r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	meepmeep13
Comment	You are entirely missing my point with 1). If you are going to remove entirely a form of landuse, then the landowners are going to seek an alternative form of revenue. If you do not coordinate that or regulate it, you are going to find that, most likely, vast amounts of scottish land are going to start producing biofuels (such as camelina-based biodiesel) for export - this is already happening. And that is going to be far, far worse environmentally than livestock production. So I'm afraid you can't just simply argue against one thing without making it clear how you intend to deal with the massive negative impacts of removing it. with regard 2) "do you have any idea how many calories it takes to grow the animals we eat" ignores that a) you can produce livestock on land unsuitable for crops and b) you can feed livestock on crops unsuitable for human consumption, which in turn can be grown on land not suitable for crops for human consumption. So, again, sheep hill farming, for example, remains a sustainable form of food production. > Animal agriculture cannot simultaneously be the primary cause of climate change Again, this is based on primary deforestation for the creation of arable and grazing land such as in Brazil, it is not the case for Scotland where there is no primary forest and all the land that could be used for agriculture already is. Livestock emissions are also largely methane-based, which while they have a greater climate impact than other GHGs, also decompose quickly so do not have the cumulative effect of CO2. This is important because climate legislation such as the Paris Agreement is based on cumulative GHG impacts meaning that livestock enteric emissions are considered far less significant than they used to be, such as under Kyoto, where only instantaneous emissions were considered. So while agriculture and livestock production is a major global issue, it is not a significant local issue here. If you're interested in some actual climate science, land-use in the UK is actually a net carbon sink, and this effect is increasing year on year. The net-zero-carbon plan for the UK recommends a reduction in the frequency and proportion of meat-based diets, and a reduction in the intensity of agricultural land use, but we do not need veganism for the country to become a total economy-wide carbon sink by 2045, due again to the fact that the majority of agricultural land in the UK is simply not suitable for crop production. So, again, for the UK context 'flexitarianism' seems to be the key to sustainability rather than outright veganism.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/buff00/best_butcher_in_glasgow/eph78g0/
Created	Thu 30th May 2019 2:33pm
Status	()

You are entirely missing my point with 1). If you are going to remove entirely a form of landuse, then the landowners are going to seek an alternative form of revenue. If you do not coordinate that or regulate it, you are going to find that, most likely, vast amounts of scottish land are going to start producing biofuels (such as camelina-based biodiesel) for export - this is already happening. And that is going to be far, far worse environmentally than livestock production. So I'm afraid you can't just simply argue against one thing without making it clear how you intend to deal with the massive negative impacts of removing it.

with regard 2) "do you have any idea how many calories it takes to grow the animals we eat" ignores that a) you can produce livestock on land unsuitable for crops and b) you can feed livestock on crops unsuitable for human consumption, which in turn can be grown on land not suitable for crops for human consumption. So, again, sheep hill farming, for example, remains a sustainable form of food production.

> Animal agriculture cannot simultaneously be the primary cause of climate change

Again, this is based on primary deforestation for the creation of arable and grazing land such as in Brazil, it is not the case for Scotland where there is no primary forest and all the land that could be used for agriculture already is. Livestock emissions are also largely methane-based, which while they have a greater climate impact than other GHGs, also decompose quickly so do not have the cumulative effect of CO2. This is important because climate legislation such as the Paris Agreement is based on cumulative GHG impacts meaning that livestock enteric emissions are considered far less significant than they used to be, such as under Kyoto, where only instantaneous emissions were considered. So while agriculture and livestock production *is* a major global issue, it is not a significant local issue here.

If you're interested in some actual climate science, land-use in the UK is actually a net carbon sink, and this effect is increasing year on year. The net-zero-carbon plan for the UK recommends a reduction in the frequency and proportion of meat-based diets, and a reduction in the intensity of agricultural land use, but we do not need veganism for the country to become a total economy-wide carbon sink by 2045, due again to the fact that the majority of agricultural land in the UK is simply not suitable for crop production. So, again, for the UK context 'flexitarianism' seems to be the key to sustainability rather than outright veganism.