World News

Reducing meat intake isn't just about reducing carbon footprint, more importantly it frees up land to be rehabilitated so we can rebuild forests to absorb emissions.

The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.

Stop passing the blame, this isn't a hot potato game when you pass the blame around and nobody actually does anything. Everyone must do their part

But only one can be immidiatly changed by one self. Except if you have your own plane.

Imma need sources for that claim...

Business as usual. Climate crisis is everyone's problem but me ! Everyone must make an effort, but not me !

It's the triangle of inaction. Corporations, government and people blame the two others and use it as an excuse for inaction.

I can understand it in some cases, but meat consumption ? There is no excuse to not stop or at least reduce meat consumption. It's easy to do, it's cheaper, ... And the impact of everyone not buying meat is insanely positive.

For real, I fucking love meat but I only eat it once a week now and it’s not like I’m fucking dying. And it’s not like what I’m eating now tastes bad or anything - lots of rice and beans (Brazilian style, fucking divine), potatoes and other veggies, sometimes a little tofu. It’s fine.

The world is literally dying and people are whining about hamburgers or whatever. Fucking insane man.

It's big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption

To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

(emphasis mine)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.

The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions

Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.

It's a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.

That's kind of the direction I started going in, veganism for environmental reasons, rather than health or moral/ethical reasons. I've gone about it somewhat slowly, picking different food items to restrict from my diet and looking for non-meat/non-dairy equivalents, mostly just trying to remove any beef or dairy milk from my diet. It seems to have gotten easier in the past few years as other options have opened up.

One of the things those massively polluting companies are doing to cause so much environmental harm is rearing meat…

Turning to veggies would cool the planet. That's the point.

This is exactly what the author of the article is trying to distract you from - corporations who caused the problem in the first place want to place the blame on individuals while companies like Exxon got rich making climate change worse even after they knew it was a problem way back in 1971.