There’s no such thing as a benign beef farm – so beware the ‘eco-friendly’ new film straight out of a storybook | George Monbiot
There’s no such thing as a benign beef farm – so beware the ‘eco-friendly’ new film straight out of a storybook | George Monbiot
A highly misleading new documentary claims soil carbon storage can redeem the livestock industry – it’s all so much ‘moo-woo’, says the Guardian columnist George Monbiot
the movie is titled: Six Inches of Soil
The comments on the article are a dumpster fire. I'm not sure if it's just UK Guardian comments being worse than on the other regional variants, of if animal agriculture shills are targeting this article in particular.
Redefining the counterfactual scenario
Lord please give me the strength to not give this guy a Logic and Critical Thinking 101 lecture... Definitional retreat does not apply to what I said about the counterfactual because that was not an argument about what the term "counterfactual" means. It only applies when people argue about the definition of a word. He and I have the same definition of the word "counterfactual".What you MEANT is that you DISAGREE with my assessment of the counterfactual scenario. But instead, you tried to make yourself seem very clever and logical and me very foolish and emotional by misappropriating a term.
Why ignore the case of less beef production out of hand
Why ignore the reality that annual beef demand is growing consistently every year? Especially in the global south, where the environmental effects of raising beef are in fact way worse.
I think you should just say what you actually want to say.
Here, I'll do my best to do it for you:
Beef production is an environmental disaster. These people working to mitigate the harms of that industry are mopping the decks of a sinking ship. If they really want to say they care about the environment, the only reasonable choice is shutting down their ranches and doing something else, because beef is just hopeless.
To which I'll respond in mostly the same way I have. That's nice and all, but beef demand is still growing. I'd rather farmers that do their best to mitigate harms raising the beef than the ones who only care about making the most short-term profit possible, damn sustainability. Keep going out there and preaching for veganism. I hope you succeed. Don't make enemies out of your allies along the way.
More importantly, the counterfactual scenario went unmentioned: if his cattle were removed from the land and it was allowed to rewild, far more carbon would accumulate, both above and below ground, and this would not be counteracted by the farm’s emissions
That's not the counterfactual, though.
The ACTUAL counterfactual is that the demand for beef continues to skyrocket worldwide and that if we do not embrace regenerative agriculture practices, we must instead continue to endlessly fertilize soils and buy feedstocks to keep the beef growing. The actual counterfactual to having this guy pushing his farm towards more sustainable practice is that he'll continue to operate the farm with less sustainable practice. Or even more likely, become financially unsustainable and have to sell out to a larger industrial farm who will operate the land in the least sustainable way possible to extract the most quarterly profits possible because they don't give any damn about the long term.
And the ACTUAL counterfactual is that if western markets abandon beef production, there's plenty of farmers happy to raze the Amazon and other even-more-critical ecosystems to do it there instead. Because the demand will be there regardless.
It's utter fantasy to pretend that everyone is just going to wake up vegan tomorrow. It's not going to happen. This author clearly is arguing that we need to... I don't know, outlaw beef, I guess? Just ban it entirely? And then take all the farmland and convert it to protected wildlife habitats instead? Including a staff of rangers who will oversee and protect the land to make sure it stays healthy, safe, and sustainable? Because that's the only way the 'counterfactual' he made up makes one lick of sense.
It's a good strategy for environmentalists to take... if they want to ensure they lose elections and doom us all.
It is disingenuous to claim that regenerative agriculture practices can even hope to be a functional carbon sink. But they can hugely reduce the emissions and mitigate the other externalities of an incredibly polluting industry. And do it in a way that simultaneously increases animal welfare, reduces spread of disease, and increases profits progressively (because these practices are actually easier and more effective at smaller sizes rather than at huge industrial operations).
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.[22] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites.
What word are you accusing me of redefining and what moderation am I suggesting?
The argument of this article can apply to literally all of agriculture, not just animal produce. It applies to fucking backyard tomatoes. Increasing sustainability and reducing emissions should be seen as a good thing. Even when you don't get directly to 0 from the beginning.
Starting with the lowest-hanging fruit isn't capitulation, it's progress. If your position is completely undoing all of a global capitalist system tomorrow or bust, you're getting bust and likely taking others with you.
Because the demand will be there regardless.
Yes and no. There are many aspects that go into demand and availability. If demand was so inelastic, there wouldn't be a
shitloadshit lagoon load of advertising going into it.But they can hugely reduce the emissions
No, they can't. It's still a net polluter, the "free energy cow" systems. You can compare them to "conventional" animal farming, but you have to be aware of what you're comparing. Ruminants that eat hay and grass emit more GHGs as the bacteria in their rumens ferment the fibers. The ones that eat grains and legumes do produce way less methane as the food is more digestible and less fibrous. They also grow faster, so CAFOs actually produce less GHGs per pound of flesh in the end. That's the stupid irony of it, the "regenerative" types are making everything even worse, they're accelerating the problems. The deforestation and draining of wetlands are yet another problem on top of everything else.
It's certainly not simple, but change needs to come from both ends: supply and demand. The "regenerative grazing" types aren't working on that, they're just greenwashing the Meat industry.
And do it in a way that simultaneously increases animal welfare, reduces spread of disease
Nope, not that either. You exchange one type of harm for another, in terms of welfare. The animals being outside means exposure to nasty weather, all kinds of parasites and pathogens that travel by vector (i.e. ticks, mosquitoes, flies), heat waves, lack of water, lack of food, predators (which the ranchers and their friends love to kill), and rustlers! And the more movement (herding) there is, the smaller the chance of veterinarians being around. You can see the veterinary issue already in the "low-tech pastoralists" as they already have a rise in antivaxxers and anti-antibiotic bullshit. These are not hypothetical, you have remember that there are other places in the World which aren't the USA.
because these practices are actually easier and more effective at smaller sizes rather than at huge industrial operations
They would cover a small slice of the demand, which would be a terrible idea as it turns into a race for a rare luxury. Instead of having solidarity across society and ending the problematic behaviors, you get a "only rich people get it" situation. And I mean rich people, none of that localvore nonsense. Anyone who thinks that the local slaughterer or butcher will sell cow flesh to them, instead of selling on the market for much larger prices, does not understand capitalism and pastoralism at all. This doesn't work out nicely, it's a situation where you allow cheaters. If you want to see a preview, go study pastoralists in Africa.
Please try not to engage in the straw man of the carbon free shit. We agree it's bullshit. There's no such thing as emission free ag at any level and particularly for beef.
You've got to acknowledge that transportation and production of and feed/fertilizer are major sources of emissions that are reduced, and potentially eliminated, by these practices. There's no point having a serious discussion if you refuse to do that.
I'm also really having eyebrows raised by your apparent claims that its not healthier for the animals to be pasture raised. I think you are in a serious minority in believing that.