Whatever happened to that seaweed thing that you sprinkle on cow feed and it cuts a significant percentage of methane?
I haven't looked at the meat consumption article yet, but my biggest concern with articles that take an approach 'here's what you, a consumer can do" is that they constantly frame environmental issues as if they can even be incumbent on consumers. By redirecting action, say from fossil fuels industry to meat consumers, consumers fight amongst themselves and we can lose focus.
There's other secondary issues as well. Cultivated meat, for example, seems like something that'd benefit everyone if/when that becomes a technology, in which case something like meat consumption wouldn't fix itself. I'm not saying wait it out and hope the market corrects itself; but if we're going to correct the market through government regulation and such, let's at least start with the biggest offenders and the one's least likely to correct themselves, which again, is fossil fuels.
Edit; Oh dear, finding this labeled as a climate myth on skeptical science has me concerned. Skeptical science is basically the wikipedia of global warming denialism. I haven't read details, but sharing the link regardless.
Do you think the world's consumption patterns, tastes and preferences are completely static and determined only by marketing? We get an article every week about how Millenials are killing some industry.All these doe eyed innocents arguing that corporations are beholden to the whims of the consumer base and merely exercising personal agency will shift their activity.
And in the other corner:
Half a trillion dollars a year spent on marketing and advertisement.
It's easier to throw up your hands and say "advertisers gonna advertise" than accept any responsibility :(Do you think the world's consumption patterns, tastes and preferences are completely static and determined only by marketing? We get an article every week about how Millenials are killing some industry.
I think if you put a few minutes of thought into that question you'll find the answer yourself. To help you on your journey, here's a question for you: do you think an article like 'Millenials are killing sit down restaurants' stems from growing personal dissatisfaction with service or from marketing of ease of access alternative services like Ubereats, onlineordering, etc.Do you think the world's consumption patterns, tastes and preferences are completely static and determined only by marketing? We get an article every week about how Millenials are killing some industry.
So people's choices and consumption patterns are based on people's preferences for serivces and goods which better meet their tastes and wants. I'm not seeing how this bolsters your argument about how consumption is purely driven by marketing. Or are you suggesting sit down restaurants loss of popularity has solely to do with them losing the marketing game against food delivery services?I think if you put a few minutes of thought into that question you'll find the answer yourself. To help you on your journey, here's a question for you: do you think an article like 'Millenials are killing sit down restaurants' stems from growing personal dissatisfaction with service or from marketing of ease of access alternative services like Ubereats, onlineordering, etc.
Bonus round: Those articles are themselves very successful advertisements.
Not really, no. Third world countries are ones that have an increasing population but they contribute far less to climate change than first world countries which have stable or declining populations. Population size isn't really a determinant in how much contribution to climate change a place has. Reducing the carbon footprint per person is much more useful than attempting to reduce the number of people since it's possible fewer people just increase their carbon footprint.overpopulation is the root of the climate change problem, not beef.
less people, less beef/animal products eater
How do you want to solve this issue?overpopulation is the root of the climate change problem, not beef.
less people, less beef/animal products eater
I think if you want to consume so much meat you should hunt, but that's not a popular opinion either.
I'm not sure what's so funny. Have you purchased chicken thighs or pork chops recently?
I agree with this. The thing is though which politician today would dare to suggest this as a possible policy?Just get rid of livestock subsidies. If meat is expensive, people will buy and eat less.
We live in a market-driven economy AND culture. If you want someone to stop doing something, you make laws that make that thing expensive.
I agree with this. The thing is though which politician today would dare to suggest this as a possible policy?
Move the vegans off planet.
Damn, this thread. Some people simply don't think rationally.
No one's asking you to cut off meat entirely.
Just to reduce your consumption by 30%.
Concretely, that's having one no-meat lunch every two days. You could have a marinara pizza instead, or a dish of spaghetti with tomato sauce, or some Indian bean curry.
Or alternatively, you could eat your burgers with a 90g patty instead of 120g (or 120g but 70% meat and 30% vegetable-based replacement).
Please do the following:So, that article about corporations' contribution to global warming is just gong to be cited as an excuse that people give in order to not make change in their regular ways.
Please do the following:
-Never fly on an airplane
-Sell your car and bike everywhere
-Install solar panels on your house and stop using electrical utilities
-Only take cold showers
Then we'll talk.
*Eating less red meatSo until you can do everything right, you should do nothing? Terrible thought process. This is also called "making perfect the enemy of good." The fact remains that the single biggest impact you can have is by eating less meat. Start with that and we can work on the other things, too.
Clearly. Also, if the big corporations aren't doing anything to lower emissions then why should we bother, right? They do more damage then us, so it doesn't matter.
Collective action far more effective than individual action.Clearly. Also, if the big corporations aren't doing anything to lower emissions then why should we bother, right? They do more damage then us, so it doesn't matter.
Also why bother with diversity in media if you don't include every minority? Don't bother with a half-step.
/s
Please do the following:
-Never fly on an airplane
-Sell your car and bike everywhere
-Install solar panels on your house and stop using electrical utilities
-Only take cold showers
Then we'll talk.
Please do the following:
-Never fly on an airplane
-Sell your car and bike everywhere
-Install solar panels on your house and stop using electrical utilities
-Only take cold showers
Then we'll talk.
Clearly. Also, if the big corporations aren't doing anything to lower emissions then why should we bother, right? They do more damage then us, so it doesn't matter.
Also why bother with diversity in media if you don't include every minority? Don't bother with a half-step.
/s
Please do the following:
-Never fly on an airplane
-Sell your car and bike everywhere
-Install solar panels on your house and stop using electrical utilities
-Only take cold showers
Then we'll talk.
I mean, at the end of the day voting and being politically involved is still far, far, far and away the biggest way to fight climate change. Anything else is pretty secondary.
Meat consumption gets focused on a lot (probably too much in my opinion) because it's relatively easy and cheap to cut from your diet as opposed to buying a hybrid or making your house greener or w/e.
At the end of the day, the thing that'll kill regular meat consumption more than anything is gonna be cultured meat. As soon as it's as cheap and good tasting I'll switch over, though meat has never been a big meat eater anyhow.
913,246 total cattle & calf operations. Of these:
- 727,906 are beef farms and ranches. Of these:
- 91% are family-owned or individually-operated
- 11% are operated by women
- 26,586 are engaged in cattle feedlot production. Of these:
- 80% are family owned or individually operated
- 5% are operated by women
- 64,098 are milk cow operations
- Top 5 states that raise cattle and calves as of Jan. 1, 2017:
- Texas – 12.3 million
- Nebraska - 6.45 million
- Kansas – 6.4 million
- California - 5.15 million
- Oklahoma - 5 million
No it absolutely is backed by evidence. I've done atmospheric science at a job I used to work at and encountering climate scientists the point that was driven home the most being politically engaged was the most important thing.Unfortunately what you are saying is not backed up by any evidence. We had a thread about this recently based on the information in this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...le-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
The argument is that if you can do something (stop eating meat) you should do it because it's good for the environment. There's a lot of others things that follow that logic.These are some extremely rational and not at all over the top reactions to someone suggesting you eat less hamburgers on a semi regular basis because it's one of the easiest ways scientists believe we as individuals can reduce the likelyhood of the end of the ecosystem that supports our species.
Focus on sweeping systemic changes nowPeople are creatures of habit. Focus on the next generation honestly.
Moreover, I do remember seeing stats that mentioned that most vegetarians go back to eating meat. I have lowered my meat consumption over the years, but I can't give up on it.
I'd wager we could end systemic racism before we can convince people to limit meat consumption lol. Food is something else to people.
People are creatures of habit. Focus on the next generation honestly.
I have lowered my meat consumption over the years, but I can't give up on it.
I'm not asking that we convince individuals to consume less meat when I say "sweeping systemic changes". What I mean is we need policy changes. For example policy that addresses the production of meat and contributors of climate change. Passing the buck to individuals isn't gonna do jack but it's probably easier to tell people to eat less red meat than it is to get policy changesI'd wager we could end systemic racism before we can convince people to limit meat consumption lol. Food is something else to people.
The policy changes that would be needex would be impossible in our world politics.I'm not asking that we convince individuals to consume less meat when I say "sweeping systemic changes". What I mean is we need policy changes. For example policy that addresses the production of meat and contributors of climate change. Passing the buck to individuals isn't gonna do jack but it's probably easier to tell people to eat less red meat than it is to get policy changes
I mean if that's the case were doomed.The policy changes that would be needex would be impossible in our world politics.
We always were.