The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
Cow is not the only meat. Small example: we use lots of machinery for manicuring lawns, fields etc. This is pollution plain and simple. We use mechanized methods for clearing the brush. Having goats/sheep/other grazers covers both needs without heavy impact on pollution. While it is possible that eat less meat is a thing one has to take into account a lot of other things. Among which eat less period. Obesity pandemic around the globe exacerbates the issue - larger humans consume more calories thus require more production. Food waste is rampant. Estimates pin spoilage at 40%. So, no, I say we should address core issues before we can declare that all options have been exhausted and now we’ve got to cut on meat consumption.
Why is cutting cutting down on meat consumption a last resort in your opinion? It’s extremely trivial for 99% of people.
despite the fact that you decided to just ignore arguments I’ve just laid out, I’ll bite. It is not trivial. In certain areas/regions growing vegetables is more difficult than rearing animals that can convert inedible grass/brush into consumable calories. Trucking in non-meat alternatives is carbon intensive. In other words problem lies with industrial food priduction and distribution regardless of kind of food. If food had to travel 1000 miles to get to your table on top of intensive methods of growing it - it’s carbon footprint is enormous. Also industrial food production implies heavy fossils use at every stage. It’s solving the symptom rather than the cause. Which is why I’d rather see cause addressed before we can turn to symptoms.