this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
108 points (87.5% liked)

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

5052 readers
448 users here now

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

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

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I just buy from a local farmer. 1/2 cow and 1/2 pig feed my family for a year.
To get the same amount of meat from a commercial butcher it'd take probably hundreds of not thousands of animals.

Pigs are the only animal I struggle with eating, morally. Cows are gentle but really dumb and I don't have moral issues about eating birds.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

What do you mean a commercial butcher will need thousands of animals to produce the same amount of meat as a half cow locally? I haven't heard an argument that a little meat from a bunch of animals is ethically any different than a lot of meat from one animal, just curious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Pigs are the only animal I struggle with eating, morally.

Yeah, they're pretty intelligent and emotionally aware, at least as much as your average dog.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not eating beef is pretty easy. Lots of alternatives.

I dropped beef and pork and stayed with turkey and fish.

Found a bunch of plant based options to replace the beef texture too.

It's really just some stupid mindset about STEAK that many Americans have.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I'm not vegan, and not trying to say people should be vegan. I love me a good steak, but I was out with some vegan friends, and we went to a vegan restaurant. They served me something that was doing an excellent impression of a steak. Good enough that if I knew which various plant protein they were using, I'd make that at home.

Burgers they have down these days, and eating veggies burgers allows me to have more meals a week without meat. Same for most sausages. I don't know how they did it, but I had a vegan brat that had a snappy "skin."

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

this is warmed-over poore-nemecek 2018. that's the primary basis for the claims about the climate, but the methodology of that study is fucked, and it's a disservice to actual climate science to keep touting this meta"study" that misuses its source material and myopically focuses on distilling data instead of understanding the complexity of our agricultural systems. the textile industry's water use, land use, and emissions, i guarantee, are being counted in poore-nemecek as emissions from beef. i didn't pull out the data from the separate reference to water use, but i will eat my hat if that doesn't, as well.

eating less beef has not been effective at stopping the growth of the beef industry for all the people who have done so. we need a real solution, and trying to influence individual consumer choice isn't working.

edit: down voting doesn't change the truth

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

My only care is that cow meat tastes damned good. KC strip steaks, smoked brisket, and hamburger in its many forms.

If it can taste like that, then I almost don't care where it comes from.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, also milk, there's no replacement yet. When I read almonds/oats milk, I got to puke. How can anyone believe it tastes like milk, let alone taste good? Do they not notice that very bitter and awful taste it cointains or do they put extra double sugar into it to make it taste? Some people really have some strong self hypnosis going on or lack taste buds.

I gave them a chance, wholeheartedly and was so super disappointed on the taste, I thought people were trolling me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I guess I'll keep the trolling going then, because I've been switched to plant milk for a couple years—mostly oat, but I'll mix in some soy for protein, or coconut because yum. I don't drink it straight, it's mostly for cereal. I usually have a regular and a vanilla because each is good with different cereals. If you want the closest to "real" milk, about 80% (regular) oat and 20% coconut I think is pretty close. Silk makes what they call "One" milk that's pretty much that, but I like to experiment with the ratio myself. 😄

Regular milk tastes... weird now. Slightly acidic almost? I can also feel that my gut doesn't like trying to digest it. (Almost like milk is supposed to be for infants, who'd've thunk? 😅)

Almond milk though... BLECK. I can't stand it. Often watery, acidy, weird aftertaste, just like you said.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I don't want to eat cats, dogs, people, shit, cockrraches, and probably many other things. Lol.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

The more obsessed you are with the trappings of manhood the more everyone knows you're faking it

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

How about everyone who says it's the job of the little guy to fix the climate problem kicks a rock and governments, shipping companies, cruise lines, airlines, industrial farmers, etc PUT DOWN THE FORK.

Every individual in every country is not responsible for allowing year over year profits in industries that ignore the writing on the wall.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Beef consumption at current levels is unsustainable, I agree with your general principle but you're saying this as if everyone can continue to consume tons of beef every year. Whether industry, regulation, or individual action: you're not going to eat as much beef.

This isn't like recycling

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So if that's the problem, government should step in and limit beef production. Why rely on everyone to "do the right thing" to solve societal problems? That's why government exists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, and in fact it is a huge part of the problem and we actively subsidize its production let alone limiting it. However the end result will be the same, so it's not like saying "why should I have to recycle/deal with waste because companies are making single use products" because unlike in that case the alternative still has you eating less meat.

Consider checking out this entertaining and informative video about how wild things get https://youtu.be/XusyNT_k-1c?si=K_gxkl0X60kFmvw0.

Overseas nations grow animal feed in the US and ship it halfway across the world to feed their cattle. It's absurd.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

While I think it's a good ideal, I have met a lot of people in my life and have no confidence that any progress will be made by leaving the solution up to them

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You can change what you do without input or veto from anyone else.

That is not true for governments.

You can do both. You can go vegan for the environment (if abuse of animals isn’t enough for you) AND vote for a/lobby the government for larger sweeping action.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure.

At the same time, I can enjoy a great steak every now and again, and I can travel with my children to make sure they know their great grandmother in a different country every two years. And I can do those things and not feel bad because 80% of the time we do our part. Corpos, by comparison, are not pulling their weight, and they are already most of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I totally agree with this notion, everybody should do what they realistically can, and it will look different for everyone. Some can be vegan and it will work out great, others will struggle to give up meat. Some can bike/walk to work everyday, or avoid air travel, and some can't. Anyone doing well 80% of the time is probably doing just fine.

All that said, it is worth remembering that these industries are (mostly) funded by consumers, and while giant corporations are obviously the way bigger issue, consumers have more power than we often give ourselves credit for to restrict those companies. In a hypothetical world where everyone stops eating beef, it isn't like the beef industry continues to pollute. They will directly produce the amount of beef people will buy. Even if everyone has their steak now and then but doesn't make it an every night staple, that alone would already do a lot to limit the emissions of the beef industry. It's not a whole solution, but it is the one that is easiest and most obtainable, because convincing the government to stop subsidizing beef is not on the agenda of any major politicians at least in the states, even if I wish it were.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One problem with "voting with your wallet" like this is some wallets are bigger than others and it's not always easy and affordable to do the sustainable thing. Add to this that powerful lobbies (oil and gas, dairy, animal agriculture) use regulatory capture and other means to make their products the cheaper option for the consumer.

State action to drive green technologies down in price like that of China is met with tariffs and other protectionist measures that drive those prices right back up.

This is yet another tragedy of late stage capitalism sucking all wealth out of the working class, people may want to live more sustainably but they have to buy the cheap, disposable, subsidized options. Voting with your wallet isn't easy when your wallet is empty.

I'm fairly privileged and I lead a vegan lifestyle, and I can pay extra to have some luxuries like the meat substitutes, vegan restaurants, or non-fast-fashion clothing. Others might be able to do the same, cheaper, but at a lower quality of life.

If we tackled wealth inequality with any vigor at all, more people could do this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

That's true, and a big part of why what is possible for everyone varies. There is some silver lining, chicken is cheaper than beef and significantly lower carbon footprint, some vegan options can be very cheap too if there is time to cook.

But yes, for this who have the ability and inclination to vote with wallets, great, with acceptance for others who don't have that option

load more comments
view more: next ›