Eat Less Meat Is Message for Rich World in Food’s First Net Zero Plan
Eat Less Meat Is Message for Rich World in Food’s First Net Zero Plan
(Bloomberg) -- The world’s most-developed nations will be told to curb their excessive appetite for meat as part of the first comprehensive plan to bring the global agrifood industry into line with the Paris climate agreement.Most Read from BloombergRussia Downs Drones Over Moscow in Ukrainian Retal...
You're viewing a single thread.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what would result in a bigger reduction of greenhouse gasses, the banning of beef or reducing our birth rate?
There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed. High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping. We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature. That means that we need to take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation.
Very interesting. Exactly the type of information I was looking for, thanks for providing. I do wonder why the question was down voted. That doesn't seem like a productive way to achieve the desired result if the desired result is to convince more people that giving up beef is the lowest hanging fruit on the path to fighting climate change.
If anyone who down voted me reads this, please tell me why you did so that I may better understand how to communicate effectively.
If anyone who down voted me reads this, please tell me why you did so that I may better understand how to communicate effectively.
i like to reduce the visibility of malthusian ponderings.
Hmm... I understand the desire for reducing the spread of damaging theories, but there also seems to be an element of burying one's head in the sand to that approach. Wouldn't it be more productive to explain logically and dispassionately what the problems with the thought processes are rather than ignore the problem?
How does that approach build consensus to effect meaningful policy change?
Simply ignoring the person's position doesn't convince them to vote differently.
I don't care for voting. I don't care to debate.
Fair enough! That makes sense to me.
I think it got downvotes because the people pushing the question tend to be promoting the idea that we could have a wonderful pure environment if only we killed off all the brown people.
Sure. But then shouldn't people be convincing those people of why that thinking is bad? See my other comment regarding building consensus:
That's why I had a comment explaining why it's bad. Downvotes serve to make it less visible
Oh yes, I wasn't pointing a finger at you specifically. Rather, I thought your response was excellent! I'm more just pointing out the civility of our discourse so that other people can learn effective communication strategies, and better my own as well. Thank you for your reasonable responses.
