There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

UnculturedSwine ,

Interesting to note that the study has been funded by the Rockefeller foundation. Eating less meat is one piece of the decarbonization puzzle but I feel that the language of this article and the study implies that we need to focus mostly on this and turn a blind eye to the other ways we’re feeding into climate change.

jeffw OP ,

You do realize the younger Rockefeller died like 70 years ago, right? That’s not the discrediting factor you think it is.

theotherverion ,

I think there are better ways to reduce environmental damage.

Still, not eating meat every day is good for every human.

RalphFurley ,

I keep drifting back and forth between whole food plant based and vegetarian for about the past 13 years. I got no beef with meat eaters but I couldn’t imagine putting that into my mouth and the process of masticating it. Although on St Patrick’s Day looking at the corned beef sandwiches took me back in time for a brief moment.

FluffyPotato ,

Ya know what would also limit it: Actually stopping like the top 5 companies causing like 60% of all pollution.

Just stop doing carbon credits because it’s a literal scam and just shut down any factory that pollutes more than an allowed amount until they get it under control.

jeffw OP , (edited )

This has already been debunked elsewhere in the comments

Edit: politifact.com/…/no-100-corporations-do-not-produ…

DaBabyAteMaDingo ,

You heard him, @FluffyPotato, it’s been debunked somewhere 🤣

No, it literally hasn’t.

jeffw OP , (edited )

That article doesn’t back up your claim at all. It talks about an industry.

politifact.com/…/no-100-corporations-do-not-produ…

Also, GHG metrics by volume distort the picture when CO2, by volume, is like 25x less potent than methane

FluffyPotato ,

That seems to put the carbon produced on the buyer of a product, not the company that produced the item. It mentions electricity as one and its not like you choose how your electricity is generated. Others being land use and food production which again you can’t control because large corporations do that, not individuals.

Aux ,

If there were no buyers, there would be no producers. It is always on buyers.

FluffyPotato ,

And yet it’s easy to stop the production while it’s nearly impossible to stop the consumption.

Aux ,

Lol what?

FluffyPotato ,

It’s nearly impossible to remove people buying something while it’s very easy to stop a company from producing something.

Aux ,

Lol what? Do you even understand that a company only produces something because people are buying that thing?

FluffyPotato ,

Tobacco companies are selling and advertising vapes for children. Do you think children should just stop smoking or should they not be allowed to do that?

Aux , (edited )

These companies are producing products you consume. What would really limit the emissions is reducing the human population to under 1B worldwide.

Leviathan ,

I guess I’ve been a flexitarian since 2016ish. I have a few vegetarian days a week for environmental reasons.

Dicska ,

My first goal was to preferably have 2 meaty days a week and leave the rest meat free. After about three years I got to the point where I realised I hadn’t eaten meat in a while. I simply forgot to.

Now I just eat meat when I visit friends and family, or to keep my iron levels in check. It’s surprisingly doable.

Leviathan ,

Yeah if you’re flexible (I get it now) you can totally get free meat on the regular. Plus my dad goes on Costco runs and just gives me spare meat. I haven’t really had to buy any in a while and like you don’t really notice when I don’t have any for weeks. The real thing for me is the odd hotdog or whatever craving, that’s when I actively seek it out.

RustyShackleford ,
@RustyShackleford@programming.dev avatar

Does “flexitarian” mean “eat less meat”, basically?

I refuse to click the link because I hate the guardian.

captainlezbian ,

Yes.

The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce. The next best thing is to quit eating meat. The less meat you eat the better. And as a bonus it’s highly unlikely to be as much of a sacrifice as not having a wanted child.

GamingChairModel ,

The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce

This relies on some assumptions that I question. Each person doesn’t contribute a fixed amount to emissions, and it’s not even a bell curve distribution. The rich contribute orders of magnitude more to the problem than the poor. The top 1% contributes almost twice as much as the bottom 50%..

And with birth rates where they’re at, at different levels of income/wealth, I’m thinking that plenty of childless people can contribute more to the problem than an entire bloodline of people who have huge families.

Aux ,

That’s complete bullshit as the article is based on complete bullshit.

Leate_Wonceslace ,

Iirc, there’s a population of livestock that can be sustained without feed crop (instead living off of by-product and untillable pasture), and reducing it past that is less sustainable overall. So while it’s true that we eat way too much meat, it’s not a great idea to get rid of it entirely in the context of sustainability. There are other arguments regarding the ethics of the meat industry, but that goes beyond the scope of the discussion.

captainlezbian ,

Yeah my attitude is to carbon tax it and stop subsidizing it. If meat is a luxury it’s not something people bitch about accidentally not having in their dinner.

Leate_Wonceslace ,

I think that’s a splendid idea.

John_McMurray ,

Global warming isn’t from cow farts ffs. Container ships etc though

captainlezbian ,

The methane production from bovine rumination absolutely has an impact. As does the massive supply chains and absurd amount of agriculture necessary to feed those cows.

John_McMurray ,

Look up the number of buffalo circa 1800

captainlezbian ,

Look up the main cause of the deforestation of the Amazon. Look up the number of cattle alive today compared to any other point in history.

John_McMurray ,

North american cattle population is roughly equal to buffalo population of 1800. Maybe i had looked this up long before you suggested it. Whining about cattle is an entirely different issue than just stopping deforestation, which is more for palm oil in the region you speak of anyways.

boomzilla , (edited )

FFS it’s not only the methane. It’s all the GHG sinks we destroy to let cattle graze and feed other animals caught in CAFO. In addition it’s the whole infrastructure around the system

ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

Half of habitable land is used for agriculture (5x the USA). 2/3 of that is grazing land. 1/3 crop land. One half of the 1/3 crop land is used for plants that are directly consumed by humans. The rest is animal feed and stuff like biofuel.

Crop land and grazing land for animals combined make up 80% of all farmland. Meat, dairy and fish combined make up only 17% of all calories and 38% of protein.

If everyone went plant based the global farmland use would be reduced from 4 billion to 1 billion hectares and therefore crop death would be dramatically reduced. The land could be rewilded and natural GHG sinks could be established again.

Everyday 5000 soccerfield sized areas of amazonas rainforest are razed to the ground for cattle, leather, soy (for animal feed ofc) and palm oil. Mafia like cartels of cattle breeders threaten and murder indigenous people and activists there and implemented a complicated system of cattle laundering to hide that they burn intact rain forests (green lung of the earth) there. The 10.000.000 anually slaughtered cows there are also exported to US meatpackers. The leather ends up in european car seats. Via container ships.

vallode ,

Exactly, in the last decade or so I went from pescetarian to vegetarian to vegan and for the last few years I have been “flexitarian”. My own adoption of it is different to others in the sense that most of what I eat at home is still vegan but on average I probably have 1-2 vegetarian meals at home a week and I don’t have many issues eating vegetarian (sometimes meat) outside of the house.

I still avoid a lot of meat, especially things like veal, but I find being “flexible” also helps talk to people about it. It is much less intimidating asking someone to try having 2 veggie meals a week than telling them they need to universally drop all animal products from their diet.

John_McMurray ,

Man “carnivores” have vegetarian meals all the time. This internet discourse is worth less than used toilet paper.

vallode ,

I think it’s more about knowingly switching out a meal rather than just patting yourself on the back because you eat mac and cheese twice a week. For every conversation we have online there are a few people that learn something from it, myself included, I think the thread is interesting!

John_McMurray ,

Its mostly horseshit.

AA5B ,

I suppose that is meat free and you’d have to extraordinarily flexible, but sure, go for whatever works fr you

Adulated_Aspersion ,

My spouse is vegetarian for health reasons, so there are always vegetarian options at mealtime.

I eat primarily vegetarian, but I don’t go out there and say “I am vegetarian.” I found it easier to go to restaurants and merely say “I am not eating meat today” if I need to order something odd.

I suppose that I have been a flexitarian for a while, then.

anon_8675309 ,

Basically. We have a couple no meat meals per week and we have cut back the amount of meat per recipe as well. Not for the environment so much but we have just naturally drifted away from eating so much meat.

3volver ,

You know what could also limit global heating? If the fucking wealthy stopped flying in their private jets and stopped cruising in their yachts and stopped buying their 3rd house. Focus on the solutions. Subsidize green energy, tax the oil companies, ban private jets, etc. You know, things that would have an actual impact.

bfg9k ,

Yep, sick of being told I’m the problem and should change my way of living when a single private flight dumps more CO2 into the air than my car puts out in half a year, not to mention the fuel usage.

Teppichbrand , (edited )

A person in their private jet is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They should not fly privately just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don’t, it must be prohibited.

A person who still eats meat is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They shouldn’t do it just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don’t, it must be prohibited.

BorgDrone ,

The only thing that will really fix the issue is if we stop breeding like rabbits. It doesn’t matter if we reduce the ecological footprint of individuals if we keep growing the population.

JimboDHimbo ,

I think we should do the extreme opposite of breeding like rabbits to the wealthy instead. Like the polar opposite of creating life.

Teppichbrand ,

You’re wrong! Population growth is not an issue, it’s our western lifestyle, like eating meat and flying in airplanes. Our planet can easily feed 10 billion people healthy food. But not if we don’t quit meat.

BorgDrone ,

We could also reduce our population and keep eating meet and doing other things that make life enjoyable. Besides, who wants to live on a planet that crowded?

Teppichbrand ,

How would one reduce earths population?

BorgDrone ,

You know how people have unprotected sex? Stop doing that so much.

Teppichbrand ,

Look at the link I posted. It’s simply not true anymore. We will hit 10 billion, but because of things that already happened. Overpopulation is not the issue anymore. Our lifestyle is.

Smoogs , (edited )

It isn’t that crowded. If you live in a city center it’s easy to assume everywhere is the same but that is cognitive dissonance. Many buildings are empty because of short term renting (which could easily house the homeless) and way too expensive for what it should be

much land that would be considered for food crop is taken up with concrete which actually increases the temperature of the earth making things much worse.

The need for grain and water to feed for meat production is 10 x more than what human would consume so there already is more than enough food for humans.

You’d still need humans to manufacture and distribute food to exist.

So Cutting down the human population to contain The very life style you want is still a problematic lifestyle to be sustainable

Smoogs , (edited )

Except there is a decline in population growth as numbers stop seeing family life as an option because of demographic transition. You do not remain able to reproduce your whole life and as new generations come up to the reproductive age they face a very different life to what it once was such as what the baby boomers were going through (hence the name). This is not meaning to pick at the boomers but to point out that the name was coined for a reason.

BorgDrone , (edited )

Except there is a decline in population growth

You’re talking second derivative here. It’s still growing, it’s just growing a tiny bit slower than it used to.

Smoogs ,

That is how decline works, yes.

olivebranch ,

US Army: ** is biggest CO2 polluter in the world **

Media: “You should eat more vegetables to save the planet”

Even funnier to me are vegans that argue with people about how animals are killed and how bad it is for environment to eat meat. While the military kills millions of innocent people for oil and burns a record amount of fossil fuels in the process.

Yeah, somehow I don’t think we are focusing on the right problems.

Teppichbrand , (edited )

Well, you can be against fossil wars AND against the exploitation of billions of sentient beings as well. I’m pretty sure most vegans are.
And while you can not stop the US army from murdering children in the middle East, you CAN actually stop paying for slaves to murder our fellow earthlings in an instant. And you’d immediately save two-thirds of land, water, and CO2 emissions by doing so.

jorp ,

who are these pro military vegans? are they in the room with us right now?

Cosmicomical ,

I keep proposing the adoption of personal carbon credits, it would not be difficult to implement.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

Is this actually news? Seems old to me, thanks OP though for bringing it up again.

grrgyle ,

The term flexitarian is new to me anyway. Happy this concept is getting more press anyway

Teppichbrand ,

Well… Raping is wrong, right? Say there is this guy, he doesn’t always rape, just sometimes when he’s in the mood. But not always. Should we applaud this flexi-rapist for doing something aweful a little less?

nyctre ,

You’re not technically wrong, but you’ll never convert anyone with your attitude. You’re doing veganism a disservice. Please stop.

Teppichbrand ,

Just planting seeds, some like it, some don’t. I’ll be a little less harsh next time.

grrgyle ,

Well rape is illegal, but honestly I see the equivalence, morally. That’s the age old question posed by harm reduction, and I think, answered by it too. And this hardline viewpoint may work on some people, so it’s a good one to bring up.

My take is that it’s got nothing to do with rewarding less bad behaviour, but about reducing the amount of harm in the world. AFAIK there’s no evidence that encouraging someone to be partially vegan actually props up modern horror farming any more than arguing for pure veganism.

Further, I think you can argue for both. Treat one as a gateway to the other.

The fact is we’re unlikely to see animal eating outlawed in our lifetime, so we’ve got to work within the confines of rhetoric, or I guess terrorism.

Teppichbrand ,

Yeah I agree. Usually I am more patient and understanding as well, but today I decided to be a little confronting. There is no right way, as long as we do anything at all, I guess.

mojo_raisin ,

Eating meat is not inherently wrong, raping is.

Life consumes other life to live. Humans have evolved to eat meat, we are living beings, a part of this planet just like a lion or hawk.

The lives we must take to live, whether they are plant, animal, or both, were not decided by us but by nature. Killing and eating to live is the only moral reason one has to harm another living being. This is not nice, it’s just nature. Does the wild boar chased to it’s death by a tiger not suffer a cruel death? Does that make the tiger evil?

Animal Agriculture and Massive Human Populations

Our modern animal agriculture industry is what’s wrong, it is disgusting and evil and treats conscious beings as objects indifferent to their suffering. But feeding 8 billion people can only be accomplished using an industrial food industry.

The answer is not trying to turn 8 billion people into vegans, that is simply not going to happen. Rather, we should be striving to reduce our numbers and change culture to respect animals and their sacrifice for our food.

One of the more effective ways to do that are to eat like a “flexitarian” and reduce the amount of dependence on the animal agriculture industry. The other key way to reduce animal suffering is not something an individual has control over – to have a human population that is not grotesquely oversized for the environment.

Our species has no entitlement to grow to maximum size and kill other beings to support this unnecessary growth. The Haber-Bosch process effectively caused human eutrophication, an imbalance, and like the overgrown algae causing fish kills in lakes, our numbers are causing the unnecessary death of a great many species in our environment and will lead to ecological failure if not taken care of. The solution to eutrophication in a lake is stop the overflow of nutrients.

While it’s possible in modern times for a person to live on a vegan diet, it’s not a normal, not healthy without significant effort and education, or more moral.

There will never be a time when no humans eat meat. Therefore, we should strive to reduce the suffering required to sustain our own life. Eating flexitarian is a highly practical way to do this. If an individual is willing to sacrifice their health and/or work to gain the knowledge required to be healthy without consuming animals at all (i.e. be vegan) then good for them, but this cannot be expected to occur globally.

UckyBon ,

There’s one big flaw in your logic; humans don’t need to eat meat. It’s just a cultural thing, tastebuds. So whatever your justifications are they are for pleasure. So all there’s left to say is that I hope that you are entertained by all the unnecessary suffering. The propaganda hit you good!

mojo_raisin ,

There’s one big flaw in your logic; humans don’t need to eat meat

We can survive and with significant effort and education some can even thrive without meat in modern times with B12 supplementation. What you might be able to do as a wealthy American or similar cannot be expected of the rest of the world.

Teppichbrand ,

You are absolutely wrong, indian people eat a vegetarian diet for centuries with no problems. Asians used to consume no cheese or milk at all and eat very little meat. Our Western lifestyle is doing so much harm to us, to the planet and to our animal cousins. Eating processed meat daily is really bad, just look at our society, we are not healthy at all! We don’t put significant efford in our diet and it really shows.

mojo_raisin ,
  • There’s a huge difference between a little meat and no meat.
  • Pointing at a population known for vegetarian dishes doesn’t prove anything
  • Indians are known for having nutritional deficiencies which lead to population wide vision problems.

Eating meat isn’t the problem, human overpopulation is the problem.

boomzilla ,

This man was able to be vegan over 1000 years ago while he was blind from the age of 6 due to smallpox and lived to the age of 83. All while he established himself as a renowned poet, writer and philosoph of the arabic world. Granted the B12 levels in soil were much higher back then. But what’s bad about taking a pill a day vs destroying the livelihood of future generations?

mojo_raisin ,

But what’s bad about taking a pill a day

Nothing for me and you, but it’s a literal impossibility for like 4 billion people.

boomzilla ,

Which would be the impossible factor(s) in your opinion?

mojo_raisin ,

We currently have hundreds of millions of people suffering food insecuring now according to the UN, if we can’t feed everyone now, how do you propose to ensure they eat vegan and have adequate vitamin 12.

It’s a logistical impossibility in our current global order. I want starving people to get food, my relatively rich ass has no place telling starving people that their food is immoral.

UckyBon ,

I’m from a third world country you goon.

mojo_raisin ,

did you notice the “or simiar” part? That meant if you’re from somewhere where you’re wealthy enough to by vitamin supplements and do stuff like use the internet to post to Lemmy you’re way ahead of much of the world who do not have access to these things.

assassin_aragorn ,

There are some vitamins we can only get from meats. Something tells me that industrial processes to make those vitamins into pills isn’t exactly helping the planet either.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve seen too many vegan body builders and MMA fighters to believe you can’t get full nutrition from a vegan diet

assassin_aragorn ,

Is it a diet of organic vegan food without any supplements? Or are they eating nutritionally enriched foods and taking vitamin supplements?

There’s nothing wrong with the latter, and I should hope every vegan does the latter. A vegan diet without any of that will leave you deficient in some nutrients.

Teppichbrand ,

Meat is not a magical product; you can get all nutrients without eating animals. Except for B12, as it is produced by bacteria living in dirty environments. We get too little of it because of our sanitized way of living. However, we also don’t get cholera anymore, which is a good development! Your B12 is added to animal feed, so you’re taking the pill through the cow instead of directly. The twin study, which you can also watch on Netflix, shows that besides the nutrients in meat consumption, you also intake a lot of harmful substances into your body. Animal fats clog your arteries, antibiotics, fecal residues, growth hormones, moreover, red meat is classified as carcinogenic by the WHO.

assassin_aragorn , (edited )

There’s still other vitamins that are present in higher quantities in meat versus plants, but I do see your point. And with where we are with food technology today, we can make it a moot point by enriching vegetables anyway.

The first priority I think should be making it more affordable and cheaper to buy these foods, and government subsidies sound like a good way to do that. Also, reducing red meat consumption and replacing it with chicken goes a long way too.

Either way, I appreciate how knowledgeable you are on this. You’ve clearly done your research!

Teppichbrand , (edited )

Thanks! Beans, lentils and soy are superfoods and they are super cheap. If we’d eat a cup of these legumes a day, we (and our soil, climate, environment) would be much healthier. It’s so easy as well, just replace ground meat with lentils, chicken with chickpeas, pork with soy shreds. My health insurance started promoting this as the planetary health diet, times are changing.

UckyBon ,

Give me one non-vegan bodybuilder that doesn’t do any form of supplements (should we incl. B12 injections for livestock?).

It sounds like you’re educated on the subject by big meat, you might want to question that.

myrrh ,

…my wife eats meat: you know what she eats a heck of a lot less of since moving in with me?..you know what she’d’ve eaten a heck of a lot more of if i weren’t tolerant?..

…don’t make perfect the enemy of good; you’ll do a heck of a lot less good and be surprised when you learn that your perfect isn’t…

Teppichbrand ,

I’m vegan a long time now, sometimes I lose my patience because it feels like I’m talking to 8 year olds all the time. Carnism ia real, the fragile meat-egos, the bullshit bingo, the same lame arguments make me loose my patience sometimes. But obviously you have a point.

boomzilla ,

In my note app I’ve saved my old replies I’m fairly confident of regarding research, impact and links to sources and fire them up against the standard arguments. It’s cheap but it would be madness to answer the age old cliches popping up in mass under a controversional vegan post with individual new answers. The definition of Sisyphus work. I refine the posts to take deviations from standard arguments into account. I don’t spam them in a thread of full of the same cliche answers but tactically under one of them with a lot of upvotes/likes. This saves me some headaches and at least I know I countered the disinformation at least once and will maybe make some people see that the most regurgitated answers are not per se the most correct just because of their prevalence.

Teppichbrand ,

Damn, I am still sisyphussing!

Rozlif ,

it’s pretty crazy that no one in this thread has mentioned that going vegan would have a larger impact.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

I am vegan and I would say that but it would result in a big circle jerk as always of “hurr durr bacon”.

Teppichbrand ,

Being vegan would have a much larger impact!

Honytawk ,

Of course.

But don’t let perfection be the enemy of good.

whalebiologist ,

I’ve been on this diet for 5 years, I call it the “only meat on sale” diet

FenrirIII ,
@FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

Aldi on Thursday morning for me.

Agent641 ,

Why thursday morning? What country?

hark ,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t know if it’s the same everywhere, but at least in the US, Aldi offers some meat at a reduced price on wednesdays and I assume on thursday morning they discount even more to clear out unsold stock.

m13 ,

Or we could eat like 3 billionaires.

yetAnotherUser ,

I don’t think 3 billionaires emit in their combined lifetime as much as 100 BILLION farting chicken in a day.

FriendBesto , (edited )

You know what would really help? More so then cutting actual food intake?

How about halfing the number of golf courses? Stop using grass and let more natural plants for lawns, stop the use of private planes and also just kill or reduce the Cruise ship industry to a miniscule amount. Plus other shit rich people use that has a disproportionate huge carbon footprint. Find it funny that I never see the news --or rich, holier than thou morons-- pushing for this. Nah, they go after our food. Rich people do not care, they can eventually make beef the price of caviar per weight? Because fuck you and all of us. Why? Well they do not care. They can always pay. Easily.

For example: Bill Gates is the largest farm land owner in the USA now, he and his buddies and his rich clients will all get all the natural milk, beef, pork, chickens, lambs, veal they can eat. You? Eat lentils and maybe crickets or give his lab grown biomilq, to your kids or eat his lab meat, like a good and compliant serf. Don’t think, just comply and consume. 'Cause I am sure he ain’t touching the stuff himself or is his family. He is not going to be the long term guinea pig. I wouldn’t either.

newyorker.com/…/biomilq-artificial-breast-milk

…yahoo.com/…/bill-gates-backed-lab-grown-19531140…

Carbon footprint of food production in the USA is 9% of total. Beef is about 3% of total. So 9 for both beef and crops.

Just the cruise ship industry, for example, is about 3.3% of the world’s total carbon footprint. Let’s kill that. Also private jet use. They can fly Business class, if they are not hypocrites.

soggy_kitty , (edited )

I couldn’t help but think there’s no way luxury cruise ships is 3% of global carbon emissions

Was this your source? www.greenmatch.co.uk/…/maritime-sustainability

It says “cruise ships and other maritime vessels” which isn’t cleared up anywhere in the article. You have to remember that if this includes container ships it’s fully expected, we all buy shit from across the world all the time.

This article says the shipping industry is 3%: sinay.ai/…/how-much-does-the-shipping-industry-co…

So either greenmatch is intentionally rage baiting everyone or they both emit 3% each, sus.

I really hate misinformation. It’s very easy to rally and hate on the rich but it would be very funny to me if that 3% you said to “get rid of” means you would have to completey change your consumer habits and not only just affect “the rich”

But yes regardless don’t mistake my comment for defending luxury cruise ships.

riodoro1 ,

Eating meat is not your religion. Why do you feel so offended?

ComfortableRaspberry ,

At least for me these articles are a bit annoying since it seems that businesses world wide give a shit about the consequences of their actions but news outlets decided to pin the issue on the consumer.

Don’t get me wrong. I think consumers are at least partially in charge when it comes to decisions about their consuming behavior. And reducing the meat intake is something that is not too hard and can improve the health for some people. But propagating this as the solution to our climate problem and on top not looking into the effect of lower income on nutrition / eating behavior makes me angry. The article just briefly mentions that the government has no success in influencing the prices through taxes.

At least here in Germany meat is so unbelievably cheap that it’s very understandable people got used to eating it on a daily base. And it’s hard to change this without businesses like supermarkets supporting this with price changes (meat up vegetables down) and an increase in minimal income since environmentally friendly food is currently more expensive than “garbage food”.

YungOnions ,

I mean, to be fair, this isn’t proposed as the solution to climate, but rather part of the solution. Your points about income and meat prices are totally valid, but they’re things that we as citizens can pressure our governments to adopt as part of the encouragement of a reduced meat diet.

baru ,

And it’s hard to change this without businesses like supermarkets supporting this

A crazy amount of the EU budget goes towards subsidizing farming. Enough of that goes towards the meat industry. It’s not supermarkets that enable this to be cheap. It’s loads of things. Huge subsidies, regulations enabling intense farming, governments giving subsidies in various ways, then there’s also a bit about supermarkets.

Cosmicomical ,

Yeah, let’s f stop those subsidies for instance. I don’t see why taxes should be used to destroy the environment in such a clearcut way.

YungOnions ,

I mean, we can do all of those things and reduce our meat intake. They’re not mutually exclusive. How about we encourage people to do everything they can, rather than gate-keeping solutions?

EatATaco ,

We need a total shift. All those things are things we should do too. It’s no doubt that rich people produce more emissions.

But you’re just trying to avoid shouldering any responsibility yourself for something were all responsible for.

This is something you can do, right now, to decrease your carbon footprint.

Btw, if you’re living in the west with constant access to Internet, and got a free education…you almost certainly are one of those rich people.

Cosmicomical ,

Personal carbon credits would make it very easy to solve all of that.

Agent641 ,

The type of golf course matters. Where I live, a lot of golf courses are public, packed with big trees, surrounded by bushland, act as a green space and native animal refuge among the suburbs, some of them protect wetlands, and are local government owned. While they do use up a lot of water, its still probably less tgan if it was all just paved with suburban housing and their shit lawns. And all the trees would be gone.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Considering every 100 pounds you add to your vehicle you reduce fuel economy by 2%, I wonder how much less CO2 we’d produce if everyone got to a healthy BMI.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.

But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids.

theguardian.com/…/100-fossil-fuel-companies-inves…

crazyminner ,

50% of all green house gases come from animal agriculture, so yeah…

Also torturing other animals for your taste buds is not okay.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I see, so doing something about it is the responsibility of consumers, not the companies who do it.

naught ,

por que no los dos

crazyminner ,

Both. But one you can change right now. At your next meal just choose vegan.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Which means either be rich or live a life eating nothing but beans and rice.

crazyminner ,

Beans, rice, tofu, lentils, mushrooms, chickpeas, nuts, seeds, many options and they’re all cheaper than flesh, and healthier for you and better for the environment.

Choose one of those, and use the extra money to donate towards something that will undermine those capitalist trash.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Extra money. Donate. Must be nice to be rich. By the way, people who aren’t rich can often work two jobs. When do you think they have time to cook?

YungOnions ,

I don’t know where you live, but in the UK at least going vegan is cheaper than eating meat: kantar.com/…/how-popular-is-veganism-in-the-uk so if saving money is your (understandable) concern then swapping to ‘beans and rice’ as you put it is worth it.

Same for the USA as well: pcrm.org/…/eating-vegan-diet-reduces-grocery-bill….

In fact it’s almost a global solution: ox.ac.uk/…/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-…

They’re also quicker to prepare as well: foodnavigator.com/…/Vegan-meals-cheaper-and-quick…

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It might be cheaper if you don’t live in a food desert and have time to cook.

Neither of these are reasonable for many Americans.

theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many…

www.aecf.org/…/exploring-americas-food-deserts

Veganism is a privilege that many people cannot have.

YungOnions ,

What’s your point? Arguments for veganism only apply to those who can eat vegan. They obviously don’t apply to those that can’t. You concern re. food deserts is a very valid one but that isn’t a criticism of veganism, it’s benefits or its impact on the environment. Working to eliminate food deserts and improve nutritional options for everyone is a part of tackling climate change. For those Americans that do have access to some vegan options (about 80% of the population) going vegan or at least ‘flexitarian’ is cheaper, quicker, healthier and better for the environment.

In edition, your point about families having time, whilst valid, is again not a criticism of veganism, it’s a criticism of a multitude of wider societal issues.

Also, please bear in mind that the US is not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to familial trends. In the UK for example, people are actually cooking at home more: brandclock.co.uk/scratch-cooking-in-the-uk-increa…

Even in the US approx 64% of the population home cook: prnewswire.com/…/survey-reveals-81-of-consumers-n…

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Didn’t this start with someone saying everyone should go vegan?

YungOnions ,

This particular thread started with your comment here: sh.itjust.works/comment/10351315

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I’m pretty sure it started with my comment here- sh.itjust.works/comment/10349694

YungOnions ,

Great, except I’m not discussing that comment with you, I’m discussing your comments re. the costs and time requirements of veganism.

But OK, I’ll bite. The comment you linked has already been addressed multiple times. Your numbers were incorrect and your comment re. mothers buying meat misses the point of the original article, which is extolling the environmental virtues of going vegan for those that can. Ideally everyone should go vegan. This is not the same as saying everyone can.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Okay, but again, I was responding to someone who said the world should go vegan and explaining why a lot of people in the U.S. can’t do that.

I don’t know why you’re so against me explaining that.

YungOnions , (edited )

I’m not against the sentiment, I’m against how you’re making it and the tone you’re taking whilst doing so.

Comments like *100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global warming.

But sure, blame the mother who buys ground chuck for her kids*. come across as needlessly confrontational and are an example of a fallacy of relevance. No one was blaming mothers buying meat for climate change. No one was advocating for businesses to be allowed To ignore their environmental responsibilities. You raised arguments that were irrelevant to the article, then doubled down by moving the goal-posts further to encompass additional societal problems like the lack of nutritional food in some parts of the US, all of which are irrelevant to the point of the article.

Also, my point stands: the world arguably should go vegan. Doesn’t mean they can. Your point doesn’t invalidate theirs.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You never said that your problem was me being needlessly confrontation before. I would argue that you’ve been needlessly confrontational this whole time. Is it okay when you do it?

Sodis ,

Moving the goalpost much? First it is not the consumers fault, then it is too expensive and now you do not even have time to cook?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yes. All of those things. And it’s not about me, it’s about the single mother working two jobs trying to keep their kids fed with something and living in a food desert where they can’t even get things like tofu. It is not their fault because it is too expensive and they don’t have time to cook and also they might not even be able to get it.

theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many…

www.aecf.org/…/exploring-americas-food-deserts

Until you fix those problems, it is not the fault of consumers.

crazyminner ,

It is about you though. I was talking to you.

Not some hypothetical person who you can hide behind.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Okay, but I never said what my diet is. If you’re curious, I don’t have one.

yoyolll ,

Eating beans, rice, lentils, peas, etc. is way cheaper than meat. A 4 lbs bag of chickpeas is $6 and provides 6,500 calories of mostly dietary fiber and protein.

Cooking is something you have to do, just like laundry and washing yourself. I’m not sure if this is a western thing or what, but for most people in the world, the less money you have, the more you cook. Eating prepared foods and meat is expensive.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

theconversation.com/time-to-cook-is-a-luxury-many…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

yoyolll ,

You can complain all you want about how poor you are that you can’t eat beans and lentils, but the entire world outside of US, Canada, and Western Europe is proof of the contrary.

It takes 20 minutes to cook lentils and rice. 30 to cook beans if you have a pressure cooker. These foods are dirt cheap, shelf stable, and sold everywhere. My local gas station sells Goya beans.

I’m sorry about your situation, but cooking and feeding yourself is just part of living whether vegan or not. This widespread idea in the US that being poor means you should be eating expensive unhealthy prepared meals is strange. It will only make your situation worse.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This isn’t about my situation. Did you even read those links?

yoyolll ,

Yes, and I addressed them. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of people in the wealthiest countries in the world complaining that they don’t have time to cook beans, so instead they’re going to buy a beef cheeseburger cooked and assembled for them for $2.

I have lived in bad neighborhoods. I’ve worked shit jobs. I’ve bought bags of Goya green lentils from a gas station.

If you don’t want to, you don’t have to, but stop with this “poor people can’t afford to eat anything but McDonald’s and frozen dinners” thing.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Ah, right, have you and your kids live off beans and rice you can get at a gas station rather than have anything pleasurable. As usual, blame the poor for not living like animals.

yoyolll ,

Is there something wrong with rice and beans? I eat both of those daily. If the only thing that gives you pleasure is a fat and salt filled cheeseburger, that’s a separate issue.

And anyway, this argument went from “it’s too expensive” to “it takes too much time” to “it’s not good”. We can just agree to disagree. No one is forcing you to eat something you don’t want.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

That’s great for you if you want to live on nothing but rice and beans. I hope that’s not the only thing you feed your kids if you have any. Because they would be forced to eat something they might not want.

And from the very beginning I suggested that saying poor people should just eat rice and beans all the time is just saying they deserve to suffer a lack of a varied diet because they can’t afford one, can’t find the food and don’t have time to cook. And since they don’t, climate change is their fault.

Blaming poor people for having a diet consisting of more than two things or else they’re being unethical or whatever is just a cruel outlook.

yoyolll ,

I’m sure this is a bad faith argument and you don’t really think “rice and beans” means literally only rice and beans boiled in plain water, but just in case, you can throw in a couple veggies. Or not, since you live in a food desert that only serves McDonald’s, working 2 jobs to put cheeseburgers on the table for your kids so you don’t even have time to slice an onion. Sorry for being cruel 😊.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Ah right. Vegetables, known to be highly available in food deserts.

And, of course, there’s zero steps between a hamburger and rice, beans and veggies. Like, I don’t know, letting your kids have a candy bar. Or scrambled eggs. Those things are totally out of the question.

yoyolll ,

Candy bars?! Who am I, the king of England? They’ll eat mashed boiled lentils and be grateful.

FlyingSquid , (edited )
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

That sure sounds like what you’re saying. Either you live off of rice, beans and lentils and maybe vegetables if you’re poor if those are all available in your area in the half an hour a day you have to prepare a meal and never give your kid a candy bar or you’re an unethical person who is responsible for climate change.

And, of course, people in Canada solved that problem so people in the U.S. can too. Just like how the U.S. has socialized medicine.

Sasha ,

Capitalism means companies aren’t gonna do shit, but you’ve got a choice to not participate in a flawed system.

I’m not one to tell people what to do, but pretending that someone else doing a bad thing justifies another bad thing…

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Go ahead and refuse to participate. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t expect it to have a significant climate impact.

Teppichbrand ,

“I alone can’t change anything” is a hastily spoken excuse to shift responsibility onto others. But you are responsible for your life and your actions.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Nothing I personally do will have an effect on climate change. If you want to argue for people to not eat meat, fine. But blaming them for the climate worsening because they eat meat is placing the blame on the wrong party and is not going to convince people. There are other and better arguments.

Teppichbrand , (edited )

I can blame more than one party, no problem! Politics must change, the economy must change, and society as well. Since you and me are part of the population, let’s please change too! Politics will follow suit if we are serious.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Politics will follow suit if we are serious.

Like how abortion is legal in the U.S. because the majority is in favor of it, right?

Honytawk ,

Throwing one piece of trash out the window also won’t have a significant impact.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

When it comes to climate change, throwing things away is not a major issue, so that’s not really a good comparison.

EndlessNightmare ,

I think it’s important to make an honest assessment of what is, and what isn’t, under control of consumers. Reducing meat consumption is something that consumers actually can control, unlike say the massive environmental destruction caused by military.

Corporations and other entities doing bad stuff does not absolve us of our own responsibility.

Sodis ,

Yeah, apart from transportation it is really the easiest way to have a personal impact on carbon dioxide emissions. If you rent, you can’t exchange your heating system, if you use electricity you have no impact on where it comes from and so on.

birthday_attack ,

Politifact | No, 100 corporations do not produce 70% of total greenhouse gas emissions

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It says 50% instead of 70%. Fine. It also doesn’t say how much consumers are at fault. Probably because it isn’t much. But sure, keep recycling those plastic bottles if it makes you feel better.

PatFussy ,

All this pussy shit about changing our entire eating schedule to reduce emissions by .01% is fucking dumb. The main problem is western habits and our dumb intake of everything! If the entirety of the US and EU disappeared overnight then emissions would drop by more than 75% even though the West doesn’t even make up 10% of the world population.

jeffw OP ,

All this pussy shit about attacking one of the worst emitting industries on the planet? Ig im a huge pussy because I love fighting climate change

PatFussy ,

Beef itself isn’t the part that’s emitting. It’s all the transportation and handling and resources the beef needs. You can stop buying beef to lower emissions sure but you can’t replace eating beef with just eating more other shit that might also emit just as much.

naught ,

Source?

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere

from: www.ucdavis.edu/…/making-cattle-more-sustainable

PatFussy ,

This is a red herring but you know that grass fed cows don’t produce as much methane right? You know there is a considerable amount of energy used to maintain the cow right? This is energy that would be used almost regardless if we are to increase consumption of grains rather than cows which is the problem. We are going to get fatter as a civilization if we start eating less meat.

We will replace meat with palm oil and corn.

Honytawk ,

So tell me, where are you going to get all that grass to feed all the cows with?

PatFussy ,

Russia. We send them all to Russia and they can have all the cow villages they want.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •