ppl touting animal ag as THE cause of climate change are taking the heat off of oil companies which can only be harmful
The main cause of climate change
IS
Fossil
Fuels.
This isn’t even controversial or “uwu close”. Everyone changing their diet won’t mean a damn thing if companies keep burning coal and drilling for oil.
Tag: environment
Animal agriculture is basically using food to make less food so that privileged people can eat decomposing flesh and then waste half of it. 🤷🏽♀️
I honestly don’t think distributing corn stalks and wheat byproducts to poor people is gonna help much but go ahead and tell me more about how you don’t know what “decomposing flesh” is.
Let them eat grass! Uwu
To expand on the points that @agro-carnist and @dairyisntscary are trying to make…
So very little goes to waste in the agricultural sector. The “waste” products from corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton, brewer’s grains, and various other crops all have applications as animal feedstuffs. In turn, the “waste” products produced by animals often return to the cycle as fertilizers, calcium and other nutritive supplements, textiles, pet foods, and treats/chews. There’s even new research that suggests that animal fat could be used to produce biodiesel or a more environmentally friendly plastic than that which is currently made from petroleum products, and scientists are currently working toward finding other uses.
Whether you like it or not, crop production and animal management have a symbiotic relationship in much of the world. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the research:
Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Cultural, or Ethical Conflict?
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes
Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles, and evidence
Mixed crop-livestock farming (an international study prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
This is just a small sample of the evidence suggesting that livestock are beneficial to the production of plant-based foods at almost every stage, and vice versa. One cannot thrive without the other.
Science has proven that a strict vegan diet has a higher carbon footprint than a more omnivorous one, and herd animals, wild or domesticated, produce less greenhouse gasses than even the most gas-efficient automobile, yet we and they are the ones who get the bad rap from vegans.
Not only are The Beyond Burger products not accessible for a lot of people but on average they cost $6 for just two burgers – $12 a lb. which is almost twice as expensive as even grass-fed burgers at Whole Foods.
Genuinely happy for people who can afford this product and love it but not everyone has that privilege.
The environmental argument only really works against people who support factory farming and large scale agriculture, and not everyone does and some people literally can’t help it.
tbh the whole “we should just feed the poor what we feed animals” leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. Like yeah Susan feed the poor feed-grade instead of food-grade soybeans, orange peels, field corn and stalks, that’ll keep em from starvation and give em a good quality life. They can have the leftovers of what privileged people eat
This whole argument just proves radveegs have never seen animal feed or how animal feed is produced. Like, people won’t eat the brown parts of a banana what makes you think they wanna eat corn stalks or bone meal or cottonseeds? I’ve seen the feedstuff in storage and lemme tell you folks, it is NOT appetizing and I promise it is not palatable.
I agree with parts of this but feel it misses the main point of that particular argument against animal agriculture.
Animal feed may sometimes utlize parts of crops or by-products that people don’t eat but a lot of the land or crops used for animal feed (such as concentrate for pigs and poultry)
still could have been used to feed humans.
Land sutible for grazing can’t always be used for arable farming so its not as simple as many radveegs make out- Doing away with all animal agriculture wouldnt necessiarly be GOOD for the environment as it can potentially be managed well.
Regardless, intensive animal agriculture is generally not very sustainable and animal feed is a huge part of that problem. Our current food supply chains are quite wasteful and there is a great potential for mitigation within that, but ultimatley a lot needs to CHANGE to improve both animal welfare and the sustainability of agriculture.
A lot of the land used to grow animal feed is also used to grow human food. Commercial farms typically grow primarily for people, while sending away the leftovers to animal farms. The only time I’ve really seen land being used to grow crops solely for animals (at least in the US) was on small family farms. Feed used for livestock is more often than not byproducts from some other industry.
Nah, vegan life is:
1. Claiming everyone can and should be vegan. No excuses.
2. Calling anyone who isn’t vegan a horrible murderer.
3. Ranting and preaching about their diet and lifestyle at pretty much every opportunity.
4. Telling people how easy it is to be vegan because vegan substitutes tAsTe eXaCtLy tHe SaMe!11! and then when people say they can’t afford and/or don’t have access to those saying “just live off beans and rice!! no excuses!!”
5. Ignoring and not caring about the fact that not everyone buys their animal products from factory farms. Not everyone’s relationship with nature and other life on this planet is based in capitalism and cruelty.
6. Ignoring the fact that there are many people who rely on hunting animals literally to survive.
7. Telling non-vegans to kill themselves.Etc.
Would you mind explaining why exactly being vegan doesn’t help animals? Is it just that a few people no longer buying animals products has no effect on the industry as a whole?
It’s just not how capitalism works. Even if a rather significant number of people stopped eating or using animal products it might (but realistically not) reduce the production of meat or animal products but it won’t change the way these animals are handled or raised or their welfare ect.
Vegans goals are also super unrealistic and just not going to happen. They want everyone to stop eating meat or using any animal products. They think they can do this by harassing every single person about veganism or spreading lies / false info in the forms of films, websites, videos ect.
The actual method to help with environmental and animal welfare issues is to first, give funding to scientists so we can research these issues (especially in terms of over population and environmental effects), then fight for strict legislation to improve welfare of production animals, implement eco-friendly and sustainable ways of the production of our food and other products (which could rather easily be done if it wasn’t for capitalism…. like we have the technology ready to go).
Veganism in my opinion is a rather useless passive form of “action” just refusing to do anything about the actual issues while claim they’re helping. (Of course not everyone that is vegan is vegan to “help” animals. There’s dietary issues, cultural, religious ect. reasons)
And the proof that veganism does nothing is in the stats. Despite veganism increasing, beef production has significantly increased not decreased. Not to mention vegan products / foods contain a lot of soy and palm oil products which are by far worse for the environment.
I’ve talked about this quite alot on this blog – [click here for more]
Since you’ve talking about these kinds of things lately, what do you think of companies using the term “vegan” for their non-food/drink products such as makeup or hair dye rather than the term “(animal) cruelty free”?
I think vegan is not just a diet choice, it can also be a lifestyle choice. The definition of vegan (as I understand it) is basically avoiding using or consuming animal products. (“As much as possible” which is like.. awfully vague, but) so I guess in that sense it is vegan.
Also, since cruelty-free is vague also, it could technically still contain animal products. I mean, you can eat a cruelty-free steak.
But really, I think the only way to really have something be vegan and/or cruelty-free, you have to be personally responsible for the product from start to finish. I don’t think anything mass produced is really vegan (unless veganism effectively only cares about livestock, but that’s a separate issue).
I think it’s worth noting that I’m not Anti-Vegan, I just.. don’t think it’s the end all for literally anything.
Ah that’s basically how I think of it as well. I tend to default to thinking of vegan in terms of dietary restrictions only, but it can be important to distinguish between “cruelty free” and “vegan” in labels, because as you said, something containing animal products can still be cruelty free but not in the way vegans would describe it.
Veganism is an interesting and complicated discussion, because as humans we affect animals’ lives a lot whether we mean to or not, and in ways we were naturally intended to or not, so there’s a lot to consider and some definite moral greys (depending on your morals).
I know you’re not anti-vegan in general, but there are people on all sides of the argument that can take it too far, and while I dislike the general hatred towards vegans I don’t hold vegan morals myself either.
Yeah, the distinction between vegan and cruelty free is important. If you’re vegan, anyway.
I definitely think it is an interesting discussion in terms of what is morally acceptable, and it brings up what is sustainable. For the animals themselves, my biggest concern is their quality of life. And for other animals, and the planet in general, I think the biggest threats are overfishing, habitat destruction, and climate change. And all three of those impacts can be minimized in a diet that includes meat.
My issue is with militant vegans, honestly, and not with the concept of vegan morals. In fact, the vegans I actually know in person are all wonderful people and frankly they don’t really talk about veganism unless it comes up. And I like that, because to me veganism should be a personal choice and not one others should adopt by force. And yeah, I think there are shitty arguments on both sides.
Like. It’d be nice if humans could live lives that harmed no animals at all. But since that’s not realistic, it’s therefore much more worth our time to minimize that harm.
The idea that veganism is the best for the environment is kind of a lie because transportation (aka carbon emissions) are a massive part of agriculture of any type and the main devil in climate change isn’t even agriculture in the first place.
Individual efforts to better the planet are great especially if tons of people do them but the devil causing climate change isn’t steak, it’s corporate greed.

@fritzconle I don’t know enough to know whether that’s true or not but it’s actually irrelevant to my point.
But cows eat more than just grain anyway, so uh.. kinda doesn’t really make sense anyway.
My point is that the issue of veganism being better for the environment hinges on more than the carbon emissions of meat or how much water and plant food the animals consume. Transportation is what makes agriculture of any type the massive drain on the environment that it is (deforestation matters too, but.. that’s not really a good point unless you’re talking about specific areas anyway)(also if you do want to talk about habitat destruction: animals can be raised on land that hasn’t been modified, as in, native animals can still live there comfortably.. not so in plant agriculture).
Transportation, funnily enough, is /also/ an issue in plant agriculture! And actually, I’d say bigger one, because there aren’t many places where you can eat a healthy plant diet locally. And eating local is really what’s best for the environment. Hauling plants from the other side of the globe is not good for the environment (unless a human walks it all the way themselves.. which is impractical for a whole host of reasons).
Carbon emissions from transportation is one of the biggest threats to our planet, regardless of what you eat. What goes into ground beef (for example) is not as big of an issue, and a lot of that can be mitigated and isn’t necessary for animal agriculture (or actually plant agriculture) anyway.
And regardless, individual impact on the environment isn’t actually the biggest issue (that doesn’t mean it’s not big though), a lot of responsibility falls on corporations, which is why my second paragraph says what it does.
So like.. it doesn’t actually matter to me if you’re right, because it has little if anything to do with my point.