• VariousWorldViews@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Eating the rich is by far the most eco-friendly approach as it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    • PanaX@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I vehemently disagree with this statement.

      We need to compost the rich and use that as a soil amendment to grow heirloom vegetables.

    • r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn’t ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).

      Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?

  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    In this thread: Shit loads of people who will say they care about the climate crisis on one day, then say they don’t care about the 18.5% of global carbon emissions that the meat industry causes the next day because they can’t get over the decade worth of anti-veganism jokes and memes that they’ve constantly repeated uncritically.

    Individual habits MUST be changed to solve this part of the problem, there is literally no way around that. Getting triggered and writing screeds because you’ve spent decades getting caught up in hate over food choices won’t stop the planet burning.

    • slst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s insane how hard the cognitive dissonance hits. Everyone is trying to find excuses to justify their choices

    • HeuristicAlgorithm9@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      No amount of individual choices can save the planet. The climate change causes by corporations is sufficiently world ending. So even if literally every single person on the planet went vegan it wouldn’t be enough. The idea of a personal carbon footprint was created by BP in order to make people put the blame on themselves. The only way to stop it is mass industrial action. Personal choice, at least at this point, is completely irrelevant.

  • Another Llama ⓥ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    A couple of people have spoken to me before about wanting to cut back on, or completely cut meat from their diets, but didn’t know where to start. If anyone reading this feels the same way, here’s some fairly basic recipies that I usually recommend (Bosh’s tofu curry is straight up one of the best currys i’ve ever had - even my non-vegan family members love it)

    Written:

    Videos:

    Tofu is also super versatile and is pretty climate-friendly. there’s a bazillion different ways to do tofu, but simply seasoning and pan frying some extra/super firm tofu (like you do with chicken) with some peppers and onions, for fajitas, is an easy way to introduce yourself. Here’s a little guide for tofu newbies: A Guide to Cooking Tofu for Beginners - The Kitchn. If you wanna level up your tofu game with some marinades here’s six.

    Lentils and beans are also super planet friendly, super cheap, and super versatile! You’ll be able to find recipies all over that are based around lentils and beans so feel free to do a quick internet search.

    Sorry for the huge, intimidating wall of text! I do hope someone interested in cutting back on meat found this useful though :)

  • krayj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

    “Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”

    …which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

    Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

      So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

      […]

      Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

      https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

      Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

      https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, I think it’s vital to avoid thinking in absolutes over carbon footprints if we are to make real progress. We can argue endlessly over the “necessity” of consuming meat, but that becomes a distraction. Many things are not “necessary”, but most people are not realistically going to live in caves wearing carbon neutral hair shirts.

      We need to continue increasing transparency on the impact of different animal products, so consumers can make informed choices. While also accepting they may not always be perfect.

      • Singar@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        The only way to stop people from eating meat is to make a vegan food that tastes better than a bacon cheeseburger.

    • Hank@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah I barely eat beef anymore, mostly chicken. I don’t want to give up on eating animals, especially since I’m trying to get into shape right now and it would be hard to eat healthy and get enough protein to build up muscle mass.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.

  • bossito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I upvoted because this message still didn’t reach everyone, but I guess it’s just that people are in denial… like, isn’t this obvious? And weren’t there already dozens of studies proving it?

    • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I got the message and I don’t care. Humans evolved to eat animals. B12 is an essential vitamin whose primary source is meat and dairy. The entire country of India is B12 deficient because of their diet:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6540890/

      For humans to live, other organisms must die. We are part of the cycle. You want to preserve the biosphere that allows humans to survive? Reduce the number of humans. I am child free.

      • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        We’re omnivores which means we can thrive with or without meat, B12 is simple to supplement.

    • sicjoke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ll go completely meat free when the super rich go private jet free.

        • sicjoke@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Agreed, but it’s too easy to come after plebs like me and my eating habits when comparably private air flight is responsible for orders of magnitude more co2.

          Me turning down my heating or eating less bacon is not going to have the kind of impact that big corporations, government, and super wealthy could have if they curbed their destructive habits.

          • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            How do we hold evil corporations accountable if not refusing to give them our money?

            We can do better in our own lives while advocating for bigger change.

    • ██████████@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      people ate meat for MILLIONS OF YEARS with negligible global warming effect from the animals

      vegans going start blaming the Assyrianz for inventing husbandry before blaming Exxon Mobile BP

      like dude pick your battles

      • LEX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        People did not consume the amount of meat they do today. Meat used to be a serious luxury most people couldn’t afford at all.

        You should educate yourself instead of knee jerk reacting to bash on vegans.

        • TheDankHold@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          So if we just stop subsidizing it so ridiculously it should go way down to sustainable levels then right?

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Certainly if we also stop indirect subsidies like the failure to internalize externalities. Include the climate damage caused in the price tag, and people will love a veggy curry instead.

        • ██████████@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I am a vegan bro I hate meet Because I don’t like the taste. I hate vegans trying to turn a food PREFERENCE into a snobbery high horse thing. dude eating Factory Farm Veggies is just as bad if not worse (see Monsanto)

          Maybe Boop A Pipeline if you are truly morally superior

          • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 years ago

            Veganism is not a food preference, you are not vegan.

            Veganism is a stance to avoid harming non-human animals.

  • LEX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    You don’t need to cut meat out of your diet to make an impact!

    Cut your meat intake down to just ONE meal a day. That’s it! If everyone did that, it would make an absolutely tremendous impact.

    Start noticing how often you eat meat. Many people eat meat for literally every single meal and don’t even realize it, it’s so ubiquitous in most societies.

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Very true, but vegans are still gonna shit on you for cutting out less that 100% of animal products from your life. Idk how they can be so desperate to be superior to others that they would actively discourage improving your lifestyle just because it could be even better

      • FermatsLastAccount@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Vegans don’t eat animals for the sake of the animals, because they believe killing them unnecessarily is morally wrong.

        Saying you’re only going to eat animals once a day is like saying you’re going to halve the amount of violent crimes you commit and expecting praise for it.

        • Spzi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          It depends on wether you’re actually concerned about the animals, or about yourself.

          If you’re concerned about the animals, 100 people reducing by 10% is exactly as good as 10 people reducing by 100%. The difference is, 10 people don’t have to feel guilty. But no animal benefits from that.

          • FermatsLastAccount@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Those 100 people would still be eating 90% as many animals as they were before. People don’t need to eat animals to live, so expecting praise for eating 10% less is pretty funny.

            It’d be like a criminal deciding to decrease the amount of crimes he commits by 10% and expecting people to encourage and praise him.

    • doggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ehh, kinda. Like, it’s been fairly obvious that eating plants is generally more efficient than eating something else that eats the plants. It’s deceptively difficult to study scientifically, though. There can be massive differences depending on what exact plant-based foods and livestock you compare. If I’m understanding correctly (I’m no expert) this is one of the first academic studies that demonstrates this and has produced real numbers instead of rough estimates.

  • Zitroni@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Every time I read about meat and greenhouse gases I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle. A cow does not produce carbon. It takes carbon from plants and releases it to the atmosphere. Then plants retake that carbon.

    Humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere by digging out stored carbon from the ground and bring it to the atmosphere.

    So we have to fix the part where we bring additional carbon to the atmosphere. But yes, there are other environmental issues with cattle if you read the op’s article.

    The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

    • Vegoon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle.

      You know that the problem with ruminants is that they produce methane and not CO2 which is 25 times worse? A cow takes carbon from the ground and the bacteria creates a 25 times more potent GHG. But you are right that creating new fields and tiling the soil is a huge factor.

      IPCC on methan

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda, having failed to dissuade meat eaters on animal rights grounds. They are doing the fight against climate change a disservice by muddying the waters. If they were serious about methane specifically (which anyone concerned about GHG should be, to within (x*25)% of its contribution), they would be dedicating 10 times more of their time in researching some kind of pill to give the cows to stop them from making methane - a much more feasible outcome. But doing so does not synergize with their animal welfare goals.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda

          funny, I feel that anyone who complains about being told eating beef is bad for the environment is just two kids in a raincoat. Good luck proving me wrong!

        • ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          The other thing is that cattle needs much more space. From all the fields that we could use to grow food, a large part ends up as cattle fodder.

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            That’s about efficient use of land space, not related to GHG specifically other than tangentially regarding deforestation. Also elsewhere in this thread cattle was accused of being inefficient precisely because they sit in warehouses and eat cereals instead of grass. If cattle can roam pastures and eat grass, that’s an equivalent amount of cereals that did not need to be grown, farm machinery that did not need to run (on fossil fuels) to grow them, and a good amount of land possibly too hilly and rugged for any use otherwise put to productive human use through grazing.

            • tetraodon@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Too bad that’s not how it works. Because beef is profitable, ranchers have all the incentive slashing and burning rainforest to make more money.

              You subsidize this process every time you spend money on beef.

  • Sagrotan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    IMO people should’ve dialed down their meat consume for years, everybody knows what it’s doing. I’m not a vegetarian by any means (I love many veggy recipes though & I adore good (!) tofu), we (my family) are getting meat from organic farms or from hunters for years, that’s more expensive but 2 times a week is absolutely sufficient. Same price as before, roughly. Even my meat devouring daughter thinks like that, but she gets real cranky after 5 days of lentils, bulgur wheat and paprika ;)

    • bumblebrainbee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I dont understand how people who eat meat every single day don’t feel disgusting. I feel horrible eating meat every day. I have more energy and feel lighter when I limit my meat eating to maybe once or twice a week. Plus my farts don’t smell as awful when I’m eating mostly plant based things. It’s cheaper too! Especially when I end up growing my own garden.

  • PlantbasedChe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hate the game, not the players. If we eat them, others will substitute them. We need legal changes just like we had for abolishing formal human slavery

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The vegan agenda shows when they crumple everything animal under “meat” and everything vegetable under “vegan”, when there are some vegan foods that have higher cost to the environment to be produced than some animal products, when comparing nutrition to nutrition values.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Eating meat is bad, but this won’t be solved by individual action. Putting a cost on every ton of beef, plastic, and carbon created would create market conditions that would reduce the production of these things and hence the consumption

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s nothing wrong with individuals trying to be more conscientious about their eco footprint but unfortunately that has been turned by corporations who pollute vastly more into some kind of “only you can prevent climate change” messaging. We shouldn’t discourage anyone from doing better, but we also really need to turn up the pressure on the corporations.

      • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        What does holding corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them our money while we advocate for regulation and bigger change?

    • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      But if you know it’s a problem then you can change right now instead of waiting for regulation to force it on you.

      We can make change for the better in our own lifestyle while advocating for change.

  • uglytruck@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The TLDR: Here, you need to eat these grass clippings to save the planet. Never mind every store you go to has items made-of and encased in plastic. Never mind that your fuel efficient car is made of plastic. Never mind the climate spokespeople that live in houses and fly in private jets have an environmental impact of small cities. Listen to them tell you what to eat and how to live, just don’t question what they eat and how they live. If there is going to be real change, we won’t have yearly cellphone upgrades. Items will packaged in biodegradable materials. We won’t have same-day delivery for anything. Hospitals and medical offices will go back to glass, metal and reusables. They will sterilize instead of throwing away. Items will be repairable instead of refuse when they break. The burden has always been placed on the individual, but a company is given a pass because they say good things, not do good things.