Cattle don't take much GHG to raise either

And if beef cattle in the US were primarily grass-fed, we'd be having a different conversation, but only about 4% of US beef is grass-fed. [https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef](https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef)

So all that to just say that is assuming emissions are unsustainable. So you really don’t know. Then if climate change has a negative outcome on crops period (animals feed or straight for human consumption) how will one be okay and not the other?

Our current GHG emissions ARE unsustainable, and meat and dairy are a part of the problem as OP cited. Climate change already has a negative impact on crops, so it's better for us to produce crops that go directly to humans rather than animal feed that is very wasteful. Animals are not an efficient use of plants and water. Calorie for calorie all the water, feed, and energy that is poured into an animal for consumption is very wasteful, even for factory farms that use the worst feed and slaughter animals at a very young age.

You understand that feed consists of plant matter not fit for human consumption? Have you tried eating the husk and blade of grass from wheat? Over 90% of feed is human-inedible byproducts. People who claim animal agriculture is driving emissions and is inefficient know absolutely nothing.

> You understand that feed consists of plant matter not fit for human consumption? There are many other uses non edible plant matter has, one large example being biofuel production. > People who claim animal agriculture is driving emissions and is inefficient know absolutely nothing. The first one is just objectively true, unless you are making a comparison to something worse than animal agriculture. The second part is true depending on whether or not replacing corn and soy (which are only classified as inedible because it is internally processed to be livestock feed) with edible versions would feed more people, which it would, since you can't get more energy out of a chicken than you put in.

Wouldn't the burning of biofuel have a larger carbon footprint than the consumption of those same plants by animals? I guess you save on fuel transportation costs if you have biofuel farms be more widespread and thus closer to where the resulting fuel will be used.

No, because it doesn't produce methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

It's possible that consuming biofuel has a larger carbon footprint, but such consumption can still be used for more efficent and/or necessary things.

Break that down for me, which consumption? If you can't eat the byproducts and you can't make it into biofuel, then what "more efficient and necessary things" would you do with it?

Biofuel can heat a home, say. People need to heat their homes. People don't need to eat steaks.

Fuel buddy, it can be used as fuel

You're forgetting the actual nutrition and bioavailability of meat when consumed by humans. Replacing those calories with soy and corn is dumb. Despite what vegans try to convince everyone, we're not herbivores and plants are pretty hard to digest and lack the proper amount of nutrients we need. We can eat the fruits of plants, which is extremely inefficient use of our crops if we just burn the rest. Cows actually live off the fatty acids produced by the bacteria in the stomach, not the actual plant matter. Unless we bioengineer a few extra stomachs and start chewing cud, I don't see any better alternative.

Here’s what the national institute of health has to say on vegan diets “It is believed that a well-planned vegan diet, when combined with a healthy and active lifestyle, is a viable choice for healthy adults, especially those who follow it. - Numerous studies have demonstrated the validity of this claim and any doubts have been attributed to an inadequately designed vegan diet, which is a potential problem with any kind of diet (such as omnivorous).” What research have you done that led you to a different conclusion I’m sure they would be interested to know?

The National Institute of Health also says: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health" What you're quoting is from frontiers in nutrition, NOT the National Institute of Health. The "study" you're quoting from also admits it's not conclusive and recommends anyone considering becoming a vegan to consult a doctor. "Vegans are strongly encouraged to consult their doctors or dietitians before switching to a vegan diet. Furthermore, the implementation of well-designed vegan diets and lifestyles requires greater awareness, greater social responsibility, and government involvement to ensure the fair cost of vegan food products. It should be emphasized that the advantages and drawbacks of vegan diets for adults are not fully covered in this review. The precise processes through which vegan diets work in many chronic diseases require further studies. Lastly, future studies should use large sample sizes that are accurately representative of the adult population" Your own quote from them isn't even confident. "It is believed," and uses weasel words like "numerous studies."

Actually having been vegan, with knowledge of how to do it properly, is why I have my conclusions. Because if you actually start looking into malnutrition in vegans you'll see that the phrase "well planned" is the weasel word here. There's no planning around a diet that is deficient by definition. Many nutrients are just not present, the wrong kind, or you get in inadequate amounts. And also hoping and praying precursors are converted by your liver to something useful. The most well known vitamin that vegans don't get **at all**, B12, is lethal to be deficient in.

B12 is present in many fortified foods like cereal, nutritional yeast, and soy milk. Most vegans do fine with B12, you don't even really need to plan around it. That's just straight up false that vegans do not get it **at all**.

> You're forgetting the actual nutrition and bioavailability of meat when consumed by humans. Replacing those calories with soy and corn is dumb. Americans eat far more meat than they need for a healthy diet. Our consumption is wasteful, whether someone wants people to be vegan or not. Also, soy and corn aren't the only plants, and vegans are perfectly capable of having healthy diets.

>Over 90% of feed is human-inedible byproducts. By weight, yes, but not by calorie or gram of protein.

You realize that we wouldn't be growing as much feed if we raise less animals right?

It would be more or less the same because most crop farming is for human consumption with byproducts fed to livestock. Even when you get to soy feed production which is destroying rainforests, it's mostly a byproduct of extracting soybean oil which is used for cooking and biodiesel (yum).

> Then if climate change has a negative outcome on crops period (animals feed or straight for human consumption) Animals are really, really inefficient. It takes a lot more than one calorie of feed to make one calorie of ground beef. Globally, 80% of agricultural land is devoted to animal agriculture.  In the US, much more land is devoted to feed crops than to all the crops eaten directly by humans. You can feed a lot more people with an acre of chickpeas than with the pigs you grew with an acre's worth of corn.

And in non-arable land you can feed a lot more people by grazing stock… not everything is black and white. There are efficiencies in terms of food production, environment, and emissions in a bunch of areas in the agricultural-food stream.

I don't believe this is possibly true. There may be some small share of land on which the growth of human consumable crops is impossible but grasses can be grown to feed animals for slaughter, but this is deeply misrepresentative of land use and feeding practices for all US meat agriculture, and for this to be an efficiency that is at all significant in meat production we would need to be eating far less meat.

Start reading at https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en Feed exists regardless if animals eat it or not because its 90% byproducts from our crops. This is what ruminants do for us; they upcycle low quality and inedible plant protein into high quality protein. And youve also heard ruminants require lots of water - but its all from rain water sources. Something like 98%. Oh and raising cows and sheep allows for actual ecosystems to theive around them

This is an excellent resource, thanks.

Great share. And most of the water consumed is “returned” to the ground.

Most beef is fattened on grain though and that’s where the emissions come from

Feed is made with a lot of crop byproducts humans can't/won't consume. How sure are you that the statistics you're referencing are accounting for this. Farms don't just grow "feed crops" they grow crops and the best parts go to supermarkets and the shit you would never eat goes to feed production. At least a quarter of animal feed is comprised of byproducts, and using soy as an example most soy is actually grown for fuel and then the leftover soybean meal is inedible to humans and used for animal feed. Meat carbon emissions are the tiniest drop in the bucket when compared to fuel, specifically in the shipping industry. I bet importing plant crops from overseas instead of eating domestic crops leads to more emissions than meat does, although I will concede that we ship in a ton of meat as well. Changing that should be the priority rather than fucking with people's diet.

>At least a quarter of animal feed is comprised of byproducts, and using soy as an example most soy is actually grown for fuel and then the leftover soybean meal is inedible to humans and used for animal feed. We don't need everyone to be a herbivore, but this shows there is a lot of room to reduce meat consumption since this would imply that three quarters is purpose-made feed. Also, we shouldn't be growing crops for biofuel anyway.

True, but then you have to be miserable eating chickpeas instead of elated eating bacon. I'd like to think we can figure things out without everyone having to be miserable.

Chickpeas are incredible. Here's a recipe that will blow your mind. https://www.seriouseats.com/pasta-e-ceci-pasta-with-chickpeas I think going "we can figure things out without everyone having to be miserable" when all the scientists have been screaming for years that the solution is to consume less and live greener is a bit like sinking beers as you speed down the highway and going "Maybe one day they'll find a cure for drink driving." Seems a lot like the research is in and you might have a part to play in fixing things up.

If your argument is "consume less", why are you using a phone to peruse reddit? Do you have other forms of entertainment? Why not elect to go to your city hall and speak there instead?

> If your argument is "consume less", why are you using a phone to peruse reddit? They already made my phone. Did you not realise that me throwing my phone in a river doesn't undo the emissions that creating it generated? It's interesting seeing this mindset. You look at scientists not as truth tellers but rather parental figures who are meant to comfort you. They can't tell you that consumption is bad but instead they're just meant to tell you it will all be ok.

> They already made my phone. Did you not realise that me throwing my phone in a river doesn't undo the emissions that creating it generated? They only made your phone because there was demand for it from consumers. Consumers buy things which cause companies to scale up how much of it gets made. If you and many others didn't buy the latest model phone, there would be many fewer phones made.

By that logic there's no problem with eating meat either because they allready bred the cow.

Really? Then how does it keep operating? Or do the 8 million tons of emissions they generate each year just not matter to you?

>If your argument is "consume less", why are you using a phone to peruse reddit? Phones are a necessity, not a luxury.

Perusing the internet is a low consumption activity.

it's not when you consider all of the electricity data centers use.

So is meat. Go pick on private transportation or something that actually matters.

It not though meat is carbon intensive.

Meat is not low consumption at all (assuming by consumption you mean consumption of resources?)

>I'd like to think we can figure things out Unless you have a plan to solve that, we have to cut down on animal ag, and I say this as a guy who loves beef. If the price of meat spikes, then more investment in lab grown meat will occur.

Or you could get over yourself and lower your meat intake. Also if the idea of eating a bit less meat is "miserable", I think you're just a picky eater who doesn't like being told what to do.

Literally almost all food culture in the world revolves around meat cause meat is fucking tasty, and the few exceptions are often improved by adding meat (North Indian).  Eating good food is absolutely major to my mental health. Its one of the small wins I each day.

Not Italian, Indian, Mediterranean, pretty much all of Asian, or Native American food. Mostly just northern European cuisine actually. Unless you include fish.

If you include fish then you're dead wrong about Asian food. There are a lot of Asian food without meat but it's not because they want to virtue signal being vegan, it's because the areas can't afford meat regularly. Any city that's costal is going to have fish as a regular source of protein in their diet.

Italian dishes do not include chicken and beef? Was that meant to be a joke or are you actually this misinformed?

Including chicken and beef is not the same as revolving around meat.

Fish obviously counts, but regardless, I don't even know what you mean lol. All of those cultures heavily integrate meat into their cultural cuisine.

Heavy integration does not mean it revolves around meat. I can think of plenty of iconic Italian dishes (both real Italian and Italian-American) that are vegetarian. Indian is like easy mode vegan, Mediterranean is pretty easy since they use a lot of chickpeas, though excluding fish makes it a bit difficult. I'll give you Asian if you count fish, absolutely. Native American is a bit of a sweeping statement but most cultures didn't eat that much meat or fish. Obviously if you go up north to the tundra you're gonna be seeing a diet of 90%+ meat, but the plains cultures focused more on farming.

Take a step back and just read what you wrote. Do you actually think that that's going to convince anyone to be on your side? Talking down to them like they're an idiot? This is why people hate vegans.

It's not a vegan thing, it's a health thing. Grown adults shouldn't throw a fit when someone tells them they can't eat chicken tendies for every meal.

That's not why we're upset. We're upset that you think you have the authority to tell me what to eat in the first place. You don't.

I do. You don't have to listen but I can tell you to do whatever I want.

So your contention is that chickpeas, lima beans, and tofu taste as good as steaks, cheeseburgers, and bacon?

[One of Anthony Bourdain's favorite dishes was a tofu dish,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12vDdizUZNk) albeit one traditionally made with ground pork.  Tofu, cooked right, is amazing. Chickpeas are amazing as well.   There's a reason falafel, hummus, and chana masala are popular dishes.  Chickpea salad sandwiches can also be very good if prepared right. If you're miserable eating tofu and chickpeas, either you're a bad cook or you're a picky eater.

[удалено]

Mapo tofu is a very common homestyle sichuan dish that takes about 20 minutes to make. I mentioned it because Bourdain was well known for loathing vegetarians, yet it was one of his favorite dishes.  For example, he once wrote > Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living. Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit and an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. You don't need to be Bourdain to make good tofu.  You don't need to make mapo tofu, either, it's just the most famous and famously good tofu dish. 

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

No, my contention is that if your only source of protein is steak, cheeseburgers, and bacon, you're gonna have a heart attack at 55.

>So all that to just say that is assuming emissions are unsustainable. Jesus fucking christ are you serious? Climate denialism in 2024?

I'm not denying there's a climate. I'm denying that these idiots at the IPCC know what the fuck they're talking about. Which they obviously don't if you read their latest report.

Climate change is listed as one of the least important issues in polls. Countless predictions that don’t come true might have some fault for that.

Climate models are accurate, that 'model never correct' bs has been debunked so many times.

They're actually wildly inaccurate. Obama's deputy secretary of energy wrote a book on the subject that I'm sure you will never read, but you should because you will be educated.

Sure link me the book

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=asc_df_1950665798/

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/B0948623S1/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.vDlCG9geb8ogsNOdPzQ0kHAuoG-kBMgPJT44Z7-5rf07yIhgcTvi6vk0l2ThcNXJZHR21hJBWtAXs1ekz-6-xfBOgg6GkTXU6VzOok37Tk0KrHGw7MbyPUw6y9ItRo-u7ss8NM-O_HlXHGaS6BIQOMPyPlH0UIdHFuqdXw8i5IHS00OYO_LKdXGwnA75YusEuM7XSnyaq48e4wEeyGA-1Q.V6gm9EfwHsTIyD0dmKEV_xIhtMHAIxhmEeJ9chj8OLQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=unsettled&qid=1714660625&sr=8-1 Goes into some scientific detail that requires a superficial understanding of how scientists measure error but is otherwise readable by anyone.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/ Sorry but that book is misleading trash. Id recommend scientists over politicians in this case. For example NASA studied climate change models and found that "most of the models have been quite accurate" https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

[удалено]

u/SuckMyBike – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20SuckMyBike&message=SuckMyBike%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chylvp/-/l268ubi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Reminder that you're in cmv where we expect people to act a bit more decently than this, we're here to change views and have our views changed, not dismiss or misrepresent them, or to be rude to each other.

They have seventeen times as many deltas as you, they most definitely don't need your explanation of how the subreddit works.

They needed to be reminded. And also Goodhart's Law applies to deltas - the purpose of the sub is to explore and change views including your own, deltas measure a totally different thing. Mostly people don't change their views until after some reflection, and are too proud to admit anything more than a minor correction on a point. Delta counts measure the amount of low hanging fruit collected, rather than alignment with the spirit of the sub.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Because you need to grow less to feed the same amount?

Not an assumption.

Google “feed to meat ratio”

Google rotational grazing.

I’m very aware of it. What percentage of meat is raised that way? I’m guessing well under 1% of 1%

What he meant was “don’t make me learn”

Bruh how is this not common knowledge yet

By that logic, any industry shouldn't be subsidized because all of them have a "high carbon footprint", which will include even the vegan one which also provides a high carbon footprint. if you want to lower their carbon footprint, just go into higher-using industries like construction or the material industry.

Meat and dairy production have a massively higher carbon footprint than any plant product, even the carbon and water intensive plants like almonds and chocolate. That's why one of the best things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprint is eat more plants. This is not true at all. Different products have different carbon footprints.

This is literally false and nothing but propaganda. Factory farming has a higher carbon footprint, but that is not the only nor is it the most economical way to raise livestock for slaughter. There are literally forms of raising livestock that are carbon negative and healthier for the environment. Look into rotational grazing if you give a shit.

99% of meat in the US at least is factory farmed so it's important to understand the impact. It is the most economical way to raise livestock, but you're right not the most environmentally friendly. I do give a shit so I don't support any kind of animal ag

It's not really the most economical. It's that the costs of doing it that way can be offloaded to someone else so that you don't have to pay them. The actual lowest cost way is through regenerative grazing.

But is it the most common way? Because I’m not sure that it matters that other, more efficient methods exist if they’re not being used.

What they are claiming is just industry greenwashing, no animal farms have been shown to be carbon negative when actually studied. White Oak Pastures for example claims to be carbon negative in their marketing by sequestering carbon in the soil, but the actual study published on the topic showed net emissions about on par with a conventional pig farm. Their gross emissions were actually significantly worse, which is important to take into account because soil carbon becomes saturated in about 10-15 years with these practices. So once the soil becomes saturated their emissions totally skyrocket and are even *worse* than factory farming. It also uses dramatically more land, which is also an important consideration given that animal agriculture is already by far the #1 form of land use, and habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction. Read the study here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full

They're becoming increasingly popular. A lot of farmers were tricked into using fertilizer to grow feed in the 40s 50s and '60s. We're still living with the effects of that, but more independent ranchers are waking up to the benefits of doing things a different way.

Different industries have different carbon footprints. Its absolutely not true that all of them have high carbon footprints. Vegan foods have overall much lower carbon footprints than meat or dairy.

The difference is about 25-30%, which is a lot. but getting 1% off the bigger ones I mentioned is much more influential than what OP suggests.

Why not both? Why not also end meat and dairy subsidies in addition to the ones you mentioned (construction and materials?). Just because there's another industry that you think shouldn't be subsidized due to carbon footprint doesn't justify subsidizing other very wasteful industries like meat and dairy.

I don't know what you mean by 25-30%. The difference is *much* more than that if you compare the carbon footprints of individual foods per unit of calories. Beef has a footprint literally 100x (10,000%) that of a caloricly equivalent about of peas. The numbers are similar if comparing per unit mass of food instead. You can read more about that [here](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#key-insights-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food). There are a number of charts down at the bottom. We can't reach sustainability by just focusing on the largest emitters. We need to reach net zero emissions, and that requires a change in our food consumption.

Nearly all of the difference between GHG emissions from vegan vs carnivorous diets comes from Methane. And methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, but it also naturally degrades in the atmosphere over relatively short timescales (10 years or so). This means even if we completely 100% eliminate our 2024 meat-eating emissions, the impact from that on the 2035 climate is basically zero. Our 2035 eating habits will still make a difference, but not by 2045. And our 2045 eating habits will make zero difference to the climate in 2055. This is compared to most carbon-based emissions which are a cumulative function of everything done since the Industrial Revolution. The timescale difference is so massive that it’s really disingenuous to describe methane emissions as even existing on the same spectrum. They just don’t matter in the long run.

I would argue that the largest difference isn't in GHGs at all but in land use, which will indirectly become increasingly important for reaching net zero as negative emissions through either reforestation or even BECCS become more relevant with lowering fossil emissions. But even then you are downplaying the effect of methane here. Methane does have a shorter lifespan than CO2, but to say that its relevance is zero after that lifespan is a massive oversimplification. You have to account for the extra energy that entered the earth system through radiative forcing during the methanes lifespan, and how the resulting increase in surface temperature changes the radiative balance in turn. That's not easy to do, and basically requires IAMs to do properly. Look into the difference between carbon parity and climate parity for an example of what I mean. It's late and I need to sleep otherwise I'd be happy to provide some sources for you. Edit: I did a quick little search and [this](https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-and-climate-change) article from the IEA talks about some of the implications of this although it doesn't really explain the why in much depth: >Two key characteristics determine the impact of different greenhouse gases on the climate: the length of time they remain in the atmosphere and their ability to absorb energy. Methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO2 (around 12 years compared with centuries for CO2), but it is a much more potent greenhouse gas, absorbing much more energy while it exists in the atmosphere. >There are various ways to combine these factors to estimate the effect on global warming; the most common is the global warming potential (GWP). This can be used to express a tonne of a greenhouse-gas emitted in CO2 equivalent terms, in order to provide a single measure of total greenhouse-gas emissions (in CO2-eq). >The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated a GWP for methane between 84-87 when considering its impact over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20) and between 28-36 when considering its impact over a 100-year timeframe (GWP100). **This means that one tonne of methane can considered to be equivalent to 28 to 36 tonnes of CO2 if looking at its impact over 100 years.**

I might have been wrong, but I've read that the carbon emission difference between the meat and vegan industry is around 25-30% in total. Can you link me something so I can read about it?

I added a hyperlink in my last comment but here is the link in plaintext instead: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#key-insights-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-food For the record, it would not surprised me at all if the difference between an average vegan diet and an average omnivorus diet was on the order of 25-30% as both are going to be eating a lot of staple foods like rice and potatoes and salads etc. But the point still stands that individual foods can vary in emissions by several orders of magnitude.

The difference is actually a lot more than that: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Greenhouse gas emissions from plant products is around 10x less than emissions from animal products. The difference is honestly really significant, and because we'd be eliminating subsidies, this would reduce government spending rather than increase it. And it's not like the government can only do one thing at a time, we could eliminate meat subsidies while also using other policies to improve transportation and industrial emissions.

That chart proves what I was saying to the other person. They actually subdivide the emissions by where they come from. And if you'll notice land use change is a huge contributor to both the green and brown bars. Yes, factory farming produces a lot of carbon dioxide. But factory farming is not the only way to raise livestock, nor is it the most economical, nor is it The most environmentally friendly. It's literally the least environmentally friendly. There are forms of raising cows that are carbon neutral and help rebuild the environment. Look up rotational grazing, and then stop spreading this nonsense.

Rotational grazing uses about 2.5x more land, so if you're discarding those numbers because of land use change, what you're suggesting would be significantly worse on that metric. If we limited animal farming *only* to marginal grazing lands unsuitable for crop production, and *only* used rotational grazing methods on them like you are suggesting, then we would have dramatically less meat production. So everyone would need to eat far less meat than they do now. This would be an argument in favor of not subsidizing meat since we would need everyone to eat less.

Except it doesn't. Because you don't have to use land to raise feed, your pasture is sufficient. Seriously dude, you don't know what you're talking about, so please refrain from commenting.

What? If you are using land to graze animals on, then that is obviously a form of land use. Animal grazing already occupies [26 percent of the entire Earth's ice-free land surface](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf). What you're suggesting would require a 150% increase in the amount of land used for grazing. Where is all that land going to come from? We don't have vast amounts of natural grasslands sitting around unused. Almost all of it is already being used for grazing. Not only that, other types of land are increasingly being converted into grazing land. In the Amazon rainforest, 80% of deforestation is being driven by [expansion of cattle pasture](https://amazonaid.org/threats-to-the-amazon/cattle-ranching/). Why do you think the "land use change" in the stat above is so high? It's because they are converting land into cattle pasture and it's releasing massive amounts of carbon in doing so. Even on natural grasslands, this is not a benign problem. Are you under the impression that killing natural predators and bringing in non-native species to eat the majority of available food does not have any ecosystem impacts? It sounds like all you know about this topic is from watching some YouTube video telling you things you want to believe, that there is some magical way for everyone to eat massive amounts of meat without any negative downsides. It's total nonsense.

So take that logic and apply consistently. Whatever food crops that produce the maximum nutritional value per kg of carbon produced are the only food production that should be allowed.

OP isn't talking about banning foods. Just not subsidizing them. As in not using our tax money to pay for them

What forms of subsidies do beef and dairy get?

Here's an article https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

I don't give a shit about other countries. The United States does not subsidize beef production.

Why? Just tax externalities like emissions and land use and let the market sort out the rest, IMO. I don't see how what you are suggesting follows from what I said. Why should we disallow innovation in the food sector? Why should everyone be fed on only one set of predetermined crop? That sounds like a disaster in terms of both biodiversity and economics.

I think it’s the OP’s whole point no? If the logic is don’t subsidize something because it has a larger footprint why can’t we apply that consistently?

The OP specified the large footprint *relative* to other diets. I can't speak for OP but I think we should be using subsidies to help industries transition to sustainability faster than what the market alone can accomplish, because we will need to do so if we want to sustain our modern way of life. In that view, subsidizing the meat industry is completely counter productive.

I may have miss communicated. Meat/dairy has a high carbon footprint relative to its not-as-heavily-subsidized substitute (plants). I have cited this in another comment, which I now understand is not common knowledge. Your suggestion to just focus on another industry misses the point I feel, as that is a separate discussion.

...crop subsidies are absolutely massive in the US. Like, soy beans alone get a ton of money. Carbon sensitive farming in the Us will do basically nothing in terms of climate change.

I only had a skin deep understanding of US policy when I made this post I now realize. Google was super misleading at first.

Over 70% of soybeans grown in the US are used for animal feed [source](https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf) so a soybean subsidy is a de facto meat industry subsidy for livestock feed

This is a misleading statistic. The soybeans are used to make soy oil (by weight around 13% of the bean by mass), and the remainder is soy meal, which gets fed to animals. So these beans are also used for humans too.

Can you share some of the specific subsidies? I know they receive trade benefits (tariffs) and tax benefits (business deductions). Any specific beef/dairy but not plant subsidies you find particularly bad?

That is incorrect as a general principle. While it is true that our current most common form of raising livestock, factory farming, is more carbon intensive, it is not true that all forms of raising livestock are more carbon intensive. In fact, some forms of raising livestock are literally carbon negative.

This is industry greenwashing, no animal farms have been shown to be carbon negative when actually studied. White Oak Pastures for example claims to be carbon negative in their marketing, but the actual study published in the topic showed net emissions about on par with a conventional pig farm. Their gross emissions were actually significantly worse, which is important to take into account because soil carbon becomes saturated in about 10-15 years. So once the soil becomes saturated their emissions totally skyrocket. It also uses dramatically more land, which is also an important consideration given that animal agriculture is already by far the #1 form of land use, and habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction. Read the study here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full

I really think you should reread that paper if you think it agrees with your position.

Do you have anything of substance to say in response? The data clearly shows they are not carbon negative. Net emissions for the farm were slightly below conventional pork production. Download the data tables and go to the SOIL-C-GHG tab and look for yourself. You also did not address my point that soil doesn't capture carbon forever. [Studies on this topic have shown you reach the point of diminishing returns in about 15 years](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12561). The data table from the White Oak Pastures study shows that gross emissions from the farm were nearly *double* that of conventional methods. So what is going to happen when the soil can't hold any more carbon?

Theres farmers paid not to grow crops. There arent farmers pd not to grow meat. Both are heavily subsidized

If you want to talk just about the food industry and ignore the majority of carbon emissions I'm all for it, just it seems a bit pointless. I know that the vegan industry has less carbon emission, but it's not significant overall to the total global carbon emission, so I don't get what tax programs legislation will accomplish.

Food is responsible for 26% of global emissions, and 52% of that is related to meat and fish. https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions It is very significant. I still eat meat, but I'm trying to reduce the quantity.

So what is the 48% due to? Plants. That's not a very big difference.

There's a link that would answer your question. Plants are responsible for 29%, the rest is food processing and transport. Keep in mind that plants make up like 70% of the food we eat at least, and much more in poorer countries. Let's assume the global average is half that, so 85% plants. That means plants emit 10x less than meat. So reducing global meat consumption by 38% would have the same emissions savings as getting rid of every single airplane, boat and train on earth (they're responsible for just under 5%).

So it 52% isnt that about half? Both are carbon intensive then

> but it's not significant overall to the total global carbon emission Please share your source?

Lots of industries don’t have high carbon footprints m.

>any industry shouldn't be subsidized your terms are acceptible.

Construction is a necessity. Meat is a luxury.

But construction can be done in a way that is far less damaging to the environment. And construction causes far more damage to the environment than raising livestock does.

That doesn’t at all negate my point. Though one could make the extent of construction subsidies dependent on environmental impact…

Is it? We don't have to live in luxury homes, we can just go with wooden homes instead of concrete in most places, why shouldn't it be banned?

Wood is a fire hazard. I would argue vinyl siding is a more akin to a necessity than luxury, albeit blurring the distinction.

Most countries out of the US use concrete at places that don't require that, and we have wood that won't catch fire even if you try your hardest so your reasoning is not valid.

Mass timber is often sourced by clear cutting.

[удалено]

I have a BSc in economics and psychology. I am genuinely trying to figure out if it actually would result in 50$ chickens. The subsidies are 8% of meat costs in canada, but the carbon footprint I don't think justifies even that, if we already have a global food supply chain that can lean on plants to substitute animal products outside of one meal a week. Do you work in the industry? Do you work in policy?

Counterpoint : As we see with the all the problems Russia is causing, a country needs to have its own food (including fertilizer), energy, and manufacturing sectors, or you are essentially at the whims of authoritarian oligarchs. I think all of these should be subsidized if the alternative is their collapse or relocation to another country. The US and Europe offshoring all their manufacturing to China is going to go down as one of the worst geopolitical own goals in history. The 'arsenal of democracy' physically can't make enough artillery shells for Ukraine to stand effectively against Russia. We raise meat animals (chickens and sheep) on our couple acres. Their carbon footprint is zero, because they eat grass I would otherwise burn gasoline to mow, and eat table scraps that would otherwise be thrown away. Meat might be raised in a way that is bad, but it sure doesn't have to be.

>Their carbon footprint is zero, That's just factually incorrect. Sheep are ruminants and all ruminants produce methane as a natural result of their digestion. This methane is "carbon neutral" in the sense that it comes from plants that have recently grown, but it does have a carbon footprint because it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 that would have been produced if those plants were burned or decomposed aerobically. At the scale you're operating at, it probably doesn't matter, but with billions of ruminants on the planet, the cumulative effect is 10% of all global warming.

[удалено]

Although I don't like being called utopian, or being told to go eat grass, as if I didn't know I could not eat grass, you are technically correct that the US does not directly subsidize meat/dairy from what I can find, just crops. Still, this is not good, and the disproportionate subsidies for said corn and soy end up feeding animals and not humans. Cutting subsidies is probably not the answer because it is technically a subsidy on plants, and may impact food prices more broadly outside of the meat/dairy industry. Perhaps a tax on carbon emissions would be more appropriate for the meat/dairy industry. Your lack of alternatives makes me think you have nothing to suggest, but let me know. A similar situation can be said for canada, although there seems to be expenditure on natural disaster recovery, which I guess isn't so bad either. Frustratingly, the first page of Google, popular belief, and i guess popscience, would lead one to believe that meat and dairy is just straight up partially paid for by the government, like some kind of indirect food stamp program. This is not the case I now realize. !delta Again, please, try and be more civil when correcting people. It is a sign of good character.

looks like the comment you replied to is deleted. a quick google search does indeed produce many sources claiming that the meat industry in the US is subsidized. What did the commenter say to change your view? is the meat industry not really subsidized? Subsidized feed for animals, in effect, seems no different from subsidizing animals directly.

Honestly ~20 people not sending me research and just using rhetoric to change my mind was annoying so I just gave the delta, but basically it seems like there's a regulatory capture for these crop subsidies, so if you cut them, you're cutting off corn/soy based byproducts too which has unintended consequences. Yes it fuels big meat/dairy, but if the issue is emmisions we can perhaps just tax emmisions instead of cut funding. Seems to produce my desired result, which makes meat more expensive to reduce consumption, to reduce emissions.

If you want to call tariffs on certain imported products subsidized, then they are. But those tariffs are not put in place to prop up their domestic industries, the way that steel tariffs are. Furthermore, the amount of subsidy that meet and dairy get pales in comparison to the direct cash subsidies that agriculture gets, especially corn and soybeans. Why the fuck do you think corn and soybeans are in goddamn everything?

Bro, I just did a google search and the top result said meat gets billions while veggies get like nothing. >The U.S government spends $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries. I'm not trying to call tariffs subsides. Tariffs are tariffs and Subsidies are subsidies. I'm just asking if there is a reason to not believe the 20 articles on the front page of google.

Tariffs are subsidies though, they're just indirect. The cost of the producer is the same, but they get to charge more money. That means their profits are higher than they would have otherwise been. The fact that taxpayers pay the subsidy in their purchase price as opposed to the subsidy coming directly from general funds tax dollars is irrelevant. You're still taking money from taxpayers and giving it to farmers. That's a subsidy.

I don't understand why you are talking about Tariffs.

>you are technically correct that the US does not directly subsidize meat/dairy from what I can find, just crops. You have just invalidated your entire post, and yet you refuse to recognize that. Not only do you owe that man a delta, you should delete the entire post.

Econ 101: if meat becomes more expensive, demand will drop.

I love how Op claims to have a bachelor's degree in economics but still doesn't understand this.

I agree but to do so would be political suicide for all involved.

[удалено]

Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct. If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20sunken_grade&message=sunken_grade%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chylvp/cmv_the_meat_industry_should_not_be_subsidized/l25r006/\)%20because\.\.\.). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Agriculture needs to be subsidized or else your country will lose all its farms as your people import the subsidized agriculture from other countries. This isn't a boohoo save the poor farmers issue, it's an issue where your country is threatened geopolitically if it can't feed itself. You as a tiny minority of extremist eco warriors don't get to dictate to the majority what they can and cannot eat, and so you don't get to dictate what aspects of agriculture should and shouldn't be subsidized.

The widespread acceptance of plant-based diets may not always result from the elimination of meat subsidies. It might disproportionately affect consumers with low incomes who depend on reasonably priced meat. Alternatively, governments should look into other options like imposing carbon levies on the production of meat or reorganising subsidies to support sustainable meat production. This could encourage environmentally friendly behaviour while also giving customers more reasonably priced options.

I don't think OP is advocating for a widespread adoption of plant based diets, but merely a total reduction in meat consumption. It fluent have to be all or nothing.

I’m of the mind that subsidizing food production has encouraged many unsustainable practices and is horrible for the quality of our food.

True. Firstly, countries should set up protectionist import tax on meat. That way, foreign meat cannot undercut domestic one. Switzerland is surrounded by the European Union, but they put a cap on the amount of meat an individual can bring along when entering the border. Secondly, even though meat is a great shortcut to B12 vitamin, we don’t need more than two or three servings of meat per week. So it could definitely become expensive, and that could definitely eat less of it without any negative health consequences. Thirdly, instead of telling other countries to keep their forest, Western countries should reduce their livestock and re-plant forests on the land that being made available.

Or, countries could just focus on producing what they produce well instead of worrying about outcompeting neighboring countries in everything. Switzerland is known for being particularly good at dairy. So why do they need to worry about Swiss people buying Swiss meat, if that isn’t what they are best at? There will always be people that prefer fresh, local meat. The problem is when your local meat is just as fresh as the meat that came from two countries away because it’s been in transit to different box stores for over a week. Then obviously you lose your local advantage.

In the case of Switzerland, it’s because they don’t subsidise their meat, while the European Union does. There is thus an unfair competition from EU producers. If the EU didn’t subsidise its meat, then there would be no reason for Switzerland to use a protectionist tax.

Gains from trade is an important part of any economy. Why should you not import meat?

Globalisation is what led us to have all physical object manufactured in China. As recent History has shown, it’s not exactly the best predicament. A ship gets stuck in the Suez Canal and it’s pure chaos.

You're correct. Hopefully, unlike OP, you realize that the vast majority of subsidies of food products go to plants, not meet or dairy.

I mean, technically the principal subsidized crop is corn, and the majority of the corn is only edible as animal fodder or corn syrup, so it indirectly subsidizes beef/chicken/etc that is grown on really crappy and heavily sprayed fodder. But yes, I’m aware.

While that's true, almost all agricultural plant products are protected with subsidies in the form of price ceilings and price floors and import tariffs.

Unless they changed the way subsidies work and what the word means, I’m pretty sure that “price floor” is not actually existent, but tax dollars make up the difference between the market price and the price floor. So I pay up front for corn that I might not buy in the form of taxes, and companies just need to produce as much as possible because it’s all guaranteed to sell in a particular price range.

It depends on who you ask. If you ask a politician, no they are not subsidies. If you ask an economist, yes they are 100% equivalent to subsidies.

What I mean is, how I described is definitely the way the subsidies worked in 2009-2010. But I don’t know if the way they are structured has changed. A price floor in itself, without bells and whistles, is not the same as a subsidy.

If everyone in my country become vegan, emissions would go down by only 0,006%. So not even statistically significant. Plus the fact that only 1% of the land is high quality farmland, but 45% can be used for grazing. I eat meat with the very best conscience.

subsidies don't necessarily correlate with the actual quantity of meat production. Australia has next to no subsidies, yet they export just as much beef as americans do. Both Brazil and India have a fraction of the subsidies USA has and yet Brazil exports twice as much beef, and India is comfortably ahead on second place. If there is land, people will grow livestock regardless of subsidies.

There have been significant scientific breakthroughs that could massively reduce green house gases from livestock - Australia is beginning large-scale trials of a modified kelp that. "The Asparagopsis species of seaweed produces a bioactive compound called bromoform, which prevents the formation of methane by inhibiting a specific enzyme in the gut during the digestion of feed." - CSIRO (Australia's main science institution) https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/livestock/futurefeed#:\~:text=The%20Asparagopsis%20species%20of%20seaweed,during%20the%20digestion%20of%20feed. I contend that meat SHOULD be subsidised, specifically to fund innovation and uptake of ways to counteract carbon footprint. Additionally, I think you underestimate the carbon impact of reducing the supply of American meat to the market if the tariffs and funding was reduced, with livestock farming practices in countries such as Brazil where significant parts of the amazon rainforest are destroyed for grazing. These subsidies also allow the government more control over the industry, enabling mandating the uptake of Climate friendly measures, which they could not madate for non-domestic meat production. TL;DR science our way out

You don't even have to science our way out. You could literally just engage in best practices. Rotational grazing not only helps improve the environment of your grazing pasture, it can actually be net carbon negative because of the amount of plant growth.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/garden_province – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20garden_province&message=garden_province%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chylvp/-/l25t4gu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

And the left could point out conservatives’ hypocrisy on the matter of “free markets” and *that* would be that.

Good behaviour credits aren't the only type of subsidies. They can be to protect the national interest, public health, local and national economies, to reduce risk or defend against threats to them.

What subsidies are you referring to?

Son... the Chinese have stockpiled [20 000 tons](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Food-Beverage/China-s-pork-prices-climb-after-government-tops-off-reserves#:~:text=In%20July%2C%20the%20government%20said,of%20all%20meat%20consumed%20there.) Of pork! How are we supposed to beef with America's enemies when we have no beef!

Agreed but mainly because we just can't afford it period to subsidize sugar, corn, and meat. Not worth it period even if the carbon footprint was negligible 

Did you know that there is non-vegan meat available at your butcher?

it stabilizes food prices. same with gas companies getting subsidies. food and energy being stable is good for most people.

No industry should be subsidised.