747
submitted 2 years ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] oce@jlai.lu 39 points 2 years ago
[-] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 years ago

Killing other people's children is even more environmentally friendly!

[-] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Drop the gofundme!

[-] Zacryon@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Killing yourself as well!

[-] federalreverse@feddit.de 30 points 2 years ago

This whole "have one fewer child" thing is totally bonkers, because even on the face of it, it really only makes sense for people in Western nations with their current lifestyles. It's also an average over all the people in that country, meaning it's heavily spoiled by rich kids. Essentially, 1. you can't know beforehand how your child will live and 2. emissions don't scale linearly with the number of people (again, look at the difference between countries). And then there's the anti-humane undertone of it.

[-] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And we have to choose only one?

edit: Also, I have avoid one fewer child for more than 2 decade !

And avoided transatlantic plane travel too!

[-] oce@jlai.lu 3 points 2 years ago

No, but some seem more impactful and easier to get socially accepted, so we should probably focus on those.

[-] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

I don't think that we should focus on something specific, for sure you will not convince everyone to go vegan, but it's the same to go car free

Some people might find it easier to to vegan and stop plain that not owning a car, and other opposite, I think that at this point everything is good to take

[-] schnokobaer@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago

Focus on doing what you can, not on thinking what to focus on.

[-] LazyKoala@feddit.de 14 points 2 years ago

Or just you know, all of the above :)

[-] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

One can easily be vegan while doing all of those, I am :)

[-] endhits@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Going car free isn't an option for most Americans, unfortunately.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

The average trip length in America is something like 2 mi in distance. That's a distance that you could walk, and you can bike that in less than 5 minutes. So Americans really can meet a lot of their daily travel needs to the store and short errands by means other than a car.

The biggest problem in America is twofold: infrastructure and behavioral patterns.

[-] tomi000@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Your point is valid, but the fact is none of those are enough on their own. Even if we get rid of all emissions except for the cattle industry, wed still shoot way past the 1.5° mark. So not going at least vegetarian was never an option.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Catal is the worst as far as animal emissions. Sticking with chicken or fish if you want your animal protein is the way to go.

[-] tomi000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

If it has to be animals, yes.

[-] Zacryon@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

The environmentally beneficial effects of plant based diets or a vegan lifestyle are not reduced to harmful GHG emissions alone but encompass a wide range of advantages. To name some:

  • Reduced agricultural land use (the vast majority of land is used to grow cattle feed). This can also reduce deforestation (especially interesting in the Amazon region), increase ground water and soil quality. Avoids soil erosion. It also perserves eco systems on land and helps to mitigate species extinction.
  • Water usage. It takes about 1000x to produce meat than to produce an equivalent amount of, e.g., wheat.
  • Reduction of overfishing and thereby protecting and stabilizing oceanic eco system.
  • Reduction of the huge amount of water and air pollution caused by the animal industry.
[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Same thing can be said for all the carbon reduction measures, producing less leads to consuming less of everything, especially technology products.

[-] Zacryon@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

In general sure, producing less and consuming less leads to less impacts. But there are quite the differences in what and how we consume it with regard to their impacts. For example, we don't need agricultural space for mining cobalt to build batteries which power electric cars.

[-] abertausend@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Let me guess, to reduce murder rates we should also have less children! After all, they might turn out to be murderers.

Any person remotely willing to not have children in order to protect the climate was not a big problem for the climate anyway.

Any person who doesn't care slightest about the climate, and would never look at the debate we're having, is a much bigger problem.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
747 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8332 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS