Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The global scientific consensus is that climate change is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use is what put more green house gases into the atmosphere, which in turn is heating the earth beyond what the environment can handle.

How critical different strategies are to combating climate change has a significant weaker consensus. Energy productions and energy usage is usually the most critical in mitigating climate change. Diet is fairly debated subject, with some researchers listing it higher on the list while others listing it much lower.

Agriculture is often combined with land use, but the deeper one go into this subject the more difficult things get. A "wet" forest is several times better than a dry forest, so in terms of combating climate change, removing water draining can be more effective than increasing the amount of land dedicated to forestation. There are many factors for policy makers and a lot of low hanging fruit that is more critical to target first.

I was not wrong to say that the statement quoted from the paper is in-line with scientific consensus. Your assessment of how some rank their lists doesn't make the statement wrong. Most scientists who look at the numbers agree that animal agriculture needs to be addressed to help combat climate change.

I think the point here is that animals raised for meat should not be conflated with burning fossil fuels. Cattle, chickens etc. are part of the carbon cycle.

Modern high-intensity farming practices such as feedlots and cage chickens - where the majority of the feed is grain and harvested hay - are probably where the conflation enters. There is just as much a need to raise healthy, minimally carbon intensive animals as there is to reduce eating meat. There are farming methods to do this, but change is slow.

Not sure why you're talking about 'conflating with burning fossil fuels'. I didn't do that and neither did the paper. It seems like you're not read up on the topic.

Staggering amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Massive deforestation and other habitat loss (read: reduction of carbon sinks).

When people appeal to authority it is important to include context which fully describe the view and perspective of said authority so that the information is not just correct, but given in context so that it is not misleading.

When scientists discuss diet in terms of global warming, part of that discussion include fair wages, ethnic discrimination, inequality, land ownership, ethnic heritage and culture, biodiversity and many other similar topics. All those influence how animal agriculture effects climate change. The global consensus is however very weak the further one goes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels impact on global warming is an established fact in the global scientific community, as well as the requirement to stop burning fossil fuels. Inequality is also a fairly establish contributor to global warming by itself, but the exact solutions does not have a strong consensus.

You keep bringing up things that are completely beside the point. The scientists who wrote the paper weren't talking about wages, ethnic discrimination, etc. Why are you muddying the topic? Why are you pretending that scientists haven't made arguments about the very real impact of animal agriculture on climate change that are rooted in greenhouse gass emissions?

Have you not heard of the copious amounts of methane and nitrous oxide associated with animal agriculture? Have you not heard of the associated deforestation and other habitat loss that results in more atmospheric carbon?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com