arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy.
I find Dave's responses to people on social media pretty weird. As has just been said, arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy. Eating less meat (ideally going plant based) is a common thread on pretty much everything I've either watched or read about reducing the planets temperature. The % of US agricultural land that's used for beef alone is startling, can't remember the stat exactly but it's over 80% I think (pls shoot me down if wrong). Personally I think Dave's experiment is well gash.
Latest news: Dave has accused me of drawing a false equivalence between animal cruelty and eating meat. Which I would accept, if he wasn't tacitly implying the industrial livestock management by a multinational corporation was anywhere near "cruelty free"https://twitter.com/davemacleod09/status/1592871283116867585
Quote from: dr_botnik on November 17, 2022, 12:07:29 pmLatest news: Dave has accused me of drawing a false equivalence between animal cruelty and eating meat. Which I would accept, if he wasn't tacitly implying the industrial livestock management by a multinational corporation was anywhere near "cruelty free"https://twitter.com/davemacleod09/status/1592871283116867585I may be wrong, but I read that interaction as his response quite specially to what you posted, rather than his response to a critique of McDs current sourcing/farming practices or anything else. It may or may not tacitly imply what you say, but in the context of that interaction it's not obvious to me that it does.
If it's about not wanting to kill/harm animals then I get it.
Dave lives in Scotland... lots of the terrain (steep, hilly, floods, too cold, too wet, short hours of sunlight, shit soil etc) up there is not suitable for arable farming
but in them the animal also died a second death. Severed from the form in which it had lived, severed from the act that killed it, it vanished from human memory as one of nature's creatures.
I now almost never eat beef and have all but given up coffee, chocolate and palm oil.
Well, yes in reality it is. But at least you'll feel good about yourself!There are 4 choices any of us in the developed world will make that will have a meaningful impact on contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. Of those #1 is by an order of magnitude the biggest impact:1. one fewer children. ~58t CO2e per year2. driving or not driving a car.* ~2.4t CO2e per year3. one fewer transatlantic flight per year. ~1.6t CO2e per flight4. not eating meat for one year. 0.8t CO2e per year (based on US meat industry, not UK which is likely lower)Anything else has a vanishingly small impact on personal CO2 contributions.
Isn't the easiest way to understand it in terms of thinking about the null future human that didn't pop into existence as a direct consequence of a current human's choice?
Quote from: Liamhutch89 on November 17, 2022, 08:46:37 pm I now almost never eat beef and have all but given up coffee, chocolate and palm oil.I think these one value graphs are always going to be inaccurate, and the supporting decisions that D Mac would apply to eating his normal locally reared beef can be used to select a decent coffee too (to pick an example close to heart!). There are plenty of examples of regenerative coffee growers being sold by UK companies now, where that GHG portion for farming is going to be way inaccurate. If you’re interested in drinking a bit more coffee without the GHG guilt then there are decent options out there. One I’ve had recently https://www.darkartscoffee.co.uk/collections/coffee/products/golden-axe-el-salvadorInteresting that you support your training on mainly just fish and nuts, I had assumed you’d be smashing in the whey and BCAAs! Who would have thought D Maccy could have lead to an interesting thread 😄
The bold is quite amusing. Surely fish and nuts are at least as good as whey and BCAA's???
edit: but yes the figure doesn't represent reality of the extra emissions per year of having one child, so could be considered misleading especially in terms of an issue that requires timely reductions of CO2 within the next 10-20 years.
Yep, I think we probably agree on this - the figure for an extra child is calculated in a completely different way to the figure for e.g. not driving a car and they shouldn't really be compared on a single chart.
To look at it slightly differently if you want to compare the 2 you could argue that lifestyle changes that reduce you annual CO2 should also be projected on to your future generations in the same way as having a child is. This would mean that a 10% reduction in your emissions would also reduce your child related emissions by 10%, so for a two child family this would mean a near 12 tonne reduction in CO2 (2*10% of 58) rather than say 1.6 tonne (based on American emmisions). Pretty crude but maybe a bit more realistic way to think about the numbers.