I’d presume that too

Where do we count the meat, dairy, etc. industry lobbyist and legislators making exceptions to the laws in almost every state in the US?

As state legislatures began proposing anti-bestiality laws in the 1990s, the agriculture lobby repeatedly opposed the bills

[…]

Of the 27 states that have enacted bestiality statutes since 1990, 24 include nearly identical exemptions for animal husbandry. (Kansas, Iowa, and Delaware’s laws do not.) With the exemptions included, agricultural interests in many states have gone from covertly opposing anti-bestiality bills to either staying mum or even lobbying for them

https://newrepublic.com/article/160448/meat-bestiality-artificial-insemination

I think we are talking in circles on minutia. Seems like we’re in agreement that plant-based diets are a bigger improvement which, to me, is the more important point. I think we have different understandings of what the premise is/should be. I think it’s unlikely that either of our minds will change on what that premise is in any case

I think the problem here is that “climate friendly” is inherently a relative term. No amount of emissions is good to have, so you’re comparing it to other emissions sources. If we leave out the biggest comparison point (no beef at all), we’re missing the forest for the trees. We’re just optimizing the status quo a little bit

If the argument in favor was “this can maybe reduce emissions a bit” while we look to work on reducing meat consumption and production levels, it’d be one thing. That’s generally not what people touting this claim, however

How does counter scenario we can do instead not have bearing? This is something scientists should be looking at all the time. Ignoring an important counter scenario is having the status quo as an implicit assumption baked into research

Like here’s a hypothetical: we model different deserts production and find that A uses 1000 units of some resource but we’ve found a way to maybe (we’re unsure) to get it down to 900 units of some resource. Should we ignore that desert B, C, D use 10, 15, and 20 units of that resource and say we’ve made A sustainable now?

Shifting towards plant-based diets being a better than any form of beef production is very much related here. The promoters of “regenerative grazing” claim that no action is needed because of it, so the baseline is not “what if we consumed the exact way we always did”

No, I mean the dominant form of new energy in the US and in Europe even despite that. Not just the world. It’s a hindrance, but a far cry from an effective ban in at all

I am not sure I follow what you mean that shifting to plant-based diets is not part of the argument? Many/most of the promoters of “regenerative grazing” claim that it negates need to do any shifts towards plant-based diets (which is the most problematic claim in my view)

TL;DR

1. Beef already has too massive a baseline footprint to build a regenerative future on

2. Shifting to plant-rich diets results in more food and higher carbon sequestration

3. Wild ecosystems have higher and more stable soil organic carbon than pastureland

4. Rain, temperature, geology, and previous land use determine soil organic carbon more than grazing techniques do

5. Most grazing land is too arid to store meaningful amounts of soil organic carbon

6. The regenerative case for beef relies on flawed studies without baselines or proper geographic controls

7. Grass-finished cattle are still not wild ruminants

8. Beef drives biodiversity loss, and even reducing grazing intensity doesn’t mean ecosystems recover

The dominant form of new capacity is not “effectively banned” by any stretch though. This is not splitting hairs, it’s just wrong

This is absolutely not true. They are also taking off a lot in the western world too and are the vast majority of new energy capacity. A lot western countries are trying to hamper them somewhat because of fossil fuel interests interfering, but they are not at all banned

Even in the US where the US government is even more actively trying to restrict, there is still a massive boom

Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power.

Solar power hits new milestones in the US even as Trump boosts coal over clean energy

Renewables are taking off rapidly across the world because they are the cheapest form of power full stop. We keep underestimating how much capacity they’ll add. Existing renewables and other measures, while not sufficient to prevent a lot of harm (we still need to keep going), has already made some of the absolute worst case climate timelines no longer considered likely

In solid blue is what we’ve actually done and the lighter lines were our predictions and models for new solar capacity

https://chaos.social/@russss/114825851049843449

Something I have a less stats on and is more gut feeling, but in my personal life and online, I’m seeing a massive increase in the support for moving towards plant-based diets in just this last year. I was talking to one of my friends, in a city I used to live in, who told me that the veg fest near them was the most crowded they’ve ever seen it this year

Missing the chanting of beans over and over as we slowly forget anything else exist. The humble potato is yet but a myth. All we know are beans

Indeed, around 1% of free-range are actually on pasture, but fully pasture-based systems are also significantly worse on resource and land efficiency, so the stats are worse for pasture systems. They also require an increase in the number of chickens

There is really not an at scale way to get there. Production and consumption levels of animal products have to go down

Copying my comment from earlier in this thread:

Per capita consumption of animal products have risen significantly over the past few decades. Even if 0 new people were born starting this instance, there will still be large populations for decades to come

Should we just sit around waiting for decades for a population to decrease to eventually happen and let the environment burn in the meantime?

The problem is much more than how things are produced, it’s what you produce in the first place. There is no way to do things at scale that does not turn into factory farming or make the environmental impacts even worse. This whole study talks about even some tiny changes making the emissions significantly higher

Per capita production levels and thus consumption levels have to change if we want a better world

Deleted my response before your edit since I misunderstood what you were saying

deleted by creator

Per capita consumption of animal products have risen significantly over the past few decades. There is not much getting around that the consumption levels need to change

Even if 0 new people were born starting this instance, there will still be large populations for decades to come

Things like this tend to grow very non-linearly. Slowly for a long time then speed up a lot more when the social norms around it start shifting

Unless Google Streetview is also AI generated, most of the weird parts of this image seem to actually check out

Go to Streetview at 47.616582,-122.3208832 (47°36’59.7"N 122°19’15.2"W) on google maps

(Found this by someone on Reddit claiming they saw it in person outside Seattle Central College, which seems to match the location)