Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.
https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption
Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview
If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌
Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
I’ve got a special trick where I can make pretty much the entire internet rage at me. Check it out:
I’m vegetarian.
Beef is overrated. Pork, poultry, and wild caught shrimp are where it’s at.
I guess it’s a good thing that the lone star tick is moving north
Removed by mod
What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.
The bulk of your post is probably the reason why consumption goals aren’t given - it’s not going to be the same for everyone.
Anyone who only eats 1 steak per year is unlikely to see a general statement like “reduce your red meat consumption” and think “oh no, I’m eating too much red meat”, because they are likely well aware of how much the average person eats compared to them.
“A sustainable diet leaves room for 2 chicken breasts a week”
(Really, 2 servings of fish / poultry per week. No red meat.)
The average person outside of developing nations vastly outpaces this consumption rate.
The small, single-digit percent of the population that’s vegetarian/vegan, as well as people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not have consistent access to meat are ahead of the curve from a sustainability perspective.
When 95+% of people who have the means to dictate their meal choices do not achieve the target reduction it’s generally safe to say everyone who eats meat needs to cut back.
One or two meals with any meat at all per week, never any red meat at all.
You forgot number one: By far, the best thing you can do for the climate is not have children.
Save the planet! Eat Deez Nutz!
Finally, me being gay can actually be useful
Mmm, close to 700 comments. Have fun yall.
Jesus. None of this actually matters, the cargo ships dwarf the output of a continent.
Removed by mod
Which continent? Antarctica? It wouldn’t surprise me, but it seems like an entirely useless comparison to make.
IDK why you’re getting downvoted, a large cargo ship can emit the same amount of co2 as 50 million cars https://maritimepage.com/cargo-ship-co2-emissions/
Perhaps the people downvoting you are the same kind of people without a sense of proportion, who think that turning off an LED light bulb saves the environment.
It could also be that you don’t provide a solution. So here it goes: want to cut co2? Buy locally produced goods. If you live in the northern hemisphere strawberries aren’t in season in January, and it’s a good chance that neither are tomatoes or avocado.
I could devote all my time to recycling, reducing carbon emissions, not driving, voting, not eating red meat, including forcing everyone i know to do the same - and the net result would be an iota of a drop in the ocean of change. i.e. nothing.
As others have said, until there is a global shift on how the world operates and the major oil companies, cruise lines, and airlines all shut down, nothing you or i can do will matter.
Edit: folks still don’t get it. It’s not a matter of apathy, it’s pragmatism. You will never, ever convince enough people to make a significant change relative to the big consumers. You will be dealing with the people who literally pollute and consume out of spite, and/or principle, or ignorance. For every thing you do, someone’s doing the opposite. We failed the planet a long time ago though lack of education and giving too many greedy people power. The world is too large and the snowball is over the hill.
The amount of fuel used by the cruise industry in about 1 minute, on average, is more fuel than you or I or any normal person would consume in their entire lifetime, by a lot. That’s on the low end. They consume 500,000 to 1.5 mil gallons an hour. The average person uses maybe 20 to 50k gallons their entire lives. You’d have to convince millions and millions of people to stop driving completely for 40 years to offset that. Tens of millions probably.
Not gonna happen. That’s just one industry.
Everyone’s not gonna just stop flying. Or stop driving. Or stop eating meat. It’s idealistic and impossible and frankly imaginary, no matter how much it may be necessary.
Why waste your time and energy doing things that will do nothing? Focus your efforts elsewhere. Policy change probably has the best chance of helping. But then I point back to the people actively and purposely thwarting any attempts at curbing consumption, and these people are billionaires etc. And at least in the USA, running the country.
Your edit makes me wish I could downvote this again. Your flawed logic can be used to excuse a number of ridiculous and fucked up shit. “Folks just don’t get it.” Fuck off with that bullshit.
It’s not apathy it’s pragmatism? But then you rant about how nothing matters.
Better to spend time and energy elsewhere? So you spend time and energy convincing others to be as apathetic and weak as you. So weak you needed to desperately justify your apathy to yourself and to others by editing your comment.
Don’t wanna eat less meat? Go for it dawg. Eat it up. Don’t give a fuck about deforestation? The fucked up conditions animals are raised in? The pollution and everything that comes with it? Just because cruises are wasteful? You do you, big dawg.
But to tell everyone else to not give a fuck either is just some absurd fucked up apathetic shit. It’s not pragmatic. It’s so obvious you lie to yourself. The audacity to say “folks just don’t get it.”
Airlines, cruise lined oil companies are not immutable forces of nature. They have grown to their current size to meet the demand of individuals like you and me who want to buy shit and go places.
If everyone stopped flying, passenger airlines would be out of business and no longer flying planes within a year or two. Same with cruise companies. Oil is used in more things but if everyone switched to EVs or stopped driving oil production would go way down- even more if we cut our plastic usage as well.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking consumers are powerless. In a free market economy they are very powerful- that’s why boycotts can be so effective.
Seriously. Some people here are so happy they’ve found the “perfect” justification for their apathy and inaction.
A quarter of emissions is nothing? Yeah the overwhelming majority is attributable to major oil companies, but you’re just being lazy and fatalistic. But sure, just sit there and wait for a paradigm shift to come save you from yourself I guess. Literally the first two search results I found:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/a-63595148 https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/
Right but you have to begin somewhere, and being a good example for others certainly helps as well.
I try to change my life such that it doesn’t impact me much while having fairly large effect. For instance I’m basically vegan (still eat meat occasionally, e.g. when it’s otherwise thrown away), I even don’t want to eat meat anymore, the taste just got worse for me over time.
It also has effects on the market, e.g. Meat replacement products are quite affordable and popular.
It wouldn’t be nothing and you know that. If you simplify the meat problem to just emissions, sure, it might look small in comparison to cruises, etc. But if you look at it as the multifaceted problem it really is, then reducing consumption will have several effects. Especially, as you exaggerated, if you forced everyone you know to do the same.
The last thing we need is people advocating for these “fuck it” attitudes. Should we really excuse better choices and better directions of behavior and culture just because there’s a “small” effect? I feel like this line of logic can be used to excuse some pretty dark shit.
Yeah, cruise lines opening back up and returning to business as usual after COVID, basically made me stop paying attention to a lot of this individual-targeted climate change stuff. That was a perfect and fairly natural way to end that high pollution luxury oriented industry, but everyone basically said “boomers still like cruising, so fuck the planet”.
If boomers and rich people can continue to pollute at incredible rates, just give me my stupid plastic straw back. At least that way I can drink a full mlikshake before my straw turns into paper mache, while I watch the world burn.
or eat the wealthy is a better start
I stopped eating beef about 4 years ago. It was a great decision. I much prefer pork/poultry anyway.
I continued eating beef 4 years ago. It was also a great decision.
deleted by creator
People will look at an image like this, read that 80% of deforestation in the Amazon happens for cattle, and go “I’m powerless, Exxon is bad” and continue to not only eat meat 5x a day but also actively try to convince other people that reducing their meat consumption is silly and they might as well keep eating it as much as they want because grocery stores will stock it anyway and Elon Musk rides a jet.
Sure, but like ~8 companies produce like 75% of the pollution. Their biggest con was shifting the responsibility to individuals to change their habits instead of forcing them to clean up their factories
Those companies are creating the pollution to make the things we buy. They know how to reduce output when demand goes down (see March and April 2020 when COVID caused lots of canceled flights and oil drilling/refining to reduce to the bare minimum to keep the equipment maintained).
Yes, ExxonMobil and American Airlines pollute, but when I buy from them, they’re polluting on my behalf.
They could also, I didn’t know … clean up their production processes and use alternative materials that aren’t as harmful. Exxon isn’t a good example of this, but there’s plenty of mega corps which can do this. But they won’t because our laws are structured in such a way that they are not Incentivized to do so.
And those CEOs flying their private jets for an hour are more harmful than me driving my car all year.
Vote with your pocketbook. Buy products that are produced sustainably- or if that isn’t an option, buy less.
Corporations aren’t stupid - they are very good at making money. If company X could produce a product that 10% more expensive than their competitors but sold twice as well because it was more environmentally friendly, they would absolutely do so.
Okay then, join a general strike and we all stop polluting via mega-corps at the same time and demand a change: The General Strike
when I buy from them, they’re polluting on my behalf.
But that’s just it. The plane doesn’t burn less fuel because you didn’t buy a ticket. Hell, I’ve been on planes that were half full (in the wake of COVID).
They’re polluting whether you are on them or not. The only remedy is regulation / downsizing / nationalization. There’s no future in which people individualistically shrink the industry. No more than you could have saved someone’s life in Iraq by not paying your taxes.
You’re gonna need to come up with a better example, when covid hit a and fewer people where buying plane tickets there where a lot fewer planes in the air. Companies usually want to be as cost effective as possible, meaning they will do the least amount of work needed to still get their customers money.
One big problem that regulation can tackle is that corporations seek to externalize as much of their costs as they can, which means the corporation won’t have to pay for the externalized cost, so they can sell their good/service cheaper, so consumption of the product increases, leading to an outsized environmental/societal cost compared to the cost of the product.
when covid hit a and fewer people where buying plane tickets there where a lot fewer planes in the air
Thousands of Planes Are Flying Empty and No One Can Stop Them
In January, climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted her disbelief over the scale of the issue. Unusually, she was joined by voices within the industry. One of them was Lufthansa’s own chief executive, Carsten Spohr, who said the journeys were “empty, unnecessary flights just to secure our landing and takeoff rights.” But the company argues that it can’t change its approach: Those ghost flights are happening because airlines are required to conduct a certain proportion of their planned flights in order to keep slots at high-trafficked airports.
That’s a bit of a gimmick related to airlines betting (correctly) that flight demand would rebound after covid ended and wanting to keep their spot in line. If there was a true societal shift and people flew less, airlines wouldn’t keep flying empty planes around for the fun of it. Also, there WERE a lot fewer flights during covid, ghost planes notwithstanding. The narrative of “we are powerless to stop climate change because corporations are evil” is lazy. Corporations aren’t evil they are just amoral-they answer to market demand, whatever that is.
That’s a bit of a gimmick related to airlines betting (correctly) that flight demand would rebound after covid ended and wanting to keep their spot in line.
It’s an illustration of a market incentive that doesn’t reflect consumer demand. It was also a prelude to a bunch of federal and state bailouts for the industry (much like after the crashes in '08 and '01), intended to keep businesses that can’t stay profitable in the black.
If there was a true societal shift and people flew less
The societal shift would need to be a reduced demand for travel not a reduced desire to fly on a plane. That’s what COVID created (temporarily) but it still didn’t drop plane flights to the point of consumer demand, because of these private contractual arrangements intended to keep airports profitable.
I fucking hate flying. I know lots of other people who hate flying. It’s stressful, it’s expensive, it’s obnoxiously bureaucratic (especially as we switch to Real ID / tighten security at borders / etc). But it is also the only practical way to get between big states in less than a day.
If you want a True Societal Shift, you need to present alternatives to air transport. HSR was supposed to be that alternative, but it never got delivered. For some mysterious reason, passenger railroad companies that had crisscrossed the country a century ago just evaporated. Cities grew increasingly hostile towards municipal bus depots and rail terminals. Highway expansion and airline construction dominated the priority of municipal and state governments.
Also, there WERE a lot fewer flights during covid, ghost planes notwithstanding.
There was a floor below which the number of flights could not drop due to - what are functionally - political reasons. Similarly, there were restrictions on travel that were lifted far too soon, and reignited the rapid spread of the virus, for political reasons. And there was further M&A of smaller airlines intended to monopolize the supply of travel, because finance capital demanded air travel receive priority over other civilian alternatives.
These are not personal consumer choices. These are corporate and state policies.
Corporations aren’t evil
At least from the perspective of “evil” as an all-consuming selfishness that comes at the detriment of your neighbors, Corporations are explicitly designed to be evil.
The airline industry as it exists today - a poisonous, clumsy, alarmingly fragile, wasteful, gluttonous dinosaur of a mass transit system - is the consequence of a few cartelized industrial leaders bribing and strong arming key public sector bureaucrats into subsidizing itself, as the senior executives and investors plunder the cash flow on the back end.
Announcing that you will be bicycling from LA to NY in protest does not change any of their economic calculus.
I mean, screw their economic calculus, if people stop flying they will go out of business. If people fly less, there will be fewer (and smaller) planes in the air. It’s not that complicated. I get that in practice most people can’t stop flying entirely but I’m exasperated by the leftist view that consumers are powerless because the global elites are using mind control to force us to fly to the Bahamas on holiday.
There is no “floor” to air travel, the same way there was no “floor” to passenger rail travel. Some of the most powerful and influential men in America fought tooth and nail to protect the railroad industry, but market forces (and, yes, to a lesser extent government policy, but mainly just people buying cars) eventually led to the near-collapse of the industry. Corporations can resist change but that doesn’t mean they are always successful.
Exactly. This right here. Blame the politicians that deregulate the industry and let these corporations destroy the environment so they can post an extra .5% profit.
They’re using the money they got from their customers to lobby politicians to keep doing business as usual. They have so much power because people vote with their dollar, for them, and not for sustainable alternatives.
Blaming politicians while continuing to fund these industries won’t lead to anything.
They said voting is more important than this
By the same logic, couldn’t you say that eating red meat doesn’t matter because ~8 agriculture companies produce 75% of the livestock-related pollution?
Nah, I think their biggest con is making people believe this exact discourse right here, don’t change their habits and keeping giving them money.
They are psychos that can care less about being blamed for this or that when they can simply keep bribing governments and never facing any consequences.
But they have real fear that people start being more conscious about their own consuming and stop giving them money.
Yep, it’s definitely nobody’s fault people eat so much meat that the Amazon is deforested primarily for cattle and for soy (which is for cattle). Nobody feel bad or take responsibility because Exxon is greedy. Lmao gottem.
That’s one way to not comprehend what I said, I guess.
I think it’s pretty clear you said individuals shouldn’t feel responsible for any of this
You’ve made it extra clear you’re still failing to comprehend all the words I said together. It’s unclear if that’s on purpose or you’re just slow.
God what an insufferable person and shit communicator
You can never make animal production green. The amount of clear-cutting needed for beef as an example would blow your mind. Then you factor in the ground, air, and water pollution from these factory farms, and you’ve just fucked up into entire regions, just to sustain a food source that isn’t even needed.
There are places already without trees where meat can be grown…
You’d be permanently destroying that land, and any waterways in the area, so is that really a solution?
And if the land isn’t already fertile, you need to set up alternative land to grow the food for those cows… then import the water…
This is not sustainable, and should be discouraged.
Not disagreeing that meat is bad for the environment, but I think not having kids is probably way above cutting out meat.
Who looks at this world and wants to bring life into it? I fundamentally cannot wrap my head arround that.
Yeah. Just had this convo with my partner two days ago.
Reasons why I don’t want kids.
Number one, they can’t consent to being born, If given the choice, I would not consent to being born right now, why should I force that on someone else.
Number two, we can’t afford kids right now, even with both of us working full time jobs. (Not bragging, but both my partner and I make over the median household income for our area. I legit have no idea how other people do it, because we are paycheck to paycheck right now.)
Number three, even though abortion is legally protected in the constitution of my state, our legislators at the state and the federal levels are seeking to undo those protections against the will of the people. There is no guarantee that if we had a complicated pregnancy, that they would survive or even be able to find healthcare.
Number four, we are knowingly perpetuating an ongoing climate disaster. I can’t in good faith bring someone into this world knowing that they will be displaced or die because the part of the planent they live on may become inhospitable due to our inaction.
Number five, we’re seeing the rise of far right antagonist fascist movement worldwide. At this point a global war for basic human rights is inevitable, if not already started.
Number six, there are always hundreds of thousands of children stuck in the foster/adoption system who are destined to struggle for the rest of their lives because of a lack of family support. I would adopt long before I would consider bringing another person into this world.
Thanks for attending my doom rant.
Number one, they can’t consent to being born, If given the choice, I would not consent to being born right now, why should I force that on someone else.
All your points are solid except this one. This one just gives the pro-birthers ammunition to use and strengthen a belief. Something which does not exist nor has any consciousness isn’t capable of the concept of consent. Consent is a social construct created by humans (which unfortunately not everyone believes in), but a fetus isn’t yet human (in your example, it’s not even a fetus but the concept of a human, which is even further abstract. This is like complaining a painting did not consent to existing).
It also is a rationally failed thought in that such a hypothetical still non existent being also can’t communicate a desire to exist. It can’t communicate anything, actually.
Projecting your own depression into it doesn’t help anyone, including yourself.
Consent is a social construct created by humans
Consent exists outside of humans, it just what we’ve decided to call “respecting autonomy”.
I don’t think it is forced birther ammo. Something that does not exist cannot consent. A fetus is just a collection of cells, it has the same ability to consent as a finger or a liver, in the vast majority of abortions it has no more individual identity than a tumor. Consent of the fetus shouldn’t be a criteria for abortion anyway, it’s consent of the individual that it is taking resources from that matters.
If you don’t consent to being born into this world right now, would that not mean that you should just kill yourself? I off course don’t mean to say that you should, but I’m curious why you have a drive to live, and thereby consuming precious resources that could benefit less defeatist people. Or would you have chosen differently if you had been asked when you were born.
I understand that we seem to be in a global situation where imminent doom is unavoidable but maybe you should ask older people or read up, because I think these things happen on a regular basis.
And no, I don’t want to downplay the consequences of the multiple clusterfuck of global catastrophes we’re heading into (since a long time). Maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist :).
Haven’t got the balls to kill myself. Other people depend on me. I’m bought into the life ecosystem. Functionally, I think dying is much more stressful and scary than never existing. I’m also not a defeatist, I’m working to fix those things, but I don’t exactly have a lot of say it how it plays out.
This is point for point the conversation I had with my partner as well. I wish it wasn’t like this, but here we are.
This is a perfect explanation.
I agree completely. I’m lucky to have a partner that agrees
