Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND
"Livestock pollutes little; the problem is fossil fuels."
it's a false dichotomy. Fossil fuels are the biggest climate problem, and food systems are enormous too: in 2015 they accounted for about a third of human greenhouse gas emissions, and animal production is the largest part of that. There's no need to choose between tackling one or the other. Changing one's diet is one of the highest-impact individual actions and is within anyone's reach today.
Short answer
Fossil fuels are the biggest problem, and that doesn't make the problem of food any smaller. A study published in Nature Food in 2021 estimated that food systems accounted for about a third of human emissions in 2015, with animal production as the largest part. There's no need to choose: we can hold oil companies to account and change what we eat. And diet is something each person controls today.
For children
Cars and factories pollute a lot, and that needs to change. But raising animals pollutes a lot too. We don't have to pick just one problem to solve: we can work on both. And changing what we eat is something anyone can do today.
"Why would tackling one problem stop us from tackling the other?"
Como pode aparecer
"The problem is cars."
"Focus on the oil companies."
"One flight pollutes more than a year of barbecues."
"A vegan who drives can't talk about the climate."
"Energy accounts for most emissions."
"One person doesn't make a difference." (which is K1)
The strongest version
"The problem is cars. Focus on the oil companies."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
- P2Fighting climate change requires prioritizing the largest sources.
- P3Livestock is a minor source.
- CSo attention to livestock distracts from the main problem.
P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion: livestock is a large source, and there isn't a single problem to tackle.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, and the conclusion is a false dichotomy.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats two problems as if they were mutually exclusive:
Source Share of emissions Who can act Energy and fossil fuels Most of it Governments, companies and individuals Food systems About a third Governments, companies and, directly, each person when they eat - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's a false dichotomy.
Tackling energy emissions doesn't prevent tackling food emissions. Both are necessary to limit warming.
2. Food systems are large.
Crippa and colleagues estimated that food systems emitted about 18 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2015, about 34% of human emissions. Another study from the same year, by Xu and colleagues, estimated that animal-based foods account for about 57% of food production emissions.
3. Livestock dominates food emissions.
It uses most farmland and accounts for a large share of human methane (H5).
4. Diet is an effective individual action.
Swapping meat for plants greatly reduces a person's emissions, without depending on new technologies.
5. "Focus on the oil companies" often serves to change nothing.
But that doesn't settle the question: even coming from someone fighting fossil fuels, the argument would still be a false dichotomy.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Crippa and colleagues, 2021, *Nature Food* Food systems accounted for about 34% of human emissions in 2015, about 18 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent EDGAR-FOOD database Xu and colleagues, 2021, *Nature Food* Animal-based foods account for about 57% of food production emissions; plant-based foods, about 29% Supports that animal production is the largest part Our World in Data, food choice versus eating local A kilo of beef emits about 60 kg of CO₂ equivalent, and a kilo of peas, about 1 Shows the weight of food choice - d
The strongest counter-reply: the responsibility lies with companies and governments
The most serious version says the big changes depend on public policy and companies, and that putting pressure on individuals distracts from those truly responsible.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The two reinforce each other.
Individual changes create demand for political and market changes.
Companies produce what people buy.
Demand for meat sustains livestock farming (K1).
Diet doesn't require waiting.
It's an action available today.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if livestock emitted nothing, the animals would still be raised and killed. The climate debate is important, but it isn't the only one: the moral question about the animals still has no answer.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dichotomy
Fallacy of priority
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Underestimation
Biases
Diffusion of responsibility
The problem seems to belong to others
General literature on diffusion of responsibility
Motivated reasoning
Shifting the focus excuses change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if there's a bigger problem, the smaller one can be ignored".
If it applied to…HealthTap to see
Since cancer kills more, malaria could be ignored
No one concludes this
If it applied to…SecurityTap to see
Since there are more serious crimes, theft could be ignored
No one concludes this
If it applied to…ClimateTap to see
Since energy emits more, food could be ignored
The same error
Contradictions
The argument serves to change nothing.
Such as recycling or saving energy.
Not against other climate actions.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Fossil fuels are indeed the biggest climate problem, and the responsibility of companies and governments is enormous. It would be a mistake to put all the weight on individual choices.
But
But recognizing the bigger problem doesn't erase the other. Food systems account for about a third of emissions, and changing one's diet is one of the most effective actions within each person's reach.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Climate
- Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2.
- You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local. *Our World in Data*.