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

6444 readers

586 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:

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

190

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

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The small sacrifices you or I make are virtually meaningless, and are really just ways to make ourselves feel better.

Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance. So that's one difference between our attitudes.

If you or I really put all our eggs in the basket of individual impact then we’d be blowing up oil wells.

That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that's a second difference.

These are questions of deep philosophy, not simply judgements based on facts. You don't see things as I see them, and vice versa. In a pluralistic society that should be manageable.

I would say that we don’t really live in a democratic society

Hence this third difference. The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something. The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things. No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they're going to get much worse again.

Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is "right".

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance.

Which is a way to make ourselves feel better...... I don't eat meat because of my morals, but I don't think for a second that its meaningful on a societal scale, or makes me somehow morally superior to those who do.

That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that's a second difference.

But if we reach a critical mass of people who do think eco-terrorism is good then we would stop climate change.... If you're not willing to lift a finger for the environment how do you expect anyone else to?

Eco-terrorism can only be a negative impact because of the social mores it clashes with, which will never change if voters don't really care about the environment. As far as ethics goes, that's really a matter of perspective. Is it really morally troubling to destroy property than it it is to let that property destroy entire ecologies?

Btw, im not actually advocating for eco-terrorism, I'm just utilizing your logic to make a point. We all could be devoting our entire lives to push society to be more green, but we are human. And part of being human is wanting to be comfortable and live within our social norms. No amount of personal responsibility is really going to make a difference at a scale that really matters unless we are already in a position in that society to do so.

The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something.

Two unimportant people discussing mundane topics without being arrested has been fairly standard in just about every society in human history.

The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things.

Eh.... I tend to believe that power corrupts and that the corrupt seek power over people. I would hope that you or I are both more morally upstanding people than the people in charge of our society.

No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they're going to get much worse again.

Lol, that's just incredibly naive. There is a higher percentage of people in prison today than ever before. I'm not arguing that there haven't been times and places where it's worse to be alive....but it's simply impossible to accurately claim that the modern west most "free" society that's ever been created. Freedom means different things to different people at different times, as does modernity.

Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is "right".

Lol, it's only unbridgeable because you refuse to participate in discourse. This isn't a right or wrong type of conversation, the whole point of communicating in an open forum is to learn. Nobody cares about the opinions of two schmucks talking about ethical consumption on the Internet.