Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5233 readers

615 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

455

Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)

submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

391 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is not that the method that meat is produced, it is that it is produced at high levels at all. The inefficiencies don't go away by changing regulations. We are going to have to have changes in production and thus consumption levels. It's going to be difficult politically to get any policy like that through if people are unwilling to reduce any on there own as well

Do I think systematic actions are needed, yes, but if we're going to get there we'll have to start with some degree of individual action before any of it is paltable to the larger society

[+] Pika@sh.itjust.works -11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think it's worth fighting the meat industry when the other big Corp companies are harming the ecosystem far heavier. The Argicultural industry is 4th largest, so I think main efforts should be regulating big power, manufactoring sector or the oil sector honestly.

[–] Morgoon@startrek.website 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

41% of the land in the US is used for meat production, and 1/3rd globally. The Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned for cattle farming. Animal agriculture means habitat destruction and is a large part of why 21 species were declared extinct in the US this past year. We can and must fight them both.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you want to hit climate targets, it's extremely important

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)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you misunderstand, what I'm saying is I think that it's a wasted effort to split your concentration the way it is being done, the agricultural industry is going to be one of the most resistant changes out there, the other Industries such as manufacturing and oil, you have your lesser groups that are not going to be impacted so it's going to be fairly easy to gain support for those groups, however with the agriculture industry there is a vast more people that are going to be out to disregard the entire study because they won't want to change their lifestyle. You can have all the statistics in the world however at the end of the day those deciding actors are generally decided by the general public who isn't going to bother looking at complicated statistics. So therefore it would be a better move to go towards the path of least resistance which is going to be the other top emitters. My opinion is that if reducing the top three emitters somehow makes it so you don't hit your climate goal, the climate goal isn't going to be feasible to hit in the first place.

This isn't me saying that it shouldn't happen I'm just saying that the changes posted won't happen all at once and likely won't happen at all if too many Focus points are attempted at once.

I don't think the goal is feasible, but I would love to be proven wrong

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago

There already is momentum in the right direction in many countries such as Germany. I don't think it's a hopeless fight at all

In 2011, Germans ate 138 pounds of meat each year. Today, it’s 121 pounds — a 12.3 percent decline. And much of that decline took place in the last few years, a time period when grocery sales of plant-based food nearly doubled.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23273338/germany-less-meat-plant-based-vegan-vegetarian-flexitarian

[–] psud@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

The global food systems biggest carbon source is from fertiliser production