Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 225 posts

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#151

Post by dTal »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #61
mklarmann wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Those cows live longer and therefor produce more methane. They are worse in terms of ghg.

The bovid methane drumbeat is bandied by people who conveniently fail to account for the millions of missing American bison that used to produce comparable output.

Did they? Did anyone measure that? Or is that simply an assumption? Relatively small dietary changes can greatly reduce the amount of methane produced by cows (I believe you add something like 15% seaweed to the feed), so it's not at all clear that a free range bison would be similar.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#152

Post by mnky9800n »

revelio wrote: post #129
mnky9800n wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't think you need a model to look at temperature records and see they have been increasing without a natural climate explanation. Unless there is some large igneous province spewing carbon into the atmosphere that you are aware of that the rest of us is not.

I don't quite follow, is that a reference to Exxon? They started looking at those claims in 1977 but temperatures had been falling (by the records of the time) from 1940 to 1975ish, so that would have been a big problem for concluding that fossil fuels = warming. It still is, which is why one of the things the IPCC did in its reports was start truncating its graphs and changing temperature data to try and erase the f…

what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation?

seems pretty obvious to me that a large igneous province is a comparable example to anthropogenic climate change (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12957-1). more carbon, higher temperatures. This has happened in the past literally every time a large igneous province has emerged. the big difference between today and the past is that the carbon being produced currently isn't from a large igneous province, it's from burning carbon fuels, making concrete, etc.

if you don't believe it, then feel free to download the data from wherever it is collected (see examples below) and prove me wrong.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-land-p...

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/china/c...

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/10154823

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#153

Post by doctor_eval »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #96
doctor_eval wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trope of the rich environmentalist flying their private jet, is just that. I’m sure that some exist, but the vast majority take far more care of the environment than that.

https://www.businessinsider.in/sustainability/news/cop27-att... I'm not sure about that. I mean.. even if you look at the cars they're driving (again, those are rich people, they can easily afford anything electric): https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/ And then he drivers an SUV even larger than him: https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger-car-acc... Ursula: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world…

While I think it’s a positive thing for people in positions of power to speak up for the environment, I do not personally consider any of these people environmentalists. I think there is a huge difference between supporting a cause and living it.

Nevertheless, after rereading your original comment, I fully agree with you. These world leaders should be leading. It is disgusting and hypocritical that they flew 400 private jets to the COP conference.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#154

Post by doctor_eval »

brokenkebaby wrote: post #97
doctor_eval wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trope of the rich environmentalist flying their private jet, is just that. I’m sure that some exist, but the vast majority take far more care of the environment than that.

"Vast majority" is not even an applicable term here. It is specifically about green gurus with jets (which is not a myth, but observable political phenomenon), and if you're not rich enough, not politically influential, and don't fly own jet - its not about you, or anyone you know.

I don’t think it’s about green gurus. It’s about politicians. They know how big the problems are, but like most people, they don’t want to change their behaviour or privileges.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#155

Post by kiko123 »

nradov wrote: post #139
mejutoco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. To spare a click to others. The part I found relevant to my question: Animal-based being healthier or not, independently of the environment in general. > Current overconsumption of meat in Western diets is a significant contributor to poor health and increases a person’s risk of becoming overweight, obese or developing certain noncommunicable diseases. Projections show that a global adoption of a Western diet…

That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)

It is well known that the anti-meat and anti-animal-fat propaganda was funded by the sugar industry in the 1960s. Although I'm currently on a carnivore diet and finally seeing some health benefits after a long time experimenting and battling with debilitating health issues, I would not promote it either. The bottom line is that with the intense lobbying from both sides of the discourse, we've drifted really far from the original intention of nutritional science – to understand how our body processes foods and what nutrition will lead to best health outcomes. Fundamentally, I just want to do the best for my body and will gladly switch my diet at any point given enough data and consensus.

This is tough to do when certain groups are directly benefiting from you not being in an optimal health. At this point I've resorted to experimenting on myself and trusting my gut, body and instincts when it comes to food. Also, reading smaller, hopefully-independent studies looking at certain micronutrients and their utilization – it's quite interesting to look at Vitamin A vs beta-carotene, ALA to DHA and EPA conversion, anti-nutrients and many more.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#156

Post by yadingus »

nradov wrote: post #139
mejutoco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. To spare a click to others. The part I found relevant to my question: Animal-based being healthier or not, independently of the environment in general. > Current overconsumption of meat in Western diets is a significant contributor to poor health and increases a person’s risk of becoming overweight, obese or developing certain noncommunicable diseases. Projections show that a global adoption of a Western diet…

That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)

A carnivore diet isn't relevant. The point is that excessive consumption of meat is a relevant part of many people's unhealthy diet, which ALSO includes excessive sugar and flour. It's not attributing the health harm solely to meat, but saying that it IS a relevant part of it.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#157

Post by nradov »

yadingus wrote: post #156
nradov wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)

A carnivore diet isn't relevant. The point is that excessive consumption of meat is a relevant part of many people's unhealthy diet, which ALSO includes excessive sugar and flour. It's not attributing the health harm solely to meat, but saying that it IS a relevant part of it.

How is it relevant? Meat consumption forms part of the energy balance, but in most cases reducing meat consumption isn't likely to make people less obese. In practice the reverse seems to happen due to differences in satiety and hormonal effects.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#158

Post by dTal »

tsimionescu wrote: post #38
himinlomax wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the methane issue quite dubious: as it gets oxidized over time, the quantity of methane from cattle in the atmosphere is more or less proportional to the number of heads. The problem with CO2 otoh is that it keeps increasing because we create it from fossil sources.

There are two problems with methane: for one, while it is "sitting" in the atmosphere, its greenhouse effect is much stronger than CO2's. After that somewhat short-lived period, it oxidizes to CO2 and water, so it still at best ends up as bad as CO2. So even if we stopped producing CO2 from fossil fuels today, we would still be increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere though breeding cows and other livestock, m…

But the C trapped in plant bodies comes from sequestered atmospheric CO2, no? It's not possible to permanently increase atmospheric CO2 purely through livestock, only "temporarily" increase methane (permanently, if we keep the livestock industry running forever).

There is only one place that actual surplus carbon comes from, and that is fossil fuels. Everything else is part of the closed-loop carbon cycle.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#160

Post by anonyfox »

nradov wrote: post #139
mejutoco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. To spare a click to others. The part I found relevant to my question: Animal-based being healthier or not, independently of the environment in general. > Current overconsumption of meat in Western diets is a significant contributor to poor health and increases a person’s risk of becoming overweight, obese or developing certain noncommunicable diseases. Projections show that a global adoption of a Western diet…

That's such a bizarre and unscientific statement. People become obese and insulin resistant primarily from excessive consumption of carbohydrates, not from meat. Most people who try a carnivore diet actually lose weight. (I am not recommending that diet, but it is a fairly effective means of weight loss.)

I ate first keto and then carniveore years ago - did put on weight actually. yes, including organs and looked for supplements when needed. Now that I am pescetarian (mostly veggies, though) and the weight slowly comes off while I feel noticeably better than before and health markers finally go into the right direction.

Just a data point with N=1.

Post reply on HN