Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.
https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption
Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview
If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌
Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
All you fuckers act like your individual choice to not eat meat or have kids won’t just have another eat up the same resources or have kids in your stead. We need smart people to have ethical kids and we need extreme systematic political change for any real affect whatsoever. Even if the ENTIRE WORLD dropped red meat, while still a good chunk, it’s only 6% of our global annual emissions that we’d save. The top 3 sectors for emissions are energy transportation and general industry which makes up about 75% of global emissions, at about 25% each. The individual choices not mattering as much as political systematic change is huge, and that won’t happen if the Trumpers are having most of the kids and we’re having stupid divisive arguments about what our individual food choices should be.
You have anger problems as well as responsibility problems.
Jesus. None of this actually matters, the cargo ships dwarf the output of a continent.
The entire worlds cargo ships emit 3% of the planets GHG emissions.
Animal agriculture is 15-20%. It’s equal to the ENTIRE transport sector (cars, trucks, boats, planes etc).
As a consumer you can’t easily change your cargo ship usage, or cars or planes, but you can absolutely change your diet, literally today.
I did! And I grew up on a dairy farm in rural NZ.
Oh look a Lying Fuckwit appears.
all of agriculture is only about 20%. animal agriculture is just a facet of that
Hahaha why do people just spout complete bullshit like they know anything.
A Poore and Nemeck 2008 meta-analysis covering 38,000 farms in 119 countries found that food systems contribute 26% of the planets GHG emissions, of which ~57% comes from animal ag. Meaning this study found ~15% of the entire planets GHG comes from animal ag.
Don’t forget, 70% of the food we grow is fed directly to farm animals instead of humans.
Stop spewing bullshit and look up the data?
poore-nemecek 2018 found no such thing.
I’m guessing this is your alt account huh. Because your last one got banned? Still speaking with the same monosyllabic single sentence “no-u” I see.
you are lying about the findings of a study and now making things up about other users. please seek help.
Which continent? Antarctica? It wouldn’t surprise me, but it seems like an entirely useless comparison to make.
Not really, check out their claim on google. Ships are polluting a shitton. They have huge engines that run on the crappiest fuel known to man. It’s so bad, that they have to switch to diesel by law when comming close to the shore / port so as to meet any semblence of environmental law. Something like the top 10 ships pollute more than all cars on Earth combined (exhaust gasses, not tire wear / brake dust).
Is burning bunker fuel in international waters very polluting and should someone try to do something about it? Yes it is and yes they should. And the good news is that they have been working at it: https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx
But were the more polluting cargo ships from the past more polluting than “a continent”? Probably only if that continent was not Asia, Europe, America or Africa. If they were and I’m wrong, then I would love to see a source. Telling me to “google it” is not a source, I already tried looking for it when I first asked the question and I could find no info about this claim. It seemed like a hyperbole comparison that they made up.
I also tried looking up your claim that 10 ships pollute more than all cars combined, and the first result was an article debunking a similar myth (about 15 ships): https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2021/04/no-sixteen-large-ships-do-no-pollute-more-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/
You can’t find it because you don’t want to find it, you think it’s some right wing talking point when it’s not.
I post literal proof that the shit that you made up, is made up. And your answer is to double down and throw insults around, and even now 2 weeks later you’re still at it. Somehow you’re not very convincing.
I’m not trying to convince you, you’re not here to learn, you’re here to be a lying cocksucker, I’m just here to point that out.
Your willingness to make things up, your doubling down when it becomes obvious to others that you made stuff up and then finally your reaction to jump to hatred of those that demonstrated that you make stuff up … It all makes you come across as unhinged.
i’ve replaced beef in my diet with kangaroo for exactly this reason… it’s not the same, but it’s great in its own right and contains a load of iron. makes cutting beef out much easier
bonus: roo populations have to be managed otherwise in modern australia they tend to multiply uncontrolled and it’s a problem, so it’s either eat the meat or waste it… roo meat isn’t farmed
Plus it’s delicious, it either tastes exactly like white tail deer or perhaps i was scammed
i’ve heard it does taste like that yes, but haven’t tried myself because idk where to get venison in aus! roo is literally available in mince, diced, steaks, sausages, etc in supermarkets here :p
If I can find kangaroo in canada, I suspect you can find deer in australia.
I could devote all my time to recycling, reducing carbon emissions, not driving, voting, not eating red meat, including forcing everyone i know to do the same - and the net result would be an iota of a drop in the ocean of change. i.e. nothing.
As others have said, until there is a global shift on how the world operates and the major oil companies, cruise lines, and airlines all shut down, nothing you or i can do will matter.
Edit: folks still don’t get it. It’s not a matter of apathy, it’s pragmatism. You will never, ever convince enough people to make a significant change relative to the big consumers. You will be dealing with the people who literally pollute and consume out of spite, and/or principle, or ignorance. For every thing you do, someone’s doing the opposite. We failed the planet a long time ago though lack of education and giving too many greedy people power. The world is too large and the snowball is over the hill.
The amount of fuel used by the cruise industry in about 1 minute, on average, is more fuel than you or I or any normal person would consume in their entire lifetime, by a lot. That’s on the low end. They consume 500,000 to 1.5 mil gallons an hour. The average person uses maybe 20 to 50k gallons their entire lives. You’d have to convince millions and millions of people to stop driving completely for 40 years to offset that. Tens of millions probably.
Not gonna happen. That’s just one industry.
Everyone’s not gonna just stop flying. Or stop driving. Or stop eating meat. It’s idealistic and impossible and frankly imaginary, no matter how much it may be necessary.
Why waste your time and energy doing things that will do nothing? Focus your efforts elsewhere. Policy change probably has the best chance of helping. But then I point back to the people actively and purposely thwarting any attempts at curbing consumption, and these people are billionaires etc. And at least in the USA, running the country.
A quarter of emissions is nothing? Yeah the overwhelming majority is attributable to major oil companies, but you’re just being lazy and fatalistic. But sure, just sit there and wait for a paradigm shift to come save you from yourself I guess. Literally the first two search results I found:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/a-63595148 https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/
from your article:
That said, other areas of life are a bigger source of greenhouse gases — for instance the transport and aviation sector. Driving 10,000 kilometers (6,000 miles) a year causes over 2 tons in CO2 equivalents, as does a round-trip flight from Europe to New York. That figure doubles when you fly from Europe to Asia or South America.
Are bilionairs white meat?
Accounting for emissions per kilogram isn’t that fair, can we account for emissions per 1000 kilocalorie? Or emissions per protein?
A Poorer & Nemecek meta-analysis (2008) found that beef uses 20x more land and produces 10-20x more GHG than alternative meat (like impossible meat or classic fake meat at the supermarket). Lean beef is 26g of protein, plant meat is 25g (plant meat does have half the kilokalories)
I did the research for you! All I ask is that you forever go vegan forever thank you (or maybe just try impossible mince in your spag bol next time, either or)
.
The single best thing you can do for the climate is not existing. The next best thing is not having kids. The lifetime of consumption of a person is out of the equation without that person. Until we figure out how to live sustainably on this earth, overpopulation is a real problem.
Edit: To be clear, I want you to still exist with us in this world. Especially since I don’t believe in any kind of afterlife. I’m just stating a tough truth with no clear action statement, besides maybe figuring put how to live truly carbon-neutral. Some things are just a catch-22.
You first, buddy.
If not, this is just a slippery slope argument to “those other people shouldn’t exist/have babies”. That’s just the door to eco-fascism.
Im sorry if it makes me an ecofascist, but that Trailer park welfare mom with 6 kids and her 4 baby daddies that have 2 kids each of their own are a problem.
and there’s plenty of other cultures with a similar problem of having too many kids and not being able to provide for any of them.
*those are real problems, and people arent insane for criticising them. *
not to mention more of then than not, those kids grow up poor and have miserable lives, who go on to repeat what their parents did. starting the cycle all over again.
Nobody is saying people cant have kids, but there’s a line of whats reasonable. This isn’t the middle ages where you have a gaggle of kids because you need manual labor for the farm and you expect half of them to die before they reach 20.
Oh, so you get to decide who gets to have kids and how many? And the “trailer park welfare mom” is your problem? Like, the straw(wo)man you made up with ingredients from classism, sexism and eugenics?
Yea, that makes you a regular fascist. The “eco” is just the excuse.
And notice it’s the woman who is the centre of this made up problem. Not the dads. Not the poverty, not the system or lack of access to birth control options… Wonder why he didn’t bring up the Nazi billionaire with his hareem he keeps in his million dollar compound…
No it’s the loose woman in a trailer park.
You can have honest and valid concerns about overpopulation. But you aren’t going to get any respect from me if it comes out of your mouth like that.
First mistake was assuming I was looking for respect from a comment section on the internet.
You’re right, I Unintenitonally used a straw man argument. and what did you do, turn around and you used one right back, insenuiating that I think I get to decide who can reproduce.
give me a fucking break.
