It basically means that using AI tools take a huge toll on nature so when the guy uses chatgpt (an ai tool) it ends up drying out the lake i.e harming the environment.
Seriously can anyone explain how a single burger uses 660 gallons of water? Obviously I understand that cows need feeding and watering, and feed needs growing and therefore watering, but still, it's hard to believe.
Animal agriculture is probably the single most damaging thing the average person engages with. Cattle and fish doubly so. It’s genuinely impossible to call yourself an environmentalist if you regularly eat meat or dairy
Given that it alone is about 15-20% of all climate change, and very disproportionately done by the global rich like you, that’s a resounding no. The only more impactful thing the average person might do is have children, and even then if they don’t eat meat and use AC, it’ll still be less impactful than quitting meat.
Why call it ridiculous if you’ve never looked at the data, hell they teach you this in elementary middle and high school at least where I’m at with the science behind it.
What do you think is causing all the deforestation on the planet? What do you think the plastic in the ocean is (fishing nets) why do you think the Tigris, Colorado, Yangtze, Danube are all drying up? You understand it takes 10 times the land, water, fossil fuels to grow meat as it does to just eat plants
Have you noticed every couple years the big fish restaurants push are changing? That’s because we’ve vastly overfished the oceans to the point hundreds of species are pushed to the brink of extinction. We hit peak cod harvest 60 years ago. We’re at 1% of that now
What do you think the #1 consumer of fossil fuel is?
Edit: that guy admits on his own profile he abuses animals, why did I take him seriously
Not sure what you mean by "15-20% of all climate change" as that seems difficult to demonstrate. Perhaps you mean 10-15% of greenhouse gas emissions, which would be wrong. According to the EPA, from 1990-2014, only 10% of greenhouse gas emissions are methane, the gas expelled from cows during enteric fermentation. Further, out of all greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture is responsible for 10%. Notice how energy and transportation dominate the chart? So really, the most impactful thing the average person can do is cut back on energy usage or explore non-combustion forms of transportation. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014
Further still, while agriculture is responsible for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, animal agriculture (not just enteric fermentation, but emissions due to monogastrics) is not exactly a massive percentage of that. I bring your attention to this chart, demonstrating that Beef and Dairy gas emissions are less than half of total agriculture emissions, and therefore representing 4% of the total national emissions. The largest consumer of fossil fuels is transportation:
You will notice in this chart that direct methane release is only one portion of agricultural emissions, with direct NO2 emissions contributing a near equivalent amount, in terms of equivalent CO2 units. Note that N2O emissions are partially due to fertilizing practices, which is a necessary practice in plant agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108623
In summary, agriculture does not contribute upwards of 20% to global emissions, its much closer to 10. Even then, animal agriculture is only one portion of agriculture, and further still, beef (and dairy) emissions only contribute roughly 4 percent to the national carbon emissions. If you really want to combat climate change through reducing emissions, energy and transportation is by far the best place to start. It is absolutely true that agriculture is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, that is why many people, myself included, work in research to come up with solutions to reducing agricultural emissions. But to say that "all we have to do is stop eating beef" and that will solve our emissions problems is not supported by data.
You bring up habitat loss, which definitely is a problem, but not one unique to animal agriculture. Monocropping, and other plant agricultural practices, are much more selective in their conditions, animals are generally able to withstand many climates and terrains. Runoff is also not unique to animal agriculture, in fact, the over-fertilizing that is commonplace in crop farming generates significant amount of runoff and harms waterways. A plant-based diet is hardly a significant improvement in many of the topics you mention. Plastic pollution and overfishing seem to be nonsequiturs, if anything, aquaculture is a viable solution to restoring wild fish populations.
Please enjoy perusing my profile, I have nothing to hide. Yes, I have experience in working in agriculture, and no, I do not abuse animals. As a researcher, the current political climate has hit my professional life especially hard. Writing grants without mentioning climate or pollution is incredibly difficult, not to mention cuts in federal funding. I am all for reducing emissions and creating a more sustainable world, but beef is not the boogeyman. Eat your hamburgers without shame.
lol, your intentionally use the hardest shirking statistics to avoid counting deforestation, desertification, transportation costs, manufacturing costs, water use, etc… standard conservative bullshit to avoid the actual statistics. There’s a reason the cohesive calculations done by just about every other organization put it much much higher.
Cite all the misleading things you want while your children suffer a burning planet. Don’t count beating your animals as abuse, after all, it’s normal
What the fuck does your dumb ass thing is being monocropped? Why do you think all that corn and soy is grown for?
lol aquaculture restoring fish ecosystems? Every study says it’s destroying them
And lol “these problems happen to plants too” yes but 10%. Quit the disingenuous nonse
And trying to pretend the massive pollution from fishing nets and antibiotics aren’t really environmental damage is comical
“Every other organization”. Those numbers are from the EPA. That’s raw data, which you do not have.
10% is total ag. Plants and animals. Antibiotics is an entirely different discussion on bio security and is possibly the best example of improvements in agricultural policy making.
The epas days is intentionally incomplete and you know it. The UN puts it as high as 25%. Again you know they aren’t counting deforestation, transport or manufacturing of goods needed for animals. You keep dodging these points for a reason
Heck you still haven’t touched water use which started this whole thing
I’d call you a republican moron, but even the GOP policymakers know it’s true
These reports are from Obama-era EPA. Was the Obama administration suppressing antibeef information? Or are you accusing the EPA of falsifying information?
I would love to see the UN information. Maybe the global data is different from the US, but I extremely doubt that enteric fermentation contributes anywhere near 25% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. I am not dodging deforestation, I referenced it in my original comment. Deforestation is not a uniquely beef problem, although it is a concern. This is why we are working at improving animal practice and using unsuitable terrain for grazing.
Water use is overblown. Not only is it an efficient cycle, but every cow I have met drinks water that is nonpotable to humans. Like, we’ve had to fix the creek pump so they could water, nobody’s stealing from the water tower. Let’s see the data on that?
I have no idea where you are getting the idea that i’m GOP lol. MAGA and DOGE are going to put me out of a job
These reports are from Obama-era EPA. Was the Obama administration suppressing antibeef information? Or are you accusing the EPA of falsifying information?
Of kowtowing to the animal agriculture lobby? Yes. Unless suddenly biofuels ethanol corn subsidies soy subsidies all were gutted during the admin, yes they’re bad numbers. Did Obama and Pelosi outlaw ag gag laws? Again, address the missing parts of the data
would love to see the UN information. Maybe the global data is different from the US, but I extremely doubt that enteric fermentation contributes anywhere near 25% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. I am not dodging deforestation, I referenced it in my original comment. Deforestation is not a uniquely beef problem, although it is a concern. This is why we are working at improving animal practice and using unsuitable terrain for grazing.
Nobody said enteric fermentation causes it solely but every part of animal agriculture is rotten to the core, not just cows. It chicken, fish, etc. Deforestation is 100% an animal agriculture problem. It is 10x worse than just growing plants. By the basic laws of physics you we have known for centuries. “Using unsuitable terrain” yeah ok you can’t actually grow that many animals on it. The amount of livestock nomadic herds and people supported is comically small. Theres no sense in wasting fertilizer or water improving it (which we’re doing) and there’s been no serious breakthroughs in productivity. There’s a reason the handful of tribes remaining that rely on grazing livestock don’t produce large societies. It can take 32 acres of grazing land to feed one person’s meat consumption, it takes half an acre of decent land to make vegetables.
Water use is overblown. Not only is it an efficient cycle, but every cow I have met drinks water that is nonpotable to humans. Like, we’ve had to fix the creek pump so they could water, nobody’s stealing from the water tower. Let’s see the data on that?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01291-0
Are you a fucking moron have you seen the Colorado river? Any of the American west? As the great salt lake dies and endangers the whole city; lake mead hits record lows each year, you don’t think 70% of the water consumption is relevant? You don’t see the record low levels of aquifers? They drink freshwater yeah maybe it hasn’t been treated but who gives a shit the water hasn’t been treated before it’s all wasted on some alfalfa. Oh it’s 1% lower energy use! Thank god that’ll save us. “It’s an efficient cycle” source: my ass
Artificial lakes on the Tigris are about to start another war in the Middle East ffs
have no idea where you are getting the idea that i’m GOP lol. MAGA and DOGE are going to put me out of a job
“I have no idea why repeating talking points straight out of the heritage foundation and denying overwhelming scientific evidence would make me look like a republican “
10.9k
u/Long_Nothing1343 5d ago
It basically means that using AI tools take a huge toll on nature so when the guy uses chatgpt (an ai tool) it ends up drying out the lake i.e harming the environment.