Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, landmark study finds
Meat-free eating found to have much lower environmental impact on land use, water pollution risk, water use and biodiversity loss
You're viewing a single thread.
In this thread: Shit loads of people who will say they care about the climate crisis on one day, then say they don't care about the 18.5% of global carbon emissions that the meat industry causes the next day because they can't get over the decade worth of anti-veganism jokes and memes that they've constantly repeated uncritically.
Individual habits MUST be changed to solve this part of the problem, there is literally no way around that. Getting triggered and writing screeds because you've spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won't stop the planet burning.
It's insane how hard the cognitive dissonance hits. Everyone is trying to find excuses to justify their choices
I used to be a smoker several decades ago and didn't defend smoking as hard as people defend meat.
Some people have made eating meat and making fun of vegans their entire personality. They buy things and spend time posting on social media about it. It is basically their hobby. Really sad, honestly.
I think part of it is that, similar to console wars there's like a consumer choice loyalty thing. But on top of that there's also a resistance generated by the moral part. And that's all in addition to the usual resistances to change.
Nope, gotta blame "the cooperations" because God forbid you admit cooperations only pollute because of your own demand.
Animal agriculture is a particularly good example here because literally nothing will ever make meat sustainable (except growing it in a lab).
Growing it in a lab is likely worse that growing it in an animal. Synthetic imitations are the only efficient replacement.
It is genetically the same thing? Have you ever read something on cultured meat before you made this statement?
On the other hand, we could always just wait for the rich to tighten meat production and put us all on nutri-loaf.
Ahh yes we can just wait for the rich to willingly reduce their profits. I'm sure that will come before the heat death of the planet.
Don’t worry, such a change would be accompanied by significant increases in the price of nutri-loaf.
The natural market forces at work.
How you gonna change the world if you can't even change what you have for breakfast?
No amount of individual choices can save the planet. The climate change causes by corporations is sufficiently world ending. So even if literally every single person on the planet went vegan it wouldn't be enough. The idea of a personal carbon footprint was created by BP in order to make people put the blame on themselves. The only way to stop it is mass industrial action. Personal choice, at least at this point, is completely irrelevant.
The only way to do this is to not buy products that are incredibly harmful to the climate and voting for politicians that want to sharpen climate policy. Industries won't regulate themselves. Acting like the consumer/voter can't do shit is just straight up lying and results in inaction.
I never said anything about not voting for industrial action. But if you look at it logically, if there's no industrial action with or without consumer choices the world burns, but if there is industrial action then with or without consumer choices (partly because the industrial action would alter what choices are available) the world has a chance to survive. So in our current situation devoting energy and thought to consumer choices is not just pointless if you would otherwise be working towards industrial action in any capacity it is actively detrimental (hence why BP created it as a concept)
Again who is going to work towards industrial action? Not the industries... That's not how capitalism works. Do you really think that asking them to be more climate friendly will work?
Industries listen to two things: money and policy. And I'm not even so sure about the latter. Vote at the ballot and vote with your wallet.
If you don't want to change, the CEO of BP won't either because he's still getting those tasty dollars out of your pockets at the pump and through government aid.
How do you think regulations work?? The poster is correct, no amount of individual action will save us. We need to collectively fight for regulations that force - not ask - businesses to change. “That’s now how capitalism works” — what does that even mean??
It's not that eating meat accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, it's the meat industry that does. I think if we do away with certain practices in the meat industry (ie. Feedlots), we'll see those numbers go down. Maybe if we can go back to hunting as our primary method of getting meat, that would also help.
Sadly, less intense meat production only uses more resources, as more land is needed. The longer an animal lives, the more resources it uses.
6 billion hunters would be a sight to behold!
Only if you factor in a constant demand which is not realistic. If supply goes down and meat becomes expensive, nobody can afford thier weekly meat anymore except for the rich.
Getting triggered and writing screeds because you’ve spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won’t stop the planet burning.
Likewise, I'm sure.
It's not enough on its own, sure, but not taking any action will basically guarantee we miss climate targets. We have to reduce fossil fuels and reduce meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
Totally agree. I was just highlighting how the excerpt I quoted could've been posted by either position; I wouldn't have been able to tell which.
Just think about it mate. Changing foods is better than watching the oceans acidify and all life around us die, mass crop failure, worldwide famines and societal collapse, fighting everyone for whatever exists. 6billion people will become 1billion and you'll be taking your chances on being one of the few that doesn't starve.
The future we're heading towards right now is not going to be fun. It's time to adapt rapidly to what needs to be done, or die.
Oh I agree. I was simply pointing out that the statement I highlighted can totally be applied by either side of the debate, verbatim.
It actually made me chuckle, since if it were the only thing in your comment, I wouldn't have known what your position was.
All that being said, I agree it's adapt rabidly or die. The real tragedy here in the short term, is it's going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
The real tragedy here in the short term, is it’s going to be the worlds most vulnerable populations to die first.
I think it will surprise people when it happens. Nobody will be safe. When global food supply collapses it won't just be the poor countries that go into crisis. I'm fairly sure that it will simultaneously happen to almost everyone. The countries least likely to be harmed are the ones with large rice crops.