cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/1278678
From https://sh.itjust.works/post/1278677
plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
Removed by mod
Individuals can reduce the demand for meat and the industry will follow.
industries shape and drive the demand …
Removed by mod
How do you expect governments to pass laws to regulate the meat and dairy industries if most people still eat meat and get irrational about the thought of reducing its intake?
Without the buy-in from individuals, change doesn’t happen
Removed by mod
It is always up to individuals to reduce our carbon footprint. Industrie is run by people, as are governments. They are not some artifical inteligence ruling over all humans. What you are doing is basicly throwing away your agency and hoping some miricale happens.
If you go vegan your carbon footprint drops by about 1t of CO2 compared to the average Western diet. That is a fairly large impact for something, which is pretty reasonable to do. The other big impact things to do is to stop flying, give up your car and change your home heating system. Those all are able to reduce your carbon footprint by a ton or so, compared to the average Western one. That means for your average European, you just halfed your emissions, by four choices, which are all somewhat possible.
For other stuff you are going to need to blaim industry and government. Even for some of the ones I mentioned above, like building proper hsr to avoid flights and so forth. Similar story with the electricity grid and so forth. However you do have the responsibility to work to fix the problems in your area of expertise. As an example it is unreasonable for the average guy on the street to be able to only buy plastic free tooth brushes. They are somewhat hard to find and pretty expensive, while having a low impact. But if you are a toothbrush designer it is your responsibiltiy to work towards creating a good, cheap and sustainable tooth brush. Everybody has their area of expertise, but it is foolish to expect things are not solved by humans in the end.
Removed by mod
Why not both?
Removed by mod
then stop giving the industries your money, when you can
This is a “yes and” thing. The main thing is not to guilt yourself over it. It’s hard to make a change, but every positive change is just positive full stop. Try and have a vegetarian breakfast. When you’re managing that, try and have meat once a day. Just keep on doing little things. Yes, also vote, the vast majority of emissions happen due to what happens at the ballot box, but every little bit counts if you think of it positively rather than negatively.
I think that’s where the “it’s the industry’s fault” bit comes from. It’s not you personally who have to make all of the changes, but you can make some changes and it’s a positive thing.
Removed by mod
What the heck kind of Martin Luther King Honda Civic are you driving?
Anyway, my point was that you should set reasonable goals for yourself and celebrate them, because they are good. Like I’m a vegetarian, and I’m trying to reduce my milk product consumption. It’s all part of living a happy, healthy life, not being part of negative cycles or thought processes.
Removed by mod
So you don’t actually give a fuck and just want to continue as usual while shouting “corporations tho!”
Why not do what’s right without having it forced on you by regulation?
Removed by mod
You don’t think directly funding animal abuse and climate destruction is wrong?
How would you feel as the price of steak and milk goes up? Would you vote to artificially limit prices? Would you vote to give corporations which make meat more money so they could give you cheaper beef? Heck, those prices are already subsidised by the government. Would you vote to remove those subsidies?
Removed by mod
So two follow up questions:
- If you think the subsidies are bad, what if a party wanted to put on extra taxes due to carbon emissions? Would you vote for them?
- If so, won’t it be harder to break the habit when you’re effectively priced out rather than earlier?
I would say that a landscape of nut trees with some cattle (or wild animals) under it would be the ideal. Where does the ‘regardless how they are produced’ come from, any source for that? Has anyone measured how a multi-species agroforest would compare to other approaches with and without animal input?
