My partner and I are flexatarians, it’s lovely. The only downside is that it’s hard to not eat carb heavy, which is also an issue with vegetarianism and veganism. I feel like a spy among vegetarians.
I really don’t eat a lot of meat. When I do it’s usually chicken, sausage, or broth. The latter two are great for using bits of the animal that wouldn’t normally be consumed alone.
I feel very grateful that I grew up in a non-veg household that still ate tofu. And now I am a tofu fiend.
However, eggs are still far less impactful than beef, so, protein options still exist, not to mention all the nuts and beans out there.
Also, what about vegetables? Though I admit these should be part of a diet no matter what your diet is, so doesn’t really count.
It’s not all carbs in non-meat land, is all I’m saying.
Power to you for whatever works for you though, no judgement.
I eat pretty much the same, except almost zero carbs because of diabetes. But I’ve been eating like this for decades because my stomach just can’t handle most beef or pork at all (except the sausage) … it sits like a rock in my gut and takes almost a full day to start feeling normal again.
Ever since pandemic, meat has been doing the same to me. Muscle meat in particular, ground meats I’m more ok with.
How do you manage to avoid carbs? It seems like almost everything nonmeat is some form of carb, except for mushrooms, milk, and eggs
I try to keep my carbs under 30 grams per day. Above that I gain weight and feel like crap.
Very VERY limited wheat products like bread, pasta, etc (once per week if that). I used to use konjac noodles as an alternative but they’ve become very expensive.
Zero sugar (I use stevia instead, but it’s an acquired taste).
I make protein shakes with 0% milk, real chocolate powder, collagen protein and stevia. I’ll have 2-3 @ 16oz per day.
I also make my own soda/pop with club soda, lemon and lime juice, and stevia.
Drink about a gallon/4 litres of water per day.
And because of cost I eat a lot of frozen veggies vs fresh … mixed with pasta sauce, melted cheese on top, or made into an omlet of sorts.
Homemade soups are also great, but I currently live in a rooming house so don’t have access to a freezer anymore.
What about vegetables? If you are talking about plant proteins with not a lot of carbs go for TVP or vegan protein powders.
You may not have discovered TVP yet. You should do so.
I’m not looking to add protein, I’m looking to reduce carbs. They’re in fucking everything from oat milk to fruit. At least, that’s what my Endo told me.
unsweetened almond milk has minimal carbs, and not much you can do about fruit since its all pretty much all sweet but the fiber is good to make you feel fuller.
That’s the big problem for our family. My wife has dietary restrictions from having a duodenal switch and ending up super malabsorptive even among DS patients because of it.
So she has a tiny stomach capacity and only absorbs a percentage of any nutrients in what she eats. Non-meat proteins tend to play hell with her stomach. She’s gotta be careful about what protein shakes she has for her breakfast.
I’m watching the new climate town video as I see this.
Glad the media is still telling us it is our fault as consumers while industry and governments actively work against us.
Yes eating plants is better for the environment and your body. Yes I try to eat mostly plants and I encourage you all to try it, but Capitalism is what is killing us and eating a salad isnt going to fix it.
Actually, quite the opposite. As long as you buy beef, cattle will continue to be a major driver of climate change. Under capitalism, it only gets produced because you buy it
Yes you are right, but we don’t live in a truly free market. There are all kinds of shenanigans that happen to make our decisions have less impact. Also advertising has to be accounted for. Corporations use neuroscience to convince us to do things against our best interest. How can we account for that?
The article literally says producers, consumers, and government are all part of it.
We’ve gotten to the point that any mention of what an individual can do to reduce their carbon impact is met with “stop blaming us!”
The reality is that we are all responsible and we all have to change, including individuals. You just don’t want to change, you want everyone else to. You are just like the rich person that says they care about global warming, as they turn around and jump on their private jet.
I agree it is all connected.
I guess my complaint is the degree at which we as individuals make an impact vs Corporations and the Government. I could go completely carbon neutral tomorrow. Sustainably farm in the woods and never leave, but that wouldn’t touch the 6 million tons of Methane leaked from Natural Gas infrastructure this year.Pretty much everyone and everything can point to a bigger polluter. The reality is that we all have to change. If every time we are given ways to change, we instead whine that there are worse than us…well, then, we’re just fucked.
I’ve been on this diet for 5 years, I call it the “only meat on sale” diet
Aldi on Thursday morning for me.
Why thursday morning? What country?
I don’t know if it’s the same everywhere, but at least in the US, Aldi offers some meat at a reduced price on wednesdays and I assume on thursday morning they discount even more to clear out unsold stock.
Here’s an idea, maybe the affluent and ultra rich can stop their decadent luxuries before us peasants give up the few pleasures in life left to us.
You mean eating meat?!
Me, I just like to rape, don’t take that peasure from me. Go for billionaires first!You’re fucking annoying
Why?
Do you truly lack that much awareness? If I didn’t already understand your point you would be the last person to teach me anything. You’re far too aggressive and as an abuse victim myself I don’t appreciate you using rape to make your point. I’m reading discussions and suddenly your comments pop in to completely derail it.
It seems like you’re willfully ignoring their point to attack them on tone. I think the parallel is that both comments are saying something of the form “I enjoy doing something that harms others, therefore it’s justified.”
Did you watch the video? I’d maybe approach with caution if not, because it deals with topics like sexual assault, but it really makes this point clear.
They could at least try to bring their point respectfully, instead of derailing and pushing gore into peoples faces.
We don’t need to tolerate their behaviour, let alone give their argument even an inkling of thought.
This kind of stuff is what gives an otherwise noble goal a bad name. It is counter-productive. I know plenty of people who would start eating more meat just to not be associated with those people.
You ticked some boxes off the Vegan Bullshit Bingo there. Plus I didn’t post gore (even though I could have, milk and meat production are incredibly violent and you know it).
It’s a short film of three people talking, you should watch it.
If you are going to use sexual abuse to make a point you better be concise or the very least be funny. So yah, tone would make sense to comment on as if that was the only thing. You want to lead someone to that video, the way they are going about it is piss poor. You think that video is something new? that i haven’t heard it before, get out of you bubble. If you can’t phrase it as well or better than the video, maybe let the video talk for itself.
Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but feels like this is yet another study to add to the mountain of evidence that people will ignore because they’ve deemed the taste of meat worth an impending global calamity. When will the average persons tipping point be? When oceanfront property is available in Tennessee?
When will the average persons tipping point be?
When its too expensive to buy meat. Its not like this is new either. Here’s meat consumption over the last 100 years in the USA:
It tracks decently with the rise in GDP in the USA:
If you could graph sentient creatures’ collective agony I’m sure that would line up pretty well too
I hope things get better
People only want to have happy feelings for the animals they eat. It’s what they are told since they were toddlers and don’t you dare say those animals are actually suffering while they keep stuffing themselves. And they’d go “plants have feelings too!”
This is a very sobering read: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/27/23893028/farmed-animals-animal-welfare-human-progress-poverty-climate-change-environment
Endless nightmare indeed
Plants react to stimulus as well. The smell of freshly cut grass for instance is chemical signaling – typically they’d be losing their plant matter to insects eating them, so they release chemicals to attract other insects which prey on the ones eating them.
Is the grass in agony? It responds to harm with a chemical response aimed at stopping the harm.
Where do we draw the line? Do we starve obligate carnivores so their prey lives?
I think you’re getting a little too philosophical. Why not start with mammals with whom we share much in common? They exhibit levels of cognition far above what people like to believe. They mourn, have cultures, traditions. They feel fear, and that fear looks like ours, so it should be something we all can understand.
I’d also extend the same protection to fish and other complex organisms.
If it was really up to me, nothing would ever suffer, whether an earth worm or a human. But realistically we can stop eating the things with brains and friends and that’d be a boon for our climate, environment, and our health.
I would never starve animals in nature. My dog eats meat too because that’s what he is made to do. I don’t, because I don’t have to. Nature is cruel, but we don’t control that. We can easily control our nature and what we eat (or factory farm).
Fair enough, that’s a very good argument.
Individual people choosing to “do the right thing” is never going to work. It doesn’t matter if any individual chooses the right food, or kind of car, anything else.
Blameing people for not cutting their meat intake, is misplaced.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things. That’s the only way to change behavior at scale.
Ok but remember when Republicans made up that Biden was going to “outlaw burgers” with the Green New Deal? And how even the made up idea that the govt would stop subsidizing meat caused half the nation to flip their shit, while the other half went “no don’t be silly, we would never ever touch your precious tendies.”
Appealing to individuals is important because without shifting the public’s perception of meat as it relates to climate change, the government will be too terrified to enact those kind of changes for fear of getting voted out by the angry, barbecue-loving mobs.
Until flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans (I’m vegan btw, just need everyone to know that) become a sizable enough percentage of the voting population, these systemic changes are never going to even be considered by our leaders. So we should keep pressing the importance of these changes to collectively move ourselves closer to that tipping point.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things.
Or at least start by ceasing to fucking subsidize the bad things!
That would be a good first step they could try.
When will the average persons tipping point be?
When meat alternatives like Beyond or Impossible brands, or lab-grown meat, are about as cheap as real meat, or cheaper.
That’s really all it’ll take. It already tastes perfectly good, and it’s not that much different to cook with. If it’s about the same, but costs less, that’s when the average person will switch.
Ya know what would also limit it: Actually stopping like the top 5 companies causing like 60% of all pollution.
Just stop doing carbon credits because it’s a literal scam and just shut down any factory that pollutes more than an allowed amount until they get it under control.
This has already been debunked elsewhere in the comments
You heard him, @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee, it’s been debunked somewhere 🤣
That article doesn’t back up your claim at all. It talks about an industry.
Also, GHG metrics by volume distort the picture when CO2, by volume, is like 25x less potent than methane
That seems to put the carbon produced on the buyer of a product, not the company that produced the item. It mentions electricity as one and its not like you choose how your electricity is generated. Others being land use and food production which again you can’t control because large corporations do that, not individuals.
You know what could also limit global heating? If the fucking wealthy stopped flying in their private jets and stopped cruising in their yachts and stopped buying their 3rd house. Focus on the solutions. Subsidize green energy, tax the oil companies, ban private jets, etc. You know, things that would have an actual impact.
Yep, sick of being told I’m the problem and should change my way of living when a single private flight dumps more CO2 into the air than my car puts out in half a year, not to mention the fuel usage.
A person in their private jet is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They should not fly privately just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don’t, it must be prohibited.
A person who still eats meat is selfish and inconsiderate. They believe they are entitled to it and thereby destroy our livelihoods. They shouldn’t do it just because they can. They should voluntarily stop, and if they don’t, it must be prohibited.
The only thing that will really fix the issue is if we stop breeding like rabbits. It doesn’t matter if we reduce the ecological footprint of individuals if we keep growing the population.
You’re wrong! Population growth is not an issue, it’s our western lifestyle, like eating meat and flying in airplanes. Our planet can easily feed 10 billion people healthy food. But not if we don’t quit meat.
We could also reduce our population and keep eating meet and doing other things that make life enjoyable. Besides, who wants to live on a planet that crowded?
It isn’t that crowded. If you live in a city center it’s easy to assume everywhere is the same but that is cognitive dissonance. Many buildings are empty because of short term renting (which could easily house the homeless) and way too expensive for what it should be
much land that would be considered for food crop is taken up with concrete which actually increases the temperature of the earth making things much worse.
The need for grain and water to feed for meat production is 10 x more than what human would consume so there already is more than enough food for humans.
You’d still need humans to manufacture and distribute food to exist.
So Cutting down the human population to contain The very life style you want is still a problematic lifestyle to be sustainable
How would one reduce earths population?
You know how people have unprotected sex? Stop doing that so much.
Look at the link I posted. It’s simply not true anymore. We will hit 10 billion, but because of things that already happened. Overpopulation is not the issue anymore. Our lifestyle is.
I think we should do the extreme opposite of breeding like rabbits to the wealthy instead. Like the polar opposite of creating life.
Except there is a decline in population growth as numbers stop seeing family life as an option because of demographic transition. You do not remain able to reproduce your whole life and as new generations come up to the reproductive age they face a very different life to what it once was such as what the baby boomers were going through (hence the name). This is not meaning to pick at the boomers but to point out that the name was coined for a reason.
Except there is a decline in population growth
You’re talking second derivative here. It’s still growing, it’s just growing a tiny bit slower than it used to.
That is how decline works, yes.
Is this actually news? Seems old to me, thanks OP though for bringing it up again.
The term flexitarian is new to me anyway. Happy this concept is getting more press anyway
Well… Raping is wrong, right? Say there is this guy, he doesn’t always rape, just sometimes when he’s in the mood. But not always. Should we applaud this flexi-rapist for doing something aweful a little less?
You’re not technically wrong, but you’ll never convert anyone with your attitude. You’re doing veganism a disservice. Please stop.
Just planting seeds, some like it, some don’t. I’ll be a little less harsh next time.
Eating meat is not inherently wrong, raping is.
Life consumes other life to live. Humans have evolved to eat meat, we are living beings, a part of this planet just like a lion or hawk.
The lives we must take to live, whether they are plant, animal, or both, were not decided by us but by nature. Killing and eating to live is the only moral reason one has to harm another living being. This is not nice, it’s just nature. Does the wild boar chased to it’s death by a tiger not suffer a cruel death? Does that make the tiger evil?
Animal Agriculture and Massive Human Populations
Our modern animal agriculture industry is what’s wrong, it is disgusting and evil and treats conscious beings as objects indifferent to their suffering. But feeding 8 billion people can only be accomplished using an industrial food industry.
The answer is not trying to turn 8 billion people into vegans, that is simply not going to happen. Rather, we should be striving to reduce our numbers and change culture to respect animals and their sacrifice for our food.
One of the more effective ways to do that are to eat like a “flexitarian” and reduce the amount of dependence on the animal agriculture industry. The other key way to reduce animal suffering is not something an individual has control over – to have a human population that is not grotesquely oversized for the environment.
Our species has no entitlement to grow to maximum size and kill other beings to support this unnecessary growth. The Haber-Bosch process effectively caused human eutrophication, an imbalance, and like the overgrown algae causing fish kills in lakes, our numbers are causing the unnecessary death of a great many species in our environment and will lead to ecological failure if not taken care of. The solution to eutrophication in a lake is stop the overflow of nutrients.
While it’s possible in modern times for a person to live on a vegan diet, it’s not a normal, not healthy without significant effort and education, or more moral.
There will never be a time when no humans eat meat. Therefore, we should strive to reduce the suffering required to sustain our own life. Eating flexitarian is a highly practical way to do this. If an individual is willing to sacrifice their health and/or work to gain the knowledge required to be healthy without consuming animals at all (i.e. be vegan) then good for them, but this cannot be expected to occur globally.
There’s one big flaw in your logic; humans don’t need to eat meat. It’s just a cultural thing, tastebuds. So whatever your justifications are they are for pleasure. So all there’s left to say is that I hope that you are entertained by all the unnecessary suffering. The propaganda hit you good!
There’s one big flaw in your logic; humans don’t need to eat meat
We can survive and with significant effort and education some can even thrive without meat in modern times with B12 supplementation. What you might be able to do as a wealthy American or similar cannot be expected of the rest of the world.
You are absolutely wrong, indian people eat a vegetarian diet for centuries with no problems. Asians used to consume no cheese or milk at all and eat very little meat. Our Western lifestyle is doing so much harm to us, to the planet and to our animal cousins. Eating processed meat daily is really bad, just look at our society, we are not healthy at all! We don’t put significant efford in our diet and it really shows.
-
There’s a huge difference between a little meat and no meat.
-
Pointing at a population known for vegetarian dishes doesn’t prove anything
-
Indians are known for having nutritional deficiencies which lead to population wide vision problems.
Eating meat isn’t the problem, human overpopulation is the problem.
-
I’m from a third world country you goon.
did you notice the “or simiar” part? That meant if you’re from somewhere where you’re wealthy enough to by vitamin supplements and do stuff like use the internet to post to Lemmy you’re way ahead of much of the world who do not have access to these things.
This man was able to be vegan over 1000 years ago while he was blind from the age of 6 due to smallpox and lived to the age of 83. All while he established himself as a renowned poet, writer and philosoph of the arabic world. Granted the B12 levels in soil were much higher back then. But what’s bad about taking a pill a day vs destroying the livelihood of future generations?
But what’s bad about taking a pill a day
Nothing for me and you, but it’s a literal impossibility for like 4 billion people.
There are some vitamins we can only get from meats. Something tells me that industrial processes to make those vitamins into pills isn’t exactly helping the planet either.
I’ve seen too many vegan body builders and MMA fighters to believe you can’t get full nutrition from a vegan diet
Is it a diet of organic vegan food without any supplements? Or are they eating nutritionally enriched foods and taking vitamin supplements?
There’s nothing wrong with the latter, and I should hope every vegan does the latter. A vegan diet without any of that will leave you deficient in some nutrients.
Well rape is illegal, but honestly I see the equivalence, morally. That’s the age old question posed by harm reduction, and I think, answered by it too. And this hardline viewpoint may work on some people, so it’s a good one to bring up.
My take is that it’s got nothing to do with rewarding less bad behaviour, but about reducing the amount of harm in the world. AFAIK there’s no evidence that encouraging someone to be partially vegan actually props up modern horror farming any more than arguing for pure veganism.
Further, I think you can argue for both. Treat one as a gateway to the other.
The fact is we’re unlikely to see animal eating outlawed in our lifetime, so we’ve got to work within the confines of rhetoric, or I guess terrorism.
Yeah I agree. Usually I am more patient and understanding as well, but today I decided to be a little confronting. There is no right way, as long as we do anything at all, I guess.
…my wife eats meat: you know what she eats a heck of a lot less of since moving in with me?..you know what she’d’ve eaten a heck of a lot more of if i weren’t tolerant?..
…don’t make perfect the enemy of good; you’ll do a heck of a lot less good and be surprised when you learn that your perfect isn’t…
I’m vegan a long time now, sometimes I lose my patience because it feels like I’m talking to 8 year olds all the time. Carnism ia real, the fragile meat-egos, the bullshit bingo, the same lame arguments make me loose my patience sometimes. But obviously you have a point.
In my note app I’ve saved my old replies I’m fairly confident of regarding research, impact and links to sources and fire them up against the standard arguments. It’s cheap but it would be madness to answer the age old cliches popping up in mass under a controversional vegan post with individual new answers. The definition of Sisyphus work. I refine the posts to take deviations from standard arguments into account. I don’t spam them in a thread of full of the same cliche answers but tactically under one of them with a lot of upvotes/likes. This saves me some headaches and at least I know I countered the disinformation at least once and will maybe make some people see that the most regurgitated answers are not per se the most correct just because of their prevalence.
Damn, I am still sisyphussing!
it’s pretty crazy that no one in this thread has mentioned that going vegan would have a larger impact.
I am vegan and I would say that but it would result in a big circle jerk as always of “hurr durr bacon”.
Being vegan would have a much larger impact!
Of course.
But don’t let perfection be the enemy of good.
Does “flexitarian” mean “eat less meat”, basically?
I refuse to click the link because I hate the guardian.
Yes.
The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce. The next best thing is to quit eating meat. The less meat you eat the better. And as a bonus it’s highly unlikely to be as much of a sacrifice as not having a wanted child.
The best thing you can do to limit global warming without political power is to not reproduce
This relies on some assumptions that I question. Each person doesn’t contribute a fixed amount to emissions, and it’s not even a bell curve distribution. The rich contribute orders of magnitude more to the problem than the poor. The top 1% contributes almost twice as much as the bottom 50%..
And with birth rates where they’re at, at different levels of income/wealth, I’m thinking that plenty of childless people can contribute more to the problem than an entire bloodline of people who have huge families.
Iirc, there’s a population of livestock that can be sustained without feed crop (instead living off of by-product and untillable pasture), and reducing it past that is less sustainable overall. So while it’s true that we eat way too much meat, it’s not a great idea to get rid of it entirely in the context of sustainability. There are other arguments regarding the ethics of the meat industry, but that goes beyond the scope of the discussion.
Yeah my attitude is to carbon tax it and stop subsidizing it. If meat is a luxury it’s not something people bitch about accidentally not having in their dinner.
I think that’s a splendid idea.
Global warming isn’t from cow farts ffs. Container ships etc though
FFS it’s not only the methane. It’s all the GHG sinks we destroy to let cattle graze and feed other animals caught in CAFO. In addition it’s the whole infrastructure around the system
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
Half of habitable land is used for agriculture (5x the USA). 2/3 of that is grazing land. 1/3 crop land. One half of the 1/3 crop land is used for plants that are directly consumed by humans. The rest is animal feed and stuff like biofuel.
Crop land and grazing land for animals combined make up 80% of all farmland. Meat, dairy and fish combined make up only 17% of all calories and 38% of protein.
If everyone went plant based the global farmland use would be reduced from 4 billion to 1 billion hectares and therefore crop death would be dramatically reduced. The land could be rewilded and natural GHG sinks could be established again.
Everyday 5000 soccerfield sized areas of amazonas rainforest are razed to the ground for cattle, leather, soy (for animal feed ofc) and palm oil. Mafia like cartels of cattle breeders threaten and murder indigenous people and activists there and implemented a complicated system of cattle laundering to hide that they burn intact rain forests (green lung of the earth) there. The 10.000.000 anually slaughtered cows there are also exported to US meatpackers. The leather ends up in european car seats. Via container ships.
The methane production from bovine rumination absolutely has an impact. As does the massive supply chains and absurd amount of agriculture necessary to feed those cows.
Look up the number of buffalo circa 1800
Look up the main cause of the deforestation of the Amazon. Look up the number of cattle alive today compared to any other point in history.
North american cattle population is roughly equal to buffalo population of 1800. Maybe i had looked this up long before you suggested it. Whining about cattle is an entirely different issue than just stopping deforestation, which is more for palm oil in the region you speak of anyways.
Exactly, in the last decade or so I went from pescetarian to vegetarian to vegan and for the last few years I have been “flexitarian”. My own adoption of it is different to others in the sense that most of what I eat at home is still vegan but on average I probably have 1-2 vegetarian meals at home a week and I don’t have many issues eating vegetarian (sometimes meat) outside of the house.
I still avoid a lot of meat, especially things like veal, but I find being “flexible” also helps talk to people about it. It is much less intimidating asking someone to try having 2 veggie meals a week than telling them they need to universally drop all animal products from their diet.
Man “carnivores” have vegetarian meals all the time. This internet discourse is worth less than used toilet paper.
I think it’s more about knowingly switching out a meal rather than just patting yourself on the back because you eat mac and cheese twice a week. For every conversation we have online there are a few people that learn something from it, myself included, I think the thread is interesting!
Its mostly horseshit.
I suppose that is meat free and you’d have to extraordinarily flexible, but sure, go for whatever works fr you
My spouse is vegetarian for health reasons, so there are always vegetarian options at mealtime.
I eat primarily vegetarian, but I don’t go out there and say “I am vegetarian.” I found it easier to go to restaurants and merely say “I am not eating meat today” if I need to order something odd.
I suppose that I have been a flexitarian for a while, then.
Basically. We have a couple no meat meals per week and we have cut back the amount of meat per recipe as well. Not for the environment so much but we have just naturally drifted away from eating so much meat.
Or we could eat like 3 billionaires.
I don’t think 3 billionaires emit in their combined lifetime as much as 100 BILLION farting chicken in a day.
i cut down my meat consumption to almost zero. maybe some beef pho on the weekend sometimes… but i HATE the term flexitarian… i refuse to call myself that…
Ehh, what you call yourself isn’t important. The point is you’re still eating a diet that’s compatible with not fucking the environment
what you call yourself isn’t important.
yeah, i agree… that’s why i hate labels.
diet that’s compatible with not fucking the environment
and for health, and for a bunch of other reasons… but we don’t need another label for it… my choice of food is simply my choice of food… it doesn’t need to be categorized
Half-vegetarian is another term
Plant forward is how fine dining advertises this concept. I tend to prefer that term over anything as vegetarian/flexitarian tends to have a stigma attached.
I think “plant forward” is actually a reasonable term.
I guess I’m essentially a flexitarian at this point, though I have never labelled myself as such. I tend to opt for non-meat options but am nowhere near vegan as I only learned after my daughter started dating one. What an incredible minefield it is! You have to sit around and analyze absolutely everything. Like can you believe pepsi is vegan but not diet pepsi?!? But diet coke is. I don’t know about coke zero and am frankly afraid to ask…
Wait what did they put in the diet pepsi?
I think it’s a trade secret. Probably something like how Guinness used to use fish bladders as a filter
For me being flexible help ramp down my consumption of meat. Each day without was a win. These days it’s very rare that I eat any meat. It’s become boring compared to the fun of a meatless diet.
I guess I’ve been a flexitarian since 2016ish. I have a few vegetarian days a week for environmental reasons.
My first goal was to preferably have 2 meaty days a week and leave the rest meat free. After about three years I got to the point where I realised I hadn’t eaten meat in a while. I simply forgot to.
Now I just eat meat when I visit friends and family, or to keep my iron levels in check. It’s surprisingly doable.
Yeah if you’re flexible (I get it now) you can totally get free meat on the regular. Plus my dad goes on Costco runs and just gives me spare meat. I haven’t really had to buy any in a while and like you don’t really notice when I don’t have any for weeks. The real thing for me is the odd hotdog or whatever craving, that’s when I actively seek it out.
Are we doing this again?
The are 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions. States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean; nah eat a salad for lunch.
And what do those companies produce? A lot of them make food. They don’t give a fuck as long as people keep eating insane amounts of meat.
But if it makes you feel better, abdicate your personal responsibility and point the finger. But no matter how you vote, it won’t save the world as long as meat production is going up. They don’t raise the cows if you don’t buy the beef
Ah yes concrete manufacturers, one of the largest producers of greenhouse gasses, are only doing it because of meat eaters. Fun fact, the number one producer of greenhouse gasses in France isn’t an entire industry, there’s a single concrete factory that outweighs every other greenhouse gas producing industry in the country.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/10/3/43
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study
“He killed 5 people, I only killed 1!” Is not a valid defense of criminal activity. Nor does “concrete is worse than our food chain” mean we shouldn’t fix it
I never said that we shouldn’t fix anything, I was refuting your point that we only produce so many greenhouse gasses because we eat so much meat when that just isn’t the case.
It’s totally the case. Beef is one of the worst products out there because it produces methane, one of the worst GHGs pound for pound.
There’s also incredible inefficiencies with beef, since it takes more calories to raise than any other type of meat (or, god forbid, just growing plants and eating them). This isn’t really a matter of opinion, it’s just the reality of climate change
Please just read what you’re responding to properly. I KNOW CATTLE FARMING PRODUCES GREENHOUSE GASSES. You were saying that if people stopped eating meat then almost all of the carbon emissions would stop but like I said that isn’t the case because some of the worst producers (like concrete manufacturers or fossil fuel companies) don’t care what you eat. Even if everyone stopped eating any form of animal products and we just culled all of the livestock worldwide, unless you want to revert to buildings from the 1600s those companies are still going to be emitting insane amounts of greenhouse gasses.
States can test nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean
They generally can’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty
The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), formally known as the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground. It is also abbreviated as the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT), though the latter may also refer to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which succeeded the PTBT for ratifying parties.
Not everyone is a signatory – China, France, and North Korea are notable exceptions.
But even if they could, how would that relate?
Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.
Global warming isn’t a function of nuclear weapon testing.
This reminds me of something I learned in climatology. Those who did pioneering work studying ocean circulation which became instrumental later in formulating the general circulation models used today discovered they could measure the currents by tracking radioisotopes from open air nuclear tests done back in the 60s. So ironically, nuclear weapons testing has furthered our understanding of climate and global warming.
