• nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Most of the US is empty and fertile unlike other parts of the world, land use is not really the biggest issue with meat farming

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Empty… to humans but not to native species that living there. Grazing still affects those ecosystems there. From the article

      As the cattle graze, they tend to disrupt ecosystems and do a lot of damage to the land. They eat or destroy plants consumed by native species, like turtles, which can lead to biodiversity loss. Their manure pollutes rivers and streams, and as they move about, they erode soil.

      […] analyzed decades of BLM data and found that about half of the acreage it oversees that has been assessed fails to meet the agency’s own land health standards (in Nevada, it’s an alarming 83 percent). PEER points to livestock grazing as the primary source of land degradation.

      There’s an opportunity cost in using all that land. If we let land go back to its natural state we can sequester quite large amounts of carbon

      A 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability highlights the immense environmental potential of changing how we farm and eat. Researchers found that if all high-income countries shifted to a plant-based diet from 2015 to 2050, they’d free up enough land to sequester 32 gigatons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of removing nine years of all those countries’ fossil fuel emissions from the atmosphere. Globally, if we shifted to plant-based diets over that same time period, the land saved could sequester the equivalent of 16 years of global fossil fuel emissions.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        What’s the environmental cost of growing all that soy, corn and oats for an US wide vegetarian diet?

        • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          A lot less than farming meat which requires all the cost of growing that and ensuring the animals are fed and watered until slaughtering.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          From the article

          But not all agriculture is equally land-intensive. Meat-heavy diets require far more land than low-meat and vegetarian diets.

          But not only that it also requires crop land for plant-based diets. From a different source

          If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%.

          […]

          If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland.

          https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      High land use harm native species and has great environmental consequences as described in the article

      There’s more to consider than just how much land is available to humans

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “The problems are huge, sprawling, and major,” said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and executive director of the Western Watersheds Project (WWP), the group that sued numerous federal agencies for failing to preserve the habitat of the Mojave desert tortoise and 77 other species.

    WWP alleges that for decades, the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other agencies have violated an agreement they signed in 2001 that forbids cattle grazing in a part of Nevada’s Gold Butte National Monument in order to protect the desert tortoise, whose population has plunged since the 1980s.

    The permitting program is costing the federal government tens of millions of dollars annually to administer, all while giving cattle ranchers a deep discount on public lands.

    Even worse, the federal government spends millions annually on its “Wildlife Services” division, which kills wild animals it deems a threat to grazing livestock.

    The programs that subsidize the beef industry represent some of the most striking examples of America’s tradition of “agricultural exceptionalism” — giving farmers and ranchers special treatment, like sweeping exemptions from critical environmental, labor, and animal welfare laws.

    Agribusiness also benefits from getting large swathes of the West to itself, illustrating a simple fact of land use in America: Contrary to the famous Woody Guthrie song, much of it isn’t for you and me — it’s for the meat industry.


    The original article contains 1,123 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • lordxakio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Unless fake or lab meat is cheaper or just as expensive, this won’t change. Except maybe if costs go higher than what is considered profitable.

    • LEX@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Fake meat is cheaper, it’s just not heavily, heavily, subsidized by your tax dollars.

  • DunkelLicht@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    What a stupid and annoying title, trying to imply that I am on some team that is not the “meat industry” team. I eat meat and I have nothing against ranching.