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

181–190 of 225 posts

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

#181

Post by waihtis »

maeil wrote: post #93
waihtis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that black-and-white thinking / reducing decisions to be made over single variables leads to suboptimal outcomes. Please try a bit harder to be generous with your reading interpretation.

Your comment does not show that there is any "black-and-white thinking" is taking place here, or if it is, that it is unfounded. Even with a generous interpretation, there's no relevancy to be found.

Sure it is, it's saying that a diet which is "good"* for the planet at 10 billion people automatically translates to the optimal diet for one person. It's a completely different scale and matter.

* (without considering any emissions or other negatives caused by shipping perishable vegetables halfway across the planet)

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

#182

Post by cfn »

fredrikholm wrote: post #148
cfn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a very small island where the main industry has been cattle (meat and milk production) for several decades. If the urine of the cows was toxic, the island would have been deserted a long time ago. It is as green as it has ever been, just lookup the Azores for some pictures. It is true that lot feeds and industrialized cattle production create massive amounts of pollution but so does industrialized agricultu…

Cheers; you're right. 'En masse' wasn't sufficient in communicating what I wanted, which was to say "in large, repeated and undiluted amounts". > The problem is on the how and not on the what If we could realistically supply the entire demand for beef with cows grazing on fields on the same amount of land, without raising the price directly or by subsidizing the cost, I'd be all in. This is literally impossible as in…

Pretty much all the beef production is done in grazing fields as it is cheaper and less work. It is only the bulk up that is done in feed lots (1-3 months before going to the abbatoir). There is even pasture finished beef production where cows stay in the fields without feed until the end.

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

#183

Post by cfn »

marliechiller wrote: post #79
cfn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a very small island where the main industry has been cattle (meat and milk production) for several decades. If the urine of the cows was toxic, the island would have been deserted a long time ago. It is as green as it has ever been, just lookup the Azores for some pictures. It is true that lot feeds and industrialized cattle production create massive amounts of pollution but so does industrialized agricultu…

thats... not how toxicity is working in this sense and your anecdote doesnt disprove what he is saying. Another anecdote - I went surfing at the end of last summer and was advised not to go into the sea as there had been heavy rains up the valley which had washed refuse off the fields and into the estuary. Lots of people who ignored the advice got sick that day as it turns out the runoff is toxic.

At least I have an anecdote that produces a large percentage of the beef and dairy consumed in Portugal. I fail to see proper data from anyone else showing the contrary elsewhere.

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

#184

Post by waihtis »

000ooo000 wrote: post #124
waihtis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that black-and-white thinking / reducing decisions to be made over single variables leads to suboptimal outcomes. Please try a bit harder to be generous with your reading interpretation.

It doesn't deserve a generous interpretation; it began with a generalisation about a group of people and an unfounded assertion.

Ah, you're a troll, never mind.

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

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

vintermann wrote: post #185
dragonwriter wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marginalizing sex workers.

There's no actual benefit to that, so I'm not sure it's the reason.

There are people who benefit from it; there’s no (or negative) net social benefit, but that’s true of lots of the things that motivate laws.

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

#187

Post by mnky9800n »

revelio wrote: post #171
mnky9800n wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you don't believe temperature data go look at pictures of glaciers that go back 100+ years https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right? so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing. https://www.n…

"you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA." I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of…

I asked you repeatedly to provide a physical explanation for any observation such as global surface temperatures, glacier time series photos, sea ice reduction, etc. So far you provide none.

And I'm not attacking the messenger because you seem to have no message. You are only being a contrarian claiming the data doesn't exist to begin with.

So yeah, whatever man.

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

#188

Post by revelio »

mnky9800n wrote: post #187
revelio wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA." I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of…

I asked you repeatedly to provide a physical explanation for any observation such as global surface temperatures, glacier time series photos, sea ice reduction, etc. So far you provide none. And I'm not attacking the messenger because you seem to have no message. You are only being a contrarian claiming the data doesn't exist to begin with. So yeah, whatever man.

Non-human physical explanations for climate change can include sunspot activity, the AMO, El Nino/La Nina events, volcanic activity, internal interactions and probably many others. Some are known but most aren't. That's why I've not been giving you a comprehensive list: the climate isn't fully understood.

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

#189

Post by fwungy »

Sankozi wrote: post #84
fwungy wrote: post #49

Were these the same people who told us the glaciers would be melted and the Maldives under water by 2000? How narcissistic do you have to be to believe the world is going to end in your little eye blink of a lifetime? Look, the West can go carbon negative, but it makes no difference at all if China and India just use the West's carbon virtue to increase their own carbon consumption (that the West isn't using). We rea…

This is pure FUD. > Were these the same people who told us the glaciers would be melted and the Maldives under water by 2000? Were they? Please tell us. > How narcissistic do you have to be to believe the world is going to end in your little eye blink of a lifetime? Who says that? Where in the article have you read something like that? > Look, the West can go carbon negative, but it makes no difference at all if Chin…

The populations are huge and their consumption is going up. If fossil fuels get cheaper because the West isn't buying them the East will happily consume them.

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

#190

Post by seba_dos1 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #145
seba_dos1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but I don't really see how the existence of assholes should give me a free pass for being an asshole myself.

Are you really an ashole if you want to eat a steak every now and then? Compared to people who use a private jet to fly 31 miles[0]? If you want a cleaner planet, start with those who pollute the most, and then go down towards stuff normal people do and use. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/02/revealed-a...

Nice strawman. You're not an asshole if you eat a steak every now and then. You're an asshole if you don't look at alternatives even though they're available to you and you can afford them just because you love your steaks too much - regardless of what "those who pollute the most" do.

We would already be much further ahead if everyone could and would eat meat only "every now and then".

The fact that I can see greater assholes than I could ever manage to be whenever I turn on the TV does not mean I get a ticket to be a tiny asshole. It doesn't matter what others do when we're evaluating your behaviour.

I can't influence "those who pollute the most" alone, and a society full of people who don't care themselves won't have a tiniest chance of influencing them either.

Post reply on HN