i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

good science is recognizing that LCAs are not transferable between studies, so poore-nemecek’s analysis must be disregarded.

this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.

this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.

what is the data? how much do they produce?

the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.

this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.

the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.

no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.

edit:

page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.

I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.

if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.

Laws are made entirely on morals.

this has never been true

the vast majority of the soybean product that is fed to animals is the byproduct of producing soybean oil. feeding animals industrial waste is a good use of it.

I didn’t even touch on all the deforestation

the paper does, and it’s deeply flawed. no one should trust these over simplifications of our vastly complex agricultural systems.

that’s without accounting for the feed

it’s not, and the methodology is flawed.

https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/57aee0d5-0013-4182-abe7-55e1a817f553/content

the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don’t think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop “seconds”; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn’t credited to cattle, it’s counted against their total water use.

that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?

that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.

this entire conflict has to be one of very few in history where one side is actively trying to increase the suffering on their own side as a weapon of war and manipulation

this is how all asymmetric warfare works. the Boston tea party was meant to provoke a response.

The raw energy approach is actually quite a good approach by now, because we can use technology to transition most things into each other.

this assumes some sort of centralized economy, instead of letting farmers give wasted apples to their neighbors horses or whatever.

much of the waste that is fed to animals does not have a better use, as you are suggesting. for instance, soycake. no one wants to eat that, but it’s high protein. giving it to animals conserves resources.

much of the land that is attributed to animal agriculture is grazing land, and is not suitable for growing crops.

let’s see any expert say what you said, and I’ll show you an Israeli shill

Way to miss the point

you are the one derailing the discussion about the actual policy of the candidates to make up stories about what you think would happen.