Greetings from England :D

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
User avatar
ReligiousAnimeNerd
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:35 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by ReligiousAnimeNerd »

DarlBundren wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:20 pm
ReligiousAnimeNerd wrote:Ive been a fan of The vegan atheist for a while, and I was bored so I joined.
And why had you been following a vegan page for a while, if you don't mind me asking? Do you already know some of the arguments in favor of veganism (or against ethical subjectivism?)? Do you find them convincing?
Well, I found the vegan atheist quite entertaining, due to his christian comments series, or whatever it was called. Well, I do know quite a few arguments against ethical subjectivism, I do find them pretty convincing, but I still eat meat as I enjoy the taste of it. If you are a vegan then that is fine with me, I respect your opinion.
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by DarlBundren »

ReligiousAnimeNerds wrote:If you are a vegan then that is fine with me, I respect your opinion.
But, do you really believe it's a matter of opinion? Do you think that discussing ethics is like discussing whether you like ice-cream or not? If that were the case, a rapist would just be someone who has a different opinion than you have. Being angry at what Hitler did, for example, would be totally irrational - he just had a different opinion.

Also, if moral subjectivism were correct, as long as you are telling the truth, you and Hitler would be both infallible in your moral judgments. But, we know that people are not infallible, that there are good reasons and bad reasons for believing something, that there is good logic and bad logic. Why should be killing animals for food any different? Veganism is not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of reason.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by brimstoneSalad »

ReligiousAnimeNerd wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:37 pm Well, I dont really look too deep into climate change and global warming and all that, so I'd say maybe 25%. I dont really know too much about it.Honestly I dont really know what im talking about.
But I do thank you for correcting me.
If you have any particular concerns or questions, I'd be glad to address them. As far as the science goes, it's pretty conclusive: the Earth is warming very fast and human activity is mostly to blame, and mostly burning fossil fuels and raising livestock (methane production).

The biggest and easiest thing we can do to slow global warming and save lives is to move toward a plant based diet and try to avoid animal products, choosing beans (very environmentally sustainable) instead for protein.
Aside from that, we can also try to do things like take public transit, and reduce energy use at home.

I'm not sure what your morality is based on.
Do you agree that it's a good thing to try to save people's by averting environmental catastrophe, and that it's a bad thing to act in a way that increases harm to others?

That's basically all we're saying. Morality is following the evidence to live in a way that does less harm to others.
User avatar
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by Lightningman_42 »

brimstoneSalad wrote:As far as the science goes, it's pretty conclusive: the Earth is warming very fast and human activity is mostly to blame, and mostly burning fossil fuels and raising livestock (methane production).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting that animal agriculture's primary contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is methane. While I don't doubt that animal agriculture produces a great deal of methane emissions, I was under the impression that its greatest contribution to GHGs is still carbon dioxide.

Animal agriculture consists of 5 major GHG emission sources*, which are:
1. Land use and land use change (36%; 2.5 Gt-CO2-eq.)
2. Manure Management (31%; 2.2 Gt-CO2-eq.)
3. Animal Production (25%; 1.9 Gt-CO2-eq.)
4. Feed Production (7%; 0.4 Gt-CO2-eq.)
5. Processing and international transport (1%; 0.03 Gt-CO2-eq.)

The greatest portion of animal agriculture's contribution to GHG emissions comes from land use, and land use change. Not from animal production. Animals do belch & fart out (mostly the former, contrary to popular myth) a great deal of methane.
However, calculations of GHG emissions from land use change refer to the carbon that is released into the atmosphere (in the form of CO2) from clearing/burning of original flora (forests, grasslands, savannahs, etc.).

Calculations of GHG emissions from continued land use refer to the loss in carbon-sequestration potential of land, following its conversion to cropland (to produce animal feed) and pastures for cattle grazing. This loss in carbon-sequestration potential practically counts as a form of CO2 emission, because use of land for crops and grazing prevents carbon sequestration that could be possible with a type of land similar to its original form.


*I got these numbers from Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Production (page 1, under "Introduction"; page 18 of 226 if viewed in PDF form).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3288e/i3288e.pdf
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Actually, looking at these numbers again, I think you might be right about methane being the most significant portion of animal agriculture's contribution to GHG emissions. Emissions from land use and land use change (36%) might be mostly CO2, and greater than any one of the other 4 categories.

Land use and land use change, however, are not a greater source of GHGs than manure management and animal production put together (56%), which might very well be mostly methane producers (not CO2 producers).

So yeah, if you're saying that animal agriculture's contribution to total anthropogenic GHG emissions is mostly in the form of methane, and not CO2, then I think that you might be right about that. Sorry about my blunders in reasoning there.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lightningman_42 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:36 am Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting that animal agriculture's primary contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is methane. While I don't doubt that animal agriculture produces a great deal of methane emissions, I was under the impression that its greatest contribution to GHGs is still carbon dioxide.
It depends on agricultural practice, and whether you're counting opportunity cost too (which is a little more complex).

Many people advocate things like grass fed beef which, if it's not finished, has very little CO2 output beyond respiration. The problem there is failing to account for methane production and opportunity cost of carbon capture by the fallow land that could have been there instead of managed pasture.

Methane is the simplest thing to address.
Lightningman_42 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:36 am Animal agriculture consists of 5 major GHG emission sources*, which are:
1. Land use and land use change (36%; 2.5 Gt-CO2-eq.)
2. Manure Management (31%; 2.2 Gt-CO2-eq.)
3. Animal Production (25%; 1.9 Gt-CO2-eq.)
4. Feed Production (7%; 0.4 Gt-CO2-eq.)
5. Processing and international transport (1%; 0.03 Gt-CO2-eq.)


The greatest portion of animal agriculture's contribution to GHG emissions comes from land use, and land use change. Not from animal production.
Add up the Manure and the Animal production. Granted, some of the manure output is nitrous oxide. I don't have the proportions on hand (you could probably find them pretty easily).
Lightningman_42 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:36 am However, calculations of GHG emissions from land use change refer to the carbon that is released into the atmosphere (in the form of CO2) from clearing/burning of original flora (forests, grasslands, savannahs, etc.).
Depends on where the meat is produced. We can look at fungibility and other factors, but it's a more complex argument. Yes this burden does fall on all meat, but that requires a bit of an understanding of economics.
Lightningman_42 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:36 am Calculations of GHG emissions from continued land use refer to the loss in carbon-sequestration potential of land, following its conversion to cropland (to produce animal feed) and pastures for cattle grazing. This loss in carbon-sequestration potential practically counts as a form of CO2 emission, because use of land for crops and grazing prevents carbon sequestration that could be possible with a type of land similar to its original form.
Right... but because this is more indirect it's kind of hard to explain to somebody who hasn't even accepted that anthropogenic climate change is even real. This is more one of those "cross this bridge when we get to it" issues. I was just mentioning that in a parenthetical so he can look it up if he isn't already aware, and since that one is common knowledge.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Greetings from England :D

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Didn't see this post.
Lightningman_42 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:48 am Land use and land use change, however, are not a greater source of GHGs than manure management and animal production put together (56%), which might very well be mostly methane producers (not CO2 producers).

So yeah, if you're saying that animal agriculture's contribution to total anthropogenic GHG emissions is mostly in the form of methane, and not CO2, then I think that you might be right about that. Sorry about my blunders in reasoning there.
The other categories are also not exclusively CO2 (lots of nitrous oxide and methane in those too) but I wasn't trying to be technical. Don't worry about it. :)
Post Reply