this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
8 points (70.0% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2441 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rockyrikoko@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Articles like this are dumb... This just puts the burdon on everyday people who are doomed to fail if they try. If the entire world turned vegan would it make a difference? Rather, how about some tough legislation against the top polluting companies responsible for climate change... That would mean some politicians would have to refuse a few bribes, tough I know, but any level of effort here will create more results than a world giving up meat

https://peri.umass.edu/greenhouse-100-polluters-index-current

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

If the entire world turned vegan would it make a difference?

...yes. Plainly and obviously. Most land use would be gone overnight. Deforestation would stop immediately as would the second largest source of methane, one of the largest sources of NO2, and billions of tonnes of CO2 per year (about a quarter of all emissions). No other single initiative other than maybe ending urban driving would come close.

If you're in the global top 50% there is absolutely nothing stopping you from switching to a primarily plant based diet, and if you're in the bottom 50% you probably don't eat enough meat to be a major impact.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not the eating it really. It's the farming and processing. I think it's important to be clear so consumers aren't stuck with all the blame.we buy what's cheap and available and their pursuit of that has lead us here.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A plant based diet is cheaper, maybe not as available if you eat out or fast food a lot but that comes down to demand.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes and no. If its just got survival, sure. But if someone is eating grazing meat, they're already in luxury eating territory.

So we have to then consider foods such as "fancy" vegan burger patties and stuff. Which are all crazy expensive, at least over here.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

If you choose to compare "fancy plant based capitalism" to reconstructed chicken sludge yes. But then I could compare beans to kobe beef?

Most of the plant based meat-like products are aimed towards meat eaters but a normal plant based diet is cheaper in every part of the world. The poorest people eat way more plants not by choice but because they are economical forced to.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much greenhouse gas does does a private jet make? I'm tired of them putting it on the overburdened collective to do huge industry sweeping change, when we could swat down a few more private jets, regulate some industries better, and impose sanctions and other measures on countries that aren't cooperating and have major drastic impact with much less overall effort.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

All aviation creates 2% of the GHG. Food production is responsible for 25% of the GHG and could be reduced by 75% with plant based diets.

[–] BeeOneTwoThree@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People can't think critically over why they prefer meat over vegetables. They just think they do it because hurr durr meat tastes better or you need protines.

If they actually think about the fact that they have been eating meat for every meal since they were a child they might understand that it is just a habit they have formed.

I strongly suggest to those people to try to have 1 dinner a week without meat or fish. It has nothing todo about taste and all about habits and what you are used to.

Try to challenge yourself a little bit and you might get a better perspective over these things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zitroni@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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

[–] curiouscuriosity@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds like a balance. Is that balance still intact? Doesn't the combined effect of unprecedented scale of animal consumption and existing global warming necessitate a compensatory and proportional reduction of GHG?

I like eating meat, but I feel like this is not the complete picture.

[–] DouchePalooza@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A cow also produces a lot of methane, a much worse greenhouse gas.

Besides, the problem isn't the grass from cows grazing, it's the rainforests that go down all around the world to convert to farmland to produce animal feed.

It's much more efficient to use that farmland to feed humans than to feed cows and then feed humans (1kg of meat needs 25kg of feed)

Disclaimer - I'm not vegan but I try to reduce my meat consumption overall, especially red meats.

[–] Zitroni@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Methane is broken down within 10 years which is pretty short. Yes, the other environmental issues are real. BTW, I am eating less and less meat. I just see a lot of false assumptions regarding carbon in the atmosphere.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not that eating meat accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, it's the meat industry that does. I think if we do away with certain practices in the meat industry (ie. Feedlots), we'll see those numbers go down. Maybe if we can go back to hunting as our primary method of getting meat, that would also help.

[–] Noedel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sadly, less intense meat production only uses more resources, as more land is needed. The longer an animal lives, the more resources it uses.

6 billion hunters would be a sight to behold!

[–] emberwit@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Only if you factor in a constant demand which is not realistic. If supply goes down and meat becomes expensive, nobody can afford thier weekly meat anymore except for the rich.

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Djennik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only way to do this is to not buy products that are incredibly harmful to the climate and voting for politicians that want to sharpen climate policy. Industries won't regulate themselves. Acting like the consumer/voter can't do shit is just straight up lying and results in inaction.

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I never said anything about not voting for industrial action. But if you look at it logically, if there's no industrial action with or without consumer choices the world burns, but if there is industrial action then with or without consumer choices (partly because the industrial action would alter what choices are available) the world has a chance to survive. So in our current situation devoting energy and thought to consumer choices is not just pointless if you would otherwise be working towards industrial action in any capacity it is actively detrimental (hence why BP created it as a concept)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Crisps@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It largely depends on the way the meat is produced.

You may have beef that is corn fed so you use all the energy of multiple times more corn production and transport to feed them vs. just eating the corn.

Or you may have ranched grass fed beef that eats grass in a field that required nothing other than a fence. No plowing, destroying soil with pesticides and running heavy machinery. A few hundred years ago there were 3 times more roaming bison than there are cows in the US today, so gas isn’t really an issue.

Best reason to go cut down on meat is for health reasons. And be careful of where your meat is sourced.

Correction: it is a factor of 2 not 3. See reply for source.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A few hundred years ago there were 3 times more roaming bison than there are cows in the US today, so gas isn’t really an issue.

I have my doubts that this is correct, or a very conveniently selective statistic, especially considering this

Livestock make up 62% of the world’s mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It's also much tastier.

There are plenty of things that create more greenhouse gases that should be more thoroughly regulated than eating meat.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Having fewer children is the number one thing you can do. And it's not even close.

I mean, do the other things anyway if you like. They can't hurt. They may even save you money. But they won't save an overpopulated planet.

[–] DieterParker@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The graphics 58,6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per Year and Child are 266,25% higher than the average americans 16 tonnes and 1365% higher than the global average of 4 tonnes.
~~What are the assumptions on that hypothetical child's lifestyle? Will it roll coal and eat beef jerky 24/7?~~
The Guardian article says that

figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.

Considering the global total fertility rate dropping from now 2.42 childs per woman to 1.66 in 2100, a global sex ratio of 101:100, average age at first child of 28 and a global life expectancy of currently 74.3 years (82.1 in 2100) my crude calculation would look like this:

  0.5    * 4t * (74.3 +  28 * ((82.1 - 74.3) / (2100 - 2023))) / 74.3
+ 0.25   * 4t * (74.3 +  56 * (     7.8      /      77      )) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  28 * ((2.42 - 1.66) / (2100 - 2023))) / (201 / 100)
+ 0.125  * 4t * (74.3 +  84 * (     7.8      /      77      )) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  56 * (    0.76      /      77      )) /   2.01
+ 0.0625 * 4t * (74.3 + 112 *           0.1012               ) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  84 *            0.0098              ) /   2.01
+ 0.0313 * 4t * (74.3 + 140 *           0.1012               ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 112 *            0.0098              ) /   2.01
+ 0.0156 * 4t * (74.3 + 168 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 140 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
+ 0.0078 * 4t * (74.3 + 196 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 168 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
+ 0.0039 * 4t * (74.3 + 224 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 196 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
====================================================================================================================================
= 2.076t + 1.148t + 0.518t + 0.228t + 0.1229t + 0.0634t + 0.0327t + 0.0168t + 0.0087t + 0.0045t = 4.2191t   @ 10 generations
                                                                                                = 4,2238t   @ 25 generations
                                                                                                = 4.2238t   @ 50 generations

Even if i quadrupled those 4.23t to match the US citizens average CO2 footprint, 16,89t doesn't even come close to the claimed 58,6.

where's my mistake?

pS: for the calculations I fixated the birth rate at 1,66 starting in generation 5 as well as the age with an estimated maximum of 123 years starting in generation 18.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] smellythief@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I haven't clicked through, but I bet they meant "producing meat."

[–] stackcheese@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Nah Corporations and industries creates 1000x more greenhouse gases than meat and agriculture.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rand0mA@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm enough of a cu*t as it is. If I went vegan, people wouldn't stand me, I just think I'd lose the friends I have left.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] The1Morrigan@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Who cares how much meat I eat when there's a billion cars, 2 billion factories and 1000 greedy billionaires burning the world to the ground?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev -1 points 1 year ago

No food is "problem free" and, much like normal agriculture where different crops cause different problems, different meats (poultry, pig, cow) cause different problems and have different costs.

Are insects a valid protein source? Apparently yes! Am I willing to eat them? Maybe! I've never had the chance to try any, none of the markets I go to stock anything like that.

Ditching all meats for soy and other vegetal proteins? Doable, but more expensive than eating chicken or pig, in my case. Fully getting rid of eggs and milk is also problematic for me because they are even cheaper than the meat itself.

You know what would be really funny? If cattle ranchers were forced to come up with big diapers for all the cows, harvesting the methane and turning that into somewhat cheap extra gas for cooking.

[–] IndictEvolution@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can't we all just agree 8 billion people is silly? Think about how much of it is just completely redundant. The main focus really should be massive population reduction.

Edit: Also, no, I don't mean killing off anyone, just reducing birth rates will do fine. We know even just a simple high school education reduces birth rates.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›