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

Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 301 posts

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#291

Post by cheese_goddess »

LesZedCB wrote: post #289
cheese_goddess wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. "we are are deeply intertwined, all terrestrials, all earth bound"? What does that have to do with my comment? What do you disagree with in what I wrote above? That anthropogenic climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels? That it's the fossil fuel industry that is responsible for that? What?

food, land use and agriculture makes up 24% emissions. energy use is 25%. see the graphic I linked. to say "we should be primarily focused on energy" is ignoring an equally large factor. fossil fuels enabled the food and agriculture industry to grow in the climate destroying behemoth it is now. we need to restructure our diet and address food waste and production. we are all earthbound means that we all need to act,…

The graphic you linked (https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graph...) shows the potential reductions from following the "Drawdown Framework", not actual emissions.

That graphic also doesn't list any numbers. The numbers you quote, 24% and 25% come from a different graphic, titled "Emission Sources & Natural Sinks", found in the main page of the Drawdown Framework website, here:

https://www.drawdown.org/sites/default/files/rainbow_forpres...

In that graphic, 24% is listed as the proportion of CO₂ emissions from "Food, agriculture and land use" and 25% is from "Electricity production". The graphic also lists 21% for "Industry", 14% for "Transportation", 6% for "Buildings", and 10% for "Other Energy-Related Emissions".

I think you took the figure for "Electricity production" to stand for the emissions from burning fossil fuels for all power production, which is not right. Industry, transportation, heating buildings etc all need power that is generated by burning fossil fuels. So it's not 25% but 76% that goes to generating power. The ourworldindata.org chart I linked lists pretty much the same figure and breaks it down in the same categories, also.

The dradown.org graphic shows that 59% of the CO₂ released remains in the atmosphere, which is roughly consistent with the amount attributed to power production from burning fossil fuels. The rest of the CO₂ is bound in carbon sinks in the environment. The arcs of the graph that end in the legend "Current sinks" add up to 24 + 17 = 41%, which is plenty to cover our food production needs (given the 24% figure listed in the same graphic for all food production).

That's what I say above in my comment: climate change is caused by excess carbon released into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels, not by farming. The environment can handle farming, even at the industrial scales we practice it today (which I agree is excessive and needs urgent reform). What the environment can't cope with is burning fossil fuels that release in days carbon stored over millions of years.

Given all of the above, do you still disagree with my initial comment? If so, can you explain how you disagree?

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#292

Post by jjeaff »

ahepp wrote: post #239
gruez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A strip is not a "cheaper" steak than a filet. But objectively speaking a strip steak is cheaper. Based on my observations of supermarket sale prices, the ranking goes: fillet > ribeye > strip > others that I don't bother with (sirloin/round)

I went to Costco a couple days ago with the intent of getting some ribeyes, but they were even more expensive than filets if I'm remembering correctly. Probably one of the first times in my post-college life I've balked at the price of a grocery store item. I got a package of tri-tip steaks twice as large for a bit less, and they were delicious.

Consumers have finally started to realize that cuts like ribeye or flank are much better than filet. So prices have started to reflect that.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#293

Post by LesZedCB »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #291
LesZedCB wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

food, land use and agriculture makes up 24% emissions. energy use is 25%. see the graphic I linked. to say "we should be primarily focused on energy" is ignoring an equally large factor. fossil fuels enabled the food and agriculture industry to grow in the climate destroying behemoth it is now. we need to restructure our diet and address food waste and production. we are all earthbound means that we all need to act,…

The graphic you linked ( https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graph... ) shows the potential reductions from following the "Drawdown Framework", not actual emissions. That graphic also doesn't list any numbers. The numbers you quote, 24% and 25% come from a different graphic, titled "Emission Sources & Natural Sinks", found in the main page of the Drawdown Framework website, here: https://www.drawdo…

I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes.

if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach.

diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial legal changes need to happen.

negating diet and food waste as a meaningful goal is harmful at best, and deliberate sabotage at worst.

you said [emphasis mine]

> If you're concerned about climate change and you want to raise the alarm, then raise the alarm about the continued burning of fossil fuels and the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. Misinformation that seems to be very successfully co-opting the animal rights movement, I might add. You want to be "on the right side of history" as you say in another comment? Don't side with the fossil fuel industry by directing attention away from their role in climate change.

my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement. certainly capital has embraced the plant-based diet as demand has risen, but to say that was driven by fossil fuels is absolutely bonkers to me.

we can do both. be loud about fossil fuels (we are. at least, some of us are), and also embrace a low waste, plant based (or low meat/no beef, I don't care) diet.

I wear a mask, get vaxxed, and I vote for leaders who affirm public health.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#294

Post by cheese_goddess »

LesZedCB wrote: post #293
cheese_goddess wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graphic you linked ( https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Drawdown_Graph... ) shows the potential reductions from following the "Drawdown Framework", not actual emissions. That graphic also doesn't list any numbers. The numbers you quote, 24% and 25% come from a different graphic, titled "Emission Sources & Natural Sinks", found in the main page of the Drawdown Framework website, here: https://www.drawdo…

I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach. diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial…

> I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes.

Thanks for making it clear.

> if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture.

That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to remove the cause of climate change.

Agriculture is not causing climate change, burning fossil fuels causes climate change. The emissions from agriculture are only of concern because of the climate change that is already underway caused by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Without the emissions from burning fossil fuels there would be no climate change and there would be nothing to "make up" for because emissions from agriculture alone are not capable of causing climate change (again, because the environment can deal with them).

You say that "diet maintenance" is a "clear, easy goal that individuals can take on". It's much more than that. It's a fine excuse for people to not do anything substantial to help stop climate change. They eat a bean burger once a week and then go home happy that they did their bit for the environment, because their favorite influencer told them so. And they do nothing to challenge the fuel industry that keeps doing business as usual. Because their influencers don't tell them to.

In order to stop climate change (we can't reverse it, but we can stop it developing further) people must understand its causes. Farming is not the cause. Burning fossil fuels is the cause. That's what we need to address.

But I think there's a misunderstanding. I made a comment about the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry, and you seem to have taken it as a comment in a debate about individual vs collective action, to which I never intended to contribute. I agree that personal action is necessary to stop climate change. My point is that eating a vegan diet is not the right action because farming is not the cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change and the goal of any personal action must be to stop burning fossil fuels.

> my disagreement is that the fossil fuel industry somehow coopted the animal rights movement.

Maybe "co-opted" is a strong word, but the industry can't be very unhappy with the current state of affairs, where everybody's having a food fight on social media about what to eat and lets the industry off the hook.

"Go vegan" is the popular message on social media because it's the easy answer. But, the answer to what? The hard question is how we reconfigure our civilisation to stop burning fossil fuels and causing climate change as a result. Going vegan doesn't begin to address that question. What you eat is irrelevant to how we generate power.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#295

Post by 1_player »

paulcole wrote: post #288
1_player wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is reduction, the target is total reduction, no? Going vegetarian and consuming eggs and cheese still makes use of these darned animals that keep polluting our atmosphere. The suggestion of vegan diet is implied in this context. Personally I hope insect protein becomes more widespread, makes more sense to me nutritionally than completely avoiding animal nutrients for chemical vegetable pastes people want…

> If the goal is reduction, the target is total reduction, no I like to wear shorts more than I like to wear pants. So I wear shorts on the weekend because I can’t wear shorts to work. My goal is pants reduction because total pants reduction is infeasible. So no, reduction of meat consumption today isn’t implying that total veganism is the goal. Also, are you eating much insect protein yourself or are you more hoping…

> Also, are you eating much insect protein yourself or are you more hoping other people will do it one day?

The latter. The only insect protein I can find for human consumption is far more expensive than the pasture-raised organic meat I primarily eat. Sadly, I'm too used to modern Western cuisine to stomach eating an insect that hasn't been ground down to fine powder, but I will definitely buy some if/when prices are more reasonable.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#296

Post by paulcole »

1_player wrote: post #295
paulcole wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the goal is reduction, the target is total reduction, no I like to wear shorts more than I like to wear pants. So I wear shorts on the weekend because I can’t wear shorts to work. My goal is pants reduction because total pants reduction is infeasible. So no, reduction of meat consumption today isn’t implying that total veganism is the goal. Also, are you eating much insect protein yourself or are you more hoping…

> Also, are you eating much insect protein yourself or are you more hoping other people will do it one day? The latter. The only insect protein I can find for human consumption is far more expensive than the pasture-raised organic meat I primarily eat. Sadly, I'm too used to modern Western cuisine to stomach eating an insect that hasn't been ground down to fine powder, but I will definitely buy some if/when prices ar…

Shocker lol.

Enjoy your steak.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#297

Post by LesZedCB »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #294
LesZedCB wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. but that won't happen and we need a broad approach. diet maintenance and it's downstream effects is a clear, easy goal that individuals can take on. meanwhile governments can tackle whatever industrial…

> I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. Thanks for making it clear. > if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to remove the cau…

ultimately I think we are in agreement and I apologize for coming across so strongly in my original post.

I am also so frustrated at all the propaganda being disseminated by oil companies and bought out YouTubers alike, about doing only the smallest amount possible. and I completely agree the anthropocene epoch is clearly driven by fossil fuel.

I think people feel (and are in actuality) powerless to change the fossil fuel question. which is why the biggest contribution individuals can start today along side advocating policy change, is to halt wasting food, cut out or reduce meat (mainly beef) consumption to a tiny fraction of what is currently culturally normalized.

however in all honesty I live in pure horror of this whole thing every single day.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#298

Post by alar44 »

technofiend wrote: post #218
ReaLNero wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bloody The red liquid isn't actually blood! The blood gets drained out at the slaughterhouse. It's a protein called myoglobin.

That's right. I did forget that but it's still a texture issue. Rubbery steak just grosses me the fuck out.

Do you like your steak well done or more rare? Overcooked is rubbery. If you're eating rarer steak that's turning out rubbery, it's a shitty cut of meat.

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#299

Post by calf »

cthalupa wrote: post #267
calf wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know people could reuse the pellicle. I thought it has bacteria and sometimes molds on it? Because of the fermentation.

If the pellicle has the type of bacteria or mold on it that would prevent you from eating it, you should also generally not eat the rest of the meat. Not all mold can be told apart by appearance, so please do not take this comment as gospel on what is a "safe" mold, but the general consensus is that white mold is usually OK. In this case, I would not reuse the parts that were moldy, however. I have a dedicated dry ag…

Oh that's fascinating, I've only read a seriouseats article that uses a minifridge and fan. But UV sounds like a good idea for doing this, is your setup based on amazingribs or can you recommend another resource to look into?

Re: Myths about cooking steak that need to go away (2013)

#300

Post by cheese_goddess »

LesZedCB wrote: post #297
cheese_goddess wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree with not taking a multipronged approach to tackling life restoring processes. Thanks for making it clear. > if we shut off all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, sure maybe we would be able to make up for destructive practices of agriculture. That's not right. Burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. To stop burning fossil fuels is not to "make up" for agriculture emissions, it's to remove the cau…

ultimately I think we are in agreement and I apologize for coming across so strongly in my original post. I am also so frustrated at all the propaganda being disseminated by oil companies and bought out YouTubers alike, about doing only the smallest amount possible. and I completely agree the anthropocene epoch is clearly driven by fossil fuel. I think people feel (and are in actuality) powerless to change the fossil…

No need to apologise! It's all good.

I'm worried too and I live in a place that will be hard hit by climate change. In fact, this year the house was flooded to an extent that was really unprecedented (we've had flooding before but not like that) and I wonder if that's just the sign of things to come. Who knows.

Post reply on HN