- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.
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.
But only one can be immidiatly changed by one self. Except if you have your own plane.
New study shows that the floor is made out of floor
My God, just reduce your meat intake and stop being a wuss. This thread is insufferable.
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.
Meat is for me one of the easiest source of protein, and people in general consume already less protein than recommended. :( Many vegan option and/ or protein supplements are expensive. Vegetarian options are okay (eggs, for example) but going 100 percent vegan is difficult.
deleted by creator
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.
The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, 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, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
*2013 data, source: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C the primary sources of,72 percent of all emissions.
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)
Corporations that have been distracting from their wrongdoing for years, getting rich off destroying the planet, and continue to do so: Hey maybe individuals should switch to vegan diets!
deleted by creator
Nah, imagine all the crematoriums going full speed at once
Life in prison for the entire board of directors for the top 100 largest polluting corporations would do a lot more I bet.
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.
I’m shocked!
Just completely switching to only eating chicken or a vegetarian diet gets you nearly there. No need to go completely vegan and far easier to do for someone who regularly eats beef.
Eating local meat also solves this problem.
Removed by mod
So does eating the rich. I know which one I’d prefer
goes nuclear power does help as long it the nuclear reactor placed anywhere near the area that can earthquake
The options are greatly expanded now, because new reactors don’t need a water source for cooling. They can be built in remote places. For those willing to work with China, that is.
