Home | About | Donate

To Save the Planet From Climate Catastrophe, New Study Says Put Down the Damn Meat


It would be more precise to say “put down factory-farm meat production.” Of course, for most of us, doing this would sharply reduce meat consumption.

However, going altogether vegan for the environment might not be the best idea for people engaged in the excellent suggestion that Garrett_Connelly mentions below, though I can relate to not wishing to slaughter one’s animals. Urban and suburban chickens, quail, pigeons, ducks, rabbits, cavies, snails, and sometimes goats and so forth recycle fertility and can provide concentrated food sources. Accepting some animal-based food can enable people to live more exclusively by local gardening and less by factory farming of all sorts because animals can eat produce that humans cannot otherwise use, converting some part of that to human food, and other parts to fertility for plants.

Factory farming is always very damaging, whether it involves meat production or not. Among other things, it kills vast quantities of wildlife by the removal of habitat, as well as by the wholesale use of poisons.

Here’s just one example, though the video wanders a bit. Featured is Karl Hammer’s system at Vermont Compost, with healthy and mostly happy chickens producing high-end organic compost. There are somewhat different systems that use the same principles that can be used on suburban and even urban lots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWChH9MHkHg0.


Human annual Methane contribution to atmosphere:
Fossil Fuels 29%
Livestock 26%
Landfill/Waste 24%
Rice Production 11%
Burning Biomass 11%

Single biggest way? Why choose meat/milk? Stop those vegetarians eating rice! Stop burning biomass. May be even reduce fossil fuels a little? Or just get rid of a lot of people (which nature is in the process of doing anyway).


First you say blame is not the answer. Then you very simple-mindedly accuse me of calling for “Killing half the population.” That’s insulting. That’s fear-mongering. And it’s a goddam lie.

Second, you make the assumption (without addressing the topic of the article,) that I am opposed to reducing meat consumption simply because I have indicated another factor; and you seem to have made the related assumption that I claimed environmental regulation is not the answer. As if there can only be one factor involved in climate change and since I pointed out overpopulation, therefore I don’t think deregulation or carnivorism could be a factor. That too is a goddam lie, or else it is intellectually simplistic.

Have you studied algebra? Do you not understand that an equation can have more than one variable? Are you completely unfamiliar with the Archimedean Principle?

No doubt you are familiar with the term “carbon footprint”. I’m guessing you believe that each one of us, as an individual, has a carbon footprint and that reducing that carbon footprint would be an environmental positive? How, then, can you not understand that the average carbon footprint, multiplied by 7 billion is less than the average carbon footprint, multiplied by 10 billion?


Well, there are two elephants in the room, one of which is population and the other of which is meat consumption. We can’t reduce the first in a hurry in any non-violent way, but we can reduce the second in a hurry while working on the first.


Are you saying you’ll eat whatever you want to, even if it helps make the future less livable for your children and grandchildren?


Unfortunately, eating meat is also the leading cause of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, leading cause of dead zones and toxic algae blooms, #1 cause of the sixth extinction, and leading cause of collapse of global fish stocks. So meat has a lot of other irons in the fire, and a June 2018 study in Nature reached the same conclusion about how critical it is to reduce meat and dairy consumption: