As negotiations get underway at COP28, we compiled a list of the leading research documenting the connection between meat and greenhouse gas emissions.
This attitude is why meat eaters will tell you to shut the fuck up when you bring up the subject. Your statement is reductive, dismissive, and pretentious to the point that you would be more convincing by not saying anything at all.
It does say that but if you can’t add some additional context or express it in a way that will be better received by others then you’re making things worse by being an elitist prick about it. No one wants to team up with that guy. However, if stroking your ego is more important to you than solving the actual problem then by all means, carry on.
You don’t know anything about how I live my life and I don’t know much about you but I do know that if you’re anything like this to people in real life then most fucking hate listening to you talk. You latched on to one thing you were probably already doing for other reasons and are now acting like the savior of the planet over it despite the fact that even being in a position to respond to my messages puts your carbon footprint in the top 80% globally. Abstaining from meat isn’t going to save the world, which is something you would know if you actually cared about the environment beyond the issue’s ability to let you virtue signal at strangers on the internet, but it’s probably hard to see much of anything from so far up your own ass. Oh well, I’m sure that smugness will sustain you when the power shuts off and the grocery stores are empty.
we could power the planet with your cognitive dissonance. the article is right there. but you wanna talk about my personality and how your feelings are making you cry a little bit.
Whats wrong with what they said? Eating meat is disproportionately more environmentally damaging than a plant based diet. Going vegan absolutely has a positive environmental impact so if you do want to help, go vegan. The fault is absolutely not on them if people read it and get annoyed because they don’t actually want to make a sacrifice they just want things to get better without any personal change on their part.
The article did a decent job of explaining that fact without giving off a holier-than-thou, savior complex vibe. Surely you can see why that is a better approach than shaming people, especially when it’s so easy to point out other ways in which a vegan might have a larger than necessary carbon footprint. The person I responded to is only interested in being smug, not educating people or genuine change. That’s not environmentalism it’s just a prime example of virtue signaling.
Remember you can’t grow crops on the land we run most cattle on, it’s marginal or steep.
If we remove cows from the marginal land, and sheep from the steep land deer and goats move in
Deer and goats are ruminants like sheep and cows. They will have the same emissions
Presumably we won’t be farming the land, it’ll be national parks or similar
So with cows and sheep we have a chance of improving their emissions, because we can inoculate them with specific methane eating bacteria, we can feed them supplements that let the existing bacteria crack methane.
Because eating meat and farming meat aren’t the same thing and the problem isn’t from eating it. I could stop eating meat today and it won’t make a lick of difference. Everyone would have to stop at the same time to make raising the animals no longer profitable. And getting everyone everywhere to agree to anything is fucking impossible.
Instead of giving shit to people who eat meat, attack the fucking industry that raises the animals and has all the fucking power.
Worse than that. We could ban beef, have all the cows killed and the farms turned to national parks, but then deer would replace them and have exactly the same emissions
Cattle where I live aren’t on bare fields. Driving across three states over Christmas break out was wonderful moving out of wheat, barley, and hay growing areas to cattle and sheep raising areas.
It went from fields of monoculture, to fields with various grasses, trees, shrubs
It was fun trying to pick whether a distant field was spotted with sheep or shrubs (it was a long drive)
It was usually both. Sheep are remarkably well camouflaged in a fairly natural grasslands
The cows were usually resting in the shade of a tree, though one field the cows were lined up feeding on the grass in the straight shadow of the tower for a wind turbine
Grazing is terrible for local ecosystems and does harm the environment more than native populations of animals do. One of the reasons why is because humans ensure that a grazing herd faces as little predation as possible as well as providing cattle with care that native animals do not have
If eating meat is wrong and I should be punished for it, bury me with a few sides of beef because all the open flames in hell should be perfect for grilling.
It’s more accurate to say that I reject that commenter’s asinine notion that eating meat and being concerned about the environment are mutually exclusive, when there are plenty of sources that aren’t entirely in the corporate machine. Most of my meat comes from the local Maui Cattle Company, which is all grassfed on our hillsides and processed locally. The last few chickens I’ve had were also raised by neighbors, then hand plucked and cooked the same day. This does happen in the world, just some of you need a reminder.
edit: further, this island is overrun with invasive axis deer that need frequent culling so they don’t decimate fields of crops, so venison is a regular thing here if you know hunters willing to share, and vegans/vegetarians should be happy we’re helping to save the veggies.
They kinda are mutually exclusive? Weird how everyone gets their meat locally when climate comes into the discussion, yet 99.99% of the meat we eat isn’t actually local.
Hey, I can’t speak for everyone here, but I’m eating locally sourced meat raised on an isolated island, and you chose to question that, as if you actually have any idea what goes on here.
edit: we also locally source invasive pigs that otherwise would be tearing up the landscape. And there’s a population of people that love going after the invasive feral chickens.
These guys imagine that if the cows were exterminated the emissions would go away. It’s like they haven’t heard of nature. The cows’ niche will quickly be filled by feral deer which are exactly as bad as cows for methane
If you kill all the deer and leave the land empty of animals you still get the emissions as the grass rots in the open air (rotted by the same bacteria the cows and sheep use)
You can’t save emissions by reducing cattle numbers, you can just move the emissions from “farming” to “nature”
People on lemmy are more likely to be left wing. More likely than average to be vegan.
Can’t you believe that a meat eater might be at the ethical end of meat eaters? I eat local, I care about food miles, permaculture, grass fed beef and lamb.
What do you drive? A bicycle, or do you want climate change?
imagine being concerned about the environment and still eating meat.
It encapsulated the whole human problem.
This attitude is why meat eaters will tell you to shut the fuck up when you bring up the subject. Your statement is reductive, dismissive, and pretentious to the point that you would be more convincing by not saying anything at all.
the article seems to imply that eating meat is harmful to the environment. you can make your own conclusions.
I’m sure you only eat meat from your uncles farm where the animals are treated like his family.
It does say that but if you can’t add some additional context or express it in a way that will be better received by others then you’re making things worse by being an elitist prick about it. No one wants to team up with that guy. However, if stroking your ego is more important to you than solving the actual problem then by all means, carry on.
did the nasty vegan say something horrible to you? maybe just shove more bacon into your mouth while the world burns.
You don’t know anything about how I live my life and I don’t know much about you but I do know that if you’re anything like this to people in real life then most fucking hate listening to you talk. You latched on to one thing you were probably already doing for other reasons and are now acting like the savior of the planet over it despite the fact that even being in a position to respond to my messages puts your carbon footprint in the top 80% globally. Abstaining from meat isn’t going to save the world, which is something you would know if you actually cared about the environment beyond the issue’s ability to let you virtue signal at strangers on the internet, but it’s probably hard to see much of anything from so far up your own ass. Oh well, I’m sure that smugness will sustain you when the power shuts off and the grocery stores are empty.
we could power the planet with your cognitive dissonance. the article is right there. but you wanna talk about my personality and how your feelings are making you cry a little bit.
poor didums.
Whats wrong with what they said? Eating meat is disproportionately more environmentally damaging than a plant based diet. Going vegan absolutely has a positive environmental impact so if you do want to help, go vegan. The fault is absolutely not on them if people read it and get annoyed because they don’t actually want to make a sacrifice they just want things to get better without any personal change on their part.
The article did a decent job of explaining that fact without giving off a holier-than-thou, savior complex vibe. Surely you can see why that is a better approach than shaming people, especially when it’s so easy to point out other ways in which a vegan might have a larger than necessary carbon footprint. The person I responded to is only interested in being smug, not educating people or genuine change. That’s not environmentalism it’s just a prime example of virtue signaling.
Bro go back and read the guys comment and tell me it’s that deep.
^ likely said while sitting on disposable furniture made it China.
Meat is a problem, but there are a lot of contributing factors. Shaming people doesn’t help them hear you.
meat is a problem.
Ok. Solve it without making the problem worse.
Remember you can’t grow crops on the land we run most cattle on, it’s marginal or steep.
If we remove cows from the marginal land, and sheep from the steep land deer and goats move in
Deer and goats are ruminants like sheep and cows. They will have the same emissions
Presumably we won’t be farming the land, it’ll be national parks or similar
So with cows and sheep we have a chance of improving their emissions, because we can inoculate them with specific methane eating bacteria, we can feed them supplements that let the existing bacteria crack methane.
With wild animals it’s hard to do anything.
stop feeding crops to animals for low calorific returns.
stop deforesting the rainforest for soy products to feed cattle.
reduce the demand for meat and reduce the production thus reduce the methane.
or just pretend that you can’t do anything about the problem.
if you can’t even change what you eat for breakfast what hope do we have in changing society and avoiding a potential catastrophy?
Non-argument it makes sense to be conscientious of the elusive"disposable Chinese furniture" as well as what you eat if you care about the environment
Because eating meat and farming meat aren’t the same thing and the problem isn’t from eating it. I could stop eating meat today and it won’t make a lick of difference. Everyone would have to stop at the same time to make raising the animals no longer profitable. And getting everyone everywhere to agree to anything is fucking impossible.
Instead of giving shit to people who eat meat, attack the fucking industry that raises the animals and has all the fucking power.
that’s why I don’t bother boycotting the slave trade. because I don’t understand supply and demand.
I can’t say I have come in contact with a slave trade. Never seen a slave market outside the cinema
but if there was one you would not boycott it I presume. as the people are already enslaved.
I say give shit to people who eat meat and go after big agriculture because you can do both those things actually
Worse than that. We could ban beef, have all the cows killed and the farms turned to national parks, but then deer would replace them and have exactly the same emissions
Yeah, the deers living alone in the national parks, without trees or plants or any other biodiversity
Cattle where I live aren’t on bare fields. Driving across three states over Christmas break out was wonderful moving out of wheat, barley, and hay growing areas to cattle and sheep raising areas.
It went from fields of monoculture, to fields with various grasses, trees, shrubs
It was fun trying to pick whether a distant field was spotted with sheep or shrubs (it was a long drive)
It was usually both. Sheep are remarkably well camouflaged in a fairly natural grasslands
The cows were usually resting in the shade of a tree, though one field the cows were lined up feeding on the grass in the straight shadow of the tower for a wind turbine
Grazing is terrible for local ecosystems and does harm the environment more than native populations of animals do. One of the reasons why is because humans ensure that a grazing herd faces as little predation as possible as well as providing cattle with care that native animals do not have
that’s true. wild animals are.known to live in very dense populations.
they are all hopped up on antibiotics in the wild
If eating meat is wrong and I should be punished for it, bury me with a few sides of beef because all the open flames in hell should be perfect for grilling.
Who brags about having a large impact on climate change lol
It’s more accurate to say that I reject that commenter’s asinine notion that eating meat and being concerned about the environment are mutually exclusive, when there are plenty of sources that aren’t entirely in the corporate machine. Most of my meat comes from the local Maui Cattle Company, which is all grassfed on our hillsides and processed locally. The last few chickens I’ve had were also raised by neighbors, then hand plucked and cooked the same day. This does happen in the world, just some of you need a reminder.
edit: further, this island is overrun with invasive axis deer that need frequent culling so they don’t decimate fields of crops, so venison is a regular thing here if you know hunters willing to share, and vegans/vegetarians should be happy we’re helping to save the veggies.
They kinda are mutually exclusive? Weird how everyone gets their meat locally when climate comes into the discussion, yet 99.99% of the meat we eat isn’t actually local.
I’m on an island with ranches taking up most of the mountain grasslands. Most don’t import cattle. The deer have nowhere to migrate to. Think harder.
“Think harder”
Yup… that
Hey, I can’t speak for everyone here, but I’m eating locally sourced meat raised on an isolated island, and you chose to question that, as if you actually have any idea what goes on here.
edit: we also locally source invasive pigs that otherwise would be tearing up the landscape. And there’s a population of people that love going after the invasive feral chickens.
These guys imagine that if the cows were exterminated the emissions would go away. It’s like they haven’t heard of nature. The cows’ niche will quickly be filled by feral deer which are exactly as bad as cows for methane
If you kill all the deer and leave the land empty of animals you still get the emissions as the grass rots in the open air (rotted by the same bacteria the cows and sheep use)
You can’t save emissions by reducing cattle numbers, you can just move the emissions from “farming” to “nature”
People on lemmy are more likely to be left wing. More likely than average to be vegan.
Can’t you believe that a meat eater might be at the ethical end of meat eaters? I eat local, I care about food miles, permaculture, grass fed beef and lamb.
That’s what your argument sounds like.
I’m eating bacon right now.
Congrats?
Thank you!