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.
How about everyone who says it's the job of the little guy to fix the climate problem kicks a rock and governments, shipping companies, cruise lines, airlines, industrial farmers, etc PUT DOWN THE FORK.
Every individual in every country is not responsible for allowing year over year profits in industries that ignore the writing on the wall.
Beef consumption at current levels is unsustainable, I agree with your general principle but you're saying this as if everyone can continue to consume tons of beef every year. Whether industry, regulation, or individual action: you're not going to eat as much beef.
This isn't like recycling
So if that's the problem, government should step in and limit beef production. Why rely on everyone to "do the right thing" to solve societal problems? That's why government exists.
I don't disagree, and in fact it is a huge part of the problem and we actively subsidize its production let alone limiting it. However the end result will be the same, so it's not like saying "why should I have to recycle/deal with waste because companies are making single use products" because unlike in that case the alternative still has you eating less meat.
Consider checking out this entertaining and informative video about how wild things get https://youtu.be/XusyNT_k-1c?si=K_gxkl0X60kFmvw0.
Overseas nations grow animal feed in the US and ship it halfway across the world to feed their cattle. It's absurd.
While I think it's a good ideal, I have met a lot of people in my life and have no confidence that any progress will be made by leaving the solution up to them
You can change what you do without input or veto from anyone else.
That is not true for governments.
You can do both. You can go vegan for the environment (if abuse of animals isn’t enough for you) AND vote for a/lobby the government for larger sweeping action.
Sure.
At the same time, I can enjoy a great steak every now and again, and I can travel with my children to make sure they know their great grandmother in a different country every two years. And I can do those things and not feel bad because 80% of the time we do our part. Corpos, by comparison, are not pulling their weight, and they are already most of the problem.
I totally agree with this notion, everybody should do what they realistically can, and it will look different for everyone. Some can be vegan and it will work out great, others will struggle to give up meat. Some can bike/walk to work everyday, or avoid air travel, and some can't. Anyone doing well 80% of the time is probably doing just fine.
All that said, it is worth remembering that these industries are (mostly) funded by consumers, and while giant corporations are obviously the way bigger issue, consumers have more power than we often give ourselves credit for to restrict those companies. In a hypothetical world where everyone stops eating beef, it isn't like the beef industry continues to pollute. They will directly produce the amount of beef people will buy. Even if everyone has their steak now and then but doesn't make it an every night staple, that alone would already do a lot to limit the emissions of the beef industry. It's not a whole solution, but it is the one that is easiest and most obtainable, because convincing the government to stop subsidizing beef is not on the agenda of any major politicians at least in the states, even if I wish it were.
One problem with "voting with your wallet" like this is some wallets are bigger than others and it's not always easy and affordable to do the sustainable thing. Add to this that powerful lobbies (oil and gas, dairy, animal agriculture) use regulatory capture and other means to make their products the cheaper option for the consumer.
State action to drive green technologies down in price like that of China is met with tariffs and other protectionist measures that drive those prices right back up.
This is yet another tragedy of late stage capitalism sucking all wealth out of the working class, people may want to live more sustainably but they have to buy the cheap, disposable, subsidized options. Voting with your wallet isn't easy when your wallet is empty.
I'm fairly privileged and I lead a vegan lifestyle, and I can pay extra to have some luxuries like the meat substitutes, vegan restaurants, or non-fast-fashion clothing. Others might be able to do the same, cheaper, but at a lower quality of life.
If we tackled wealth inequality with any vigor at all, more people could do this.
That's true, and a big part of why what is possible for everyone varies. There is some silver lining, chicken is cheaper than beef and significantly lower carbon footprint, some vegan options can be very cheap too if there is time to cook.
But yes, for this who have the ability and inclination to vote with wallets, great, with acceptance for others who don't have that option
Imagine thinking toxic masculinity is a bigger problem for this issue than beef/dairy subsidies and entrenched market forces. Nice distraction piece, NPR.
I honestly believe the two are related. I think big meat agro business is paying influencers to promote toxic masculinity and push nonsense like "plants emit toxic hormones" on social media.
Maybe, but that's just to keep demand anywhere near high enough to consume the products that subsidies ensure they will be producing anyways, so they can argue that the current subsidies are necessary.
Ok, but can we not acknowledge that this shit had an effect on the whole manly incel epidemic and those people are trying to take over the most poweful country on the planet and make sure those subsidies never end?
In 2006, when Malcolm Regisford was 10 years old, a Burger King commercial began playing on TVs across the country.
In it, a man in a restaurant looks at a small vegetarian dish, turns to face the camera, and bursts into song: “I am man, hear me roar!” The man flees the restaurant, denounces quiches and tofu — “chick food,” he sings — and quickly joins a throng of other singing men. They march through the streets with signs reading “I am man” and hamburgers held high. “The Texas double Whopper. Eat like a man, man,” a voice says.
Incels gave up on being "manly enough". Their whole schtick is that its "un-fair" that "only the manliest men get laid", and that they believe they deserve sex just for being born with a dick.
I'm not saying all the "red-pill"/"sigma-pill"/"incel" groups/narratives don't feed into eachother, but you've gotta realize these people are already in the minority. It's not their influence keeping the subsidies going, it's the public's wallets keeping demand just high-enough to "justify" the subsidies, and the fact that the subsidies are backed by decades of established law.
There is no point trying to reason with the die-hards that will keep on consuming long after increased prices drive the rest of us away from beef consumption. The subsidies that keep their bull-shit lifestyles affordable and convenient should be the focus of our efforts.
Let them waste more money on being single and lonely. Their pocket-books will shout at them louder and more convincingly than the rest of us ever could.
If it's purely on subsidies, then why, as stated in the article, are men consuming disproportionately more beef than women? Am I missing out on my secret man meat tax cut?
Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context...
Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it's almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.
"Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason."
Has anyone here ever heard of this website? News-Medical.net ? Unless it's an actual study, and not some BS where data is cherry-picked from certain sample groups, I wouldn't pay it any mind.
Toxic masculinity (a.k.a. patriarchy) most definitely affects men eating more meat.
Subsidies for industrial beef production greatly affects it.
But all of this is due to the lack of societal/political change.
And, in all honesty, if it was not for the pollution created by the US military and "big business", we'd be on our 2ay to a much greener Earth already, without having to affect far more change.
It's a journal site, here's the link to the actual study in nature. The language is tougher.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62511-3
I think i see where you're coming from, to me it feels like traveling a long path from the obvious economics of subsidy and advertising, especially the ubiquity of beef, and making that about the patriarchy. Feels removed from the problem of economic incentive, but more than just access seems to drive it, this paper has multiple relevant drivers though and it does seem to be at least partially based on gender.
Yes, you're missing that subsidies ensure the same amount of beef gets produced no matter the demand. In fact, that amount is set higher than demand. Demand is artificially increased due to the high availability and low prices resulting from these policies. Removing the subsidies would lower both Availability and Demand, as the lowered availability would increase prices.
TL;DR: Consumption gender ratios have NOTHING to do with the amount of beef that is being produced, nor, therefore, its impacts on the environment.
I can only restate the obvious so many times, and I HAVE already restated the facts on this at least twice prior to your question. Are you dense, or just insincere?
I made this decision a couple years ago. Gave up milk (switched to oat milk), but I still eat cheese and yogurt. I eat probably 20% of the red meat per year that I used to.
You don’t have to be a rabid vegan to make an impact.
This is such a good attitude! I cut all meat out of my diet a long time ago, and when I mention it, people often say something like "I'd love to but I couldn't commit to never having meat again".
You don't have to! It's amazing if you do, but you're still gonna make a sizable impact on the cause you care about if you reduce your intake.
It's odd that people don't have this with other issues, the idea of "reducing purchases of disposable plastic" or "buying fairtrade more" make total sense to people, but food is still often cashed out in these "all or nothing" terms.
100% spot on. I'm so tired of everything needing to be 100% or 0%. a 80% cut has an impact! so does 50%. we all need to do what we can, and not taking an extreme position doesn't make someone a sellout or faker or whatever. every little bit helps
a 80% cut has an impact! so does 50%.
i don't think so. i don't think it matters what you do in the grocery store or in a restaurant.
I think a lot of people have a problem admitting that the consumption of certain things causes harm, which is why they turn it into an all or nothing decision. But I believe in the principle of harm reduction, and not letting perfect be the enemy of ‘better’. Or put in a more positive light, ‘every little bit helps’.
But its much easier to hate vegans and pretend theyre the problem
Vegans are the problem? What problem? Causing climate change, or eating too much red meat? Your comment makes no sense.
Doesnt matter. Vegan hate does not follow logic. They brainwash our kids, they poison our wells, theyre not real men, anything goes.
You don’t have to be a rabid vegan to make an impact.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
the fact is that the industry continues to grow.
I can only control my own choices. But that fact is one of the main reasons I made that choice. It’s not sustainable.
Not eating beef is pretty easy. Lots of alternatives.
I dropped beef and pork and stayed with turkey and fish.
Found a bunch of plant based options to replace the beef texture too.
It's really just some stupid mindset about STEAK that many Americans have.
I'm not vegan, and not trying to say people should be vegan. I love me a good steak, but I was out with some vegan friends, and we went to a vegan restaurant. They served me something that was doing an excellent impression of a steak. Good enough that if I knew which various plant protein they were using, I'd make that at home.
Burgers they have down these days, and eating veggies burgers allows me to have more meals a week without meat. Same for most sausages. I don't know how they did it, but I had a vegan brat that had a snappy "skin."
tl;dr because of toxic masculinity
It's macho to eat lots of red meat, get high cholesterol, and die early from heart disease.
Nah, how about "fish is expensive and chicken is unethical"? Meanwhile, beef is subsidized all to hell, and NPR is focused on the wrong issue. We're long past the point where it looks like they are just running interference for industries that don't want to change.
Men who refuse to acknowlege there is a problem with beef aren't the ones having a problem with attempting to eat less of it. Its market forces all the way down; Less available and/or more expensive beef is what it will take to wean the die-hards.
The more obsessed you are with the trappings of manhood the more everyone knows you're faking it
Not all Americans eat beef equally, data shows. Last year, Rose and his colleagues published a study looking at U.S. government data of the diets of more than 10,000 Americans. They found that on a given day, 12% of Americans account for half of all beef consumption. That 12% was disproportionately men.
I'm confused by this because I want it to mean the same 12% all the time, but I suspect they mean that it is a different 12% from one day to the next.
“Many men do reduce their meat consumption or are willing to,” says Joel Ginn, food and psychology researcher at Boston College, “but there are hurdles that they've had to overcome.”
Manly men advertising meat -- and Joe Rogan??? I guess all kinds of guys what to be oh so manly, but when I think of macho men, he's just not on that list.
Seeing someone in your close personal circle, or celebrities like athletes, make a behavior change can be an important piece of the puzzle, says Daniel Rosenfeld, psychology and food researcher at UCLA. “The way to get some people to eat less meat is to get other people to eat less meat,” he says.
Personally, both myself and my better half enjoy the newer fake meat burgers. They really are a satisfying way to get a 'manly' burger.
I just buy from a local farmer. 1/2 cow and 1/2 pig feed my family for a year.
To get the same amount of meat from a commercial butcher it'd take probably hundreds of not thousands of animals.
Pigs are the only animal I struggle with eating, morally. Cows are gentle but really dumb and I don't have moral issues about eating birds.
What do you mean a commercial butcher will need thousands of animals to produce the same amount of meat as a half cow locally? I haven't heard an argument that a little meat from a bunch of animals is ethically any different than a lot of meat from one animal, just curious.
Pigs are the only animal I struggle with eating, morally.
Yeah, they're pretty intelligent and emotionally aware, at least as much as your average dog.