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:

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 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.