this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
191 points (91.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6444 readers
654 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
191
A sustainable diet leaves room for two chicken breasts a week, study says (phys.org)
submitted 1 day ago by RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

255 grams per week. That's the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.

Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."

Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You'll eat beef but not chickens? You consider cows to be treated differently to how chickens are treated?

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, not good, but better. I've worked in industrial chicken and been fairly close to industrial beef, industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in.

Also, their comment said that they wouldn't eat chicken either, not that they wouldn't eat chicken but would eat beef.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

industrial cows are treated mildly better because it is literally impossible for a cow to survive in the conditions chickens are kept in

You seem to be talking about material conditions. What concerns me more are the psychological conditions and I don't believe there to be any difference in that respect.

Do you believe that the beef which enters a person's body will be in some way less harmful, all else being equal, than chicken? Solely because of the absolute difference in the material conditions?

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, but the beef which enters a person's body won't be harmful to them (the person) at all.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the harm caused in its production? As in pound for pound the harm caused by the production process? Because I would like to emphasize that I don't think beef production is less harmful, the additional harm caused to the planet in industrial grade beef far outweighs the difference in animal welfare. It seems slightly weird to me to talk about the meat itself being harmful as it enters the person's body when the harm is in the production.

I also don't understand what you mean by separating "material" vs "psychological" conditions. If you're talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive, as far as I know, the statement stands, industrial cattle live slightly better lives (more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state*.

That's not to say that beef is ok while chicken is not, if chicken is off the table for you, beef definitely should be as well.

*Though it is now occurring to me that comparing the psychological states of chickens and cows may not be an activity with a point.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

the beef which enters a person's body won't be harmful to them (the person) at all

I differ completely.

If you're talking about the psychological state the animals are in while they are alive

Well there's no psychological state when they're dead :-)

more space and such,) which results as far as I know, in a better psychological state

Cows having more absolute space than chickens doesn't imply that cows will have a better psychological state. What matters is how much space the animals have relative to how much space the animals need. I would expect farms to give animals precisely as little space as the farm can get away with, meaning the degree of suffering will be exactly at the point of maximum suffering while still surviving, for cows and chickens.

Regardless, I think there's likely more harm to meat eaters due to the psychological impact of being slaughtered.

Generally, there's no data on these issues so it's all just opinion either way. Suffice it to say that to me, your position seems naive.

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, I'm going to leave the rest of this alone, because as you said, it seems like mostly opinion either way, but still don't understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago

still don't understand how you think meat eaters are being harmed by the poor psychological state of the animals while they were alive

Psychological state has a great impact on the physical body. Hormones, neurotransmitters, etc., can be released or suppressed depending on psychological state. When you consume part of an animal, you consume part of that system. Think of the rush of chemicals (cortisol, adrenalin, etc.) in an animal as they're being slaughtered.

I could say more about subtle energy and karma but you probably get the idea.