• AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 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!

  • DunkelLicht@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 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.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I agree, the meat industry should be nationalized along with agriculture and the energy sector.

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

        Well when you try to run a service that is by definition unprofitable, “like a business,” the only way to hit the financial metrics is to cut salary and headcount. This obviously leads to shitty service. That said in states like New York and Illinois the DMV is actually pretty well run, though the number of locations and hours of operation leaves something to be desired.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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

  • nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 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
          0
          ·
          11 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
          0
          ·
          11 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

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, and neither deforestation nor meat make a dent in that. If you want to end global warming, end the use of fossil fuels.

        The statistics they parrot about nothing emissions are largely bullshit and even if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow we’d still have all the same problems we do now.

        You can’t offset global warming with forests, what humans are doing is an order of magnitude larger than what nature is equipped to handle.

        Nor is this even relevant at all, because even fossil fuels serve the average person. There’s a reason we keep using them.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          The statistics they parrot

          That tells me everything i need to know, you cant be convinced with science.

          • bioemerl@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            People who don’t understand that all methane emitted by cows must come from carbon gathered by plants and as a result contributes near net zero to the long-term global warming trend are the people who don’t understand science.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              The earth doesnt produce carbon at all, so why do you think things have getting warmer? It matters what form that carbon takes. Carbon in the form of a plant is a solid, and even works to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon in the form of methane has a much stronger greenhouse gas effect than regular carbon dioxide. Which is where those bullshit statistics you hate come from, it’s carbon that was solid and is now a greenhouse gas. Same shit as fossil fuels, its not new carbon being made, its just solid carbon being turned into gas.

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

                The earth doesnt produce carbon at all What?

                There are hundreds of fully natural processes that emit carbon that have nothing to do with Humans. Volcanos, Plant Respiration, other mammal respiration, forest fires, lime stone erosion, natural decomposition of organic matter, meteorites burning up in the atomosphere, lightning strikes, etc etc. Where do you think the carbon in the earth came from? God? Well before humans existed there were ice ages and periods of higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as higher oxygen. That statement by itself shows you don’t’ really have a good grasp of what climate change is, nor what is causing it.

              • bioemerl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                The earth doesnt produce carbon at all, so why do you think things have getting warmer? It matters what form that carbon takes. Carbon in the form of a plant is a solid, and even works to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon in the form of methane has

                Jesus Christ you’re ignorant.

                The carbon in plants comes out of the atmosphere.

                Cows eat those plants and processes in their stomach turn it into methane.

                Methane in the atmosphere turns back to carbon within 20 years.

                Plants then reabsorb that carbon when they grow to feed the cows.

                It’s literally a constrained cycle. You can’t increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere through cows and plants. You have to actually find carbon that is in a stable solid form and then put it into the atmosphere when it otherwise wouldn’t be.

                In other words, you have to mine coal or pump oil.

                Plants and cows have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Deforestation is not serving the people

      High GHG emissions is not serving the people

      High cruelty to non-human animals is not serving the people

      Etc.

      • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes. It is. This meat isn’t going into dumpsters. It’s largely sold and people love the cheap prices and do not care about any of that in mass

  • lordxakio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 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
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

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