468
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It
(sentientmedia.org)
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
468 points (84.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5194 readers
1054 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK, well tax everything that harms the environment equally and appropriately, and I'll choose if I want to carry on eating it.
mhm, and you won't be screaming "cost of living crisis", right?
No, but it should be applied to everything, not just the weekly boogeyman industry.
All those out of season fruits and vegetables that get transported from southern Spain or Israel. All that plastic tat imported from China on a dirty old boat. Everything. Hell, put it on the price tags so people know exactly how much of that price is down to climate tax.
Cry poverty? Increase the minimum wages then. Somebody has to pay, and it has to be the ones doing the consuming. Us. We won't choose the cleaner option unless it's cheaper, so make the dirty stuff cost more.
That won't work because a <$0.01 tax on steak relative to the impact caused by meat-eating in most countries won't change anyone's mind. If everyone went vegan, the world still fails. If nobody went vegan but the businesses went carbon neutral, we're all fine.
In the US point of view, we only produce 20% more methane emissions than in the pre-colonial days, and the only way these changes will actually be a meaningful net positive is through anti-natal terraforming to lower animal population than was ever really natural.
I'm ok with some countries bearing more weight to help than the harm they cause, but only if it will actually make a difference. 100 million people in my country choosing to stop eating meat suddenly (or being forced to at gunpoint) doesn't change anything.
yeah. keep shoving that meat into your mouth and take zero responsibility.
Ok....Damn, nothing happened. But if anybody asks, I'm telling them you gave permission.
it's obviously never your responsibility right?
Obviously!
Kisses
Zero responsibility for doing my research and coming up to a different conclusion than you? Oh hell no. I take 100% responsibility for it. I live it. I breathe it. I know more about the environmental impact of meat than 9 out of every 10 vegans I end up dealing with on the internet.
The 10th is either not a jerk to me, or is clearly a zealot. I allow for zealotry (not happily). I'm not a fan of willful ignorance.
I don't know whether I know more or less than Björn Ólafsson, but I know he wrote that article with an anti-meat agenda. You can see it as early as his complaints that "93 percent of climate coverage did not mention the meat-climate connection". Of course they don't. It's one of the smallest and most contentious line-items in the climate change battle, and is one that never needs to be discussed in a successful resolution to the climate crisis. As such, if he were honestly analyzing the question as something other than a vegan advocate, he would more critically analyze the resources and effort being spent on the least efficient environmental improvements. Whether he is ignorant of that or simply biased, I neither know nor care.
I wouldn't go that far. I grew up in and around farming communities in a high-education state, with two of the biggest agricultural universities in the country near me. I'm not a specialist in those and will admit it. I got into software engineering (shocker, since I'm on lemmy). But I have multiple family members who got advanced degrees through their programs, and multiple friends who have environmental engineering or environmental protection degrees. Does that make me "a really smart guy"? Not really. But I know how to critically analyze this particular topic more than most vegans I've met because firsthand knowledge and actually discussing environmental essays with the experts who wrote them tends to be more reliable than really really loving animals or watching Dominion or Poisoned.
You nailed it. By becoming educated, I actually can do something that's harmless for the environment without feeling bad about it.
You know, when I was younger, people had the same attitude about masturbation. Are you on some other sub (sorry, from the tone of this discussion I thought I was on reddit) attacking people for masturbating while virtue signaling? Or do you just hate educated people who happen to eat meat?
cool wall of text bro. facts are facts. cool that you have these smart friends who apparently tell you that your lifestyle is cool.
That's handy.
Google Translate: I'm going to pretend that you said nothing real because I just realized I have nothing.
Hasn't Ben Shapiro trademarked that line? Oh no, it was "Facts don't care about your feelings". Same thing. Do you think blindly disrespecting the facts on the other side because they don't fit your narrative will get you anywhere?
Well, I mean, it will. It's a great way to get stupid people to follow you. Ben Shapiro taught us that . But is that what you're really looking for?
... That's handy, I guess.
Sad.