468
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/climate@slrpnk.net
400 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

    To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

    (emphasis mine)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent