Organic Egg Farming Is Twice As Bad For The Environment, Finds Study | reducing egg consumption could reduce the sector's significant environmental impact

2 months ago by usernamesAreTricky to c/green

A new study has found that a wholesale shift to organic free-range in the UK would be twice as bad for the environment as caged egg farming

JayleneSlide 5 points 2 months ago

The title is misleading. The problem is industrial scale egg-farming and the meaningless "free-range" label; most people see "free-range" and think "pastured." The marketing is unfortunately working exactly as intended. Industrial scale anything is going to be bad for ecosystems, animals, and people.

save

path: 0 25395013, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

usernamesAreTricky 1 point 2 months ago

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

save

path: 0 25395013 25395351, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

PowerCrazy 1 point 2 months ago

I can't believe that human populations aren't zero entropy entities. What's their problem?

Animal Welfare is a petite-bourgeois distraction to foment infighting and ensure that the economic system that mandates this kind of farming and production is turned into a moral failing of the individual.

save

path: 0 25393700, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4

usernamesAreTricky 1 point 2 months ago

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

save

path: 0 25393700 25394041, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

PowerCrazy 1 point 2 months ago

Why does "per-capita" production need to decrease? Is it really the best course of action to have the population of earth be infinitely growing and then respond by constantly decreasing per-capita consumption? What's the endpoint?

save

path: 0 25393700 25394041 25394306, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

usernamesAreTricky 1 point 2 months ago

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?

save

path: 0 25393700 25394041 25394306 25394352, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

usernamesAreTricky 1 point 2 months ago

save

path: 0 25393700 25393767, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

lizardo 0 points 2 months ago

save

path: 0 25393022, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1

usernamesAreTricky 4 points 2 months ago

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

save

path: 0 25393022 25393120, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0