Lots of food is subsidized. And I am certainly not arguing in favor of subsidizing meat.
Earth produces fine resources. We cannot just keep increasing the denominator and then wine that people just trying to live are consuming too much.
Tell me, how many resources can each person use (or pay a corporation to use for them) and not overshoot our resources?
I am not saying overconsumption is not a problem. It is among the super rich. But I’m tired of the wealthy flying private jets to board their yachts, while people are saying people eating meat or driving cars is the problem. You need a reasonable degree of comfort. If we have to live the life of an acetic, what is the point of living at all?
I am not saying that each person should stay within the boundaries of what the planet can currently afford while keeping everything the same. The pie is clearly not big enough. That would surely put a lot of us back in the stone age and therefore is simply not a realistic option. I am saying that we should make more efficient use of our resources using the best of our knowledge (grow the pie). And yes, we should make some sacrifices too (be less greedy). The ones we can reasonably make without losing anything of moral significance. The Paris agreement is proof that there are plenty of people who have looked at these issues in depth and belief that this is doable.
For example, only a small percentage of our energy consumption is powered by solar, wind and nuclear, while the vast majority still comes from coal, gas and oil. It is not like we simply don’t know how to change that. We just don’t want to. It is uncomfortable to change, but we could theoretically make that change a lot faster than we’re doing it now without cutting back much on consumption or sacrificing anything of moral significance.
Likewise, and admittedly on a much smaller scale, you don’t want to change to veganism, which could reduce your carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent. And just like switching to clean power sources would not put us back in the stone ages, you’d not end up living like an ascetic if you’d switch to a vegan diet.
But you’re not off the hook just because you’re not the major cause of the problem. We’re all in this together and we’ve all got to act responsibly within our means. How can you expect others to change if you won’t? Should all small countries only change when the big countries change? Should all small cities only change when the big cities change? Should the rich only change when the super rich change? Etc.
And are you even aware where you sit in terms of your income/wealth compared to the rest of the world though? I’m betting that the majority of the world thinks you’re rich. The majority of the world points at people like you and me, you’re pointing to the super rich, the super rich point to the politicians, the politicians point at industry, industry points at the share holders, the share holders point at the consumers, etc.
At least you get it, though. There is no path forward to be resource neutral. Few want to acknowledge that. Even the most resource-conscious person in a wealthy country uses too much one way or another.
And to me, a vegan diet is asceticism. That’s just my tastes. You are free to like vegan food, I don’t. I’m sorry I’m not you.
I never asked to be born. Not a day goes by I don’t wish I wasn’t. My parents wanted a play toy, so here I am, forced to pay bills on a collapsing planet. But now that existence has been thrust upon my, I want to enjoy what I can. Sorry that apparently makes me an awful person.
And to me, a vegan diet is asceticism. That’s just my tastes. You are free to like vegan food, I don’t. I’m sorry I’m not you.
Can’t argue against that. Tastes differ for sure. Except for to say that you’d be the first person who I haven’t blow their socks off with my awesome vegan cooking skills. You’d be seriously surprised with what’s possible :) Most people have not a single clue. Tastes differ, but if I’d be a betting man I’d bet you that you don’t know vegan food nearly as well as you think you do.
And from a climate perspective reduction is always an option. In many cases there are vegan or vegetarian options that are nearly indistinguishable from the original. I mean are you really going to taste the difference between a Thai massaman curry with chicken or with tofu? A spaghetti bolognese with ground beef or with beyond ground beef? The flavor doesn’t come from the meat; it comes from the herbs. And you could consider: do you really need dead pig flesh on your pizza or are there other pizza’s that taste just as good or are there entirely different things that you could eat that would be even healthier and just as satisfying?
When it comes to ethics, veganism is a pretty black and white thing. When it comes climate it’s all gray scales. I have not forbidden myself to fly ever again, but I’ve been taking the train through Europe the last couple of years even though that cost me nearly twice as much time and money each time I did it. Flexitarian, purely from a climate perspective, makes a lot of sense.
Okay, it’s an example, but as far as I can see from that second article beyond is just not disclosing. Nevertheless in general plant based foods are way more environmentally friendly than animal based foods. Even the so-called sustainable ones:
Lots of food is subsidized. And I am certainly not arguing in favor of subsidizing meat.
Earth produces fine resources. We cannot just keep increasing the denominator and then wine that people just trying to live are consuming too much.
Tell me, how many resources can each person use (or pay a corporation to use for them) and not overshoot our resources?
I am not saying overconsumption is not a problem. It is among the super rich. But I’m tired of the wealthy flying private jets to board their yachts, while people are saying people eating meat or driving cars is the problem. You need a reasonable degree of comfort. If we have to live the life of an acetic, what is the point of living at all?
I am not saying that each person should stay within the boundaries of what the planet can currently afford while keeping everything the same. The pie is clearly not big enough. That would surely put a lot of us back in the stone age and therefore is simply not a realistic option. I am saying that we should make more efficient use of our resources using the best of our knowledge (grow the pie). And yes, we should make some sacrifices too (be less greedy). The ones we can reasonably make without losing anything of moral significance. The Paris agreement is proof that there are plenty of people who have looked at these issues in depth and belief that this is doable.
For example, only a small percentage of our energy consumption is powered by solar, wind and nuclear, while the vast majority still comes from coal, gas and oil. It is not like we simply don’t know how to change that. We just don’t want to. It is uncomfortable to change, but we could theoretically make that change a lot faster than we’re doing it now without cutting back much on consumption or sacrificing anything of moral significance.
Likewise, and admittedly on a much smaller scale, you don’t want to change to veganism, which could reduce your carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent. And just like switching to clean power sources would not put us back in the stone ages, you’d not end up living like an ascetic if you’d switch to a vegan diet.
But you’re not off the hook just because you’re not the major cause of the problem. We’re all in this together and we’ve all got to act responsibly within our means. How can you expect others to change if you won’t? Should all small countries only change when the big countries change? Should all small cities only change when the big cities change? Should the rich only change when the super rich change? Etc.
And are you even aware where you sit in terms of your income/wealth compared to the rest of the world though? I’m betting that the majority of the world thinks you’re rich. The majority of the world points at people like you and me, you’re pointing to the super rich, the super rich point to the politicians, the politicians point at industry, industry points at the share holders, the share holders point at the consumers, etc.
The largest thing you can do is have fewer kids: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
At least you get it, though. There is no path forward to be resource neutral. Few want to acknowledge that. Even the most resource-conscious person in a wealthy country uses too much one way or another.
And to me, a vegan diet is asceticism. That’s just my tastes. You are free to like vegan food, I don’t. I’m sorry I’m not you.
I never asked to be born. Not a day goes by I don’t wish I wasn’t. My parents wanted a play toy, so here I am, forced to pay bills on a collapsing planet. But now that existence has been thrust upon my, I want to enjoy what I can. Sorry that apparently makes me an awful person.
I think we understand each other.
Can’t argue against that. Tastes differ for sure. Except for to say that you’d be the first person who I haven’t blow their socks off with my awesome vegan cooking skills. You’d be seriously surprised with what’s possible :) Most people have not a single clue. Tastes differ, but if I’d be a betting man I’d bet you that you don’t know vegan food nearly as well as you think you do.
And from a climate perspective reduction is always an option. In many cases there are vegan or vegetarian options that are nearly indistinguishable from the original. I mean are you really going to taste the difference between a Thai massaman curry with chicken or with tofu? A spaghetti bolognese with ground beef or with beyond ground beef? The flavor doesn’t come from the meat; it comes from the herbs. And you could consider: do you really need dead pig flesh on your pizza or are there other pizza’s that taste just as good or are there entirely different things that you could eat that would be even healthier and just as satisfying?
When it comes to ethics, veganism is a pretty black and white thing. When it comes climate it’s all gray scales. I have not forbidden myself to fly ever again, but I’ve been taking the train through Europe the last couple of years even though that cost me nearly twice as much time and money each time I did it. Flexitarian, purely from a climate perspective, makes a lot of sense.
Don’t count on beyond meat-type substitutes to be environmentally friendly: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4355008-beyond-meat-may-be-bad-for-environment
https://web.archive.org/web/20230510190437/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/business/beyond-meat-impossible-emissions.html
Okay, it’s an example, but as far as I can see from that second article beyond is just not disclosing. Nevertheless in general plant based foods are way more environmentally friendly than animal based foods. Even the so-called sustainable ones:
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat