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.
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.
Jesus. None of this actually matters, the cargo ships dwarf the output of a continent.
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.
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.
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)
.
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.
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.
