138
'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth
(time.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
138 points (92.1% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5234 readers
7 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
For anyone who doesn't read the article but gets upset at the title because climate friendly meat actually exist. It's about a new label for meat that says "Environmental Friendly". Similar to the certificate for "Organic" or "GMO-FREE".
And the certificate is bullshit. Even in it's strictest form you only need a 10% reduction in CO2 production to the industry standard to qualify. Which is nothing.
But it gets worse, the rating is done by third party companies who have leeway in setting the industry standard. One company even has the industry standard set higher than the actual industry average.
So overall the certificate is bullshit that makes people feel better but doesn't actually do anything.
Does climate friendly meat actually exist? I don't really understand how, at least not at the volume people eat meat today.
it cannot exist
meat is inherently the most inefficient way of consuming calories, let alone the pain, suffering and horror it causes.
there’s no morally or ethically correct way to eat meat, unless you’re an indigenous tribe that literally has no other option.
Efficiency of calorie acquisition is not the same as sustainability though. Culling an overpopulation of deer that keeps a forest from developing or an invasive species that is wreaking havoc on an ecosystem can both be a net positive on the ecosystem and in terms of sequestering carbon. Meanwhile growing crops on former rainforest land is a clear net negative.
Those are edge cases though of course and with your average store selection, going with plant-based will just about always be more sustainable.
you have to ask, why are they becoming overpopulated though? And the answer is, because animal ag. Farmers kill the natural predators because they fuck with their animals that we eat.
The reason those predator species got killed to near extinction is probably a bit more broad and ugly than just concern for lifestock.
But you're correct of course that the main reason for the current overpopulation of many non-invasive species is a lack of predators and they should be reintroduced. But that's also not a thing that can happen from one day to the next, so even in the most optimistic scenarios some degree of human wildlife management still has a purpose.
Many farmers growing plants for animal feed. Also there are Deer farms that raise deer specifically for the hunting industry.