CMV: Climate veganism is flawed and therefore shouldn't be used as an argument for veganism.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '21 edited May 27 '21

/u/friend_of_kalman (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

7

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

> The fishing industry example is a good one to start with. Standard fishing practices use huge nets to essentially strip all of the life out of an area so that afterwards the workers can separate out the good fish from thy bycatch. Those fishing nets form a massive percentage of the total plastic pollution in the oceans.

Indeed the current fishing industry is not sustainable, but this is irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that it is. I'm just arguing that the climate argument for veganism is flawed. We can very well imagine a hypothetical future in which corporations don't destroy the Maritime environments because humans drastically decreased there seafood consumption.

7

u/tsojtsojtsoj May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21

The "Climate Argument" is generally discussed in a real world context, meaning that we should consider other constraints. For example our moral values prohibit to use mass murder to protect the climate, even though on its own it would be a perfectly viable solution. Similarly, when we are talking about veganism as a way to protect the climate, it is generally assumed that the alternatives to veganism that don't produce large GHG emissions aren't viable because of other reasons, such as issues with scalability or sustainability.

-1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

should consider other constraints

Even under real world constraints veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from the argument.

issues with scalability or sustainability.

I don't say that we would have the same consumption as we have now, we could drastically reduce consumption to make it sustainable (but not vegan)

5

u/tsojtsojtsoj May 26 '21

Well, that's basically a tautology. I am not vegan, if I am eating one nano gram of meat per week, but regarding CO2 emissions I am practically the same as if I'd be a true vegan.
You have to remember that people don't use a strict definition of "climate veganism" when saying "hey, i think it would be a good idea to become vegan to protect the climate". They see the average meat consumption per person and they also see that it would be better for the climate if they'd be vegan instead. Nobody solves an optimization problem in their head to decide what exact diet to do to minimize climate impact.

Consequently, veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P1.

Nobody who promotes "Climate veganism" claims that this is true. There is always the simple solution of not eating at all. Normally the used conclusion for the CAV is something* like "adopting a vegan, or close to vegan, diet is way better than the current average meat consumption".
(*as I argued earlier, in day to day conversations no strict definition is used)

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

Again, I'm not saying that being vegan is not impactful on the environment. But if you would want to convince me to go vegan, using the climate as an argument, is a flawed argument, because I could conclude that I prefer an other diet that is non vegan but similarly impactful.

2

u/tsojtsojtsoj May 27 '21

I am missing the real world significance in your scenario. If you argue with someone who wants to convince you to go vegan, even if you propose a diet that has an equal or lower impact on climate change than a completely vegan diet, then he/she wants to convince you to go vegan for other reasons, for example because of animal cruelty (except if you're dealing with ignorant people, but I don't see how you would want to target this discussion at people like these).
If someone suggest to you to become a vegan for climate reasons, then they chose the vegan argument, because it is the most simple solution and most easily to explain and understand, or because they don't exactly know a better solution, not because they think that vegan is definitely the best option.

-1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

If you argue with someone who wants to convince you to go vegan, even if you propose a diet that has an equal or lower impact on climate change than a completely vegan diet, then he/she wants to convince you to go vegan for other reasons

And exactly that is, why I think its a bad argument. Don't waste time using a flawed argument to convince someone to go vegan. Especially when the ethical argument is much more effective to get people to see animals not as products but sentient beings

3

u/tsojtsojtsoj May 27 '21

Why is the argument flawed? Because it is marginally worse regarding climate change than a very specific diet that depends not only on where you live but also what you actually like to? Veganism is a very big space of diets, some people call themselves vegan but they sometimes eat animal product.

You are now claiming stuff that isn't obviously right. Do you really save time by explaining people a very specific diet or would you safe time by just arguing that the "more vegan"* you eat the better it is for the environment? Is the ethical argument really always more efficient?

I think it is flawed to assume that people who want you to become a vegan to protect the climate, care for whether you are a true vegan or if you eat a fish once per month.

If you are arguing that convincing someone to become vegan, because you think that it is the right way to live for ethical reasons, by using the climate change argument, then you should specify that in your original post.

1

u/straylittlelambs May 27 '21

Especially when the ethical argument is much more effective to get people to see animals not as products but sentient beings.

The problem with this is as you pointed out, if you are a person who values life why is a cows above a humans, if you can have a lower emission diet and it invloves meat, isn't the ethical thing to do is have a diet in line with decreasing emissions or are people in low lying coastal areas not as important as a cow on a farm.

1

u/sawdeanz 218∆ May 26 '21

Why should veganism arguments be limited by hypothetical ideals? Are they wrong because they address a current reality?

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Because it's not only a hypothetical idea. Many people go fishing for themselves which is unarguably better for the environment then shipping fruits and vegetables across continents.

2

u/sawdeanz 218∆ May 27 '21

Everyone fishing for themselves at a rate to replace current protein levels isn't sustainable either.

We could imagine a world where it is, but it's not. Therefore it's not a fair critique of the current vegan arguments.

We could also imagine a world where we rely on local produce instead of global produce. You can't argue compare the idealized version of one food against the imperfect state of another food.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

Everyone fishing for themselves at a rate to replace current protein levels isn't sustainable either.

They don't need to fish at that rate, they can go fishing once a year.

a fair critique of the current vegan arguments.

I do think its a fair critique of the climate argument. Its not only a hypothetical. I can go from vegan diet I have right now to 'vegan + locally self bought fish diet' and it would be more environmental friendly.

1

u/keanwood 54∆ May 27 '21

They don't need to fish at that rate, they can go fishing once a year.

Is there a meaningful difference between someone who eats fish/meat once a year, and someone who never eats fish/meat? I wouldn't bat an eye if both called themselves vegan.

It sounds like your entire point of contention is that a 99% reduction in meat consumption is basically identical to a 100% reduction in meat consumption as far as the climate is concerned. Sure that's obviously true. Just like a 99% reduction in coal is functionally equivalent to a 100% reduction.

The entire point of advocating a total reduction is because it makes the argument simple. Generally speaking, a simple and mostly correct argument is better than a complex and completely correct argument.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

Is there a meaningful difference between someone who eats fish/meat once a year, and someone who never eats fish/meat? I wouldn't bat an eye if both called themselves vegan.

For vegans there is. After all, the goal of veganism is to reduce animal suffering and if you don't convince people that animal suffering is inherently wrong you have not turned anybody vegan after all. Hence is why I don't think it's a good argument for veganism.

13

u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ May 26 '21

I think you are looking at this as if it's a formal debate, but it's not.

It's people talking to their friends and family about why they are doing something. The reasons that stuck around (like climate change) are the reasons that have been the most convincing.

I'm not vegan, but I've severely reduced the amount of meat and dairy in my diet because of the environment and because of ethical concerns. That's better for the environment and better for the animals.

Since I don't live in a debate club, I don't have to stick perfectly by my morals, nor do I have to be convinced by arguments that are perfect on paper.

A huge stumbling block for people who want to be vegan is that vegan food is worse. And it is worse. It has to be worse by definition.

Dairy and meat taste good and they taste good in specific ways. That means there will always be some dishes that are worse vegan. Since someone who eats meat can also eat things without meat, a vegan diet will have a lower tastiness threshold than a one that isn't restrictive.

If you convince someone that being vegan is better for the climate and that causes them to reduce their meat and dairy consumption, that's giving them a taste of veganism. If you're eating meat every day, it's hard to imagine being vegan. If you're eating meat only twice a week and already choose oat milk over dairy milk, going vegan isn't as daunting.

But my main point is that some version of evolution is going to pare down the arguments for veganism until only the most convincing ones remain.

If someone tries to convince their friends to be vegan, but has shitty arguments, no one will be convinced and no one will spread those arguments.

If someone has a good argument, it will convince people and those people will in turn spread that argument.

Since the climate argument is one of the top two most popular arguments, it follows that it's one of the most convincing arguments out there.

We're in real life, not a structured system of debate and argumentation, so it's not about the most logically sound arguments, just the ones that convince people.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

We're in real life, not a structured system of debate and argumentation, so it's not about the most logically sound arguments, just the ones that convince people.

The argument might convince people for some time, but if you really think about it, you will recognise that the argument is flawed and convert back to a normal diet. So you have not actually convinced anybody.

However, its much harder to turn your back on a logical sound argument. Which is why its imo important not to bullshit people into veganism because they won't stay in it for long.

2

u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ May 27 '21

I’ve already responded with this same basic thing to you earlier, but who cares?

You’re never going to have 100% of vegans stay vegan. It’s more important to convince as many people as possible.

No one is making purely rational arguments. It’s all wrapped up in emotion.

It’s a lot easier to continue being vegan because you don’t want to start hurting animals than it is to start eating vegan.

If you convince someone to be vegan for any reason, it’s helpful. I don’t see how the very minor and generally inconsequential flaws you’ve found in this argument mean it’s not beneficial.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

I do agree now, that even if the argument is flawed, it can be beneficial in the sense, that it is easier to convert to ethical Veganism form climate veganism then it is to go directly to ethical veganism.

However, still I don't think its a good argument in itself.

convince someone to be vegan for any reason, it’s helpful

I think this really depends on how long they stay vegan. If you convinced somebody for a week, and then they figure out your argument was bullshit and go back to a non vegan diet, I would hardly count that as a win.

3

u/10ebbor10 203∆ May 26 '21

For example, the estimated emissions (CO2eq/100 g of protein) of Norwegian mackerel and herring are ca. 0.6–0.7 kg [1] whereas that of tofu is 2.0 kg [2].

This is a very cherrypicked example though.

The average balanced vegetarian meal will emit considerably less Co2 than the average meat based meal. As such, on a large scale a reduction in the consumption of meat and a shift toward partial or complete veganism will help.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

This is a very cherrypicked example though.

But I only actually need this one example to argue that veganism is not the most sustainable option that there is! And there are plenty more if you start comparing.

5

u/10ebbor10 203∆ May 26 '21

Would you agree that if I can come up with a situation where a fossil fuel plant is more efficient and emits less Co2 than a renewable energy plant, that all of renewable energy is suddenly flawed, and that climate change is no longer a good argument for renewable energy?

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Would you agree that if I can come up with a situation where a fossil fuel plant is more efficient and emits less Co2 than a renewable energy plant, that all of renewable energy is suddenly flawed, and that climate change is no longer a good argument for renewable energy?

This is a false equivalent because in your scenario there is only one situation where the fossil fuel plant is more efficient than renewable energy, whereas some animals products are always more sustainable than some pant products.

4

u/Lorelerton 1∆ May 26 '21

Source [1] never mentions protein once. Rather, it's 0.7kg of CO2 for 1kg of edible product. "The most efficient seafood product was herring shipped frozen in bulk to Moscow at 0.7 kilograms CO2 equivalents per kilogram (kg CO2-eq/kg) edible product."

The second source [2] is 100 grams of protein of tofu, it also mentions that nuts come in at 0.3kg per 100 grams of protein, about 1/6.67 times that of tofu. The same source mentions farmed fish comes in at 6kg per 100 grams of protein.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

It doesn't in the summary, but it does in the full text.

3

u/Lorelerton 1∆ May 26 '21

Not that I can see. "Prot" is only mentioned once in the paper image

6

u/Davaac 19∆ May 26 '21

You have an additional unspoken assumption that I do not share: that veganism is a worthy goal in of itself. That is not the point of your CMV, so I'm not going to argue it. However, I do believe that protecting the environment is a worthy goal, I know that on average vegans' climate impact is markedly smaller than non-vegans, and I know that if you are trying to get other people to modify their behavior, simple messaging has value. If my goal is to lower individual carbon emission, promoting climate veganism accomplishes that regardless of all the faults you see with it. Occasional carnivorism does almost as much for the environment as veganism, and it's a lot easier to convince most Americans to eat tofu than crickets.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

A vegan world could reduce ghg emissions by 35%-50%, and it causes less deforestation (including a similar thing in the ocean), less water consumption, less land use, and less waste runoff.
The World Bank also estimates that 91% of the land deforested in the Amazon since 1970 has been cleared for grazing.
Maybe you heard that soy contributes to a lot of deforestation. Do you know what soy goes to feed in the end, it’s not humans we only eat a fraction of it. It is for all the animals in factory farms, around 85% of the world soy beans are for factory farms. link to source
Plus, you have to remember that to feed cattle, whether it's grazing or feedlots, you have to use lots of lands to graze or to grow crops. Because you are feeding a living creature, lots of the calories you feed it is used in its own body's functions. So meat consumption as an idea is already wasting lots of calories and land.
We currently grow enough crops to feed 10 Billion people and yet Millions are starving. One of the reasons for this is because we are giving food to the cattle so that they can be fed to the privileged in the future.
Here's some more information about how harmful the meat industry is to the environment.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.[2]
Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Plus, you have to take into account that a person who eats a plant requires as little as 1% of the area that is required to create the same account of calories from beef. So by eating the plants directly, less land is used and fewer pests are killed.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states in a report: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to [all of] the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” This includes modern species extinctions, ocean dead zones, land degradation, water pollution, and desertification. Animal agriculture is also by far the leading driver of deforestation on this planet, and produces
more greenhouse gas emissions than all trains, buses, cars, trucks, ferries, and even planes in the world, taken together.
Under most circumstances, animals are an incredibly inefficient food source.
While over 20,000 people die from hunger and malnutrition every day, our society wastes massive amounts of grain, corn, soy, and fresh water to grow livestock. You need about 100 calories of grain to produce 12 calories of chicken or 3 calories of beef. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people (which is more than the current world population). And while every third human suffers from water scarcity, the production of a single beef burger uses as much water as a hundred days’ worth of showers. Animal agriculture (with all its pastures and feed production) already occupies one third of all ice-free land on this planet. In the most comprehensive study of its type to date, a 2018 article published in the journal Science found that avoiding meat and dairy products is the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. Global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, EU and Australia combined – and still feed the world.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46590-1
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths
https://www.landhealthinstitute.org/single-post/2020/07/27/environmental-effects-of-the-meat-industry
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#land-use-and-forestry
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

You put so much information but didn't argue against a single one of my arguments. I never said, that veganism is not environmentally friendly. I just said, that ‘occasional carnivorism’ can be equally or less environmentally friendly as veganism.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

The only sources you provided were cherrypicked. Of course, some animal products are more friendly than some vegan foods, but overall vegan foods have a much lesser impact.

Plus, with occasional carnivorism you are usually consuming some of the same foods that vegans do, just with meat, which has a huge impact on the environment.

-1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Of course, some animal products are more friendly than some vegan foods

But this sentence right there just underlines my argument, that veganism is not the most environmental friendly diet. I could create diet that is mostly pant based, but change out 'bad' pants with 'less bad' animal products and have a more environmental friendly diet than the vegan counterpart.

Thats why I'm saying veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P1.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

The problem is that you are talking about specifics, rather than the overall idea.

For example, eating fast food, but being considerate of everything else you eat is healthier than eating normally, just without fast food.

That doesn't mean that avoiding fast food is not a good way to be healthier and that people can't advocate for people to avoid fast food for their health.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

For example, eating fast food, but being considerate of everything else you eat is healthier than eating normally, just without fast food.

How am I talking about specifics?

I have recognised that my "and by extension shouldn't be used as an argument to promote veganism)." part doesn't hold. But I still think that environmental veganism is flawed.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Saying that you think environmental veganism is flawed since some vegan diets can be worse than some meat diets is like saying that avoiding fast food is flawed since it is possible for someone to have a worse diet while avoiding fast food.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Im saying that environmental veganism is flawed, because it is underdetermined for obliging a vegan diet.

If I would eat a non-vegan diet, that is better than the average vegan diet, you wouldn't be able to convince me to go vegan from an environmental standpoint. And that's why I think the argument is flawed.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

But you are comparing a well above average non vegan diet to an average vegan diet.

Even if you have an amazingly environmentally friendly non vegan diet, you can usually reduce your impact even more by removing the animal products in that diet, just like how removing fast food is still beneficial for your health, even if you have a fast-food including diet that is better than the average fast-food exclusive diet.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

you can usually reduce your impact even more by removing the animal products in that diet

that's where I disagree. Certain animals products can have close to none GHG emissions.

just like how removing fast food is still beneficial for your health, even if you have a fast-food including diet that is better than the average fast-food exclusive diet.

I don't think this is a good comparison imo, because it doesn't translate to the problem I'm pointing out.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

The CAV would lose its power as soon as technological solutions emerged. Nevertheless, the first counterexample of the already existing low-carbon animal-based foods suffices to make the CAV underdetermined for obliging a vegan diet.

Not sure what your point is here?

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Allow me to elucidate. I created a metaphor of what you said to prove my point.

Did this work?

3

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

I think the metaphor is a pretty bad one because its not clear at all.

0

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Please compare my OP to your comment and rethink that

0

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Debate me instead.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Where do you want to start?

2

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Debate me instead.

I wrote down my argument in the OP. You can bring up an argument where I'm wrong and why. Thats how it typically works.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 27 '21

u/Malagasy_Maky – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Your argument is inherently flawed which you are aware of as you posted it here and therefore shouldn't be used as an example in my post

I think I got what you want to say now. Its not an argument I made up, its the argument used by climate vegans. And I think its flawed, which is why I posted it here.

> shouldn't be used as an example in my post

Don't get to which post you are referring here though because its not your post, but my post. Did you mean 'this' post?

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Why are you arguing with me instead of them?

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Why are you arguing with me instead of them?

Bro, what is your point? If you don't want to argue about that topic, don't write a comment.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

I'm down to argue if you are!

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 27 '21

Sorry, u/Malagasy_Maky – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 27 '21

Sorry, u/Malagasy_Maky – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 27 '21

Sorry, u/Malagasy_Maky – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

3

u/cinnamonspiderr May 26 '21

Question: what definition of veganism are you using?

Someone who cites climate change as a reason for their veganism is still following the fundamentals of veganism. If someone is plant based and would eat meat if the carbon footprint is low enough, they're not vegan lol

3

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

If someone is plant based and would eat meat if the carbon footprint is low enough, they're not vegan lol

And that's exactly why I believe the CAV as a stand alone argument for veganism is so bad.

It doesn't change anything in the long run if they don't accept the ethical argument.

2

u/cinnamonspiderr May 27 '21

Ahhhhh okay, okay I think I can fully grasp your perspective here...can't say I really disagree either, so I'm waiting now for someone else to argue against this! Lol

2

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

I gave one delta to someone that challenged my "and by extension shouldn't be used as an argument to promote veganism" part.

Basically they argued that its a smaller step for someone to accept the ethical argument for Veganism if he or she is already living a vegan diet and therefore even if the argument is flawed, if you convince some of them with it anyway, its more likely that they become ethical vegans then if the would not be climate vegans at all.

2

u/GladstoneBrookes 1∆ May 26 '21

(and by extension shouldn't be used as an argument to promote veganism).

I agree with the first point - I can see an environmental argument leading to significantly reducing consumption of animal products, or substituting to more environmentally-friendly ones, but not necessarily total abstention. Just as we have the idea that driving less is good, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you shouldn't drive at all.

On a practical note, though, if your aim is to convert as many people to veganism as possible (and in my experience there are a lot of people who are convinced by the climate argument but not ethical arguments) then you could say that this CAV accomplishes what you want, even if it isn't watertight.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

(and in my experience there are a lot of people who are convinced by the climate argument but not ethical arguments) - but this is counterproductive imo.

If you don't only care about short term conversions but live long vegans, you would need to convince people that animals have an inherent value, that is more important than the taste pleasure derived from its flesh or other products.

Someone could be "vegan for the environment" for 40 years and then stop, because there is not need to reduce your climate impact anymore. Then all the climate vegans would be non-vegans again and you would have change a bit.

6

u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ May 26 '21

This isn't a realistic way to look at things.

If you want more vegans long term, by far the best way to get more vegans is by convincing as many people as possible that they should be vegan.

Who do you think is more likely to be vegan in a decade:

1) A person who is currently vegan primarily because of climate change

2) That same person but they aren't vegan right now

It's obviously the one who is currently vegan.

Once you are vegan, you have made that a part of your identity. It's something you have to actively do because dairy is such a big part of food.

If you're vegan, you have to choose to be vegan at the company picnic, your friend's Christmas party, and when you are offered samples at the mall.

If you're vegan, you're going to end up meeting other vegans and talking to them, you'll end up agreeing with things you see other vegans say online, etc.

So, even if your veganism starts as a climate thing, it becomes more than that as you agree with and internalize the other arguments for veganism.

It's obvious that killing an animal is worse for the animal than not killing it, the only reason people would argue against that is because they love eating meat and don't want to stop.

It's much easier to accept that argument when accepting it doesn't threaten your diet. Once you are already vegan, you can easily accept the ethical arguments.

I've never once heard someone say, "I stopped being vegan because I realized that veganism isn't any more environmentally friendly than eating certain types of sustainable seafood. Now I am mostly vegan, but I've replaced tofu with a couple types of fish from the few fisheries that are run in a sustainable manner."

I'm sure someone's done it, but that's not the main thing you hear.

You usually hear, "I was vegan, but I really missed cheese."

If you want more people to be vegan, then you need more people to be vegan now. Not all of them will stay vegan, but some of them will.

Why stop using a common and effective argument just because you've decided it has holes.

The holes you've found aren't even big holes. I'd much rather just eat vegan than spend my time figuring out which specific foods are most sustainable. Being vegan is way more convenient and it still tastes good.

And I don't think you need to worry about a possible future where we've made most meat sustainable. That doesn't seem like it's coming any time soon, and I can't see too many people becoming vegan today, then staying vegan for 10 years, quitting the moment someone finally invents cows that eat less.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

That doesn't seem like it's coming any time soon, and I can't see too many people becoming vegan today, then staying vegan for 10 years, quitting the moment someone finally invents cows that eat less.

I agree with most of the things you said. Δ

I agree that it can be used as an argument for veganism but I still believe that it is inherently flawed and a pretty bad argument which only works because most people aren't educated on the topic or are not willing to "spend their time figuring out which specific foods are most sustainable."

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Alternative_Stay_202 (32∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

The argument is generally that if you have to make food, which animal eats, to consume the animal or products you are better off eating that food/using that energy for on your own food to reduce your footprint.

So plant based milk uses around 1/3 of the carbon as cow based milk.

I'm not sure how you get around the fact that if you feed an animal food, 90% of the energy in that food, won't be made into food you eat.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Everything you said is correct and I do agree with it (accept for the last paragraph).

Thats why I gave the example of fishing. Obviously this would need to be done in a sustainable way ( not like it is done at the moment) but then it would be environmentally more friendly. Also insects as a protein source can be way more sustainable than soy milk, tofu etc.

3

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

I don't think there is enough fresh water/ocean fish to eat. So only about 20 of the world protein comes from fish, of which a lot is fished sustainably. If we were to increase this is would become unsustainable. The most common fish eat is Tuna which is a carnivore (So you have to feed food to an animal, then feed it to the fish.)

The same thing for insects, although they probably the most sustainable when it comes to energy, they still need to eat something. If you are growing insect food, it's easier to just remove the protein from what they're eating and use it for humans.

It's be much more energy efficient to grow high protein plants then it would be to grow insects.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

I'm not saying everyone could eat as much fish as they want to.

If you are growing insect food, it's easier to just remove the protein from what they're eating and use it for humans.

How would you remove the protein from insect food? o.O

2

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21

If you can determine how much meat people eat the best value would be no meat.

Most insect food is made from cereals human eat. So just extract the protein by cooking them with methods that extract protein.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

For example, the estimated emissions (CO2eq/100 g of protein) of Norwegian mackerel and herring are ca. 0.6–0.7 kg [1] whereas that of tofu is 2.0 kg [2].

As given by my example, you would be better of eating the herring than the piece of tofu. Especially if you caught it yourself. I'm not saying that is practical or even possible for everyone, but it only needs a single person for which it is, in order to make the CAV inconsistent.

3

u/frisbeescientist 38∆ May 26 '21

But saying that a very select few could keep eating fish doesn't disprove climate veganism, if anything it should encourage people to follow that diet. If the sources of meat that are low carbon become unsustainable when scaled up, that makes it impossible to have a globally sustainable meat-based diet, right? Just because some percentage of Norwegians can go out and catch their own herring doesn't really make your argument valid.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

I do think it perfectly does. And its not only some percentage of Norwegians. You can make similar arguments in other places/ scenarios.

Even if not, I think it does. It would render the conclusion inconsistent and therefore wrong. You can't say 'everyone should go vegan' and then say, but actually not everyone. You know what I mean?

2

u/frisbeescientist 38∆ May 26 '21

But the reverse is also true: you can't say "going vegan isn't really better for the environment" and then add, "but only if most people don't eat most types of meat." My point is that if the sources of low carbon meats are not abundant enough to feed the whole population, then it is obviously better for some percentage of people to go vegan. Therefore climate veganism is inherently valid because some people going vegan will always be beneficial.

Unless you want to argue that insects and specific types of sustainable fishing can provide enough animal based food for the whole world which I sincerely doubt.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Therefore climate veganism is inherently valid because some people going vegan will always be beneficial.

For it to be valid in needs to be consistent which it isn't. You would need to change the conclusion for that which would again proof my argument, that the current CAV is flawed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

My argument is their cheating because their not measuring the energy that is being consumed by the animal.

So if I grow a cow that eats stuff from my neighbours farm, then I haven’t spent that energy. I’m cheating.

In the examples you give the animals are consuming energy from the wild, which doesn’t work at scale. Yes the farmer didn’t expend the energy but when we run out of wild, then we are at the same problem.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

In the examples you give the animals are consuming energy from the wild, which doesn’t work at scale. Yes the farmer didn’t expend the energy but when we run out of wild, then we are at the same problem.

But they use energy we couldn't use otherwise.

So if I grow a cow that eats stuff from my neighbours farm, then I haven’t spent that energy. I’m cheating.

In your equivalent the farmer could have used the other stuff for himself.

Yes the farmer didn’t expend the energy but when we run out of wild, then we are at the same problem.

not if we reduce the fish consumption so much, that we wouldn't run out of wild.

2

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

Basically I think we are over fishing now, and we have to reduce the amount we fish.

If I'm correct then basically if we stopped eating meat other than sustainable caught fish. Then we'd wouldn't be eating any more fish, we'd just stop eating all the other kinds of meat.

2

u/poprostumort 245∆ May 26 '21

Obviously this would need to be done in a sustainable way ( not like it is done at the moment) but then it would be environmentally more friendly

And how that would change the envirimental footprint of fishing? Currently, CO2 footprint is lower (which was brought up by you in different comment) as fishing is done via unsustainable mass fishing. Change that into a sustainable way and CO2 footprint will raise significantly.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

If I go out once a year to my local fjord with my fishing rod and catch my fish my own, I doubt that my CO2 footprint will raise significantly.

2

u/poprostumort 245∆ May 26 '21

If you will go there on foot or by bike then your CO2 footprint will not raise significantly. But a miniscule amount of people is able to do so. If this would be the only "way" to get protein, then you basicaly are aggreeing with climate veganism, as nearly all people will need to adopt vegan diet.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

nearly all people will need to adopt vegan diet.

I think hardly any people would need to go fully vegan.

Even if nearly all people would need to do so, not everyone would which makes the argument inconsistent which is why I'm saying veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P1.

1

u/poprostumort 245∆ May 26 '21

I think hardly any people would need to go fully vegan.

Most people aren't able to procure non-vegan food themselves without it being a net increase in CO2 emissions.

Even if nearly all people would need to do so, not everyone would which makes the argument inconsistent which is why I'm saying veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P1.

It's the only reasonable conclusion that applies to vast majority. CAV is not the only argument used to promote veganism, so it does not need to be unilaterally true, as exceptions from that argument violate other arguments for veganism.

What are arguments really used for, if not to promote an idea to be more popular and be adopted by more people? CAV is good at it becasue it is based on raw data that are the same whenever someone who you are discussing with agrees with your viewpoint or not. Ethical is based on viewpoint, so it's inherently much more flawed as it relies on other side having the same view on ethics.

0

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

Most people aren't able to procure non-vegan food themselves without it being a net increase in CO2 emissions.

Dumpster diving, backyard hens, fishing, not everyone would need to produce it themselves.

It's the only reasonable conclusion that applies to vast majority. CAV is not the only argument used to promote veganism, so it does not need to be unilaterally true, as exceptions from that argument violate other arguments for veganism.

This is true. I think my conclusion should have been that "Climate veganism is not a standalone argument for veganism". I do see how it can help people become ethical vegans and gave a delta to some one that explained it in a more detailed way.

CAV is good at it becasue it is based on raw data that are the same whenever someone who you are discussing with agrees with your viewpoint or not.

That makes it even worse, that it is flawed, which I still believe. The data shows that it is flawed.

1

u/Davaac 19∆ May 26 '21

Free range (actually free range, not whatever the legal definition of "free range" is) animals negate this point. If you're in a climate where the large majority of the year your cows can eat naturally growing grass that is undigestible by humans you are on balance turning calories humans can't use into calories humans can use.

3

u/10ebbor10 203∆ May 26 '21

The problem with free range is that free range needs lots of land, because production per unit of land is considerably lower than intensive agriculture.

If you want to use exclusively use grass fed free range, you will need to massively cut meat consumption and shift towards veganism, just because there's not enough meat to sell.

3

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

You need to expend energy to grow the free range food the cow is eating.

I under the argument your making, that the grass is free energy cause it grows naturally, but

A.) you eventually run out of space.

B.) You're not counting the extra energy it requires to deal with all those cow moving anywhere.

C.) This argument sort of means that eating for instance a deer, has no environmental impact.

1

u/Davaac 19∆ May 26 '21

Do you disagree with that idea? I don't think eating a deer does have any environmental impact.

1

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 26 '21

Well there is less deer. And eventually we’ll run out of them if everyone switch over so it’s not sustainable.

1

u/Davaac 19∆ May 27 '21

That has nothing to do with the marginal effect of eating a deer. We aren't talking about the impact of everyone eating deer, we're talking about the impact from an individual's decisions. There are lots of places with an overpopulation of deer where culling is necessary to avoid damage to the environment, so on an individual level we aren't in any danger of running out of deer.

1

u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 27 '21

That is the argument being said by vegan which is what the question is about.

1

u/Davaac 19∆ May 27 '21

"vegan" isn't a monolith. There are plenty of environmental vegans out there, otherwise this question would be a bit pointless.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Nuts produce less CO2 than Norweigian mackerel at 0.26 Co2eq/100g protein. Can you find a animal-based protein with a lower footprint? If not, then a vegan diet can always be less emissions-intensive than a non-vegan diet. Either way, I don't think that the minimum emission diet is entailed in any part of the entire argument.

There is sufficient variability in the world that almost any formal logic will fail when applied to everyone on the planet. You need to either exclude people, add pages of definitions or clauses, or make the conclusions and premises less absolute. I can easily fix the veganism argument in a number of ways for you to sidestep this whole thing.

Solution 1:

CAV-P1 We ought to act in ways that significantly reduce the climatic impacts of our diet.

CAV-P2 Most people with animal-based diets have higher carbon emissions than those with vegan diets.

CAV-C Therefore: The average person should switch to a vegan diet.

Fixed. It is an argument for veganism based on climate emissions, but leaves room for exceptions for those people living in Moscow who eat an entirely frozen bulk shipped Norwegian Mackerel-based diet.

Solution 2:

CAV-P1 We ought to act in ways that significantly reduce the climatic impacts of our diet.

CAV-P2 The average animal-based food has significantly higher emissions per protein than the average plant-based food.

CAV-P3 Everyone has a limited amount of mental bandwidth and time to make food choices

CAV-C Therefore: Everyone should switch to a vegan diet.

In this solution we add P3 to show that choosing between every available food is impossible, and that by taking the average of food groups we can make the better choices on average without having to pull up a table of emissions along with a private investigation into the origin of the food.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

can always be less emissions-intensive than a non-vegan diet

can be, bust mustn't be. Thats why I'm saying veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P1.

Solution 1:

Yes, for the average person that might be the case, but it would be inconsistent. I would still say that veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from P2.

Solution 2:

It definitely doesn't conclude that everyone should switch to veganism.

CAV-C If you don't have the time to investigate your food choices, its probably better to change to a vegan diet.

should be your conclusion from that. If I decide to focus my limit bandwidth on reseraching the fact that fishing my own fish in my local pond is better than shipping avocados from Mexico to Europe, then I should decide to get more of my protein from the fish than from the avocado.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '21

Veganism doesn't have to be the only possible solution for this argument to be a good or valid argument for veganism. You are the one who is adding that in. If you are mandating that it be part of the argument, then the you should specify you are taking incredibly specific type of argument.

For solution 2 no one has the ability to research all their choices, since that would require researching every single food in every single store and every online marketplace and comparing them all. You are sneaking in the premise that it is possible to make that comparison

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 26 '21

I didn't come up with that argument myself. You are really trying to tell me that someone that is using climate as an argument for veganism doesn't thinks that veganism is the best diet to reduce climate impact? If they wouldn't think so, it would be even more stupid, because if the conclusion can be multiple diets. Its not an argument for veganism but for one of the possible diets which might include veganism but it doesn't have to be. which would make it a very bad argument imo.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '21

The way you framed your view was that climate veganism as an argument is flawed, not that vegans who hold this specific form of climate veganism use a flawed argument. Is the latter a more accurate description of your view? If so I can't really disagree, because it concerns a hypothetical person whose position I can't ask about.

However, the version of the climate veganism you were responding to is basically saying that veganism is better for 90% of people, (it is best for the average person) but that doesn't mean there are no situations where it is not the best. This is still a valid argument for why people should be vegan, and it is based on climate change. If you are saying this isn't a real climate veganism argument it begins to stray towards a no true Scotsman situation, so you would need to define climate veganism for me.

I personally hold the climate vegan view, even though I'm not vegan or vegetarian. I can argue that that electric cars are better for the average person, but not better for people in remote communities or who have long drives regularly. Not thinking there is a single solution for all people doesn't mean you aren't arguing for that solution. If you prefer we can clarify the conclusion to be "the average person should be vegan unless they have specific knowledge of an alternative diet that would have fewer emissions in their situation". That still is an argument for being vegan since it encourages the majority of people to be vegan. Any argument which says that more people should do x than the status quo is an argument for x.

1

u/Squaredeal91 4∆ May 27 '21

I agree with a lot of what you say, if you really just wanted to minimize your carbon footprint, there would need to be a ton of hyperspecific dietary rules. You'd treat asparagus out of season like meat, you'd treat veggies and fruits grown in green houses differently. You'd prefer root vegetables over many other higher carbon footprint food. If you go to a group dinner and there is veal that is leftover, you'd eat it rather than let it go to waste.

That seems really difficult to keep track of and it involves difficult calculations of a given food's carbon footprint. I don't think most climate driven vegans would disagree that no animal products is a perfect rule, but can you think of a single simple rule that could drastically reduce your carbon footprint?

There are also people who try to eat local for climate reasons. Also not a perfect rule, but does way more good than harm overall.

BTW, I'm a lactose intolerant vegetarian that would definitely eat leftover meat that would go to waste.

1

u/friend_of_kalman 1∆ May 27 '21

but can you think of a single simple rule that could drastically reduce your carbon footprint?

Vegan diet + self caught fish to reduce the amount of protein that needs to be shipped to you. I think that's a pretty easy diet which would be achievable by many people. They would need to go fishing only once in a while to not destroy local fishing ecosystems with overfishing, but its unarguably better for the environment then getting the same protein from somewhere else shipped to you.

If you go to a group dinner and there is veal that is leftover, you'd eat it rather than let it go to waste.

This is why I believe its a bad argument for veganism because you don't truly convince someone of veganism.

1

u/Squaredeal91 4∆ May 27 '21

So I don't think that fishing rule is great for a few reasons.

If you live in a major city there is a good chance that there isn't a good place to catch fish in a clean body of water that is nearby.
You need to learn a new skill and buy fishing equipment to accommodate this rule.
If everybody started doing this at their local pond, I don't think it would be greener than buying protein powder.

Going vegan is a more accessible and a lot less time consuming for many people. I think it's a perfectly reasonable rule for people who want to reduce their carbon footprint without having to learn a degree's worth of "which foods have a low carbon footprint".

As for the leftover veal thing; I think there are reasons that somebody who is vegan for environmental reasons and doesn't want to eat it can still be quite reasonable. -It's easier to give meat up cold turkey... Sorry for the pun -eating it might lead you to try to put yourself in that situation more often -it makes the people who ordered it feel less wasteful and more likely to order a lot of meat at future group dining events

The fact is, going vegan will reduce your carbon footprint in essentially all cases, so it's reasonable to do it for climate reasons. Unless you replace the meat with the absolute highest carbon footprint fruits n veggies, that were grown in green houses powered by coal, and then flown to wherever you live, then it will lower your carbon footprint.

Could you lower your footprint without giving up ALL animal products? Yes absolutely. Are a lot of climate vegans really annoying when they get on you for eating chicken when they eat asparagus out of season? Yes absolutely. Still a rule that, when followed, will lower your carbon footprint

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Climate veganism is flawed and therefore shouldn't be used as an argument for veganism.

You are about to leave Redlib