this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
119 points (91.6% liked)
Science
12988 readers
111 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There sure is a lot of effort currently to distract from the fact that most greenhouse gasses are created from industrial sources & not individual diets.
This is an industrial source, the meat industry.
I still don't understand this logic. Every single product made is consumed by an individual or a business in a chain that eventually sells products to individuals.
Industry exists to supply consumption, and the only customer is humans.
but when you dont regulate corporations they will exploit and destroy anything and everything to monopolize and capitalize to the fullest extent. its not that the consumption of meat is bad, from a responsible regenerative agroforestry standpoint raising animals can help your regenerative agriculture system. it is monoculture and monopolization of the industry, pushing out responsible small scale community providers etc. that produce in a more ecologically responsible way. not to negate that populations consuming a lot of meat daily do end up becoming a market for irresponsible producers that "need to keep up with demand" to continually profit.
Meat is in fact bad, you have to grow plants to feed animals and the ratio of feed to meat produced is really really low, around 1:10 If you use those plants to instead directly provide nutrition to humans the ratio is 1:1
Responsible meat production uses orders of magnitude more land, which there simply isn't enough of if we wanted to replace our current meat consumption levels.
Either we can reduce consumption, keep polluting, or look at some of these alternative technologies like lab grown meat.
I agree, but it is important to note that is not the only source and cattle also consumes a lot of horizontal space where forests could be, so that also plays a role. It is never just one thing, but a plethora of intertwined problems.
Realistically, the world's not going to go vegan. Animal based protein and fats are here to stay. The only way to combat the land usage and emissions associated with cattle and pigs are to develop a viable commercial source for the proteins and fats they provide. Not just plant-based burgers, but lab-grown meat and alternatives to eggs/butter/milk/milk fat/etc.
And until they can compete with the current method of procurement in price, it won't change.
Which I never said it would. It is nevertheless important to at the bare minimum create some degrowth in that area, and replace as much as possible with alternatives, primarily my point was that you cannot say there is a unique contributor to the climate crisis, and while I agree with the first comment that (paraphrasing them) the most important thing to realise here is that the bourgeoisie class is the main contributor to Co2 emissions, the working class people need to agree to certain changes. Cars need to go, animal based meat needs to be gradually diminished, consumerism must stop, etc. It is not one single issue that causes it.
Also, I do think it's realistic to get people to eat less meat. Going one or two days without meat, or on days you do have meat just having less, would make a substantial impact. A lot of cultures eat a lot less meat than north american where people seem to expect a whole steak for each meal. Both Asian and Indian food has a lot less meat in each dish, for example.
The mostly meat and potatoes diet is something we can change realistically, I think.