this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
195 points (91.1% liked)

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

6455 readers
120 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
195
A sustainable diet leaves room for two chicken breasts a week, study says (phys.org)
submitted 3 days ago by RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
122 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
[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No I want more information. I don't want the current consensus of "healthy" between the authors, which may use arbitrary benchmarks, to prune down options that still satisfy a goal of sustainability.

The research team's calculations take into account a number of environmental factors such as CO2 emissions, the consumption of water and land use, as well as the health impact of a particular diet. In total, they have examined more than 100,000 variations of 11 types of diets and calculated their respective environmental and health effects.

One of these things is not like the others and it looks like it is used to prune the set of variations. Is unhealthy like I get scurvy and die? Or is it that it may correlate with high cholesterol? Or is it that you are at risk of foodborne illness for eating under cooked meat/eggs/seafood? "Healthy" could encompass any of those and that's nuts for data management.

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I agree here, they do supply all the data and methodology (though obviously some of it is paywalled) and I see how the way they presented it is probably the best for the LCD consumer, but I would have liked a decent concise summary of just the sustainability data.