Philosophical Vegan Forum

Been a vegan for nearly two years I think. Started with trying to eat healthier but now I'm hoping to get a better understanding of the facts. What Veganism is all about from health to environment to animal welfare, as well as what I actually believe and how to exactly fit Veganism into my life.

I watched the movie Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret and doing fact checking starting with their site. Instead of trying to research it all myself and coming to my own conclusions, thought it would be a better idea to post here and have a discussion.

https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

Animal agriculture as I understand it is second to third contributing cause to environmental impact. On the site it has livestock and byproducts as the leading cause of global greenhouse gas emissions "Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions." Few questions, when discussing the impact is the environment and climate separate, If separate what would be the other top three major contributors to the environment? Does the livestock and byproducts beyond animal agriculture including all animal products/production?

I think Cowspiracy is a great and important documentary, but to my understanding, they do inflate a few numbers, which is unfortunate.

The environmental reason for going vegan is probably the strongest one currently, but these numbers shouldn't need to be exaggerated in order to spread a message. Check the Similar Topics below.

Seems to be the case the numbers are inflated. Energy has a greater contribution to greenhouse gases than agriculture (animal and plant combined). Not even close unless you only compare it to transportation. That's globally, when compared nationally in the United States transportation is much higher.

Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).

But if we're talking direct environmental impact other than greenhouse gases (climate change/global warming) then agriculture would have a greater contribution. Both the documentary and article talk about land and water use (deforestation), and fertilizers for animal agriculture. Part of the article compares livestock and byproducts total emissions, also the fact animals like cows release methane which is supposedly 20 times more potent. Other than concern for animals, each stands out as something that should concern us but I agree no need to exaggerate or mislead people. Except the potency of methane being 20 times more than Co2 stands out, not sure how that compares at 14% to 77% globally.

Producing beef requires significantly more resources (e.g. land, fertilizer, and water) than other sources of meat. As ruminant animals, cattle also produce methane that othersources (e.g. pigs and chickens) don't.

I think it's probably closer to 30% or even 25% than 51%. Cowspiracy (and the world watch report) does some double counting.
It's discussed a little here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1702

What is very likely is that animal agriculture holds the lion's share of easily avoidable emissions. People can stop eating meat much more easily than they can stop living in houses, buying food from grocery stores, and using energy domestically for things like heating and air conditioning. People would literally die if they didn't have air conditioning during some months.

If you break it down by avoidable emissions animal agriculture is probably something more like 75% of them because only a fraction of transportation is us driving around in personal cars (theoretically replaceable by public transit).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:07 pm What is very likely is that animal agriculture holds the lion's share of easily avoidable emissions. People can stop eating meat much more easily than they can stop living in houses, buying food from grocery stores, and using energy domestically for things like heating and air conditioning. People would literally die if they didn't have air conditioning during some months.

How much of animal products would you need to cut out in order to not be emitting as much as a comfortable lifestyle (showers, AC, heat, etc)? I might need to know for a future video ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

I think beef and dairy are the biggest contributors in that regard. Although if everyone stopped eating beef, I think we'd be much better off.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:07 pm What is very likely is that animal agriculture holds the lion's share of easily avoidable emissions. People can stop eating meat much more easily than they can stop living in houses, buying food from grocery stores, and using energy domestically for things like heating and air conditioning. People would literally die if they didn't have air conditioning during some months.

Methane emissions are quite different than CO2-Emissions. They warming effect is bounded to a time horizon. Most considerations take the IPCC frame of CO2 equivalence. This means the warming potential is calculated for a specific time frame (100 years). Because the half time of methane is roughly 9 years it is very much more potential on short scales. Therefore, you cannot really substitute methane emissions reductions for CO2-emission reductions. Constant methane emissions would not have a warming effect, after a short time to equilibrium, regarding the short half time. At least if the methane is not from fossil source, which would add CO2 to the carbon cycle mediatedly. CO2-emissions have to go to zero, for climate stability. The evaluation of this depends upon your time-frame of interest. One should be careful if comparing short-lived greenhouse gas emission with long-lived greenhouse gas emissions.

Concerning the share of agricultural emissions. The typically cited numbers around 20% for animal agriculture are global numbers. In industrial states like the US this share is lower, because there is more heating, industry and transport: Below 5% of emissions. This would needed to be reflected if considering easily avoidable emissions.

For sure this does not mean one should not reduce animal agricultural emissions, but they are not the big impact field in industrialized countries.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 am

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:07 pm What is very likely is that animal agriculture holds the lion's share of easily avoidable emissions. People can stop eating meat much more easily than they can stop living in houses, buying food from grocery stores, and using energy domestically for things like heating and air conditioning. People would literally die if they didn't have air conditioning during some months.

Methane emissions are quite different than CO2-Emissions. They warming effect is bounded to a time horizon. Most considerations take the IPCC frame of CO2 equivalence. This means the warming potential is calculated for a specific time frame (100 years). Because the half time of methane is roughly 9 years it is very much more potential on short scales. Therefore, you cannot really substitute methane emissions reductions for CO2-emission reductions. Constant methane emissions would not have a warming effect, after a short time to equilibrium, regarding the short half time. At least if the methane is not from fossil source, which would add CO2 to the carbon cycle mediatedly. CO2-emissions have to go to zero, for climate stability. The evaluation of this depends upon your time-frame of interest. One should be careful if comparing short-lived greenhouse gas emission with long-lived greenhouse gas emissions.

Concerning the share of agricultural emissions. The typically cited numbers around 20% for animal agriculture are global numbers. In industrial states like the US this share is lower, because there is more heating, industry and transport: Below 5% of emissions. This would needed to be reflected if considering easily avoidable emissions.

For sure this does not mean one should not reduce animal agricultural emissions, but they are not the big impact field in industrialized countries.

Basically you're saying while methane emissions are a problem short term, still long term CO2 emissions need to be addressed (beyond animal agriculture)?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:07 pm I think it's probably closer to 30% or even 25% than 51%. Cowspiracy (and the world watch report) does some double counting.
It's discussed a little here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1702

What is very likely is that animal agriculture holds the lion's share of easily avoidable emissions. People can stop eating meat much more easily than they can stop living in houses, buying food from grocery stores, and using energy domestically for things like heating and air conditioning. People would literally die if they didn't have air conditioning during some months.

If you break it down by avoidable emissions animal agriculture is probably something more like 75% of them because only a fraction of transportation is us driving around in personal cars (theoretically replaceable by public transit).

In your link you say methane is 70 times more potent by mass, the link I provided said 20 times. Other than mass do you know what they could be making the comparison?

VeggieSeek wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:35 pm
Basically you're saying while methane emissions are a problem short term, still long term CO2 emissions need to be addressed (beyond animal agriculture)?

Yes, that is the point. That even might explain some differences in estimates on the global warming potential. The potential depends upon the chosen time frame. Usually 100 years are taken for the estimate.

If someone want some idea, of what this means, I will provide two links. One to a paper and one to a blog entry by a scientist, partially about this paper:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress. ... 3/methane/
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/108770/1 ... thfigs.pdf

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 am Methane emissions are quite different than CO2-Emissions. They warming effect is bounded to a time horizon. Most considerations take the IPCC frame of CO2 equivalence. This means the warming potential is calculated for a specific time frame (100 years). Because the half time of methane is roughly 9 years it is very much more potential on short scales.

This is correct, and given climate catastrophe is a few short decades away (not 100 years off) critics argue very convincingly that such a time frame is deceptive.
If we care about what happens by 2050 it's Methane that is far more important, because it's where we can make the most difference. On a 20 or 30 year time frame it looks very different.

@VeggieSeek ^ That tends to be most of the difference between comparisons.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 amTherefore, you cannot really substitute methane emissions reductions for CO2-emission reductions.

To the contrary, you absolutely can when you're looking at certain end points and reduction goals (such as preventing the worst case outcomes by 2050). It's a much safer bet that we'll have our ducks in a row with regard to carbon capture and sequestration in a hundred years. It's a good trade off to burden later generations with coming up with technological solutions that will be much easier for them in exchange for saving millions of people in the next couple decades.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 amConstant methane emissions would not have a warming effect, after a short time to equilibrium, regarding the short half time.

They do relative to eliminating them, which has an anti-warming effect in an equally short time-frame. Eliminating CO2 emissions takes much longer to pay off AND is a lot harder to do.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 amAt least if the methane is not from fossil source, which would add CO2 to the carbon cycle mediatedly. CO2-emissions have to go to zero, for climate stability.

CO2 emissions need to drop to nearly zero net eventually, but reducing or eliminating methane emissions will give us more time to do so and is much easier to accomplish. Methane does add CO2 to the atmosphere after decomposition too, FYI. CH4 -> CO2 + 2H20
On any time line, methane is always worse than CO2 by weight and only fully neutral after a much longer time of constant emissions to CO2.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:45 amConcerning the share of agricultural emissions. The typically cited numbers around 20% for animal agriculture are global numbers. In industrial states like the US this share is lower, because there is more heating, industry and transport: Below 5% of emissions. This would needed to be reflected if considering easily avoidable emissions.

As goes the U.S. so goes the world. Trends in plant based eating in developed countries benefit less developed countries too by providing guidance on technology and infrastructure, as well as legal precedence and political pressure (you can't ask other people to do something you aren't doing). Consider also the amount of import/export of animal products. I don't think any man is an island here: we're fighting a global industry.

More importantly, it's a much bigger ask for people in developed countries to start living a third world lifestyle; no indoor heating or air conditioning? No hot water? People don't want to live that way. There are ways to save on those costs but they're infrastructure heavy. Switching to plant-based eating is easier and can be done very easily on a national and international scale because the infrastructure is highly localized.

Even assuming we're not going to drop any of our other emissions (leaving animal agriculture closer to 15% or so when taking into account a shorter time frame for evaluating methane) animal agriculture (mostly beef and dairy, but also pork and chicken due more to nitrous oxide emissions) remains the largest easily avoidable emission source. Other reductions rely primarily on changing grid power.
It doesn't matter if we look at it as removing a "neutral" source to see cooling potential to combat the warming, or removing a "warming" source to reduce the warming: the effect is the same. I would call that a distinction without a difference, and our obligation to each is comparable and depends only on achieving effects as quickly as possible.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:38 pm
This is correct, and given climate catastrophe is a few short decades away (not 100 years off) critics argue very convincingly that such a time frame is deceptive.
If we care about what happens by 2050 it's Methane that is far more important, because it's where we can make the most difference. On a 20 or 30 year time frame it looks very different.

To the contrary, you absolutely can when you're looking at certain end points and reduction goals (such as preventing the worst case outcomes by 2050). It's a much safer bet that we'll have our ducks in a row with regard to carbon capture and sequestration in a hundred years. It's a good trade off to burden later generations with coming up with technological solutions that will be much easier for them in exchange for saving millions of people in the next couple decades.

They do relative to eliminating them, which has an anti-warming effect in an equally short time-frame. Eliminating CO2 emissions takes much longer to pay off AND is a lot harder to do.

CO2 emissions need to drop to nearly zero net eventually, but reducing or eliminating methane emissions will give us more time to do so and is much easier to accomplish. Methane does add CO2 to the atmosphere after decomposition too, FYI. CH4 -> CO2 + 2H20
On any time line, methane is always worse than CO2 by weight and only fully neutral after a much longer time of constant emissions to CO2.
[...]
As goes the U.S. so goes the world. Trends in plant based eating in developed countries benefit less developed countries too by providing guidance on technology and infrastructure, as well as legal precedence and political pressure (you can't ask other people to do something you aren't doing). Consider also the amount of import/export of animal products. I don't think any man is an island here: we're fighting a global industry.

We might care about 2050 and after. Therefore, actually both is import. There might be hope for negative emissions in the future, but this is still an uncertain bet.

The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by methane is true for fossil methane but not for ruminant methane. The C is taken from the food, which is taken from CO2 out of the air by photosynthesis. Like human breath itself is carbon neutral as the CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere.

The role model argument is as applicable for energy production and other life style choices, if it is for food. One of the main reasons for disagreement in my view is, on what is achievable. This does strongly depends upon your lifestyle. If you life in an own home in a rural area, the biggest impact probably is not food and these other things are changeable, too. If you life a modest life in a rented flat, and do not travel regularly, food might be the biggest reduction domain. To assess this for the general public one need to consider their values. I am not sure, what is more important for people. Therefore, I go for the bigger share, to estimate what is easier influenced.

However, this does not mean I want to undermine the call for changing food production. It is a substantial issued.