I’m utterly unconvinced that meat eating is inherently bad for the environment. The initial studies decrying meat production were fatally flawed and had to be withdrawn.
Better animal husbandry is needed, but not mass scale conversion away from meat.
>> The initial studies decrying meat production were fatally flawed and had to be withdrawn.
Source for this claim, please?
I too think that there is a lot more that should be done to safekeep the environment that sustains us before we have to stop eating meat altogether but I have never before heard that particular studies were "fatally flawed" and were withdrawn.
I can’t find the source I originally had for the paper being withdrawn, but it looks like one of the original authors believes that the paper was flawed.
The original article claimed that eating meat produced more CO2 than driving, but they used the wrong methods to compare the two.
For meat, they measured lifecycle emissions. Everything involved in raising, transporting, slaughtering, and processing meat was measured. I think this is a fair measure.
For transport they only measured tailpipe emissions, which is deeply misleading. You need to include the cost of oil discovery, refining and transport, plus the emissions of steel and concrete production for cars and roads. The actual tailpipe emissions of a car is a small fraction of its emissions, which is why buying a used ICE vehicle is greener than buying a new EV.
The summary, not the body of the paper, claimed that meat production accounted for 18% of emissions, more than transport, both statements appear to be wrong. Transport is actually 26%, and meat is closer to 3-4%. In America meat production and grain production have roughly equal emissions, with meat producing 42% of our overall agricultural emissions.
There are for certain things we can do to manage land, manure, and water better. But I believe that focusing on reducing/eliminating meat is misguided.
Better animal husbandry is needed, but not mass scale conversion away from meat.