We aren’t the problem, but we can be the solution.
Show you want sustainable products by only buying sustainable products. Framework is a small company but did enough damage in the enthusiast company that now Lenovo and Dell are spinning up repairable/sustainable laptop product lines for the future.
Show that you want to move on from the carbon fuels era by only buying solar and electric products.
Be an enthusiast about such products. Be positive about the impact in your daily life.
Word of mouth goes a long way, especially when you are likely the first person in everyone’s network driving an electric car and their only other perception was shaped by what they read on Drudge or Fox News.
Nobody wants to hear about reducing their “carbon footprint,” that’s an immediate turnoff. But saying, “oh yeah I was getting a little big around the waist, decided to try eating healthier” for why you are eating clean, or “Gas prices are such a motherfucker and parts were always breaking on my old car, I couldn’t afford it anymore, this electric car is simple and the only thing I ever have to replace are tires and wiper blades.” That shit goes a long way.
Even little things like, “I got tired of plastic grocery bags breaking all the time, the fucking kid at the store always stuffs too much in the bag and the bags tear open in the car, plus the reusable bags are really nice and sturdy and I use them around the house for XXXX” can get people to buy reusable grocery bags.
Something about flies, honey, and vinegar.
Obviously, nothing will really change without legislation. But legislation won’t change until normal people start seeing the green solution as the best solution.
No, we cannot be the solution. Individual consumer behavior cannot change systemic issues. The only viable solution to Climate Change is at the ballot box. Out of control billionaires and vested fossil fuel interests cannot be swayed by asking people to pretty please go into massive debt to buy a Tesla instead of a sub 10k beater they can afford.
Nothing of what you're suggesting is sufficient or even realistic for most people. You want someone earning 30k a year to buy solar panels!? Are you mad?
We don't need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly, we need millions to EAT THE RICH.
You noted that the ballot box is the best way to do this, but that we also have to eat the rich. The big problem is that the ballot box is controlled by the rich. Both sides of the I’ll are paid off by corporate interests… And they don’t care about climate change…
The ONLY solution is to EAT THE RICH… The ballot box will actually be taken care of when corporations can’t pay off politicians anymore.
I earn less than 30K, and spent a few hundred here, a few hundred there, over the years, in renewable energy co-ops in my region. In total, my share of those installations now produces more than I consume. Our next project: charging stations for EVs, although I don’t even have a car.
I don’t have to have my own panels or windmills or chargers.
Yes, ballot box. Of course ballot box! And at least new combustion engine cars, for example, will be a thing of the past in a few years, here in Europe, thanks to ballot box. But I don’t want people to buy a Tesla. I want people to buy no car at all. And I want countries to tax the crap out of fuel for both surface and air transport. But how realistic is this ballot box solution?
We need both. Individual behaviour and ballot box.
Those people earning 30k a year still buy gas guzzlers and vote for the billionaires to stay in charge while getting their information from other billionaires.
They need a mindset change. That happens at the local level, through word of mouth and seeing their peers making lifestyle change.
Oh I'm familiar with the demographic, I just don't see them changing because their "weirdo libtard" neighbor bought a used Prius or something. At this point I feel like you're either onboard with the whole "climate change is real and bad and something should be done" agenda or else living in clown world mainlining alternative "facts." And how do you even discuss these issues with someone who disputes the nature of reality itself? If you've got that one figured out please share because it'll be useful in talking to my parents.
You have to make it beneficial to them. “Yeah this thing is a lot cheaper and more reliable than my old car and I hate having to go to gas stations with all those shady people” goes a lot further than, “We need to adjust our habits to curb a runaway greenhouse effect and the best we can hope for is only 2.5C warming by 2100.” One makes them consider electric; the other makes them avoid (and hate) you.
Either that, or just convince them not to vote. “Yeah the election was rigged, not even worth it to go vote anymore.”
Excellent points, and good examples! Reminds me of the old zero waste adage: “We don’t need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly.” Every step in the right direction helps.
That’s nice and all, but we can’t be the solution by spending decisions and word of mouth of positive experiences with sustainable consumption. You semi-acknowledge that, but that’s dangerous. The time for positive gradual change was 20 years ago, it’s time to get nonviolently angry and demand change.
We need everyone to realize that it’s far from enough to stop using plastic straws or eating less meat. We need fundamental societal and economic change that requires far more than simply adjusting consumption patterns.
Right, but this “carbon footprint was invented by BP” argument is most often used by people who outright refuse to do their part. Yes, we do need to get angry and demand change. While at the same time reducing our own impact as much as possible.
Main reason: if our demands will someday be heard, there will no longer be any meat or plastic straws available anyway. Why not get used to living without, now?
It isn’t about getting used to anything or doing your part. Meat and plastic straws are the tip of the iceberg. By focusing on these factors we are constantly failing to address the issue substantially. They are convenient ways to make the problem seem like something that can by solved by a series of small adjustments. As everyone should know by now, that is wrong.
Of course it’s about getting used to things. I just picked your meat and straw examples but I know there are bigger and more substantial issues. Don’t underestimate the damage done by meat production though: it’s huge.
Transport is a biggie. Air travel will probably never be sustainable. Time to say good bye. Simply don’t fly unless it’s a question of life and death. Electric cars? No. Those don’t address the right problems. A niche product for niche uses. Pressure for better infrastructure, better zoning, but also buy a bicycle and at least try to not drive everywhere.
And don’t get me started on fashion.
There are about 327 more issues. Don’t worry: I am well aware of that.
Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.
We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.
All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.
Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.
We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.
All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.
Somehow I have the feeling that we are, in fact, on the same page.
Yes, we need big political and societal changes (how often do I have to repeat that?). But the result will be the abscence of meat and straws and cars and airplanes. And the transition will be much smoother for the individual if he already learned how to not use them even while they are still available and affordable. Affordable in a solely monetary way, don’t get me wrong! They are far from affordable from a ecological point of view.
By no means I want to obscure any issues or distract from them. On the contrary!
In q wq all this is distracting, because there are many, many people who cling to thinking that just doing this or that is already enough. That’s why I call this focus on individual lifestyle choices dangerous. It gives you a psychological out. “I’ve done something, so the problem is out if my hands now,” is a form of complacency I see quite often.
Sure, if you can live that way while still turning the tide, great. It’s still going to take a shift in public opinion.
I am not going to do anything but reinforce popular resentment towards everything green if I walk around as the angry Asian guy. They already hate me for existing here.
But if I can convince my office of people that their next car is electric while touting the benefits of my car, that stuff spreads organically.
The issue is that going electric already is a convenient lie we tell ourselves. We can’t just replace all cars with electric ones and rhinkbthat we’ve solved it. We need to realize that the level of individual mobility by personal vehicle we have today is not sustainable.
Going electrical helps your individual emissions, sure, but we should be mindful that these are the pseudo solutions sold by people who would rather change nothing.
This might work at the higher end with tech brands and expensive products. People near the poverty line or people with no savings (most people) simply can't afford to do any of this. Sustainable, green, locally sourced = expensive.
It's a good thing to do if you can. But this won't change the world or the corporations generating most pollution. Everyone needs heat and food. Everyone needs power. And most of us, wealthy and poor, don't get to choose who creates our electricity or supplies us with water.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
And most of us, wealthy and poor, don't get to choose who creates our electricity
For what it's worth, this often isn't true. Here in NYC, for instance, electricity generation and transportation are somewhat independent markets. Any NYC resident can choose to change who actually supplies their electricity, and there are companies that guarantee renewable sources. It does, of course, cost more.
Of course, that's a political aim, but individuals can prioritize pro-environment policies in their own voting decisions and personal political advocacy.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
No, there aren’t. Cheap stuff is cheap because it’s mass produced using techniques and materials that combine cost savings and externalized environmental effects with the deprivation of global trade.
The point is that carbon taxes can price those environmental externalities into the actual cost of the product, and that money can be invested into climate-friendly projects.
Shifting towards environmentally friendly practices does cost money, yes, and that money will have to come from somewhere. Directly imposing it on companies will naturally cause it to be passed on to the consumer in higher prices.
You seem to be suggesting that we should somehow magically eliminate climate-harmful processes while preserving the cheap costs, the demand for which being exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. The world doesn't work that way.
But, again, the money raised can be used towards investing into and subsidizing climate-friendly processes, which can result in those products being cost-competitive.
If you can find a politically acceptable policy that makes money for raises to everyone suddenly appear, lots of people would be very interested in that.
You cannot demand that we stop using cheap processes and then simultaneously be surprised that the alternatives are less cheap, but for the final time - and I'm afraid I'll be checking out here - revenue can be used to subsidize those alternatives and make them more affordable.
Who has money to pay for name brand anything these days. It also doesn’t help that their product sucks. Seriously I had to buy a bag of their chicken wings the other week and the product was mostly breadcrumbs and tiny little chicken drumsticks. These companies practice the worst sort of shrinkflation and then act surprised when people stop buying their product.
For some people they need a sufficient meat replacement to be able to give up meat. People with ARFID for example who already have very limited food options and have a preference for meat can find it very difficult to just have vegetarian meals
Many (probably most) vegetarians or vegans didn’t start that way, so having the option to have some familiar foods without the meat is nice, beyond stuff for example is not cheap where I live, so it’s a treat to have one, but sometimes you just feel like a greasy hamburger that tastes like beef
Because selfish humans love their fucking meat and they don’t care that animals are locked into prisons where they can barely move or clean themselves, generate massive acres of literal shit pools that pollute large areas, the impact that kind of farming has on the environment….
THAT is why there is motivation for replication. Without it how do you shut down these disgusting cow/pig/chicken torture facilities
Hard agree. People will call you an extemist like child free communities that hate kids, as if the state of the fucking world is reason enough to chill on the kids thing
If you had to choose between being vegan and the environment going to shit, or eating meat and the environment getting figured out, which would you pick?
I find a lot of vegans have a really inaccurate view of non-vegans wrt eating meat. It’s not that we selfishly choose to eat meat despite feeling animals dying is a bad thing. It’s that we don’t think it’s a bad thing that animals die in a farm for food.
And if you realize that, you might find you have things in common with non-vegans. I fight for free-range laws, anti-farm-cruelty laws, etc. I just think you’re morally in the wrong about everyone stopping eating meat. Oddly, a lot of us non-vegans see vegans to be selfish. But we try not to use that to be uncivil towards them.
One thing many vegans don’t get about non-vegans is that we’re frustrated at veganism for the same “reasonable if not valid” reasons. I’ve had some vegan family/friends have serious health issues directly related to their refusal to eat meat. Yes, there’s a lot to that, and it usually spawns from people easily prone to PTSD being made to watch some disgusting documentary about the meat packing industry and going full starvation on and off until all their hair fell out. Is it veganism’s fault? Not directly.
It’s kinda like the Catholic Church. There’s SO FEW pedophiles in the Catholic Church, but for anyone who has been touched by that, the Church itself is tainted far worse than the facts allow.
Agreed, meat serves a specific role within traditional dishes. I find well cooked mushrooms to be one of the better substitutes in most sauce based dishes, though it lacks in protein. If we are going full vegan I believe South Indian to be some of the best cuisine in the world.
There is so much flexibility in cooking. I got some beyond meat Jamaican patties this week and I just genuinely wasn’t impressed with the flavor and texture.
I’d argue that bad implementation of substitutes is generally the culprit here. Meshing well with the cuisine is a better move. I’d rather have a curry rice with herbs filled patty.
Anyway I guess my point is that making meat replacement options just taste “OK” isn’t doing a lot of favors.
I don't know why we don't make chicken nuggets out of plant protein regularly now. They don't taste like chicken, they don't have the texture of chicken, and I honestly don't think kids care as long as it's shaped like a dinosaur.
I think my favorite fake nuggets are "Simulate" brand, and the box always gives me a kick. I don't like the beyond meat nuggets, but I like their burger patties. Gardein stuff is also good. However, I've been a vegetarian so long I'm a bad judge of what tastes like meat.
I seriously stop and chuckle at the box art every time. I'm not really a "nugget" person whether they're chicken, chick'n, or otherwise, but I adore that box art.
I'm not a vegetarian (yet, I'm working on some food aversion stuff), but my girlfriend is. I've actually had the chance to try the Beyond nuggets, and I agree that they're not that great. The texture just wasn't right when I had them.
We do. Just buy wheat flour and wash out the starch. It has wayy more protein than dead animals, its cheaper, its hethier, and it doesn’t cause climate change.
If you're horrified by animals dying on a farm during a disaster then consider why they are on the first place. It's not a kindness to breed them in to a life of suffering, cages forced breeding only to be slaughtered. The real solution here is to stop the cycle of harming an animal for human pleasure.
(which is also the same reason dog/cock fighting is wrong)
I think a much better question to ask is why should we reframe the topic at hand to not include its root origin? It’s kind of like asking why people want to talk about wealth Inequality when you talk about poverty: the two are intrinsicly linked together
To produce at scale, other animals will essentially have to be seen as solely a means. Factory farming is the inevitable outcome of mass meat consumption. There is not much way around that. Any system like that - rooted in the idea of minimizing other animals’ value as individuals - will consistently produce exceptionally cruel outcomes.
To go a bit into the why factory farming is the inevitable outcome.
Let’s look at just cattle for the moment. Many often trumpet grass-fed production, but in practice just doesn’t scale. For instance, the US would require a 75% reduction in beef consumption just for it to have enough grassland for it. That’s while increasing method emissions and also creating high deforestation pressure if we came anywhere close to that. Not to mention the legal and logistical headaches involved in getting all that land
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.
For instance, the US would require a 75% reduction in beef consumption just for it to have enough grassland for it.
Aren’t you looking from the wrong end here? Ban anything but grass-feeding, put high import taxes on beef (the latter should be easy to sell: protect domestic farmers!), and consumption will go down automatically, because the supply drops by 75%.
How can you think veganism isnt relevant to a discussion about the cruelties of animal agriculture. This type of thing is specifically part of what vegans are fighting against
For anyone who doesn't read the article but gets upset at the title because climate friendly meat actually exist. It's about a new label for meat that says "Environmental Friendly". Similar to the certificate for "Organic" or "GMO-FREE".
And the certificate is bullshit. Even in it's strictest form you only need a 10% reduction in CO2 production to the industry standard to qualify. Which is nothing.
But it gets worse, the rating is done by third party companies who have leeway in setting the industry standard. One company even has the industry standard set higher than the actual industry average.
So overall the certificate is bullshit that makes people feel better but doesn't actually do anything.
I would argue lab grown meat is fine, but afaik it is still more resources intensive to produce than, like, tofu. And it's not like it's going to be available in appreciable amounts in the near future.
Efficiency of calorie acquisition is not the same as sustainability though. Culling an overpopulation of deer that keeps a forest from developing or an invasive species that is wreaking havoc on an ecosystem can both be a net positive on the ecosystem and in terms of sequestering carbon. Meanwhile growing crops on former rainforest land is a clear net negative.
Those are edge cases though of course and with your average store selection, going with plant-based will just about always be more sustainable.
you have to ask, why are they becoming overpopulated though? And the answer is, because animal ag. Farmers kill the natural predators because they fuck with their animals that we eat.
The reason those predator species got killed to near extinction is probably a bit more broad and ugly than just concern for lifestock.
But you’re correct of course that the main reason for the current overpopulation of many non-invasive species is a lack of predators and they should be reintroduced. But that’s also not a thing that can happen from one day to the next, so even in the most optimistic scenarios some degree of human wildlife management still has a purpose.
Of course it exists. There is venison and other wild hunted meat. In many places these animals have to be shot anyhow for population control. Overhunting would be the only issue here.
Then there are purely pasture fed animals. Especially with goats this is common . But there are also some cattle and pig farms. As long as the land itself wasn't deforested and is given enough time to repair itself, it's perfectly sustainable.
Then there are things like keeping chicken in your garden that are only fed kitchen scraps. Depending on your household size you can even keep 1-2 pigs that way.
If any of these options are available to you, they can be more environmental friendly than some plant based foods. Locally sourced version is definitely better than having plants shipped across the globe.
As you said the only issue is the quantity and also the desire for premium cuts. A lot of meat is currently wasted because it's "undesirable". Some parts will find their way into animal food but a lot also just gets thrown away.
At the end I said at the volume of consumption we have. If everyone switched to wild game we’d instantly go from over population to over hunting and that’s not sustainable. You wouldn’t be able to support the volume with pasture raised without deforestation either. Raising your own animals also wouldn’t match the volume that people eat meat currently either. Even if we were more efficient with the meat we use I still think we’d be orders of magnitude off. I’m not totalitarian anti meat, I just don’t see any path to sustainability without huge decreases in consumption. The things you pointed out are great, but I think we can’t mislead people into thinking that will be enough for them to not have to change their eating habits.
If I got 3x the vacation time from work to let me travel by oceanliner or airship I’d happily stop flying — but that would never happen. So instead we just have to use discretion for both. Eat more mushrooms & beans; take trips closer to home by rail. And yes once in a while enjoy a nice steak or take a trip overseas. Moderation is key.
maybe regulate some of the most destructive corporations. maybe militarize the protection of rainforests and stop deforestation. maybe stop intervening in countries governments when they’re trying to stop global capitalists from taking their land and stripping it for profit. maybe develop infrastructure for efficient mode of travel. maybe promote localized food production and fund those projects instead of war. so many solutions people have been fighting for for centuries, meanwhile politicians and wealthy elite just greenwash everything while they plunder the world for resources and power to sell. they’ve sold our future and have refused to heed decades old warnings because its not good for their bottom line. maybe total destruction is the only solution, because i do not have faith in the governments to actually enforce anything to actually address the issues. they will gaslight the general population and forget to tell us that the top 1% are responsible for over 50% of the total global emissions.
your “carbon footprint” doesn’t exist - it’s a fossil fuel industry talking point. eating less meat may be good for you and make you feel better about yourself, but it’s not a climate solution. we need systems change on a societal scale, and that’s the kind of thing that takes coordinated government action, not “voting with your wallet”
It can guide policy decisions (e.g. "Is it more important to subsidize/mandate sustainable meat production or phase it out all together?"), can make voters think differently about topics, which in turn influences politics (in democracies) and can be a simple way to put into perspective the impact of millionaires and billionaires compared to average people.
Also I've heard people justify flying a lot because the "carbon footprint" is made up by the fossil fuel industry, which in my eyes is the same argument as "My country only makes up X% of greenhouse emissions so we shouldn't implement a carbon tax/invest in renewable energy/... until China/the US do".
'Systems change on a societal level’s would mean either ending subsidies for animal agriculture in general, and investing that money into more sustainable food sources, or banning animal agriculture altogether. But every time this is mentioned, people throw a fit and threaten violent action because meat prices will go up and they feel entitled to their cheap burgers, no matter what the cost to the planet.
These pieces are not meant to shame you, they are meant to try to make people demand that these effective changes be made. But for as long as people insist that they shouldn’t have to change a single thing about their lifestyle, no change will ever get made.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger, but a private jet produces more than 10,000x the CO2 per km. Everyone can do their part to reduce overall CO2, but the rich and powerful are destroying the planet at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than you or I simply because it's convenient for them.
We should probably stop squabbling over who's corporate version of highly-processed, manufactured, plant-based meat and food products we're going to substitute for animal proteins if we really care about worldwide carbon levels.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
Because of the extra calories you burn? Do you have a source for that?
Sure. This paper in Nature, estimates walking and cycling to generate 0.26 and 0.14kg CO2, respectively, given the diet in the most economically developed areas (I noted "typical western", not world wide or average) in my post). The EPA calculates gasoline at 8887g CO2 per gallon, so a car which gets 39mpg (note I mentioned fuel efficient - not average) is around 0.14 kg CO2 per km (8887/39mpg/1.628km) and a car which gets 21 MPG is around 0.26 kg CO2/km (which actually is close to the average vehicle).
Nature bases their estimates on full-replacement calories for the energy burned. YkmMV based on style, location, traffic, weather, and a bunch of other factors. Walking and biking is healthier for you and will likely extend your life and increase your resting metabolic rate (=the CO2 you create just lying about), but I'm not counting that against the walkers/bikers in this equation ;-)
Note: I walk quite a bit for fun - logged about 250km on my vacation last fall - and I bike when the weather is nice - often not even to go anywhere I need to; I'm just adding to the carbon problem for personal health and entertainment purposes.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Nature paper includes all associated emissions for the food (using "air-freighted asparagus" as an example) while the EPA explicitly excludes non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and emissions from production and distribution of both the fuel and the car. On top of that you compare the most efficient car of 2022 in a mixed (city+highway) environment (yes you mentioned efficiency) to the upper limit of what the Nature paper estimates (if all additional energy expenditure was compensated by additional food intake), while the realistic estimate is 0.15 and 0.08kg CO2 per km for walking and cycling respectively.
So there might well be a factor of 10 between cycling to the supermarket and taking your car in terms of GHG emissions. We just can't tell from the sources you linked. And while it's an edgy position to take "I'm just adding to the carbon problem for personal health and entertainment purposes" your claim might well convince people that moving away from a car based society would not have any impact on CO2 emissions. I also think you could make your point that rich people have a way outsized impact without all choices of normal people being exactly the same.
To be specific, exercise for health reasons increases CO2 levels for no reason other than to extend your life and, very possibly, to increase your muscle mass which increases your resting metabolic rate - you literally are generating CO2 with the effect of increasing your CO2 generation rate and the total duration you'll be producing CO2.
In a way, this hits exactly in my rant about where we worry about CO2 production: Getting out and getting in shape, or walking and biking places for fun is a negative but, like enjoying a reasonably-sized portion of animal protein in our diet, this is not the primary driver in causing Global Climate Change and there's a shit-ton of low hanging fruit (animal meat?) to be had but the people who make policy are the biggest offenders. We're literally banding together in the hundred of thousands to forego a chicken breast or hamburger so some celebrity can wipe out the entire savings by flying between their home and the harbor where their yacht is docked.
And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger
That’s not right. This studyabout biking vs driving with different diets. inflates the carbon output for bikers by subtracting the calories for car drivers, but not for bicyclists.
It assumes too much and is so generalized nothing can really be gleaned from the findings.
Walking and biking are more environmentally sound than driving
Not everyone drives a “fuel-efficient” car (25 mpg according to the article), in fact the most popular car being sold are Ford F150s with mpg around 15-20. And even mpg is not a constant if you consider traffic or inclination.
I 100% agree that the wealthy are killing us much much faster.
Also it assumes the increase in consumption from needing more calories will be uniform when my guess is it's not. Most people would have two servings of meat a day as a base augmented by a bunch of starches, sugars and fats to cover most of the calories, and any increases would probably be snacks of those starches and sugars that are way less co2 per calorie. If your diet is a stereotypical cheeseburger and fries, and your still hungry, your probably not gonna order another 1/4 cheeseburger and 1/4 fries, you'll probably just get another order of fries.
These type of things always crack me up because we all know that just living most of us are using 2k calories or so and if you ever used one of these excersise bikes that tracks calories burned it takes tons to do like 100 calories.
Animal products are incredibly harmful to the climate and are inherently wasteful.
Those corporations get their money from people like you.
Yes regulation would be the best to stop them but you know that's not gonna happen any time soon, especially when everyone refuses to change their own habits, politicians aren't gonna force through regulations that get people angry because they want their steaks.
Why do you want to continue to participate in something bad until it's legally not allowed anymore?
Why not do what you can (stop consuming animal products) while also advocating for regulation and political change?
What does holding evil corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them your money?
this is one of those things that is true but taken to far. If I stop eating meat it will not end the meat industry but if I am I am supporting it and the carbon it uses to produce the meat I eat and buy. The more people who don't buy meat the more it becomes unprofitable versus growing food. That being said I eat meat and I am trying to limit beef as me going from eating beef to chicken/pork has a more massive effect than a person going from chicken to beans. Im surprised at lamb, shrimp, and chesse on the chart though and wonder about goats. I assume cheese assume from cow but given lambs numbers and that cheese is generally from cow, goat, sheep im not sure.
Can someone explain to me why this is consumerism? I’m not going into YouTube to watch, due to the ads, but I have one of these (not a Stanley but very similar) and it has actually helped me buy less drinks and drink more water.
Think of stamp-collecting, but instead, you start collecting algorithmically controlled limited-edition thermos flask. The goal of these bottles were to be reusable, but people have started buying them as status symbols, just like Nike - they’re not going to be used, they’ll “rot” on the shelves. People are not buying them because they care about the environment, but because FOMO.
Blaming a gender or ethnicity for something that was clearly a result of consumerism culture, and a marketing tactic that exploited this manufactured culture. You’re missing the point here entirely.
You can look at the massive pickup trucks that are so common in North America and say “men once again being a blight on this planet”, and it will be the same type of problem.
The court ordered Friends of the Earth Norway and Nature and Youth, the two environmental organisations who brought the case, to pay legal costs of about £110,000. They could still take the case to the court of appeal, but say their resources are currently too diminished to continue the fight, though they are hoping for external support.
green
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.