Asklemmy

42603 readers

620 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone

AdaShovelace@lemmy.ml

What do you think of Just Stop Oil? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Subject6051@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My Views: I would love it if Solar, Hydro and Wind and other renewable sources of energy + Non Renewable Nuclear were to provide enough energy reliably to completely replace fossil fuels, but I know it's not a feasible solution at least at this point. And maybe it will never be. Renewable sources of energy are highly dependent on some metal mining (some are rare metals) and I doubt if the prices of those metals would go lower as the demand for those renewable sources of energy sky rockets. i.e., It's a non-linear equation, the price of renewables will not remain the same if we want to meet 100% of our energy needs from renewables. So, Just Stopping Oil is a pretty stupid idea concocted by people who have a much better standard of living than me.

Skip This if you must: As an Indian, I can speak for 1.4B people (I asked) when I say that, no matter how much pressure developed nations impose on India and countries like India, we will still keep using the least costliest source of energy, because we too want nice things and we too want our women to be liberated from cow dung/wood stoves and from the burden of washing clothes and utensils. So yeah, there is no way bar great scientific innovation which will phase out fossil fuels at least in the near future and perhaps ever.

PS: I don't like fossil fuels, I don't like the pollution or the effect it has on the environment and I wish they could be replaced by something renewable, but I just don't like the chances of that happening.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes it will.

A study mentioned on Our World in Data suggests that if the entire world adopted a vegan diet, our total agricultural land use could shrink dramatically, from 4.1 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares, a reduction of 75% . This reduction is significant because agriculture, particularly livestock farming, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Further, a research team, including scientists from Leiden University, found that if high-income countries switched to a plant-based diet, almost 100 billion tons of CO2 could be pulled out of the atmosphere by the end of the century. This switch would reduce annual agricultural production emissions by 61%, and converting former cropland and pastures to their natural state could remove another 98.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the end of the century .

Additionally, a study by scientists from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that phasing out animal agriculture over the next 15 years would have the same effect as a 68% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through 2100. This would contribute 52% of the net emission reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The phase-out of animal agriculture could create a 30-year pause in net greenhouse gas emissions and offset almost 70% of the heating effect of those emissions through the end of the century .

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

as what you posts states. it would take time and it certainly does not state that the problem would be over from it as a single action. We have to hit the other big sources as well. You will note it does not say is the largest major contributor.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If people stopped eating meat and we turned the massive amount of land we waste raising animals to slaughter into carbon sinks it absolutely would be enough. But go on justifying your addiction that’s literally killing the planet. I’m sure your grandchildren would agree.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

So you are arguing two different things or at least think I am. Not eating meat is good for the environment and I am not fighting that point. Not eating meat will not instantly fix climate change or get us to pre industrial even over time. Even with the heat sinks. We can't go whole hog on everything else and expect veganism to cure all our ills. We grow plenty of plants with fertilizer that we get from fossil fuels and all our pollution and environmental damage is not exclusively from eating meat. Its a great help and a great thing to do but it is not a panacea unto itself. Im not sure if you justify other pollution creating things like driving yourself around in a big suv or supporting bitcoin, but if you do veganism and feels that justifies that type of behavior. well thats literally killing the planet.