• VariousWorldViews@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eating the rich is by far the most eco-friendly approach as it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    • PanaX@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I vehemently disagree with this statement.

      We need to compost the rich and use that as a soil amendment to grow heirloom vegetables.

    • r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn’t ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).

      Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?

        • r1veRRR@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Again, would you think this a joke if racists made it after you told them about small way they are racist every day? Wouldn’t you see very clearly that it’s a way to remove any and all personal responsibility?

          And if you had read my comment, you’d actually see I do think we should do both. Most vegans agree, do you think most non-vegans agree? Which of the two groups do you think is more likely to actually do things that affect change in the real world? The shit posters, or the people demonstrating a willingness to change fundamental lifestyle choices?

  • krayj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

    “Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”

    …which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

    Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

      So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy

  • Another Llama ⓥ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A couple of people have spoken to me before about wanting to cut back on, or completely cut meat from their diets, but didn’t know where to start. If anyone reading this feels the same way, here’s some fairly basic recipies that I usually recommend (Bosh’s tofu curry is straight up one of the best currys i’ve ever had - even my non-vegan family members love it)

    Written:

    Videos:

    Tofu is also super versatile and is pretty climate-friendly. there’s a bazillion different ways to do tofu, but simply seasoning and pan frying some extra/super firm tofu (like you do with chicken) with some peppers and onions, for fajitas, is an easy way to introduce yourself. Here’s a little guide for tofu newbies: A Guide to Cooking Tofu for Beginners - The Kitchn. If you wanna level up your tofu game with some marinades here’s six.

    Lentils and beans are also super planet friendly, super cheap, and super versatile! You’ll be able to find recipies all over that are based around lentils and beans so feel free to do a quick internet search.

    Sorry for the huge, intimidating wall of text! I do hope someone interested in cutting back on meat found this useful though :)

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the things that annoys me about vegans… is they always try to convince me [this recipe] always tastes like the real thing.

      And I think any one who eats meat on a regular basis is going to know an impossible burger is not beef- it might be the closest, sure.

      Probably the best way to “convert” people- or encourage reductions- is to be less apologetic. Tofu is wonderful and delicious as it’s own thing- but as tofu-chicken or tofurky or anything of that sort, it sets expectations that can never be met.

      Forgetting to mention a dish that stands in its own happens to be meatless… well, my parents were halfway through the second bowl of a tofu stir fry before they realized it.

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

        One of the things that annoys me about vegans… is they always …

        And one thing that annoys me about non-vegans is that they always tend to stereotype vegans. There are nearly 100 million vegans in the world my friend. We are not all the same.

      • r1veRRR@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really depends on the food, and just how much “into” food you are. We’re probably never going to have a perfect replacement for a medium rare steak. But how many meat eaters eat medium rare? 90% of the women I know, and 70% of men will happily eat a shoe sole steak smothered in cheap ketchup, or pink sludge pressed into chicken nugget form. Those things can definitely be made vegan, and those people (generally, more often than not) wouldn’t taste the difference.

        But yes, meat alternatives (Tofu, Tempeh, BEANS), instead of replacements (Beyond Meat) are the better long term option.

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

    I upvoted because this message still didn’t reach everyone, but I guess it’s just that people are in denial… like, isn’t this obvious? And weren’t there already dozens of studies proving it?

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was just talking about this idea with a friend. We decided it would be political suicide in the US for anyone to suggest eating less meat.

    People would literally rather see the world burn than give up their chicken nuggets.

    I’m not even hardcore vegetarian. I looked at the situation and agreed it’s hard to ethically justify eating meat. So I started eating less. I’m down to pretty much just “sometimes I get a pizza slice with a meat topping if there’s nothing good without meat”. Maybe I’ll cut that out too one day.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    We should keep their brain, dick and balls so we can clone the billionaires (adult sized from the clone-0-matic) then before they wake up, we upload their mind, and we fuck them with their own dick! Hey if you collect enough you could open up an only fans Page!

  • Zitroni@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    • DouchePalooza@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

    • Vegoon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle.

      You know that the problem with ruminants is that they produce methane and not CO2 which is 25 times worse? A cow takes carbon from the ground and the bacteria creates a 25 times more potent GHG. But you are right that creating new fields and tiling the soil is a huge factor.

      IPCC on methan

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel that anyone who advocates to stop eating meat for methane reasons is a vegetarian in disguise who latched onto global climate change to push their own agenda, having failed to dissuade meat eaters on animal rights grounds. They are doing the fight against climate change a disservice by muddying the waters. If they were serious about methane specifically (which anyone concerned about GHG should be, to within (x*25)% of its contribution), they would be dedicating 10 times more of their time in researching some kind of pill to give the cows to stop them from making methane - a much more feasible outcome. But doing so does not synergize with their animal welfare goals.

        • ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The other thing is that cattle needs much more space. From all the fields that we could use to grow food, a large part ends up as cattle fodder.

    • curiouscuriosity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • BeeOneTwoThree@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ragepaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Saying someone is “hurr durr meat tastes better” is wrong is so dismissive of other people and completely insufferable.

      I agree, people should eat less meat. We often have meals in my house that don’t feature meat. But guess what, I think meat tastes better.

      The best way to alienate people and turn them against your point of view is to be an insufferable twat.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      • Little1Lost@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I lecte you about drinking strawberry milk wrong!!1!!1!!
        putting the strawberry pulver in almond milk is better because almond milk is a lot thicker what really fits the strawberry taste. But i would not reccomend drinking it raw because i dont really like it

        At least here somemmilk alternatives are cheaper then the cheap normal milk so it could even be profitable to test them out or “gasp” to mix them with milk (i did not test it but could be interesting)

    • r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Overpopulation” is simply one perspective on the problem of overconsumption. It’s the lazy option, because esp. childfree people can pretend they tOTallY would’ve had 5 children, but they valiantly put the planet before their personal wishes. Incidentally, those same people then do nothing else and smugly point at other people. The truth is you didn’t want to have children anyway, so you saved 0 CO2. I say this as a childfree person myself.

      We can either reduce consumption or reduce population. I find only one of these has a chance to happen ethically, without, you know, genocide.

  • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    And articles like this require electricity for the duration of it’s existence… and people aren’t going to stop eating meat any time soon

    • Duxon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I have, partially based on scientific data like this. It’s okay that you won’t.

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

    • ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The most nutrient dense food might be potatoes, if you’re about proteins and stuff like omega3 then fish, and if you’re all about the most vitamins then pickled kale and similar stuff