There are alternative models, such as biocyclic veganic agriculture, or in the future, foods created through fermentation [1] (this almost require no arable land). I recommend checking them out if you are interested in cycles in nature. Using animal manure, opposed to "plant manure" from nitrogen fixing plants, it also has its downsides because of the high levels of ammonia it kills most of the soil creatures such as worms, and more tilling and maintenance is required (which releases more carbon).
Personally I don't think that using livestock is living with nature, but is its antithesis. Since the earth is (at this moment) bound by the amount of biomass available through photosynthesis there is a limited carrying capacity for biomass. What we have done specifically is reduced the biodiversity by using more and more land mass for livestock and its feed. Of all habitable land, 50% is used for agriculture and 77% of that is used for livestock (while only providing us 18% of calories and 37% of protein) [2]. This has drastically reduced the number of wild animals and biodiversity, which I consider "nature" [3].
Ultimately, using livestock kills living beings (primarily in nature) somewhere else. If you're goals are living closer to nature, and reducing your ecological footprint, and your definition of nature is: "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.", then living closer to nature would mean rewilding your land and perhaps be a steward of that land. It would be a great means of treating nature and life with more respect :).
I haven't dived into plant-based milks and health risks/benefits too much. What I can tell you is that Animal based Milk in general is not healthy, they are high in saturated fats, have a too high calcium and estrogen concentrations and increase the risk to prostate cancer[1], ovarian cancer [2], uteri cancer [2] and other health risks.
Do note that a lot of pro-milk studies are industry backed. The new Canadian food guide has discarded all industry backed studies and based on science created a new food guide [3]. This food guide removed the "recommended" glass of milk based on these studies with water.
If plants suffer this is actually an argument FOR plant-based diets, since less plants/sentient beings suffer. Meat is a super in-efficient (land/water/energy consumption) way of turning plants, which are already food, into food.
Unless you consider that those grasses and rainwater used by the cow would’ve been completely ignored if the cow wasn’t there. And no, humans wouldn’t be able to get energy from those grasses without the cow.
I think you are underestimating the scale of our cattle. The majority of deforestation is due to cattle [1].
The world is basically dominated by us and our cattle [2] leading to massive losses in biodiversity [3].
If everyone in the world would eat the recommended USDA diet (mostly backed by industry and totally not healthy for you) we'd need another Canada to sustain us all [4].
By the way, most of the grasslands are man-made and we should try and reforest those areas to combat losses in biodiversity and climate collapse. Furthermore about a third of all fresh drinking water (not rainwater) is used for cattle [5].
I think you should look into the accounting of those sources. So much of what you posted is totally irrelevant to cattle ranching, particularly in the United States. You’re just throwing a bunch of spaghetti at the wall, “look, muh data”
I synthetic fuels are a temporary solution for cars. If you are changing car infrastructure, IMO it makes most sense to switch over to electricity (highest efficiency and you can use electrical car batteries to stabilize the grid).
Synthetic fuels will make most sense for aviation (higher energy density compared to hydrogen), (possibly) shipping and as a transitional fuel for transport to reduce our emissions.
Synthetic fuels could also be a solution for seasonal storage.
I think you're making an incorrect comparison. This is basically an energy storage system. What you could do is compare the EROI of the energy source that provided it (say wind-energy) and factor in the process efficiency and compare that with the extraction of a specific fossil fuel.
Australia had the world’s 15th largest greenhouse gas emissions in 2015 and its citizens’ per-capita contribution is around three times the global average.
It is the world’s second largest coal exporter and recently became the top exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG). Its electricity system remains heavily reliant on coal, despite ramping up the use of gas and renewables, especially rooftop solar.
It is also highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including extreme heat, drought, bushfires and agricultural impacts.
Based on its current trajectory, Australia is off track on its international pledge to cut emissions 26-28% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.
There are alternative models, such as biocyclic veganic agriculture, or in the future, foods created through fermentation [1] (this almost require no arable land). I recommend checking them out if you are interested in cycles in nature. Using animal manure, opposed to "plant manure" from nitrogen fixing plants, it also has its downsides because of the high levels of ammonia it kills most of the soil creatures such as worms, and more tilling and maintenance is required (which releases more carbon).
Personally I don't think that using livestock is living with nature, but is its antithesis. Since the earth is (at this moment) bound by the amount of biomass available through photosynthesis there is a limited carrying capacity for biomass. What we have done specifically is reduced the biodiversity by using more and more land mass for livestock and its feed. Of all habitable land, 50% is used for agriculture and 77% of that is used for livestock (while only providing us 18% of calories and 37% of protein) [2]. This has drastically reduced the number of wild animals and biodiversity, which I consider "nature" [3].
Ultimately, using livestock kills living beings (primarily in nature) somewhere else. If you're goals are living closer to nature, and reducing your ecological footprint, and your definition of nature is: "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.", then living closer to nature would mean rewilding your land and perhaps be a steward of that land. It would be a great means of treating nature and life with more respect :).
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/21/microbes... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/11/Global-land-use-g... [3]: https://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Terrest...