this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
189 points (90.9% liked)

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

6444 readers
592 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
189
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
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Fortunately it's always been cheaper to eat vegan. Typically 30% cheaper, on average.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago

true, but you have to learn to cook and try out a whole bunch of dishes from around the world. you don't get to just go to mcdonald's anymore you gotta take it into your own hands

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Sure, but you're not factoring in the cost of time spent learning how and the time spent preparing. I can afford that time, not everyone can. Again: the issue is systemic, not about personal smarts or purity. Ask the simple question: what is the cultural default and what do you have to go out of your way to get. What is easy for regular people? For example: in India, even the language used is indicative: veg vs non-veg. Veg is well supported with cultural practices, abundant and easily and conveniently accessible yummy veg food. In North America, it's literally the opposite.

That's why I like the cycling analogy. The Dutch are not better people, they just have infrastructure that encourages cycling. The easy, the default.