So would cracking down on the unnecessary private flights billionaires take.
The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.
It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.
But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.
I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?
There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).
Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.
I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.
I see this a lot. Someone asserts a truth (eating less meat is good for the environment), some prick pivots to assert that there are other things society can do (the rich take too many trips in private planes!) And every time it happens, it comes from someone who doesn't like the first assertion and is trying to point at another problem they feel makes their behavior look less stupid and selfish.
It reminds me of a child caught misbehaving, who points at another child and snitches on them, hoping to distract their way out of trouble. "You can't be mad at me for stealing a cookie because Jimmy stole three!"
An enlightened person would make the changes they can control, instead of pointing at ones they can't as if it absolves them. Hell, even just admitting they don't want to is less dishonest.
Let me put it into perspective for you, "self-proclaimed enlightened geniuses". Let's say you own a house. I start charging people to dump garbage at your house. It starts leeching into the soil, mold starts growing on the house, and I get rich doing it. I tell you the problem would get better if you stopped producing any trash. Then I take my private jet to my private island and start throwing my trash on someone else's property.
Good summary. For me it is disproportionate harm. I am not going to yell at some regular person for liking fried chicken when their employer is flying on a private jet.
So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?
Perfect is the enemy of good. Trust me, I am very irritated by the complete lack of giving a fuck shown by billionaires and large companies.
But I also know that when it comes down to it the only thing they actually care about is money. And I am one of the people that provides them with that money by choosing to buy their products. Sure, it will take a significant amount of us to make a noticable impact but vegan alternatives have been becoming much more popular and prevalent because there is increasing demand. It's happening. The dairy industry obviously feels threatened with their stupid wood milk campaign and desperate attempts to ban anyone else from using the word milk.
That is something I actually have control over. I can vote accordingly to try to stop rich assholes from destroying the earth, but I don't control it alone. At least when the earth dies I can say I tried.
In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.
Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.
Because something doesn't fix a problem completely nothing can be done, yes?
Also I wonder how many times I have been stuck on the tarmac because of some private jet using my taxpayer funded airport.
Reducing meat intake isn't just about reducing carbon footprint, more importantly it frees up land to be rehabilitated so we can rebuild forests to absorb emissions.
Stop passing the blame, this isn't a hot potato game when you pass the blame around and nobody actually does anything. Everyone must do their part
But only one can be immidiatly changed by one self. Except if you have your own plane.
My God, just reduce your meat intake and stop being a wuss. This thread is insufferable.
Business as usual. Climate crisis is everyone's problem but me ! Everyone must make an effort, but not me !
It's the triangle of inaction. Corporations, government and people blame the two others and use it as an excuse for inaction.
I can understand it in some cases, but meat consumption ? There is no excuse to not stop or at least reduce meat consumption. It's easy to do, it's cheaper, ... And the impact of everyone not buying meat is insanely positive.
Meat is for me one of the easiest source of protein, and people in general consume already less protein than recommended. :( Many vegan option and/ or protein supplements are expensive. Vegetarian options are okay (eggs, for example) but going 100 percent vegan is difficult.
For real, I fucking love meat but I only eat it once a week now and it’s not like I’m fucking dying. And it’s not like what I’m eating now tastes bad or anything - lots of rice and beans (Brazilian style, fucking divine), potatoes and other veggies, sometimes a little tofu. It’s fine.
The world is literally dying and people are whining about hamburgers or whatever. Fucking insane man.
New study shows that the floor is made out of floor
Yes let's shift the blame off massive polluting companies, we should eat veggies and let them warm the earth
This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.
But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit
There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?
I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?
Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.
I agree with your point, the issue is much more nuanced then how i took it at the beginning
One father can aupport 5 sons, 5 sons can not support one father.
Demanding that we all making good decisions consistently does not work. If we want change it has to be via the government. We can pass regulations that results in less animal harm and less CO2 output.
I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.
Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.
So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.
I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.
In many cases yes, but in this case animal feed simply take up a lot of land and there's no way around it. The only way to free up that land to rehabilitate the environment is it reduce production and that means consuming it less.
Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?
Of course not? What? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
So I don't know what third option you've got in mind. Either the consumer, you, are responsible for the environmental damage caused by these industries by inducing demand. Or, as you seem to be explicitly saying, the industries themselves are responsible. How the hell do you think they're gonna take responsibility in stopping the damage they're doing to the environment?
There is no option where you get to keep eating meat daily and drive a gas car, and the environment gets to recover. Either you take responsibility in stopping on your own, or the industries themselves no longer provide it to you in the first place.
The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it's not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
*2013 data, source: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C%20the%20primary%20sources%20of,72%20percent%20of%20all%20emissions.
it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions
Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
It's a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.
Corporations that have been distracting from their wrongdoing for years, getting rich off destroying the planet, and continue to do so: Hey maybe individuals should switch to vegan diets!
It's big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
People aren't going to care enough unless its significantly cheaper than meat and equally as much effort for the consumer but a lot of vegan alternatives to meat aren't. It should be cheaper for all of the same reasons that it's more environmentally friendly. Plus why full vegan? It's more likely that people will move in small steps vegetarianism is still an option. We lose so much with the all or nothing approach.
We've been saying this for year yet people still refuse
It's just a factor of my quality of life which I'm not willing to compromise on. Surely you also have some of those.
Life in prison for the entire board of directors for the top 100 largest polluting corporations would do a lot more I bet.
This is exactly what the author of the article is trying to distract you from - corporations who caused the problem in the first place want to place the blame on individuals while companies like Exxon got rich making climate change worse even after they knew it was a problem way back in 1971.
So does eating the rich. I know which one I'd prefer
Eating local meat also solves this problem.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/