Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

Urgent Need to Reduce Meat and Dairy Consumption to Meet Climate Targets, Says Expert

posted by chromas on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the beat-it,-don't-eat-it dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Phys.org:

Dr. Helen Harwatt, farmed animal law and policy fellow at Harvard Law School, advises that getting protein from plant sources instead of animal sources would drastically help in meeting climate targets and reduce the risk of overshooting temperature goals.

For the first time, Dr. Harwatt proposes a three-step strategy to gradually replace animal proteins with plant-sourced proteins, as part of the commitment to mitigate climate change. These are:

1) Acknowledging that current numbers of livestock are at their peak and will need to decline ('peak livestock').

2) Set targets to transition away from livestock products starting with foods linked with the highest greenhouse gas emissions such as beef, then cow's milk and pig meat ('worst-first' approach).

3) Assessing suitable replacement products against a range of criteria including greenhouse gas emission targets, land usage, and public health benefits ('best available food' approach).

Harwatt further elaborates that recent evidence shows, in comparison with the current food system, switching from animals to plants proteins, could potentially feed an additional 350 million people in the US alone.

You can eat plants or insects, but not meat.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Urgent Need to Reduce Meat and Dairy Consumption to Meet Climate Targets, Says Expert | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 162 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:45AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 28 2018, @01:45AM (#767144) Journal

    I feel like it's worth pointing out, whatever it is, the point is valid. Reducing meat intake will contribute to reducing carbon emissions substantially. You can try deal with the cognitive dissonance in your own time.

    The point was made in a vacuum and hence, isn't valid. We could also just become extinct. That would contribute to reducing carbon emissions substantially. You might even feel like it's worth pointing out that that point is "valid" too.

    When you optimize without considering its costs (or simpler measures that accomplish much of the same), you get stuff like this.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:52PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @07:52PM (#767437)

    I see the cognitive dissonance is winning. Too bad, we had a good run, way to keep humanity on track for extinction khallow!! Sharp as always

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:03PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 28 2018, @08:03PM (#767446) Journal

      I see the cognitive dissonance is winning.

      I fight it wherever I can. But you know the saying about leading a horse to water.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @11:33PM (#767564)

        If you're about to die of thirst I'll overnight you some dehydrated H2O.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:31AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 29 2018, @01:31AM (#767599) Journal
          Maybe you should show there is cognitive dissonance going on first? That would be leading the horse (me right?) to water, instead of the usual coy implications that don't do that.