The NonExistent

thats what we call neo nazis and shitty conservative bros? or at least its what we used to call them? why are ppl calling themselves "chuds" affectionately now

what is happening

when you call yourself and your friends "chuds"

YOU

ARE

CALLING

YOURSELF

A

I will be making a comparison between animal derived proteins (beef, poultry, and eggs) and plant based proteins (tofu and pulses)

First, I looked up the CO2-equivalents (CO2e)* emitted by producing 1kg of each protein source (Source), which yields the following results:

Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e

Poultry: 57 kg CO2e

Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e

Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e

Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e

So we can see that plant-based proteins emit fewer greenhouse gasses than animal derived proteins.

Next, I looked at how transportation affects these numbers. I made the assumption that (1) no transportation is needed for the animal proteins and (2) the plant proteins are shipped from the other side of the world (so 20.000km). Shipping a kg of protein by freight ship at this distance emits about 0.6kg of CO2 equivalents (source)**.

So adding it up yields the following numbers***:

Beef: 498.9 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 498,9 kg CO2e Poultry: 57 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 57 kg CO2e Eggs: 42.1 kg CO2e + 0 kg CO2e from shipping = 42.1 kg CO2e Tofu: 19.8 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 20.4 kg CO2e Pulses: 8.4 kg CO2e + 0.6 kg CO2e from shipping = 9 kg CO2e

So even if we produce animal proteins locally and we ship all of our plant-based proteins halfway across the world, plant proteins are still far more environmentally friendly than animal proteins.

In other words, we can produce 55kg of pulse proteins, ship them 20.000km away and have the same environmental impact as producing 1kg of beef locally.

This is not even accounting for land use, water use, nitrate pollution, phosphate pollution etc., all of which have very real environmental impacts, and all of which are more present in the production of animal proteins****.

This is not a problem math can or should solve, because math is unfortunately something that can only solve problems that have a single correct solution. And real life problems that involve living beings are not those types of problems.

Industry emits more CO2 than any living being. The plastic and rayon plants, the oil refineries, the mines, the data centers--they all are the main CO2 problem. Factory farms are the main animal welfare and groundwater/soil toxicity problem. Blaming this on people not being vegan is ridiculous. This is a problem created by industry and cannot be solved even if everyone in the world COULD get their protein from plants--and at least one person on this earth can't, because I can't. But I'm sure I'm not the only one.

There are several places where animals are overpopulous--some of them are invasive, some are not--and hunting them down and eating them is a very good solution. We have feral hogs where I am. We also have a native species of deer that is overpopulating. Humans stepping in and hunting them down and eating them so as not to waste the meat is a good solution here. In places that have a long tradition of NOT eating meat, eating meat isn't something anybody is saying they should do.

It IS however a fact that we are omnivores as a species. Some humans not being omnivores is not proof our species isn't. You have canine teeth. You have a gut that is arranged in a particular way. These are facts of our species. That we have the freedom of choice and adaptability to survive by genetically engineering plants to produce more protein and eating them instead does not erase that when looking us up as a species of animal, we are among the omnivores.

There is no one size fits all kind of answer. And vegans asserting there is and then doing a bunch of math about CO2 emissions like that proves it is not just doubling down, it's actively deciding to play into the oil executives who found out that oil was destroying the earth in the 1970s and spent millions of dollars in marketing the idea of a Carbon Footprint and guilt-tripping individual people into thinking THEY were responsible. No. It's the oil companies. It's the industrial factories and plants that are doing the bulk of the polluting. Nothing any individual person decides to eat or not eat is going to make more than a drop in the ocean's worth of difference.

Shut the factories down.

But don't lecture people on what food is and isn't moral to eat, especially if the only thing you're thinking about is CO2 emmission. What about the human cost of plants? What about the human agricultural workers? Quinoa getting popular fucked up Indigenous people who relied on quinoa as a staple and now they can't afford it. How is that less terrible than the CO2 emmissions of a single cow? What's the cost of suffering? Or does that not matter because you can't make a number out of it? Who is the "we" in "we can produce... pulses"? They don't produce themselves! There are humans out there picking them, weeding them, and those humans have a CO2 emission and take up resources the same as any other animal. But THOSE numbers aren't available, not like the handy numbers of a cow. Doesn't mean they aren't there!

Eating only plants are not some shortcut to being morally pure, that's what I'm saying. ALL food production involves something deeply exploitative and unethical in this age of factory farming and global exploitative economy and so forth. Vegans are not magically exempt from having blood on their hands just because the blood is human only and most agriculture statistics ignore the human cost of a crop.

And while I don't think we should put the responsibility of reducing the climate crisis on individual's shoulders, I'm very in favor of governments legislating your behavior for the common good based on scientific consensus. Which on this topic, had been massively clear for years.

So as with CFCs or leaded gas, this is not a "personal choice" matter, because your personal choice affects us all. Climate change is, very much, a math problem. A very complex one that very smart people have been studying for decades. You can listen to them when they talk or you can cover your ears and shout "ÑAÑAÑAÑA THIS PROBLEM IS TO HARD FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND LET ME ALONE" or "WHAT ABOUT [this other thing that should also disappear]" the same moment they mention something you find personally inconvenient.

Sure.

Throw your tantrum.

Explain to me the human cost of your plant crops. How much CO2 does a human worker put out? Because you talk like crops just spontaneously generate by themselves, which is a very privileged point of view. I've been in a field and picked crops. It's hard work. It requires LOTS of workers, every day.

Explain to me how a person who is deadly allergic to pulses is meant to be getting protein. That's not a hypothetical imaginary situation, there's a very common condition that makes someone unable to consume legumes of any kind.

Even one human being dying should not be acceptable to you. Human lives are valuable. Your solution would cause at least 1 human being to die in result. It is not a valid solution therefore.

The fact that you sit there accusing me of "throwing a tantrum" when you're the one dismissing everything I just said is ironic. The fact that you dismiss me as "throwing a tantrum" and tell me to my face that you wish me and people like me to die, well that's not surprising. Vegans don't care about humans very much, especially disabled humans, in my experience.

I don't care about your solution if it means I have to die. I think it's reasonable to get angry when someone says they don't care if you die and they want to control what you do with your own body!