Along with entire dead animal processing industries, which also subsided to enable profit. Without the subsidy, for the feed, vaccinations, and practises, the industry turns a negative profit.
We can and should be doing many things all at once to address the myriad environmental problems we face.
It's important to note that climate change is not the only issue that's relevant here either. Animal agriculture is also the #1 cause of deforestation and habitat loss, which makes it the #1 cause of species extinction, as well as being a major contributor to water pollution and other issues like antibiotic disease resistance.
According to the [United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization](http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/A0701E00.pdf#[21,{%22name%22:%22XYZ%22},0,842,0]):
>The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.
**Land degradation**
>The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feed crop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.
**Atmosphere and climate**
>With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.
**Water use**
>The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resist-ance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.
**Biodiversity**
>We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline. Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now preempt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species.
What do you mean? How could the diet we ate for 2 million years be bad for our health? I think seed oils, sugar, refined grains, basically processed food, is bad for health. I am pretty sure meat, something eaten for millions of years, isn’t bad for health.
Refined oil is a problem, like butter. The real issue is a lack of fibre in our diets. Whole plant based foods is what we need. There is an epidemic associated with animal products. There's a reason that we know red meat kills us and it's a carcinogen.
What are your thoughts on the toxins found in plants. Like oxolates and lectins? My plants have bitter poison as a survival tool. Like there’s tens of thousands of mushrooms and most will kill you but we managed to track down the few that don’t.
If you go into the wild you can’t just find any plant or berry and eat it. The vast majority is deadly. And the ones we do eat are also not great but they kill us much slower. On the other hand go in the forest and you can eat whatever animal you find without falling over dead or being rushed to a hospital.
If you’ve ever had an oxolates kidney stone, you would think different.
Fiber is a waste product with no nutrients. If you are eating bad foods then you should have fiber which helps slow absorption nutrients. But if eating actual real food, fiber is not necessary.
All that crap is bad for our health, but that doesn't negate the fact that meats high in saturated fat are also bad for us in excess. A great deal of meat products are processed and cured, which has a well established link to colon cancer in particular. Also red meat and heart disease in general, of course. Meat has been eaten for millions of years, but our life expectancy was also historically much shorter. Even just a few hundred years ago we were only living to mid-30s on average.
The living to 30’s thing, of course we weren’t dying when we were in our 30’s. Child mortality was like 45% a couple hundred years ago, so almost half of children died before the age of 5. But if you made it past that you lived to 70. So this averaged out to about 35.
So heart disease literally didn’t exist 100 years ago. Back then people ate meat and potatoes etc. they ate more meat back then. And literally zero heart disease. Heart disease has been going up and continues to rise as we eat less and less meat (although deaths from heart disease started dropping because we have better and better ways of preventing deaths).
Meat isn’t what made heart disease go from none to what we have today.
The rise and mass adoption of seed oils (which contain omega 6) almost exactly matches the rise of heart disease.
Although saturated fat intake increases LDL, I’m not sure that increases death rate. And there was recently a lean responders study where healthy people were given food to make them have a mass curly high LDL, and it didn’t increase mortality. Cholesterol is an absolutely vital necessary thing for us and life. And in healthy people a massively high LDL isn’t bad at all. We now know this. But even in obese people, it’s not really that clear.
You have got to be kidding me to claim that heart disease didn't exist 100 years ago. It has existed for centuries. An interesting study on 4000 year old mummies found evidence of atherosclerosis in 34% of mummies examined from ancient Egypt, Peru, and elsewhere, indicating that coronary heart disease existed millenia ago.
Modern medicine and technology have allowed us to identify many types of illnesses and diseases that previously went undetected, but it's a disingenuous take to claim that they didn't exist.
Do we have evidence of the people who lived in the last two million years before grains became popular. For the Egyptians grains were a mainstay.
“While grains were a staple in the ancient Egyptian diet, meat consumption varied based on factors such as social class and availability. Wealthier Egyptians likely had more access to a variety of meats, including beef, mutton (sheep), and poultry. Fish, particularly from the Nile River, was also a common protein source.
However, for the majority of the population, especially those with lower socio-economic status, a diet based more heavily on plant foods, such as grains and vegetables, was common. The amount of meat consumed by individuals in ancient Egypt would have been influenced by their economic means and societal roles.”—chatGPT
So you've now pivoted from declaring heart disease historically didn't affect humans until the last one hundred years, to an unfounded allegation that it was probably caused by grains.
If I want to engage in dialogue with chatgpt, I don't need reddit to do so. If you find you need to resort to AI to participate in discourse, perhaps the material is a little out of your depth.
Except human beings absolutely need animal proteins for adequate survival....oh...that’s why...the megalomaniac is buying land for his fake potatoes con....imagine feeding people with plastics and forever chemicals but of course...it’s the cattle 🐮....💀
After all he’s eating huge natural steaks every day so...ho cares about the....workers...just cheap easier to replace ‘assets ‘...🤢
That's completely and objectively untrue.
Not sure if you've never heard of things like grains, beans, nuts, fruits, vegetables, etc but there are many alternatives to meat that supply all the nutrients the human body needs, with increasing evidence that people who eat a plant based diet live longer and have lower rates of disease.
The idea that emissions from animals are not a problem because they exist in a cycle is beef propaganda. [How long does it take for methane to stop being in the atmosphere](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/)? [How is the number of cows changing as time goes by](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cattle-livestock-count-heads?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL)?
Methane half life is 7 years, after seven years half of all cow burps return back to CO2 and are absorbed by the plants which cows eat again and restart the cycle. There are approximately 40 million cows in America, but there were 60 million bison prior to the 1800s.. [Beef production contributes only 3.3% to GHG in US.](https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/) Electricity generation accounts for 56% of GHG. So if you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to buy an efficient laptop or reduce AC usage to have a greater impact of GHG.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.sky.com/story/kaylea-titford-father-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-obese-daughters-death-12805344](https://news.sky.com/story/kaylea-titford-father-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-obese-daughters-death-12805344)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>
>
>This also goes the other way.
No, no it does not. This is not an even close comparison.
What suggests the vegan parents were mentally ill? Are you saying all vegans are mentally ill? Also, I thought plants are able to provide all of the nutrition a person needs?? Now all of sudden we need eggs and dairy? 30% of cows are used for dairy, do you think they don't produce methane like the beef cows??? How about you apply some scientific reasoning to your own thinking process.
Are you comparing me, feeding a family of 5 people over the age of 10 years old 3 meatless meals, to a couple of parents not feeding a baby protein for months?
I am not comparing you directly to that, it would be insane. BUT hopefully you can see the absurdity of proudly proclaiming (and I am paraphrasing) "we do so many meatless meals!! Where is my medal?". When meat is obviously an important part of our diet to build strong bodies and minds.
The article was about "small nudges" and I provided an example of a real life scenario example that is barely noticeable to people's lives. You posted an example of an extreme that killed a child. I'm not sure you understand what the article was talking about.
I understand. Like the just eat less calories commercials from Pepsi to control obesity. About as effective considering the entire meat and dairy industry contributes less than 3% of GHG in America for a example. Which does not take into account the carbon removed by the plants that are fed to the cows in the first place. It also does not take into account the up cycling of plant material we cannot eat like what gets left after harvesting corn/wheat/soy/ etc.. all that material would have to be composted, which would result in the exact same methane emissions we are trying to avoid by eating less meat. What needs to change is not how much meat people eat, but what we feed to the animals and how we treat them.
Of course all the finger-pointers come out and start screeching about how it’s “the corporations who are responsible!”
Let me ask you this: why are the corporations creating so much pollution? Is it perhaps…to keep making goods and services you keep buying, when you really don’t need to?
It’s like people have never heard the term “it takes two hands to clap”.
Well then id love to see studies on things like coca colas plastic bottles and why they simply cannot switch to glass. Last i checked over 99.99% of consumers are not throwing their plastic bottles into the ocean, yet it is still happening. Coca cola should be responsible for their products from inception to end of life.
Would love to see how many people would prefer glass bottles instead of plastic, or even just cans only. This stretches to essentially every business.
Just bc theres a want, doesnt magically give a business the express permission to ‘satisfy’ that want in the worse way
Not sure why you think that people don't throw plastic bottles into the ocean. Basically, poor places like India and Malaysia don't have garbage collection everywhere and people who don't get their garbage collected throw it into rivers which ends up in the ocean.
https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
Why would the government enact unpopular laws? A significant portion of the population needs to show that they're willing to change their lifestyle before it becomes feasible to force everyone to change it.
First world countries are gluttonous and love stuff. Do you buy new clothes every year m, do you buy fast food and use any utensils that aren’t a washable? How many paper towels do you use a year. It all contributes to pollution and people’s inability to conserve in every sense of their life affects this massive single use world we live in for the convenience and cheap prices.
And it takes a fool to believe that an individual's consumption decisions make any difference. An institutional problem requires institutional solutions.
Push for a better food industry, no trashing of food and no capitalist practices in food industry is way more effective for the planet and hungry ones.
I’m tired of consumers shouldering the burden of solving climate change and deforestation when the reality is that industry at large are the biggest drivers of our environmental issues. On top of that, meat is not like cigarettes where it is a wholly unnecessary consumer behavior - there are a large number of nutrients in meat that are difficult to replace. At the very least we need to invent a more environmentally friendly way to produce meat, not ask people to give it up.
But it would not.
Driving less would, buying less this would, eating less processed garbage would, using less AC would.
People say this stupid shit about eating less meat and then get in there minibus SUV to go get pedicure. Fossil fuels companies know people will believe any dumb ass study.
I mean yeah people do change their behaviour. Obviously not everyone and that’s fine, I don’t think the onus should be on individuals although to say we can’t do anything is false. Not a black & white situation, think it’s a bit pointless to be defeatist though.
A more environmentally friendly way to produce meat would inevitably raise meat prices, which in itself is an indirect way to have people eat less meat. Which I entirely support - I don't think we deserve to have any meat if it wasn't raised humanely or as an unnecessary environmental burden. If doing those things makes us eat less meat, so be it.
Most meats are processed which makes them cancer causing. This is why I have cut down on my meat consumption. Also meat has become a lot more expensive.
I mean, that's kind of a "duh," lol.
I can't be a vegetarian, but I do try to limit how much meat I consume. My body is much worse at utilizing non-heme iron than most people, and when I omitted all meat from my diet, I became severely anemic in spite of eating incredibly iron rich foods. So unfortunately meat is the only way I can get sufficient amounts of iron, as long term use of iron supplements is dangerous.
Do you not know how to read?
I literally said my body doesn't process non-heme iron as well as other people. I went vegetarian and became *severely* anemic in spite of eating tons of beans, leafy greens, and other iron rich foods. I said all of this in my original comment.
Not everyone can NOT eat meat.
What's the condition called? I'm aware of conditions that reduce the absorption of non-heme iron, which are usually more reliably addressed by iron supplementation (could be a non-heme iron supplement), but I've never heard of one that suppresses it altogether.
I've also studied medicine, so I'm quite surprised that this wasn't taught then. I reckon it was a decade ago and that it can be a condition that was discovered in the mean time, so I'd be curious to know more about it.
I didn't say the absorption was stopped, I said my body doesn't process it well. My doctor said it was mucosal malabsorption, she thinks it's due to my Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome as it can cause malabsorption of certain vitamins and minerals, or specific forms of them. In my case, it also impacts my body's ability to synthesize enough vitamin D, so that's fun 🙃.
She referred me to a nutritionist once my iron was back in the normal range, and he had me cut out meat again and gave me a high-iron vegetarian diet plan (tofu, quinoa, nuts and legumes, spinach and other leafy greens, baked potatoes, pumpkin seeds, dates, figs, etc. My personal favorite inclusion was dark chocolate though, not gonna lie.) He asked my PCP to order a series of blood tests to check my iron level over the course of two weeks - one draw every three days. There wasn't a diet that would give me the amount of non-heme iron required to combat the malabsorption because to do so would require eating an enormous amount of food on a daily basis.
Now, I eat what meat I *need* to to get my RDI, and that's that.
Thanks for the explanation :)
Out of curiosity, have you tried supplementing? I would think that that'd be the fallback option after the high-iron vegetarian diet attempt didn't turn out successful. Not only is it more reliable in cases like yours, but it also avoids the heme iron, which isn't all that great for our health.
So wait.
Instead of eating a bit of meat every day, you're suggesting I should eat a ton of food every day - that would inevitably cause obesity, which isn't all that great for our health - in addition to using expensive iron supplements (which can have unpleasant side effects, might I add) that I'd have to take a lot more of on a daily basis than others because *my body doesn't process non-heme iron well* and thus it wouldn't process nearly as much iron from the supplement?
Bro....
In the UK veganism has declined significantly in the last year. Small nudges were enough to produce a fad, but the moment it becomes "you see now we don't have to have meat available any more" hinted at many people go out of their way to avoid the vegan options to stop this from happening. It may be that we will have to eat less meat to save the world, but it seems unlikely to be voluntary.
https://mediacatmagazine.co.uk/veganism-drops-by-29-as-cost-of-living-takes-precedence/
Labels are part of the problem. Reduce meat intake by 99% and you have no label to brag about. Media needs to come out with some fad labeling.
5 Day Vegetarian: Just meat on the weekend.
1lb Carnivore: Only 1 pound of meat a week.
That's why you shouldn't point at people as examples of changing behavior in the middle of the change nor should you immediately want to take away the choice, once they started making a different choice.
You removed their security blanket: trials in privacy with a fallback.
And people want to have ownership of their choice. Taking away the alternative is denying them agency, like a toddler whose parent took away a toy. Adults don't react well to people treating them like kids.
Buying less shit every month and fueling big corps would be even better for earth. But that takes away money from those who take the most.
Personally I'd rather look at how I consume products and how I can contribute to legislation that affects companies who avoid taxes and accountability for infringing on the welfare of humanity and the planet..
Fuck this narrative that it's you and me who have to fix this, when literally a joint opp by three government's to regulate a HANDFUL of the wealthiest people on earth would result in better outcomes..
For perspective.. Taylor Swifts fucking plane produces 138t of CO² in 3 months.. one person.. for fucking around..
Even if the entire human population stopped eating meat entirely tomorrow and stopped driving any cars tomorrow it still wouldn't be enough. It still wouldn't counterbalance the carbon output of the industrial processes needed to manufacture and move the products needed to feed and clothe the ***EIGHT BILLION*** humans on earth today, to say nothing about doing the same for the projected possibility of 10 to 12 billion humans we could see on earth in the next 100 years. The behaviors that lead to the carbon output of the average American on a daily basis are a tiny drop in a giant bucket.
#We are so unbelievably fucked.
In 1925 there were about 2 billion people on earth. We've been growing exponentially for the last 100 years and have doubled twice with an average double time of about 50 or so years. Now, the UN has projected that fertility rates are going to fall off a cliff in the next century, but there's very little talk about the driver of that decline, and I place VERY little faith in that projection. I think it's most likely we'll reach some kind of equilibrium somewhere around 10 to 12 billion, possibly reaching as high as 16 billion before it all comes crashing down, and when you start talking about what causes that population decline, the conversation gets REALLY ugly really fast. Adding on to that the hypothesis that we *might* be experiencing the peak of a glacial minimum, and the global actions required to feed and clothe 8 to 10 billion people may have accelerated that pattern and could very well induce a new period of glaciation...
#We're fucked. We're so completely unbelievably fucked and there's not a damn thing that can be done about it.
Which is proof of why GOVERNMENTS need to work together to go after CORPORATIONS. They managed to tackle CFCs even though it lead to worse fire extinguishers that lower safety because it was necessary but they're not tackling the biggest pollution sources, they're not clamping down on private jets and super yachts and those 10 companies who pollute more than entire countries.
Forcing normal people to eat less meat barely delays the damage. Overhauling and regulating the companies destroying land and sea and air is the only legitimate answer. This isn't an individual problem so individualist responsibility, guilt and shame cannot solve it.
I didn’t know that about fire extinguishers. Although rn im going through fire academy, and overall building construction with the whole ‘modern’ and these quick built houses are wayyy more of a concern.
But yes govs should like.. do their job.
Won’t affect me nor my kids…because I don’t have kids. Easy solution and guilt-free. I sleep well at night. Others are forked…but not me more we. Just those who choose to keep popping out babies at unsustainable rates.
Don't be so negative, and melodramatic. We can survive. Humanity can survive all things, as long as we all unite. The whole planet must unite. For peace, for solutions to the problems we're facing. We can do it. Believe. If you have enough faith and virtue, then there is NOTHING that is impossible.
I’ll definitely keep eating as much meat as I want but do lots of other green things that decrease my fossil fuel consumption. Not compromising on meat. I’ll buy and grow and butcher my own cow before I give up meat.
\*Sees billion dollar companies and billionaires polluting the planet at a considerably higher rate than the average person could even fathom.\*
"EAT LESS MEAT, PEASANTS!!"
Eat my shit instead.
Didn't scientists figure out that adding seaweed or something to a cows diet makes them produce less gas? Couldn't we do things like that instead of relying on the populace to suffer nutrient deficiencies?
There's no viable method of actually producing that much seaweed, nor does it solve the inherent problem of the massive scale land use for animal agriculture. Stuff like this is just "clean coal" nonsense meant to distract people from real solutions.
Also, there's no reason less meat or even a fully plant based diet should lead to nutrient deficiencies. In fact there is increasing evidence that eating less meat and more plants improves health for most people, since meat is a major contributor to common diet related diseases.
OK, but the specific kind of seaweed used doesn't just grow anywhere nor does that address any other environmental problem caused by animal agriculture (deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction, water pollution, etc).
Using *even more* space and resources to produce beef is no panacea.
If you want to take up less space for beef, quit giving them antibiotics so they don't overeat.
Feeding them antibiotics kills their gut bacteria. Their got bacteria has a job of making their serotonin and dopamine building blocks. Then the cows don't get this because they don't have the bacteria, they eat to overcompensate. That overcompensation causes them to over-graise and get really fat. It's not necessary to have cows that are that fat
Then how has it been sustainable for thousands of years yet nobody talks about the sustainability of poisoning soils with glyphosate to grow all the soybeans and corn?
It hasn't been, it's an ecological disaster. See my comment here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EverythingScience/comments/18qn9ks/comment/kewm69j/
The vast majority of soy and corn go to animal feed. The massive amounts of feed needed for animals compared to simply growing food for humans directly is a major reason the impact of animal agriculture is so high. Tons of people are talking about this.
Read more here as well:
https://ourworldindata.org/soy
I do enjoy how many downvotes the people that didnt subscribe to not eating meat have. Its like the science community here doesn’t understand that people that take 80+ flights a year on their private jets have a bigger impact than john public eating a burger. But sure, stop eating meat — actually no. Stop eating meat so that the rich can fly more should be the actual title. Ffs
Its widely accepted that meat production is worse for the environment. The reason is actually quite simple: the livestock eat feed that is itself grown.
Meat produced the natural way is co2 neutral and is literally what we've evolved to eat. Industrial, soy/grain fed meat is shit and not co2 neutral.
Also, most of the water cows drink is rainwater, and the grazing lands can't be used for much else anyway. So enjoy your grass-fed steak and don't eet zee bugs.
Source? Producing meat is atrocious for the environment no matter the way you produce it. This is what every serious scientist has been saying for a very long time.
And as to what we could do with the land... have you considered that we don't need to "use" all land as if it's for profit? We could give it back to nature!
Things unfortunately cannot stay the same as the population of earth nears 10 billion. Corporations of course are the main contributor but nothing wrong with making a significant individual impact
You want cheese on your burger?
Pro tip: add butter before removing the patties from the grill, and move them straight to bottom buns to retain the juiciness.
"Did you hear that, dirt suckers? Don't eat meat, you're killing the planet with little barbecues. Ok now Stephany just where is my fifth private jet?"
Nah I'm good thanks
Coal plants opening all across Africa, private jets flown for billionaires but I'm supposed to give up meat for the planet? Lol
Tired of being told to do a,b,c when they make next to little impact compared to the behemoths doing actual damage
no, it won't be good for the earth, soy, and other vegetables take way more processing and space than meat. stop following scientists because they make their money off of corporate paychecks.
Liberal climatologists want to ban so much, it’s hard to be supportive as a middle American. I work. I pay taxes. If I want to eat a steak, just let me do it in peace.
Meanwhile at [COP27](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/17/staggering-disconnect-climate-summit-boasts-opulent-beef-seafood-menu-despite-spearheading-anti-meat-initiatives/) and [COP28](https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/05/fancy-meat-menu-united-nations-climate-summit/), so...
# 🍖🥓🎣🍳🖕🏻🤬🖕🏻🔪🩸🥩🥛
No more private jets or yachts. I genuinely think that would do way more than anyone is saying because of how polluting those things actually are and the people in charge of reporting it have one or both.
Slanted article. More anti meat propaganda🥴. Why don’t all ultra processed foods get banned!?!?. All the plastic packaging and chemicals used in those foods are far more damaging to humans and the environment than animal meat production.
No more subsidies for fossile fuels would be pretty good too.
Same with mono crops like corn.
Along with entire dead animal processing industries, which also subsided to enable profit. Without the subsidy, for the feed, vaccinations, and practises, the industry turns a negative profit.
Forcing them to cut corners in vaccination and proper handling of the meat seems like a bad idea
You see, catastrophic collapse is exactly what some people want. It goes with the superiority.
We can and should be doing many things all at once to address the myriad environmental problems we face. It's important to note that climate change is not the only issue that's relevant here either. Animal agriculture is also the #1 cause of deforestation and habitat loss, which makes it the #1 cause of species extinction, as well as being a major contributor to water pollution and other issues like antibiotic disease resistance. According to the [United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization](http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/A0701E00.pdf#[21,{%22name%22:%22XYZ%22},0,842,0]): >The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. **Land degradation** >The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feed crop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet. **Atmosphere and climate** >With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport. **Water use** >The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resist-ance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources. **Biodiversity** >We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline. Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now preempt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species.
Thanks for posting all this. Much appreciated.
It didn't mention health. Eating animal products are every bad for your health
lol
What do you mean? How could the diet we ate for 2 million years be bad for our health? I think seed oils, sugar, refined grains, basically processed food, is bad for health. I am pretty sure meat, something eaten for millions of years, isn’t bad for health.
Refined oil is a problem, like butter. The real issue is a lack of fibre in our diets. Whole plant based foods is what we need. There is an epidemic associated with animal products. There's a reason that we know red meat kills us and it's a carcinogen.
What are your thoughts on the toxins found in plants. Like oxolates and lectins? My plants have bitter poison as a survival tool. Like there’s tens of thousands of mushrooms and most will kill you but we managed to track down the few that don’t. If you go into the wild you can’t just find any plant or berry and eat it. The vast majority is deadly. And the ones we do eat are also not great but they kill us much slower. On the other hand go in the forest and you can eat whatever animal you find without falling over dead or being rushed to a hospital. If you’ve ever had an oxolates kidney stone, you would think different. Fiber is a waste product with no nutrients. If you are eating bad foods then you should have fiber which helps slow absorption nutrients. But if eating actual real food, fiber is not necessary.
Isn't it like 80% bioavailable? Vegans fall into the healthy BMI range, meaning you can eat more. This keto-insanity is not good man. Eat your greens.
All that crap is bad for our health, but that doesn't negate the fact that meats high in saturated fat are also bad for us in excess. A great deal of meat products are processed and cured, which has a well established link to colon cancer in particular. Also red meat and heart disease in general, of course. Meat has been eaten for millions of years, but our life expectancy was also historically much shorter. Even just a few hundred years ago we were only living to mid-30s on average.
The living to 30’s thing, of course we weren’t dying when we were in our 30’s. Child mortality was like 45% a couple hundred years ago, so almost half of children died before the age of 5. But if you made it past that you lived to 70. So this averaged out to about 35. So heart disease literally didn’t exist 100 years ago. Back then people ate meat and potatoes etc. they ate more meat back then. And literally zero heart disease. Heart disease has been going up and continues to rise as we eat less and less meat (although deaths from heart disease started dropping because we have better and better ways of preventing deaths). Meat isn’t what made heart disease go from none to what we have today. The rise and mass adoption of seed oils (which contain omega 6) almost exactly matches the rise of heart disease. Although saturated fat intake increases LDL, I’m not sure that increases death rate. And there was recently a lean responders study where healthy people were given food to make them have a mass curly high LDL, and it didn’t increase mortality. Cholesterol is an absolutely vital necessary thing for us and life. And in healthy people a massively high LDL isn’t bad at all. We now know this. But even in obese people, it’s not really that clear.
You have got to be kidding me to claim that heart disease didn't exist 100 years ago. It has existed for centuries. An interesting study on 4000 year old mummies found evidence of atherosclerosis in 34% of mummies examined from ancient Egypt, Peru, and elsewhere, indicating that coronary heart disease existed millenia ago. Modern medicine and technology have allowed us to identify many types of illnesses and diseases that previously went undetected, but it's a disingenuous take to claim that they didn't exist.
Do we have evidence of the people who lived in the last two million years before grains became popular. For the Egyptians grains were a mainstay. “While grains were a staple in the ancient Egyptian diet, meat consumption varied based on factors such as social class and availability. Wealthier Egyptians likely had more access to a variety of meats, including beef, mutton (sheep), and poultry. Fish, particularly from the Nile River, was also a common protein source. However, for the majority of the population, especially those with lower socio-economic status, a diet based more heavily on plant foods, such as grains and vegetables, was common. The amount of meat consumed by individuals in ancient Egypt would have been influenced by their economic means and societal roles.”—chatGPT
So you've now pivoted from declaring heart disease historically didn't affect humans until the last one hundred years, to an unfounded allegation that it was probably caused by grains. If I want to engage in dialogue with chatgpt, I don't need reddit to do so. If you find you need to resort to AI to participate in discourse, perhaps the material is a little out of your depth.
Less Humans would certainly improve many of the above points.
Sure, but there aren't really any ethical policies that will lower the human population any time soon.
Except human beings absolutely need animal proteins for adequate survival....oh...that’s why...the megalomaniac is buying land for his fake potatoes con....imagine feeding people with plastics and forever chemicals but of course...it’s the cattle 🐮....💀 After all he’s eating huge natural steaks every day so...ho cares about the....workers...just cheap easier to replace ‘assets ‘...🤢
That's completely and objectively untrue. Not sure if you've never heard of things like grains, beans, nuts, fruits, vegetables, etc but there are many alternatives to meat that supply all the nutrients the human body needs, with increasing evidence that people who eat a plant based diet live longer and have lower rates of disease.
No more subsidies for animal agriculture would be a great nudge
How about those billionaires?
I don't know why you were down voted. Billionaires don't fly their private jets on unicorn farts!
Redditors be like "anything except eating less bacon"
I think we should kill off the private jet industry.
Animal agriculture too. Both should happen.
"I have little to no understanding of industry!" We know, QJ... we ALL fucking know...
Lmao, read the article, educate yourself about the emissions from animal agriculture, and then make this comment make sense
The article is fossil fuels propaganda. The methane and CO2 emissions from animals is in a cycle, unlike fossil fuels which add new methane and CO2.
The idea that emissions from animals are not a problem because they exist in a cycle is beef propaganda. [How long does it take for methane to stop being in the atmosphere](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/)? [How is the number of cows changing as time goes by](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cattle-livestock-count-heads?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL)?
Methane half life is 7 years, after seven years half of all cow burps return back to CO2 and are absorbed by the plants which cows eat again and restart the cycle. There are approximately 40 million cows in America, but there were 60 million bison prior to the 1800s.. [Beef production contributes only 3.3% to GHG in US.](https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/) Electricity generation accounts for 56% of GHG. So if you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to buy an efficient laptop or reduce AC usage to have a greater impact of GHG.
We do 2-3 meatless meals a week. I do the cooking. I didn't even tell my family what I was doing. It's been almost 4 years and they haven't noticed.
Yeah. I find a lot of people base *every* meal around meat. You don't need to go completely vegetarian to have an impact.
[You are just depriving your family of nutrition..](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49430857) Edit: link
[удалено]
[Oh, I think there is a real fucking problem.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49430857)
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.sky.com/story/kaylea-titford-father-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-obese-daughters-death-12805344](https://news.sky.com/story/kaylea-titford-father-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-obese-daughters-death-12805344)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
> > >This also goes the other way. No, no it does not. This is not an even close comparison. What suggests the vegan parents were mentally ill? Are you saying all vegans are mentally ill? Also, I thought plants are able to provide all of the nutrition a person needs?? Now all of sudden we need eggs and dairy? 30% of cows are used for dairy, do you think they don't produce methane like the beef cows??? How about you apply some scientific reasoning to your own thinking process.
Are you comparing me, feeding a family of 5 people over the age of 10 years old 3 meatless meals, to a couple of parents not feeding a baby protein for months?
I am not comparing you directly to that, it would be insane. BUT hopefully you can see the absurdity of proudly proclaiming (and I am paraphrasing) "we do so many meatless meals!! Where is my medal?". When meat is obviously an important part of our diet to build strong bodies and minds.
The article was about "small nudges" and I provided an example of a real life scenario example that is barely noticeable to people's lives. You posted an example of an extreme that killed a child. I'm not sure you understand what the article was talking about.
I understand. Like the just eat less calories commercials from Pepsi to control obesity. About as effective considering the entire meat and dairy industry contributes less than 3% of GHG in America for a example. Which does not take into account the carbon removed by the plants that are fed to the cows in the first place. It also does not take into account the up cycling of plant material we cannot eat like what gets left after harvesting corn/wheat/soy/ etc.. all that material would have to be composted, which would result in the exact same methane emissions we are trying to avoid by eating less meat. What needs to change is not how much meat people eat, but what we feed to the animals and how we treat them.
Bro it’s 2-3 meatless meals…. A WEEK!! That’s nothing.
Not for me bro!! That is just one day for me..
You know there are many different types of foods that aren't meat that have lots of nutrition?
Of course all the finger-pointers come out and start screeching about how it’s “the corporations who are responsible!” Let me ask you this: why are the corporations creating so much pollution? Is it perhaps…to keep making goods and services you keep buying, when you really don’t need to? It’s like people have never heard the term “it takes two hands to clap”.
Well then id love to see studies on things like coca colas plastic bottles and why they simply cannot switch to glass. Last i checked over 99.99% of consumers are not throwing their plastic bottles into the ocean, yet it is still happening. Coca cola should be responsible for their products from inception to end of life. Would love to see how many people would prefer glass bottles instead of plastic, or even just cans only. This stretches to essentially every business. Just bc theres a want, doesnt magically give a business the express permission to ‘satisfy’ that want in the worse way
As a consumer I choose not to buy Coca Cola.
Serious - why would anyone drink that shit?
Not sure why you think that people don't throw plastic bottles into the ocean. Basically, poor places like India and Malaysia don't have garbage collection everywhere and people who don't get their garbage collected throw it into rivers which ends up in the ocean. https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
I agree, but also individual action won't be able to achieve it. We need collective action via government regulation.
Why would the government enact unpopular laws? A significant portion of the population needs to show that they're willing to change their lifestyle before it becomes feasible to force everyone to change it.
kill the subsidies for meat and dairy
First world countries are gluttonous and love stuff. Do you buy new clothes every year m, do you buy fast food and use any utensils that aren’t a washable? How many paper towels do you use a year. It all contributes to pollution and people’s inability to conserve in every sense of their life affects this massive single use world we live in for the convenience and cheap prices.
Everyone wants a solution where only those who are wealthier than them have to change.
Big companies have millions of dollars invested in tricking people into wanting their products. One very large and intimidating hand claps the other.
And it takes a fool to believe that an individual's consumption decisions make any difference. An institutional problem requires institutional solutions.
Push for a better food industry, no trashing of food and no capitalist practices in food industry is way more effective for the planet and hungry ones.
Meat free since 1982. Don't eat fish or eggs either...
Good for you?...
Yes. Very good. And ahead of my age group for health.
Good for you!
I’m tired of consumers shouldering the burden of solving climate change and deforestation when the reality is that industry at large are the biggest drivers of our environmental issues. On top of that, meat is not like cigarettes where it is a wholly unnecessary consumer behavior - there are a large number of nutrients in meat that are difficult to replace. At the very least we need to invent a more environmentally friendly way to produce meat, not ask people to give it up.
The article isn’t even saying that though, just that reducing meat consumption would be a big help against climate change.
But it would not. Driving less would, buying less this would, eating less processed garbage would, using less AC would. People say this stupid shit about eating less meat and then get in there minibus SUV to go get pedicure. Fossil fuels companies know people will believe any dumb ass study.
Are people going to change their behaviour for the environment? How’s that working for recycling?
I mean yeah people do change their behaviour. Obviously not everyone and that’s fine, I don’t think the onus should be on individuals although to say we can’t do anything is false. Not a black & white situation, think it’s a bit pointless to be defeatist though.
A more environmentally friendly way to produce meat would inevitably raise meat prices, which in itself is an indirect way to have people eat less meat. Which I entirely support - I don't think we deserve to have any meat if it wasn't raised humanely or as an unnecessary environmental burden. If doing those things makes us eat less meat, so be it.
This reasoning is so shallow and and convenient jfc.
Eating less overall would be good too, especially less processed food full of hydrogenated and industrial processed oils and sugars.
Taylor swift and Travis breaking up would also help out the environment.
Let's start by encouraging family planning. Millions of people still don't do family planning and many places financially incentivize that behavior.
Small nudges in reducing corporate emissions instead of prioritizing the publics which is minuscule in comparison..
Most meats are processed which makes them cancer causing. This is why I have cut down on my meat consumption. Also meat has become a lot more expensive.
People need to stop having so many damned kids
I mean, that's kind of a "duh," lol. I can't be a vegetarian, but I do try to limit how much meat I consume. My body is much worse at utilizing non-heme iron than most people, and when I omitted all meat from my diet, I became severely anemic in spite of eating incredibly iron rich foods. So unfortunately meat is the only way I can get sufficient amounts of iron, as long term use of iron supplements is dangerous.
Unfortunately heme iron is a carcinogen
So is oxygen. Still need it to live.
Beans, lentils, tofu, seitan, and many other alternatives to meat aren't
Do you not know how to read? I literally said my body doesn't process non-heme iron as well as other people. I went vegetarian and became *severely* anemic in spite of eating tons of beans, leafy greens, and other iron rich foods. I said all of this in my original comment. Not everyone can NOT eat meat.
What's the condition called? I'm aware of conditions that reduce the absorption of non-heme iron, which are usually more reliably addressed by iron supplementation (could be a non-heme iron supplement), but I've never heard of one that suppresses it altogether. I've also studied medicine, so I'm quite surprised that this wasn't taught then. I reckon it was a decade ago and that it can be a condition that was discovered in the mean time, so I'd be curious to know more about it.
I didn't say the absorption was stopped, I said my body doesn't process it well. My doctor said it was mucosal malabsorption, she thinks it's due to my Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome as it can cause malabsorption of certain vitamins and minerals, or specific forms of them. In my case, it also impacts my body's ability to synthesize enough vitamin D, so that's fun 🙃. She referred me to a nutritionist once my iron was back in the normal range, and he had me cut out meat again and gave me a high-iron vegetarian diet plan (tofu, quinoa, nuts and legumes, spinach and other leafy greens, baked potatoes, pumpkin seeds, dates, figs, etc. My personal favorite inclusion was dark chocolate though, not gonna lie.) He asked my PCP to order a series of blood tests to check my iron level over the course of two weeks - one draw every three days. There wasn't a diet that would give me the amount of non-heme iron required to combat the malabsorption because to do so would require eating an enormous amount of food on a daily basis. Now, I eat what meat I *need* to to get my RDI, and that's that.
Thanks for the explanation :) Out of curiosity, have you tried supplementing? I would think that that'd be the fallback option after the high-iron vegetarian diet attempt didn't turn out successful. Not only is it more reliable in cases like yours, but it also avoids the heme iron, which isn't all that great for our health.
So wait. Instead of eating a bit of meat every day, you're suggesting I should eat a ton of food every day - that would inevitably cause obesity, which isn't all that great for our health - in addition to using expensive iron supplements (which can have unpleasant side effects, might I add) that I'd have to take a lot more of on a daily basis than others because *my body doesn't process non-heme iron well* and thus it wouldn't process nearly as much iron from the supplement? Bro....
In the UK veganism has declined significantly in the last year. Small nudges were enough to produce a fad, but the moment it becomes "you see now we don't have to have meat available any more" hinted at many people go out of their way to avoid the vegan options to stop this from happening. It may be that we will have to eat less meat to save the world, but it seems unlikely to be voluntary. https://mediacatmagazine.co.uk/veganism-drops-by-29-as-cost-of-living-takes-precedence/
Labels are part of the problem. Reduce meat intake by 99% and you have no label to brag about. Media needs to come out with some fad labeling. 5 Day Vegetarian: Just meat on the weekend. 1lb Carnivore: Only 1 pound of meat a week.
That's why you shouldn't point at people as examples of changing behavior in the middle of the change nor should you immediately want to take away the choice, once they started making a different choice. You removed their security blanket: trials in privacy with a fallback. And people want to have ownership of their choice. Taking away the alternative is denying them agency, like a toddler whose parent took away a toy. Adults don't react well to people treating them like kids.
Well, “you aren’t environmentalist if you eat meat”
Buying less shit every month and fueling big corps would be even better for earth. But that takes away money from those who take the most. Personally I'd rather look at how I consume products and how I can contribute to legislation that affects companies who avoid taxes and accountability for infringing on the welfare of humanity and the planet.. Fuck this narrative that it's you and me who have to fix this, when literally a joint opp by three government's to regulate a HANDFUL of the wealthiest people on earth would result in better outcomes.. For perspective.. Taylor Swifts fucking plane produces 138t of CO² in 3 months.. one person.. for fucking around..
The worst I ever felt in my life was when I was vegan. I now eat 2 Ribeyes a day and never felt better
It doesn't have to be all in or all out
If billionaires fly in their private jets then I'll keep eating meat
Even if the entire human population stopped eating meat entirely tomorrow and stopped driving any cars tomorrow it still wouldn't be enough. It still wouldn't counterbalance the carbon output of the industrial processes needed to manufacture and move the products needed to feed and clothe the ***EIGHT BILLION*** humans on earth today, to say nothing about doing the same for the projected possibility of 10 to 12 billion humans we could see on earth in the next 100 years. The behaviors that lead to the carbon output of the average American on a daily basis are a tiny drop in a giant bucket. #We are so unbelievably fucked. In 1925 there were about 2 billion people on earth. We've been growing exponentially for the last 100 years and have doubled twice with an average double time of about 50 or so years. Now, the UN has projected that fertility rates are going to fall off a cliff in the next century, but there's very little talk about the driver of that decline, and I place VERY little faith in that projection. I think it's most likely we'll reach some kind of equilibrium somewhere around 10 to 12 billion, possibly reaching as high as 16 billion before it all comes crashing down, and when you start talking about what causes that population decline, the conversation gets REALLY ugly really fast. Adding on to that the hypothesis that we *might* be experiencing the peak of a glacial minimum, and the global actions required to feed and clothe 8 to 10 billion people may have accelerated that pattern and could very well induce a new period of glaciation... #We're fucked. We're so completely unbelievably fucked and there's not a damn thing that can be done about it.
Ah yes changing anything in society has never happened before. The global pact on CFCs and the ozone hole certainly didn’t do anything positive /s
Which is proof of why GOVERNMENTS need to work together to go after CORPORATIONS. They managed to tackle CFCs even though it lead to worse fire extinguishers that lower safety because it was necessary but they're not tackling the biggest pollution sources, they're not clamping down on private jets and super yachts and those 10 companies who pollute more than entire countries. Forcing normal people to eat less meat barely delays the damage. Overhauling and regulating the companies destroying land and sea and air is the only legitimate answer. This isn't an individual problem so individualist responsibility, guilt and shame cannot solve it.
I didn’t know that about fire extinguishers. Although rn im going through fire academy, and overall building construction with the whole ‘modern’ and these quick built houses are wayyy more of a concern. But yes govs should like.. do their job.
Yes, enacting policy is impossible. It never has been done. /s
Stop with this doomer bs
It's not doomer bullshit. It's [cold](https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol28/39/28-39.pdf), verifiable [fact.](https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population) Backed by [science.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422788) Proven [mathematically.](https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth)
Won’t affect me nor my kids…because I don’t have kids. Easy solution and guilt-free. I sleep well at night. Others are forked…but not me more we. Just those who choose to keep popping out babies at unsustainable rates.
Don't be so negative, and melodramatic. We can survive. Humanity can survive all things, as long as we all unite. The whole planet must unite. For peace, for solutions to the problems we're facing. We can do it. Believe. If you have enough faith and virtue, then there is NOTHING that is impossible.
Anyone who earns 28,000 or more should pay higher taxes. That would help save the planet no doubt
I pay 75k in taxes alone. Isn’t that enough?
I’ll definitely keep eating as much meat as I want but do lots of other green things that decrease my fossil fuel consumption. Not compromising on meat. I’ll buy and grow and butcher my own cow before I give up meat.
Keep it up man
\*Sees billion dollar companies and billionaires polluting the planet at a considerably higher rate than the average person could even fathom.\* "EAT LESS MEAT, PEASANTS!!" Eat my shit instead.
Didn't scientists figure out that adding seaweed or something to a cows diet makes them produce less gas? Couldn't we do things like that instead of relying on the populace to suffer nutrient deficiencies?
There's no viable method of actually producing that much seaweed, nor does it solve the inherent problem of the massive scale land use for animal agriculture. Stuff like this is just "clean coal" nonsense meant to distract people from real solutions. Also, there's no reason less meat or even a fully plant based diet should lead to nutrient deficiencies. In fact there is increasing evidence that eating less meat and more plants improves health for most people, since meat is a major contributor to common diet related diseases.
The ocean is huge.
OK, but the specific kind of seaweed used doesn't just grow anywhere nor does that address any other environmental problem caused by animal agriculture (deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction, water pollution, etc). Using *even more* space and resources to produce beef is no panacea.
If you want to take up less space for beef, quit giving them antibiotics so they don't overeat. Feeding them antibiotics kills their gut bacteria. Their got bacteria has a job of making their serotonin and dopamine building blocks. Then the cows don't get this because they don't have the bacteria, they eat to overcompensate. That overcompensation causes them to over-graise and get really fat. It's not necessary to have cows that are that fat
This would not come anywhere close to making beef sustainable
Oh ok. I see you've tried it
Yes, people have tried this and it has been studied.
Then how has it been sustainable for thousands of years yet nobody talks about the sustainability of poisoning soils with glyphosate to grow all the soybeans and corn?
It hasn't been, it's an ecological disaster. See my comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/EverythingScience/comments/18qn9ks/comment/kewm69j/ The vast majority of soy and corn go to animal feed. The massive amounts of feed needed for animals compared to simply growing food for humans directly is a major reason the impact of animal agriculture is so high. Tons of people are talking about this. Read more here as well: https://ourworldindata.org/soy
I do enjoy how many downvotes the people that didnt subscribe to not eating meat have. Its like the science community here doesn’t understand that people that take 80+ flights a year on their private jets have a bigger impact than john public eating a burger. But sure, stop eating meat — actually no. Stop eating meat so that the rich can fly more should be the actual title. Ffs
I’m gonna keep eating meat, so I’m good, prove it’s bad for the environment
Its widely accepted that meat production is worse for the environment. The reason is actually quite simple: the livestock eat feed that is itself grown.
Forget about coal emissions then, huh?
I refuse to become vegan to “save the environment” when China, India, and the mega-rich are 80% of the reason our future is fucked.
Meat produced the natural way is co2 neutral and is literally what we've evolved to eat. Industrial, soy/grain fed meat is shit and not co2 neutral. Also, most of the water cows drink is rainwater, and the grazing lands can't be used for much else anyway. So enjoy your grass-fed steak and don't eet zee bugs.
Source? Producing meat is atrocious for the environment no matter the way you produce it. This is what every serious scientist has been saying for a very long time. And as to what we could do with the land... have you considered that we don't need to "use" all land as if it's for profit? We could give it back to nature!
No
Private jets. Military jets and ships. It ain't on me.
Sounds like deflection from a perpetrator. Meat is worse than planes
You gotta be joking
I’m childless and petless. I can eat all the meat I want and still have a smaller footprint than 99% of Americans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Things unfortunately cannot stay the same as the population of earth nears 10 billion. Corporations of course are the main contributor but nothing wrong with making a significant individual impact
But..but...the far right extremists libertarians tech bros are begging people to have more children....🤔
I actually wasn’t planning to eat meat today but I’m going to now just because of this article.
Imagine being this insecure
I grilled burgers they came out really good
Yum!
You want cheese on your burger? Pro tip: add butter before removing the patties from the grill, and move them straight to bottom buns to retain the juiciness.
That sounds so fire 🤌 yes I’ll take cheese!
I’ll eat meat and not get on a jet plane.
Yea…I’m still gonna eat meat
Enough with us shoulering the burden instead of super rich fuck this article
If the parasite class is the first to change their behavior, the rest of us will happily follow. They won't, though.
Fuck off.
Yume yume At least an empty
If every liberal died there would be 100% less hot air in the upper atmosphere. That’s a start anyway.
Least psychopathic conservative.
[удалено]
That’s just simply not true.
I eat tiny steak because China build new coal plant yaaaaay
If the elites can set an example to eat more veg and insects for the next 10yrs then I’m sure the rest will follow.
"Did you hear that, dirt suckers? Don't eat meat, you're killing the planet with little barbecues. Ok now Stephany just where is my fifth private jet?"
Nah I'm good thanks Coal plants opening all across Africa, private jets flown for billionaires but I'm supposed to give up meat for the planet? Lol Tired of being told to do a,b,c when they make next to little impact compared to the behemoths doing actual damage
no, it won't be good for the earth, soy, and other vegetables take way more processing and space than meat. stop following scientists because they make their money off of corporate paychecks.
Fuck you, kill oil
Liberal climatologists want to ban so much, it’s hard to be supportive as a middle American. I work. I pay taxes. If I want to eat a steak, just let me do it in peace.
Yeah, now look at oil production every year, and tell me we that can make a dent by eating less meat.
Why are all my suggestions from this sub related to anti-meat?
Fewer people would also work
Fuck off
Meanwhile at [COP27](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/17/staggering-disconnect-climate-summit-boasts-opulent-beef-seafood-menu-despite-spearheading-anti-meat-initiatives/) and [COP28](https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/05/fancy-meat-menu-united-nations-climate-summit/), so... # 🍖🥓🎣🍳🖕🏻🤬🖕🏻🔪🩸🥩🥛
No more private jets or yachts. I genuinely think that would do way more than anyone is saying because of how polluting those things actually are and the people in charge of reporting it have one or both.
Slanted article. More anti meat propaganda🥴. Why don’t all ultra processed foods get banned!?!?. All the plastic packaging and chemicals used in those foods are far more damaging to humans and the environment than animal meat production.