allison

and the fact that before all of that this massive skeleton was tiny toddler (was he scared of the dark? did he squabble with his siblings? did he have siblings?) who may or may not have hid behind his mother or probably got hoisted onto an adult’s shoulders and in his little mind thought this person was the strongest human in the world and that he could hold the whole sky up just by standing there like that and as long as he was up there he was king of the world or could be.

Quite honestly these cows are all looking pretty normal and getting my milk from them seems pretty good right now.

Now. For your almond milk.

Need massive acres of trees which have to be shaken with heavy machines to get those out. Goodness. Much of it’s grown in California, so water has to be drawn into a rather dry area. And they complain cows use so much. These canals don’t look too natural to me.

Oh so natural almond milk machines. I do love it when my products need a ton of additives and processing.

Vegans don’t avoid cow’s milk because of pus, we avoid it because it’s unethical. We avoid it because cows, like all female mammals, only produce milk when pregnant and after childbirth. Cows therefore, are restrained and forcibly impregnated so that they will produce milk. Naturally, this milk is intended to feed their calves, however, in order to take her milk, farmers separate calves from their mothers shortly after birth, causing extreme distress and sometimes resulting in prolonged depressive states. While female calves will usually join their mother on the milk production line, male calves do not produce milk and are not considered profitable for meat production, so are often killed or sent for veal production. Due to the close bond formed between cows and their offspring, it is common for the mothers of dairy calves to quite literally scream for their lost calves, sometimes for days at a time. Cows are put through this agonizing process three or four times, before they too are killed.

Aside from the horrific cruelty done to the animals themselves, dairy comes with other significant issues. Dairy is extremely resource intensive, it takes 1,000 gallons of water  produce 1 gallon of milk, and almost 900 gallons for 1lb of cheese. You used California’s situation as a convenient example to bash almond milk production and how it’s causing a “drought”, as everybody always does, but while Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day, close to half of that is associated with meat and dairy. So even in California, where a full 82% of the world’s almonds are produced, the water use of almond production is still outweighed by meat and dairy.

Dairy production has a devastating impact on the environment too, cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day, and a farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. Consuming dairy is therefore as unsustainable as it is unethical. Given that dairy is unnecessary for our health and that there are a whole host of healthy, widely available plant based alternatives, including oat, cashew, soy, hemp and pea milk, so if you really do have an issue with almonds, then just don’t buy almond milk. For anyone who has the option to avoid it, supporting this exploitative, cruel and destructive industry is completely unjustifiable. 

Half the dairy produced in the US comes from only 3% of dairy farms, huge factory farms responsible for all sorts of environmental destruction from contaminating drinking water to killing local wildlife. And the majority of the rest of them are not just small, happy family farms. So the cows you get your dairy from most likely look more like this:

Oh, hey, look at this neat dairy processing equipment they use to extract all the feces, blood, pus, and bacteria out of milk:

As far as additives, milk has been fortified with additional vitamins since longer than any of us can remember.

And nevermind the fact that you can literally make your own nut milk overnight using nothing but some water and a loosely threaded cloth.

47% of California’s water usage is associated with meat and dairy production. From the link:

“…the grain and alfalfa grown in California as food for cows, sheep, horses, pigs and goats consume at least 10 million acre-feet of water each year — three times what the almond industry uses.”

These may be helpful:

Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker.

Human Rights Watch report

Slaughterhouse workers more likely to be violent study summary

PTSD in slaughterhouse workers article

Slaughterhouse excerpt

Excerpt from Fast Food Nation

Mercy for Animals open letter

Psychological damage of slaughterhouse work

Psychological harm in slaughterhouse workers

If the 80,000 people who reblogged this uncritically bothered to read their sources carefully and then take out a calculator they would find out that the meat industry is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined. 

You go from number 34 (Qatar Petroleum Corp - 0.54%) all the way down to number 100 (Southwestern Energy Co - 0.04%) and you get 14,5%*, which is the percentage of GHG emissions animal agriculture is responsible for.

*14.5% is if you don’t count the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply chains - it obviously doesn’t make sense to count it since that fossil fuel is produced by the companies listed in the article, so it’s already included in the 71% figure reported above. 

To be more precise, the livestock sector accounts for 14,5% percent of GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

Between 2010 and 2050, as a result of rising demand, these shares could increase by 50–90%: the environmental impacts of the food system will exceed the planetary boundaries for food-related GHG emissions by 110%, for cropland use by 70%, for bluewater use by 50%, for nitrogen application by 125%, and for phosphorus application by 75%. Some estimates suggest that meeting projected demands for livestock products alone will exceed the sustainability boundary condition for reactive nitrogen mobilization by 294%. This means the livestock sector alone will significantly overshoot recently published estimates of humanity’s “safe operating space”.

if we want to look at the issue from another perspective: to avoid dangerous climate change, global yearly emissions must fall rapidly from today’s levels of 49 GtCO2 e to around 23 GtCO2 e by 2050. If meat and dairy consumption continues to rise at current rates, the agricultural sector alone will soak up 20 of the 23 gtco2 e yearly limit in 2050, leaving just 3 gtco2 e for the rest of the global economy. Even under the most ambitious of decarbonization scenarios, it will be near impossible for emissions from other sectors to drop to such levels by the middle of the century.

We could stop using all fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy today and even then, even if every single one of these 100 fucking companies were burned to the ground, we would still exceed the 1.5°C limit, just from raising animals for food.  

Barring unforseen technological breakthroughs worldwide animal product consumption at current North American per capita rates is utterly incompatible with a 1.5°C warming target. 

In addition to its effects on greenhouse gases, animal agriculture affects the environment by the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture since, obviously, growing the crops used for feeding animals, such as soy and maize, eats up land. 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. 40% of our cereal production is not destined for human consumption, but for animal feed. So is 80% of Amazon soy.

Land use and habitat conversion are, in essence, a zero-sum game: land converted to agriculture to meet growing food demand comes from forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats. Consequently, cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates in South America. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is now used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. 

These numbers are, of course, the result of today’s meat consumption levels: If developing countries were to eat as much meat as developed countries per capita, the amount of agricultural land required worldwide would be about two thirds larger than today.

If any of the 80,000 people who agree with this post and think it is journalistic malpractice to encourage a reduction in meat consumption could enlight me as to where they plan on finding all this land without worsening deforestation, land degradation, and habitat loss, it is more pressing now than ever that they come forward with their ideas. Especially in light of the new UN report warning that “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe”. From the Guardian:

1) The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology. 2) Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. […] Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.

To raise livestock also takes water: nearly one-third of the total water footprint of agriculture in the world is related to the production of animal products. The water footprint of a live animal consists of different components: the indirect water footprint of the feed and the direct water footprint related to the drinking water and service water consumed (service water refers to the water used to clean the farmyard, wash the animal and carry out other services necessary to maintain the environment). In Italy, for example, about 89% of our water footprint relates to consumption of agricultural products and 7% to industrial products. Nearly, half of the water footprint of Italian consumption is related to the consumption of animal products.  

An important distinction must be made here between water “use” and “consumption”. Hydroelectric power is one of the largest “users” of water in the USA, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest “consumer” of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.

Fishing also affects ecological processes at very large scale. The overall impact on aquatic systems has been described as comparable to that of agriculture on land. In fact, with the rise of commercial fishing methods marine animal populations are no longer able to replenish themselves fast enough. Between the 1950’s to 2011 worldwide catches increased 5 fold while the amount of fish in the sea was reduced by ½. Some scientists predict that we will see fishless oceans by 2048. 

The most obvious reason for the reduction of marine life is overfishing. 90-100 million tonnes of fish are pulled from our oceans each year, with some sources even estimating 150 million tonnes. ¾ of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted. But it’s not just the amount of fish being taken from the ocean for food that is the issue. there is also the method of species targeting. Humans tend to go after the biggest fish first until they are no longer available. Then they move on down the chain, a process marine biologist Daniel Pauly termed “fishing down marine food webs”. Over the last 50 years, the abundance of large predator fish, such as cod, swordfish and tuna, has dropped 90 percent. Fishing vessels now increasingly pursue the smaller forage fish, such as herrings, sardines, menhaden and anchovies, that are lower on the food chain. The removal of apex predators leads to what’s called “trophic downgrading” where the loss of predators allows other species to grow unimpeded, upsetting the entire ecosystem. One study suggests that the removal of sharks may contribute to climate change by leaving the unchecked numbers of species to feast on the ocean’s vegetation, releasing the ancient carbon found there in massive quantities. Dr. Peter Macreadie, one of the study’s authors, cautioned that “If we just lost 1 percent of the oceans’ blue carbon ecosystems, it would be equivalent to releasing 460 million tonnes of carbon annually, which is about the equivalent of about 97 million cars. It’s about equivalent to Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.” With 73 million sharks killed every year for the shark fin industry and 40-50 million sharks dying every year as bycatch*, this is more than mere speculation.

* bycatch is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while catching certain target species and target sizes of fish, crabs etc. According to the FAO, for every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as bycatch.   

Even marine plastic is in large part a fishing issue. It turns out that 46 percent of the Great Pacific garbage patch is composed of discarded nets, and much of the rest consists of other kinds of fishing gear. To put this in perspective, things like plastic straws - which everyone seems so eager to eliminate - make up 0.03% of all marine plastic.

All these sources of global change will rival and significantly interact with climatic change in environmental and societal impacts. 

(sources)

Now, before anyone can misconstrue my argument, I 100% agree with the sentiment of that tweet. Our entire economic system needs to be turned upside down. Drastic changes - chief among them the discontinuation of the use of fossil fuels - are needed on an institutional level.

What’s my problem then, you might ask. It’s this: while that twitter guy and I might disagree on the importance of individuals taking the bus instead of driving, we both obviously acknowledge that the fossil fuels that power our cars are unsustainable. And I don’t have to wonder whether or not he would support further investments in public transport. I know he would. 

When it comes to animal products, though, I can never be so sure.

If I listen to what you’re saying, then it seems like you take issue with my telling individual consumers to eat less meat because you want to go straight to the government and after the corporations. You’d rather we demanded subsidies for plant-based foods, and policies that restrict the supply of animal products, and more investments in plant-based companies and lab-grown meat, perhaps even changes to school and workplace menus. In other words, you’d rather we didn’t hold individual consumers responsible for failing to eat plant-based but instead hold the government responsible for making delicious and nutritious plant-based food as available and convenient to the average consumer as junk food is today.

If that were your actual position, I’d be crying tears of joy. But you see, I’m not at all convinced that it is. ‘Cause your words are never backed up by actions.

If the biggest left-wing party in my country listed “restricting the supply of animal products” as one of their objectives, do not insult me by telling me that non-vegan “anti-capitalists” would vote for it. I know you wouldn’t, you know you wouldn’t, politicians know you wouldn’t. That’s why reducing meat consumption is not part of any political party’s objectives and it is never going to be unless this issue becomes a deal-breaker for the majority of their voters.

That’s who consciousness raising need to start with, individual voters. Most voters are aware of the unsustainability of fossil fuels and would support reforms to reduce their use - perhaps grudgingly, but they would support them. The same cannot be said for animal products. The average citizen - even the average “anti-capitalist” - would not accept the government meddling with their diet. Corporations, powerful though they are, are not the only thing standing in the way, since as long as most voters oppose a reform, there is no chance of it ever becoming law. Suggesting that we should back off individual consumers and go straight after giant corporations is completely out of touch with reality because it ignores this simple fact. 

Furthermore, you may tweet about the futility of individual consumers taking the bus, but you then follow that up by letting politicians know that you want them to take care of electric cars and public transport. Do not tell me that non-vegan anti-capitalists are known for letting politicians know how concerned they are about animal agriculture.

You don’t want us to leave you alone and go after corporations. You want us to leave you alone period. Most of you want to leave the livestock sector completely untouched and out of the discussion. 

That’s not possible. A global shift toward a plant-based diet is part of the institutional changes that need to take place to stop climate change. It’s not a nice little addition that we can survive without. It is an integral part of any serious climate change mitigation plan. 

This isn’t my opinion. It isn’t neoliberal propaganda. There is scientific consensus on this. In fact, there is not much difference between being a climate change denier and denying the role of animal agriculture in climate change.