• Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Yeah, because for the majority of the public it’s a lost cause.

    I haven’t eaten meat in so long and I sincerely don’t miss it but anytime I mention it to my friends it’s unconscionable. I wasn’t even pitching for them to be a vegetarian, I was pitching for them to eat smaller portions.

    I brought up that we should stop subsidizing red meat so heavily so we can subsidize healthier foods, I might as well have been Judas himself.

    The meat industry propaganda runs deep.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That is misunderstanding the graph. That’s only counting direct emissions. Feed production is a major source of emissions for animal agriculture

      From the article:

      “Livestock” emissions here include direct emissions from livestock only — they do not consider impacts of land use change for pasture or animal feed.

  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    Beef industry groups take an active approach to messaging, including staffing a 24/7 “command center” in Denver that scans social media for negative stories and deploys counter-messaging.

    Damn, as if watching out for Russia bots and Israel bots wasn’t enough now we gotta watch out for beef bots.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      The meat and dairy industry has been fighting this fight for a long ass time now.

  • xep@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you look at the source of the data for emissions it’s unclear that it’s all from meat production: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food

    Even if we take at face value that meat accounts for 60% of industrial agriculture emissions, as a proportion of total emissions that is still only 0.6 * 26% = ~16%. It’s sizable, but perhaps we should be addressing the elephants in the room, in the “non-food” section, first.

    • stickly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The other emissions are providing necessary value and not strictly producing what amounts to a luxury product. Cars move people, clothes need to be made, resources need to be shipped across the globe, etc… Yeah you can have deeper discussions about how to trim them down but that’s a clean, easy 16% that could be won basically tomorrow.

      • xep@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Do you think say perhaps AI emissions are less of a luxury product than food?

        • stickly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          As wasteful as our AI usage is it still has a function that couldn’t be substituted. There’s no other tool that could be used for, say, a certain subset of public health analysis or massive archival projects or image analysis.

          Granted if we were using it in only those cases we’d need a fraction of the capacity. But the emissions we’d cut are much, much smaller than the savings from the meat industry. Last I checked all US datacenters (not just AI) were less than 3% of emissions. Building and running a computer isn’t as disruptive as constantly moving millions of tons of meat + feed + equipment and minutae.

          Commercial meat is a luxury because it can be entirely replaced by other calories + nutrients + supplements. And this is just a discussion on emissions but the other benefits of going meatless are just as notable (eg: agriculture is the #1 cause of ecosystem collapse; large public health benefits)

          • xep@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Commercial meat is a luxury

            This is a take I’ve never heard before, it’s not how I think luxury goods are defined, and I’m now genuinely curious as to what you consider a luxury product. Do you think that eating some chicken is the same as wearing a Hermes handbag, or driving a Lamborghini?

            because it can be entirely replaced by other calories + nutrients + supplements.

            This reads to me like it cannot be replaced without supplementation, which seems to be a critical flaw for people who are unable to supplement. I’m also of the opinion that calories are not a useful measure for nutrition, since our bodies are not bomb calorimeters.

            • stickly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              A luxury is something pleasant or enjoyable but not strictly necessary. It’s not a matter of how much more enjoyable it is but just that it can be functionally replaced (Lambo -> Toyota Corolla; Designer bag -> any other bag; Meat -> Plant proteins). Unless there’s some rare medical condition that prevents eating anything but animal proteins, we have the means to replace it (as a massive commercial industry at the very least).

              WRT alternative diets it really depends on what you replace it with. I believe there are technically some entirely vegan diets without supplements but if you’re buying your meat from the store you could just as easily buy supplements from the same place and not worry about it.

              I went meatless recently and even as an unabashed meat lover it really wasn’t that bad. Vegan/vegetarian meat substitutes have advanced a ton in the past few years when I do get the craving, but I don’t notice a day-to-day difference. The main annoyances have been limited restaurant menus and rebuilding my recipe catalog.

              • xep@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                I see, so your definition of luxury good is “something that can be functionally replaced.” I was thinking of the economic definition.

                I don’t think meat to be functionally replaceable with plant proteins. Heme-iron alone makes it very difficult to do, since iron from plants is far less bioavailable. What does a vegan diet do for Vitamin B12? Conspicuous consumption is not necessary for survival, but B12 very much is.

                I don’t notice a day-to-day difference.

                Changes from nutrition can take a long time to become manifest. I wish you longevity and good health.

                • stickly@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  IIRC there is exactly one variety of lentil that can supply B12, but otherwise it’s mass produced via bacteria fermentation. At a certain age, most doctors recommend a daily vitamin supplement anyway so it’s really a matter checking a few labels before you pick one to make sure your multivitamin matches your meatless diet.

                  I appreciate the well wishes, my doctor is already much happier with my visits 😂

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Vegans often supplement harder to obtain nutrients, B12 and bioavailable Iron is very cheap and easily obtained, so it’s usually not an issue.

            • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              The problematic nutrients are B12, D and Omega-3.

              Food specifically for vegans such as plant milk is usually fortified with B12 and D. Vitamin D can also be gotten by touching grass. Linseed is a good Omega-3 source.

        • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          To quote my own comment on this post:

          Animal farming is a waste of farmland, just grow human food directly without the mass murder and extreme inefficiency

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Meat has been associated with masculinity in Western culture for several centuries now. For some men it’s a solid 30 to 40% of their personality and some patriarchy embracing woman buy into it too. It would be a really tough sell in these nations that also have the historically highest cumulative contribution to carbon emmisions.

      • skisnow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The most obnoxiously sanctimonious vegan I’ve ever met, wasn’t half as big a dickhead as the average “I’m a carnivore, I must have meat in every meal” manchild.

  • ValarieLenin@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Meatless Mondays is a good start if you were raised on meat and don’t have a clue what veg’s eat. My partner and I are almost 90% vegetarian and we are both drastically healthier than what we were before.

    • bss03@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ve gotten to 42% vegan, 42% lacto-vegetarian, and 14% omnivore, but I can and should do better.

      But, I don’t think individual action is the “right” solve for this. I think we have to cap emissions by regulation. We could do cap and trade if will had really good measures for removal and capture, but we can’t depend on self-reporting for that.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The problem is that it’s incredibly difficult, if not effectively impossible, to actually get those regulations proposed and passed due to how much profit there is for the food corporations, who have bottomless pockets to lobby against those things passing. Collective action by reducing our own consumption is a way to overcome that issue, if done on a wide enough scale.

    • slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s weird how it’s linked to being manly and how it’s “tradition”

      So manly how you picked the factory meat from the freezer in the super market. Only a real man could. Tradition, sure, but ask your grandpa how often they would and could afford meat.

  • solo@piefed.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    About this article, one thing that I don’t like is that once more the focus is on personal decisions. This shifts the focus from a systemic problem to personal problem. It’s the industry that dictates regulations and policies through lobbying. Let’s keep our eyes on the goal.

    Edit: Of course boycotting the industry would be a great solution, and this doesn’t even mean that someone needs to be vegan, or that they are loaded wth money. Or even avoiding bying these products would be great. Still, the most important thing imo is that industries stop doing what they do.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Agree but nothing will change until personal choices also change. You can’t magically fix the emissions and deforestation of beef, and beef consumption continues to rise. You have to stop consuming beef.

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I mean that’s sort of the point of the article. Stopping climate change is going to require both systemic and personal change. Media likes to focus on the systemic parts:

      mining, manufacturing, and energy production (55.9%); fossil fuels (47.9%); and transportation (34%)

      And ignore the personal parts because people don’t like to be told “this thing that brings you joy is killing the planet” and are more open to the idea that it’s all just the big corporations faults and if we could just control/regulate them we can have a sustainable future without having to change our lifestyle.

      We are going to have to change our lifestyle though and meat consumption is going to be a big part of that change. It’s also a personal choice, it’s not like cars where the system is basically forcing you to drive. You can become vegan or vegetarian tomorrow and the only cost would be to your taste. Sure there are some subsidies nudging you towards consuming meat, but rice and beans is still the cheapest diet there is and no amount of beef subsidies will make a burger the cheaper option.

  • bfg9k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Tradies leaving trucks running all day because they aren’t paying for the fuel is an emissions source.

    Buses idling at stops for tens of minutes at a time is an emissions source.

    Target the people that are wilfully wasting resources.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s looking like if we’re going to survive on the planet, we can’t keep waiting to do something that might personally effect us in the hopes that the corporations will someday have a muzzle put on them. It could be decades until that happens, so we’d best chip in with what we can do personally until that day happens.

    • Fleur_@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Like people choosing to eat meat and animal products instead of plant based alternatives?

  • Geodad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m fairly certain that human population has gone beyond what the earth can sustain.

    • quick_snail@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s only true when people eat meat. The capacity increases about 90% higher if everyone were vegan.

      • remon@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        So you’re telling me I could live in a world without meat but almost 10 times more people? Why would anyone want that?

        I have to buy more steaks.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’d be able to pretty easily sustain the current population with more sustainable lifestyles and renewable infrastructure in the most polluting countries.

      Industrial meat, consumerism, and fossil fuel use are all driven by capitalism. If we get rid of that and work on addressing those problems, we’d be chill.

    • azolus@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      This factually incorrect. Earth can sustain the current population easily - just not with our current death-spiral of capitalism.

      It’s also one of the core eco-fascist talking points.

        • azolus@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Population projections show that we will peak at about 10 billion. What’s your point?

          • Geodad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Interesting. I’m pessimistic about anything that conservative being implemented in the US. Too many of the conservatives in this country have the “rugged individual” myth engrained. I’m sure there are a few who actually have the skills to survive like that, but they overwhelmingly vote like they can.

            • azolus@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              It’s conservative only in that it “conserves our ability to live on this planet”. The measures described in the paper can only reasonably be implemented under a socialist government that has taken full control over economic development. Capital C Conservatism as a political ideology, however, seeks to conserve existing societal hierarchies, hierarchies such as capitalism which, ironically, is expressly running us towards civilisational collapse due to climate change.

            • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Okay but what exactly do you want to know? There isn’t one single gotcha study that would answer this. There’s plenty of studies that show things like food wastage, or land wastage to feed the meat industry. There’s articles on crops that waste excess water, like almonds, or technology that does the same, like AI. You then have to use critical thinking skills to put all that together and determine that maybe capitalism is the main issue and not overpopulation.

              • Geodad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Give me everything you’ve got!

                I drank from a water hose as a kid, and I love to drink straight from the hose of knowledge.

    • RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zoneBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Malthus was a fascist and you’re a fascist for repeating his bullshit.

      Now back on topic: I’m pretty sure the couple companies that are mostly based on fossil fuels being responsible for around 90% of greenhouse gases are the main contributors to climate change, not meat production, even if it contributes too.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It’s a bit extreme to call them a fascist when they likely are just ill-informed on the actual carrying capacity of the earth. If our standards are so high that we don’t have room for people to be wrong and to learn before calling them a fascist, then we’ll actively push people away from wanting to learn.

      • Geodad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Fascism is a far right ideology. I’m very far left.

        You seem to use “fascist” as an ad hominem fallacy.