• bob_wiley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only proposal being offered as a solution is “be vegan”. There are about a million options that could reduce that 18.5% without going completely vegan. It doesn’t have to be completely binary. If you care about the climate, and aren’t just using the climate as an excuse to push veganism, you should be open to those other options that can still lead to reductions, as 100% elimination is unrealistic.

    If the opposite stats came out and it turned out vegetables were producing 4x more greenhouse gases than meat, would all vegans become strictly carnivore overnight? I’m guessing there would be a lot of push back from those who enjoy a carrot every now and again.

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How about eliminating factory farming. The meat that is produced will be higher quality, less CO2 will be emitted during production, the animals will be treated better, and the vast reduction in volume will drive up the cost of meat leading to lower consumption. It wouldn’t go away, but it may be more of a treat for a special occasion than something eaten at every meal… which is kind of how it used to be for a lot of people, from what I understand.

    • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This mindset is going to get us all killed. I don’t think you’re quite aware of how serious it is. Climate scientists are now saying that things are happening faster than we ever predicted, they are warning that tipping points will be hit in the next 2-5 years. The time for change is now or literally never.

      and aren’t just using the climate as an excuse to push veganism

      I am not even a vegan. I can see how right this is though. I did smoke in the past though and I know how hard that was to give up, I also know what a load of bollocks excuses I made up to justify continuing it.

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There needs to be bigger intervention then. 8 billion people aren’t going to suddenly decide to take it upon themselves to stop eating meat tomorrow.

        The EPA reports that all agriculture accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.

        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

        10% isn’t nothing, but even eliminating all meat production won’t drive that to 0. Electric power generation is almost as high as transportation, so what is the push to electric vehicles really doing other than blame shifting? It seems like the bigger sectors would have a lot more low hanging fruit to drop emissions by more than the entire agriculture sector.

        If people need to eat less meat, then there needs to be more meat free food options that taste as good or better than meat, are as filling as meat, get people enough protein, and aren’t frankenfoods pretending to be meat (like the impossible burger).

        • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree. I personally think we need the intervention to look similar to the way we changed smoking habits. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach that includes massive propaganda about the dangers of climate change, made visible in imagery on the meats, alongside massive tax increases on meat products and banning advertising of them. Banning branding and forcing generic branding would be useful too, that worked extremely well across europe for smoking. Spoiler warning for shock imagery:

          spoiler

          Meat free products are a big part of it. But growing that industry has to come alongside ending the old one, it won’t grow to fill the gap without also making it competitively viable. If governments got behind ending meat in this way you’d see massive investments going into the alternatives as it would be obvious to the financial class that it will be a growth market.