Meat

Why Giving Up Meat Won't Have Much of an Effect on Climate Change

Going vegetarian would reduce a person's greenhouse gas emissions by around 2 percent

|

The idea that giving up meat could help prevent climate change is gaining traction in  American media. "Want to Save the Planet? Go Vegan Study Says," a Newsweek headline last year. The study, published in Science, found that "moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products has transformative potential," including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from food production by half.

This past January, CNN declared, "By filling your plate with plant foods instead of animal foods, you can help save the  planet." Specifically, the cable news operation cited a study in Nature that found that the production of animal products generates about 78 percent of agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions. To take account of the excess greenhouse gases emitted through meat production, the study's lead author Marco Springmann proposed a food tax that would boost the price of beef by 40 percent and increase the price of other meats by 20 percent.

And according to an April 30 New York Times guide answering your questions about food and climate change, people who currently eat a meat-heavy diet could reduce their food-related greenhouse gas emissions by one-third, or more, by moving to a vegetarian diet. Foregoing dairy would reduce those emissions even further.

But before you give up your animal protein of choice, however, consider what Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has to say in a recent USA Today column

Lomborg crunched some numbers and argues that the threat of carnivory to the climate is greatly exaggerated. First, he points out that calculations, for the most part, ignore 80 percent of greenhouse emissions that we each contribute to the atmosphere from transportation, heating, lighting, and manufacturing. Count those sources, and the emissions drop from eschewing animal products becomes commensurately smaller. Second, Lomborg notes that the most optimistic figures result from adopting a totally vegan diet, rather than a mere vegetarian one. In addition, spending less money on meat likely means that a consumer would spend more money on other goods and services that result in the higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

Citing a 2015 Swedish study in Ecological Economics, Lomborg concludes that becoming a vegetarian would cut the average person's greenhouse emissions by about 2 percent. He puts this reduction in context: Going vegetarian for the rest of your life would reduce your emissions by the exact same amount as spending a little more than $3 a year to buy cap-and-trade emissions allowances through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that operates among nine Northeastern states.

So while hectoring meat-eaters will do almost nothing to slow climate change, the demand for dietary sacrifice and culinary hair shirts could well alienate members of the public from considering more effective ways to address future man-made warming.

NEXT: Warren's Trade Policy Dresses Up Trumpism with Progressive Rhetoric

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I used to be fine with people who advocated a vegetarian (or even vegan) diet. Their life, their choice.
    But, just like most of the things on the progressive agenda, it is no longer about the ability to choose for oneself. It is now a moral imperative.
    I have always hated the Christian analogies of worshippers to sheep. But it now seems that the desire to truly make people into sheep is from the left. Fuck that and fuck them. If I look to any animal as an inspiration, it is to my namesake.

    1. Don’t Christians also view their religion as a moral imperative? And aren’t you proselytizing your views on here with your very comment? Seems a little hypocritical.

      1. He doesn’t say anything about his own beliefs. He only says that his opinion on the analogies to religion about these people has changed.

        1. Yeah, that’s a belief.

          1. So I actually took an honest look at my post. A couple things:
            1) Yes Christians view their religion as a moral imperative. And I don’t like that either. But, nowadays, the pressure to conform comes far more from the progressives than the conservative Christians.
            2) And I may be on the line of proselytizing. But, can’t it be argued that any disagreement of someone else’s proselytizing is also proselytizing?
            “You should do this because it is the right thing to do.”
            “I disagree that I should do this. It is not necessarily the right thing to do.” The second statement implies an alternative “right thing to do”.
            But I will be clear:
            Everyone who wants to act like sheep, be my guest to “baaaaa” your way into the Left’s good graces. I will choose a different path.

            1. “Everyone who wants to act like sheep, be my guest to “baaaaa” your way into the Left’s good graces.”

              Not possible. They eat their own.

      2. “Proselytizing” is a lot more than just reporting one’s own beliefs. Knocking on doors to argue with people is proselytizing. Displaying a fish on your car or business is not. Reporting his opinion here is not.

        1. As long as it’s a Swedish gummi-fish.

      3. Don’t Libertarians proselytize for Libertarianism?

        We can reduction ad absurdum all the way to radical Nihilism

      4. Christians are not going to tax you if you aren’t Christian unlike what Muslims who tax Christians for not being Muslim in other countries do

    2. Never fear, BearOdinson, I am one of those awful vegans, and I would never expect you to not eat meat, much less demand it. As a matter of fact, when we have a potluck, our friends are free to bring whatever they like.
      Except liver.
      I hate liver.
      (kidding)
      (And, I do recognize that there are a few wackos out there.)

      You have a great day, and… hey… chow-down on whatever the heck you like!

    3. Meanwhile, people continue to produce an ever-increasing greenhouse emitter- children.

    4. Bu-bu-bu-but, all those cows, and all that methane gas from COW FARTS!

      Vegans want you to eat the veggies.

      Then we can worry more about PEOPLE farts.

  2. Is there no problem that taxes won’t solve?

    1. There are a few, but those can be solved by throwing people in prison.

  3. Reason continues to push the mantra that any action I take has such a small impact, there is no Reason to do anything about climate change. I’d like to hear what Reason recommends to get so we don’t keep disposing of our waste CO2 into the air for free and simply pushing the impacts to subsequent generations. And I know, with the right discount rates, Reason can get economists to say it is OK to take people’s property in the future without their consent (or even kill people in the future) because their current value is simply too low to require anything of me – even if our collective actions are the cause of the impacts. Interested in hearing some solutions from Reason.

    1. Without a complete understanding of the climate, the effects of C)2 on the climate, whatever they are, cannot be measured accurately. If you can’t do that, then you can’t price CO2. “Pricing CO2” would not be a market in any meaningful sense of the work. It would be the government setting an arbitrary price for the right to emit something and letting people trade that right. That is not a market because central planners set the price.

      The solution is that there is no solution. The world is not going to give up its standard of living and the developing world in particular is never going to give up its shot at prosperity over global warming. If your plan is to tax and regulate the entire world into poverty, you have no plan.

      So ultimately, it matters not a rat’s ass what you or I or the US does about global warming. Carbon emissions are going to be what they are and the effects on the climate, if any, will be what they are regardless of what you, I, or the entire Western World does.

      Since there is not a solution to the “problem” and there is significant doubt that the “problem” even exists, the answer is to do nothing. And the answer is especially to not institute taxes and regulatory controls that are going to make the country poorer.

      1. The climate change solution is not the fascism suggested by Herr Springmann, nor a totalitarian state advocated by others. The biggest decreases in CO2 will come from free market capitalists pursuing more efficient and cost effective ways to provide energy. All these greedy bastards want is to get filthy rich by solving the consumers’ desire for cheaper energy.

    2. We are already following the semi-libertarian solution. Have been doing so for quite a long time.

      Prices for zero-carbon energy have been plummeting as technology advances. Once it finally becomes cheaper to use solar, wind and nuclear (as compared to coal, natural gas and oil), we’ll eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

      Of course the real question is…. will it be in time?

      And I suppose the other question is, what will be the consequence? We’ve heard a lot of guesses, but who knows if a warmer earth isn’t a more productive earth? Also on the list of the unknowns: We are at the tail end of an ice-age. If you look at prior ice age temperature fluctuations, temperatures get to about the area we are entering now, and then they drop rather precipitously, resulting in an icy planet that has huge, continent sized glaciers covering much of the northern hemisphere in a sheet of ice a mile deep. And nobody knows why the warming suddenly ends and the planet cools to an ice-covered ball. This transition is already somewhat overdue, judging by past trends. Why? nobody knows. Is a too-warm planet worse than a too cold planet? Nobody knows. Ice is definitely worse for all of Canada, I know that much. And Chicago, which would be under a thousand feet or more of ice. You can build seawalls to protect against a foot of ocean level rise. There’s not really anything you can do about a mile-high sheet of ice that runs for thousands of miles.

      1. When you consider that earth has been significantly warmer than today at different times in the past, that plants grow better and do better in higher CO2 environments, and the enormous difference in the quantity of flora and fauna in warm and temperate areas of the earth and colder and arctic regions, I have a hard time believing that a warmer planet will not on balance be a good thing.

        If the polar ice caps get smaller and the sea levels rise, humanity will adapt. Meanwhile, the additional water into the water cycle will mean fewer droughts and a wetter warmer climate in general.

        1. One could certainly come up with a plausible argument there…

      2. Prices for zero-carbon energy have been plummeting as technology advances. Once it finally becomes cheaper to use solar, wind and nuclear (as compared to coal, natural gas and oil), we’ll eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

        Nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydro, and oil convert potential energy. IOW, they are dispatchable. Solar and wind convert kinetic energy which is intermittent and not dispatchable. Kinetic energy sources require backup by energy sources that utilize potential energy to make them dispatchable. Comparing the cost of kinetic energy sources with potential energy sources is an apples and oranges comparison.

    3. The last paragraph explains it. Imposing life style changes at gun point for little to no effect is counter productive in the long run.
      As for solutions: nuclear power, carbon sequestration, raising living standards of the poorest nations even if it means using natural gas (better than burning cow dung) etc…
      Individuals on the other hand should do what they believe can help, may it be small or big impact actions.

    4. “Reason continues to push the mantra that any action I take has such a small impact, there is no Reason to do anything about climate change.”

      I don’t think that’s the issue at all.

      carbon dioxide emissions per capita, right now, are about where they were in 1950 according to the EIA:

      https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf

      See Table 1-7 on page 27 of 264.

      The reason they’ve fallen so dramatically is largely attributable to two factors:

      1) The fracking revolution

      Natural gas produces about 40% less CO2 for the same amount of energy as coal. Because natural gas has supplanted coal based almost entirely on how cheap it is to burn natural gas, we’re emitting a lot less C02 per capita.

      2) People are using different kinds of cars.

      People are buying smaller cars with better mileage, they’re buying hybrids and electric cars, etc.

      Take those two factors together, and we’re talking about C02 emissions per capita dropping because of what amounts to consumer choice.

      I think the argument being made here may be more about how the government imposing grand solutions aren’t really so grand. You making different choices is probably the only effective means to combat C02 emissions–well, you and people like you. That’s how we’ve come so far to where we are now, and that’s what the solution in the future looks like: people making consumer choices because they care. Not the government imposing solutions that inadequately address the problem.

    5. Nuclear power. If you are opposed to nuclear power and getting rid of the regulations that restrict nuke plants, you aren’t serious about global warming (“climate change” is just PR).

    6. On the other hand, most of the next generation would not even exist without the legacy of our fossil-fuel powered industrial society. Nor would their property.

      So go ahead and invent a time machine and prevent the technological, economic, and population boom of the past century. But maybe you should first ask these threatened next generations if they would rather be around to deal with whatever challenges come.

    7. “Reason can get economists to say it is OK to take people’s property in the future without their consent (or even kill people in the future)”

      Because you’ve talked to these people from the future and confirmed that’s what will happen. And what did the people who will never exist because they were killed by those of us the past have to say?

  4. If everyone on the planet went to an entirely vegan lifestyle, the effect on global warming would indeed be pretty significant. The amount of arable land required for feedstock for food animals is huge. The amount of that land that would be required for producing plant food for humans is relatively smaller.

    Plus, you’d have all the knock-on benefits to the environment. The menhaden fishery would be outlawed, so we would have huge schools of menhaden filtering the water on the east coast again. Giant schools of tuna would patrol the oceans. There would be lots of change.

    We’d need to introduce predators in a lot of areas that have been cleared of large carnivores lest we risk being overrun by native herbivores.

    Going full vegan worldwide would be a big, big change for a ton of things related to the environment.

    I’m not advocating for this, and it ain’t happening. But eliminating cows and pigs, halting deforestation in the tropics for farming and returning the seas to their former productivity would have to have a pretty large effect on the climate. Heck, just the carbon sequestered in menhaden poop that gets dropped in the deep ocean would have to be pretty significant, should they return to their former numbers.

    1. I am not sure that feeding the world a healthy diet with plants alone would be so easy on the land. I think it would take a lot more land than you think. Unless you want to put people on bread and water, it would require an enormous increase in things like lettuce and fruits that are generally grown only in warm climates. You can’t grow that stuff in the winter time in South Dakota. You would have to massively expand the acres used in warm areas or force people to not only give up meat but also give up fresh vegetables as well. And all of that so that some land in Iowa and Kansas can go fallow.

      1. I think the bigger concern would be finding land for burial plots for all of the idiots who thought they could force people to give up eating the foods that they like. Especially cow, pig and chicken in the US. Bacon seems particularly likely to inspire violence.

        1. That is probably true.

      2. The main problem is that cattle are grazers that eat grass that often grows in arid regions that would not support edible crops.

        1. That is a good point.

        2. ^^This.

          I have hunted plenty of hilly, rocky, tree-covered BLM land that has tons of cattle (we call them Slow Elk) and no chance of ever supporting crops. In a way, the “Free Range” and “Naturally Fed” movements have already significantly changed the game. More and more meat is harvested through ranching that does not require large plots of arable land to be dedicated to feedstock.

      3. While it is true that lots of livestock is raised in areas generally unsuitable for modern agricultural, forty-one percent of good land is used to raise feed for livestock. World-wide, it is almost double that. If you include the corn raised for biofuel here in the US, the actual acreage used to grow crops for human consumption drops even further. Add to that the fact that the amount of land “under-the-plow” here in the US decreases by about a million acres per year, the acreage needed to feed a nation of vegetarians would be a whole lot smaller than the acreage we now use. Note: I am not advocating for this, in any way shape or form, but if the measure of land necessary to feed a population is one of the standards to measure efficiency, plants win. Every time. Luckily, with modern ag and technology, we have plenty of room for those who choose to eat meat, and those who don’t.

    2. Why would going vegan halt deforestation? Soy and palm oil are responsible for more deforestation than cattle ranching, and going vegan would doubtlessly increase demand for soy

      1. “increase demand for soy”

        Among humans. Bovine demand for soy would decrease.

        1. So cows are going to start magically regurgitating soybeans? Cows eat grass not soy, that’s why they need so much grazing land

          1. “Cows eat grass not soy”

            I never suspected cows ate plastic bags until my pilgrimage to India,

      2. This is true, but is limited to developing nations. The US is the world’s #1 producer of soy (though Brazil may pass us this year), and large percentage of the US production is exported, and much more used to feed livestock. World-wide, 70% of soy is used to feed livestock. It is livestock which is “driving” the deforestation you mention. And that is due to market demands: in most cases, as nations become more prosperous, they can afford, and demand, more meat.

        Only about 7% of the soy crop is used for human food, and nearly all of that goes to producing oil. If there is ever a reduction in the demand for beef (which I don’t think is going to change in the near future, and certainly don’t advocate for it) overall, it would significantly reduce the number of acres we have “under the plow.” In other words, we would have less land under the plow (especially when we quit growing corn for biofuel) than we have today. More parks, more “open spaces,” more nice picnic areas, and for those who choose to hunt, more deer, rabbits, pheasant, whatever.

    3. “I’m not advocating for this, and it ain’t happening.”

      It could happen a lot easier than you think. One day you’re eating meat, and dairy, the next you aren’t. It’s no harder than quitting smoking, though that’s no walk in the park, it’s certainly within reach of all of us. To achieve the numbers you need to make a difference, you need to connect the diet to an expanded ethical/environmental awareness. Propaganda, to put it bluntly.

      I would add an emphasis on local and non processed food to the mix to maximize the effect. Food may well be more expensive because of this.

  5. I’m have in beef soft tacos tonight and am going to smoke a chicken tomorrow with wood and charcoal. These people can bugger off.

    1. What time are you serving dinner and what can I bring?

      1. Please bring Mogen David 20-20 (AKA “Mad Dog”), and whatever kind of Cheez Whizz that you think best complements the rich, savory taste of “Mad Dog”.

        NEVER let it be said that SQRLSY One lacks refined tastes!!!

  6. “To take account of the excess greenhouse gases emitted through meat production, the study’s lead author Marco Springmann proposed a food tax that would boost the price of beef by 40 percent and increase the price of other meats by 20 percent.”

    Further evidence that whenever someone proposes a government “solution” like this, the market is already offering something better.

    Beyond Meat’s (BYND) stock price has doubled since its stratospheric IPO several months ago, and there’s no reason to think that’s about irrational expectations. The question so far has been whether their production can keep up with the demand for their products–not whether that demand exists. In terms of the environmental impact, the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems came to the following conclusions:

    “Based on a comparative assessment of the current Beyond Burger production system with the 2017 beef LCA by Thoma et al, the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef.

    http://css.umich.edu/publication/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-life-cycle-assessment-detailed-comparison-between-plant-based

    Beyond Meat has managed to displace traditional beef through competition in the market without any help at all from some concerned “scientist”* and his unnecessary tax–and isn’t that the way it always seems to go? Show me an expert who wants to solve a legitimate problem with central planning, and I’ll show you a better solution that is already available without it.

    *When a “scientist” starts advocating policy, he’s no longer behaving as a scientist. Science is a methodology –not a priesthood. There isn’t anything scientific about using the government to force other people to sacrifice their standard of living for your qualitative preferences. The qualitative preferences of “scientists” have no more authority than anyone else’s–certainly not because they’re the qualitative preferences of scientists.

    1. I dunno about that hyperbole on the burger. I had one. It was OK. But it wasn’t “beyond meat”. It was just pretty good for a veggie burger.

      But the good thing about scientists believing they have special status to use the argument from authority fallacy in their politics is this: Everyone else does it too. Pretty people in Hollywood think they are special and should be listened to. Journalists who hang out together at cocktail parties in Manhattan and DC think they are special and should be listened to. All of the narcissists who run for office…. Well, you get the picture.

      1. People talk about the crisis of expert authority and always blame the evil public for not believing experts. No, the problem is “experts” and scientists have stopped giving technical advice and instead are giving moral and value advice and camouflaging it as technical advice. A doctor has expert authority on your health. If he tells you that you have cancer, he is probably right. He does not have moral authority over your behavior. So, he can’t tell you you must stop smoking. Only you have the moral authority to decide that.

      2. C: I agree with you about the beyond meat burger, but the Impossible Burger is a quite different and tasty thing. I have eaten several and – to my taste – the company has been incrementally and deliciously improving the flavor. Give it a try when you can.

        1. STOP yer un-clean and Gaia-destroying emissions, ye horrible Reasonoids!!! Be morally superior like MEEE!!!

          I obviously LOVE the Gaia Mama-Earth, as can be clearly seen by my Own Sacred Efforts to Serve as a Human Carbon Sink… Did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his / her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”… Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them that thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink… I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

          PS, the other thing I do to show my Love of Gaia? As a cat-loving, Gaia / Mother Earth Loving, Baby-Seals-loving kind of Morally Superior Personoid that I am, I have to conclude washing cloth diapers, or using disposal diapers, or flushing one’s urine stains or poop stains down the drain, wastefully, is all abhorrent to Gaia. So I fartilize the earth in the back yard with my poop and pee. Poop and pee STAINS remaining on me, you ask? Well, the Earth Mother has kindly, graciously provided us ungrateful sub-humanoids with PERFECT puddy-tats to show us the way! They use neither cloth nor un-natural fibers to clad their babies’ butts, or even to wipe their own… They LICK them clean, in a Gaia-loving way. Most of us can’t lick our own butts, sad to say, so the VERY least we could, and should, be doing, is to use recycled cloth butt-wipes and lick them clean, wasting neither precious water (Gaia-Mother’s precious BLOOD, you know!) nor fiber, nor polluting the Mother Earth with artificial fibers or pollutants. If y’all aren’t doing it like I say, here, y’all are just making the baby seals cry, that’s all I gonna say now… Do as I say, REPENT NOW! Before it is too late!

          1. The toxoplasmosis is strong in this one.

      3. I suspect Beyond Meat’s products will continue to improve. Their competitors will improve. The major food companies, meanwhile, are introducing their own versions.

        It’s a lot like Tesla. Musk comes out with a really hot car that everyone wants, and then all the other car companies see the premiums they could be getting if they had designs like that. This is probably the coolest electric car right now:

        https://www.jaguarusa.com/all-models/i-pace/index.html

        The point is that it’s unnecessary to tax beef by 40% and other meats by 20% in order to make them less competitive than plant based alternative when the stock market is giving new start ups billions of dollars in IPO money to roll out new and better products–and the biggest problem they’re having is keeping up with demand. Meanwhile, the country’s largest food companies are investing billions of their own to rush similar products to market?

        That tax is completely unnecessary and it would probably be less effective. If you believe this is a real problem, what you want is for consumers to adopt plant based alternatives because their preferences change. You want products to emerge that taste better than what the local slaughterhouse can get to the supermarket–at lower prices than beef. The way to do that is to let companies like Beyond Meat compete with beef in the market. It’s not to make beef so expensive that people will settle for crappy product because they can’t afford real beef.

        1. I’m sure the government will step in at some point to prevent competition from arising. (For the children.)

    2. *When a “scientist” starts advocating policy, he’s no longer behaving as a scientist. Science is a methodology –not a priesthood.

      Marching for Priesthood makes more sense than marching for a methodology, so I’ll stick with the former, thank you very much.

    3. There’s a great restaurant in Taipei near the Normal University that serves a complete menu of mock meat Chinese food. Crab, chicken, beef, shrimp, lamb, pork, etc all fashioned out of mushrooms and other things. The taste, look, smell and texture all remarkably close to their originals. Personally though, this sort of thing and the burgers don’t appeal to me. I’ve been off meat so long that the taste puts me off. I’m much happier with a falafel burger than one striving to meatyness.

      1. Homosapiens Sapiens is a meat eater. Technically we’re considered omnivores. Without meat in our diet, it is very difficult to get proper nutrition.
        Look where herbivores’ eyes are- ontheside ro detect danger. Look where carnivores’ eyes are- in front to help them be a danger. Now look where a human’s eyes are.

        1. “Now look where a human’s eyes are.”

          But humans are domesticated. They can tolerate intense crowding and are slow to be stimulated into a flight/fight response. As domesticated animals, they will make do with what is available, or what is given.

        2. “Homosapiens Sapiens is a meat eater. Technically we’re considered omnivores. Without meat in our diet, it is very difficult to get proper nutrition.”

          This may be true for those living in remote mountains in some, very poor, third-world country, or in places like the arctic, but not in general. I don’t “advocate” for a meat-free diet, in any way shape or form, but there is plenty of good protein to be had from plants. And lots of it even tastes good.

          1. “I don’t “advocate” for a meat-free diet, in any way shape or form”

            Do you agree that a meat free diet all but eliminates the need to keep and kill animals like cows, pigs, chickens etc? Isn’t that worth ‘advocating for?’

            1. Nope, sorry. I have “kept” animals for my entire life. In the past, that has included dogs, tropical fish, birds, horses, and ducks.

              In the last fifteen or so years, I have kept only “rescued” animals, including cats, goats, chickens, and a pot-bellied pig. Cats are all I keep right now.

              Killing them? Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. Though never for meat.

              And no, I am not anti-hunting, per se. One of my oldest friends has been hunting since she was a teenager.

              1. I’d prefer it if you didn’t keep cats. They take a terrible toll on our feathered friends. Why do you keep and kill animals if not to eat them? It sounds unusual. You seem compassionate towards animals.

                1. All my cats are indoors. The only thing they kill are cans of Science Diet or an occasional fly.

                  By killing, I mean that I have had to put a lot of animals down. It comes with the territory, unfortunately. As far as compassion, let me say I love animals. That’s one reason, when we need a replacement cat (we currently have nine), we always get them from a local shelter (not one of the government ones, by the way). Our last cat, which we got a few months ago, we picked because, aside from being sweet and mild-tempered, he was eight years old, and the Shelter said, due to 1) being older, and 2) not being a kitten, they feared nobody would adopt him. So we did.

    4. Thanks for posting the link to the study, Ken. Quite interesting.

  7. …becoming a vegetarian would cut the average person’s greenhouse emissions by about 2 percent.

    Factor in that I have no interest in my personal greenhouse emissions one way or the other and I guess I’ll be grilling ribeyes tonight.

    1. What time are you serving dinner and what can I bring?

        1. Ohh, something came up, can’t make it tonight.

    2. Just don’t use gas.

      Charcoal for the win.

      1. But even the truth is a lie when spoken by Trump!
        The TDS infected democrats simply have determined they can ignore the results of the last election, and the next, and not get lynched. They should be wrong, but they are not.
        Two questions that will NOT get asked in the joint press briefings by the socialists this week are these:
        Will you release a list of who you would nominate to the Supreme Court?
        Will you accept the results of the general election?

    1. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

  8. Going vegetarian would reduce a person’s greenhouse gas emissions by around 2 percent

    Well, sure. But if 50 people do it, that’s a 100% reduction!

    #math

    1. #socialistmath

    2. Damnit, I made that joke before reading the comments.

  9. So we reduce meat consumption and add a 40% tax on beef, in exchange for a 2% drop in CO2 levels.

    Then the price of meat drops drastically, making it more purchasable in the developing world, raising the CO2 levels back to where they were, if not higher.

  10. Rather than all of us giving up meat we should all force Manbearpig to fly commercial.

  11. The Eloi were Vegans, The Morlocks had the right idea.

    1. I wouldn’t put too much stock in that. H.G. Wells was, by most accounts, a vegetarian. More important is that the Morlocks were once the slaves of the Eloi.

  12. “Lomborg crunched some numbers and argues that the threat of carnivory to the climate is greatly exaggerated. First, he points out that calculations, for the most part, ignore 80 percent of greenhouse emissions that we each contribute to the atmosphere from transportation, heating, lighting, and manufacturing.”

    Once we ban transportation, heating, lighting, and manufacturing, we will be saved!

  13. I didn’t really care anyways.

  14. “Going vegetarian would reduce a person’s greenhouse gas emissions by around 2 percent”
    Sure, but if you get 50 people to do it, then we’ve reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 100%!

    1. LOL. I love it. (from a vegan)

  15. For those who are using the idea that giving up meat would help with climate change here is a way that they could support which would work to that end. First pay meat farmers what they would have earned from their meat farming if they instead grow plant based food. Now that would work only for citizens of this country and long term resident alien meat farmers who have been involved in the business for 15 years. Secondly then would have to stop meat importation period. This would stop cheating by importing meat into this country. BTW eggs and wool also would have to be stopped. But the synthetic fibers that is used to replace wool would also have to be out because those fibers comes from OIL which is to be band for the benefit of climate change.

    1. So, everyone is just naked?

  16. All I can say is this 160lb, 5’11” guy needs the iron and protein of meat. I already consume 3500 calories a day to maintain, and I don’t exercise. Taking away the rich, dense protein from me would suck. And I want too much variety. Deciding whether tonight is broccoli, asparagus, or cauliflower night isn’t enough variety. I would probably wither away.

    The fish I had tonight was tasty. But the baseball top sirloin, medium rare of course, from Saturday was worth every single CO2 molecule.

    1. Have you ever kicked heroin? That’s tough. Going vegan is a piece of cake.

      1. I like my cake made out of meat.

  17. Science be damned! The (lack of) greenhouse emissions due to meat consumption certainly won’t stop progtarded politicians from using this as an opportunity to virtue signal by taxing and/ or banning meat…So a run of the mill steak in SF may soon cost $200, and a McDs burger $50.

    1. Soon they will be banning athletics because of the increased exhalation of CO2.

      Truly sad that they want to control not only what a person eats but also the gaseous emissions from both ends of one’s anatomy.

  18. Criticizing environmental policy on efficiency grounds is *exactly* like criticizing communion wafers on nutritional grounds.

    Now don’t let me catch you with a plastic straw!

  19. IIUC they failed to take into consideration the increased gaseous emissions that occur when one uses a vegan diet. Similar to their calls for more electricity usage while ignoring the fact that the majority of electricity is produced using fossil fuels.

  20. Giving up meat isn’t about the climate. Giving up meat is about making vegans feel good about their choices.

    1. That really is about 90% of it. Nearly all the vegans I know simply would rather not have animals killed so they can eat. Nothing political or ecological about it. I also know a couple who simply do not like meat and never have. Nothing about saving the planet there, either.

      There are, of course, Buddhists, Jains, and others who do it for philosophical/spiritual reasons, but none that I know of who believe it will “save the planet.”

      1. “That really is about 90% of it.”

        But the 90% are the old farts. The youngsters, those in their teens and younger, have no problem melding personal ethical diet choices with larger environmental concerns. This will be the future face of veganism, I believe. It’s the youngsters you should be fearing, as they will be the ones to overturn the status quo.

        1. “But the 90% are the old farts. The youngsters, those in their teens and younger, have no problem melding personal ethical diet choices with larger environmental concerns.”

          While I may not have quite the faith in the younger generation as you, I do tend to believe, or at least hope, that the next generation will do better than this one. I think you will see less consumption of animals in the future, for whatever reasons, and, those choices will be made by consumers. Which is as it should be. I am just against the government involvement, either by coercion or taxation… oops, but I repeat myself.

          Have a good day! My wife and I are just sitting down to a great sandwich with some really good bread and some plant-based salami by Worthington (though it is more like pastrami than salami.) Dinner will be a delightful gumbo made with Beyond Meat sausage. Keeping vegan is much easier when your spouse is a gourmet cook!

  21. I’m all ready a vegan once removed. Cow eats inedible grasses i eat the cow, hence i am a vegan

  22. Also, if the problem is that our diet is causing us to keep too many animals in the environment, the solution is to obviously get rid of all the animals. I knew these Lefties were anti-human, but I never knew they were anti-animal as well. They won’t be happy until the last blade of grass is free from the terror of ruminants.

  23. In addition, spending less money on meat likely means that a consumer would spend more money on other goods and services that result in the higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

    There’s a third option Ron. They could quit spending money on food altogether and die of malnutrition or starvation. I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to just assume that these people don’t explicitly want to grind civilization, including scientific research, to a halt and convert significant portions of humanity into carbon-neutral corpses. As long as it’s not their research that gets ground to a halt and their bodies that get turned to corpses, their numbers are right.

  24. I don’t put much stock in those alleged greenhouse gas trading systems. A lot of room for BS “reduction” credits.

    But anyway, if you can offset your extra 2% of carbon due to meat with $3/year, then each person’s total carbon output could be offset for just $150/year. I think somebody’s math is off.

  25. I would be very skeptical of any calculations coming from Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen “Consensus” Center. He speaks for a consensus about as much as Southern Baptists speak for Unitarians.

Please to post comments