this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
138 points (92.1% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5310 readers
3 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:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
theloneforager@lemmy.ml
Chloe@lemmy.ml
138
'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth (time.com)
submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/green@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hillock@kbin.social 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Oh, so exactly like the "organic" or "GMO-free" labels.

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does climate friendly meat actually exist? I don't really understand how, at least not at the volume people eat meat today.

[–] riceandbeans161@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] aeternum@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] charje@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Many farmers growing plants for animal feed. Also there are Deer farms that raise deer specifically for the hunting industry.

[–] vrojak@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I would argue lab grown meat is fine, but afaik it is still more resources intensive to produce than, like, tofu. And it's not like it's going to be available in appreciable amounts in the near future.

[–] Hillock@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course it exists. There is venison and other wild hunted meat. In many places these animals have to be shot anyhow for population control. Overhunting would be the only issue here.

Then there are purely pasture fed animals. Especially with goats this is common . But there are also some cattle and pig farms. As long as the land itself wasn't deforested and is given enough time to repair itself, it's perfectly sustainable.

Then there are things like keeping chicken in your garden that are only fed kitchen scraps. Depending on your household size you can even keep 1-2 pigs that way.

If any of these options are available to you, they can be more environmental friendly than some plant based foods. Locally sourced version is definitely better than having plants shipped across the globe.

As you said the only issue is the quantity and also the desire for premium cuts. A lot of meat is currently wasted because it's "undesirable". Some parts will find their way into animal food but a lot also just gets thrown away.

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

At the end I said at the volume of consumption we have. If everyone switched to wild game we'd instantly go from over population to over hunting and that's not sustainable. You wouldn't be able to support the volume with pasture raised without deforestation either. Raising your own animals also wouldn't match the volume that people eat meat currently either. Even if we were more efficient with the meat we use I still think we'd be orders of magnitude off. I'm not totalitarian anti meat, I just don't see any path to sustainability without huge decreases in consumption. The things you pointed out are great, but I think we can't mislead people into thinking that will be enough for them to not have to change their eating habits.

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Thanks, indeed the title is misleasding (as best)

[–] karpintero@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Sounds like when they tried pushing "clean coal"

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

If that measurement is at least 10% lower than an industry benchmark set by the auditing company for emissions, the producer gets USDA approval to label their products “climate-friendly” and use related language in packaging and marketing.

Matthew Hayek, assistant professor of environmental studies at New York University, points out that this means that even products with higher-than-average emissions outputs will qualify for the “climate-friendly” label.

On top of that, the third-party verification process isn’t as rigorous as it sounds—it runs on the honor system, allowing companies to report their own calculations, as if there were no obvious conflict of interest.

Some of the richest ecosystems on the planet are consistently wiped out to make room for cattle operations; livestock farming is a known threat to biodiversity and a cause of species extinction.

It’s unsurprising that an industry would spin the truth to position itself as being on the right side of the climate crisis, but it’s a little galling that a government agency would not just allow this, but facilitate it.

The truth is that anyone who is legitimately interested in lowering their environmental impact should cut back on or skip beef altogether, opting instead for plant foods like fruits, grains, vegetables, and legumes.

The original article contains 1,164 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!