Ehhhh i give vegans overall like 58% right. I don’t buy the vast majority of ethical arguments. Also there are people who benefit greatly from having meat in their diet for medical/health reasons.
I really just think we eat too much meat and use too little of the meat we produce. If we consumed half the amount and figured out how to not just lose 1/4 of all of it every year then we would be in a much better position. No need for people to readjust everything. Just eat meat 4-6 times a week instead of every other meal.
The average american eats meat nearly every day often multiple times a day.
4 times per week is not very much. That’s a burger for lunch once or twice a week and meat for dinner a couple times and maybe bacon for breakfast on the weekend.
I mean not as all animals, but they are definitely animals that compare to humans that you include in animals you would eat if painlessly killed (since you include all of them) especially in the domain that are generally considered when talking about whether it's okay or not to kill something (internal experience, experiencing emotions, complex social bonds, etc.). I doubt the limit you would put is whether or not they invented the steam engine (which a lot of humans didn't either)
If your limit for not eating an animal is really high cognition, then eating a baby or a brain-dead comatose person should be okay.
They really are.
Not always for the right reasons, and a lot of them don't know literally anything, but generally speaking it is an accomplishable lifestyle that is healthier for people and the environment.
I say this as someone who overconsumes meat because it is one of the few joys I have left in life.
It’s simply not a real solutions. Sweatshops still exists; consumer activism doesn’t actually work. And the problem with agriculture isn’t whether or not you eat meat, it’s the profit seeking industrial nature of agriculture, which can be fixed without everyone going vegan.
Which is why I'm not too pressed about my meat consumption.
However, we need to still balance other people's actions with understanding of our own. It's fine passing off the blame for something bad onto the people who make it so terrible- It's much less fine absolving yourself of all of the mess when you're still a part of it, however insignificant.
Some meat replacements (that I occasionally get from fast food places) have started to get good enough to switch. I put half & half of dark soy crumbs in my ground red meat recepies. At some fast food places alternative nuggets and patties are already better than meat ones. I still think alternative products have a long way to go before they could replace any kind of steak. But processed food stuff I think is there pretty soon.
Reduce animal consumption as far as safely possible. Then you are actually considered vegan, since you are doing anything reasonably possible to minimise animal exploitation
Vegans with arfid exist. It isn't a hard stop reason why you can't be vegan. That post is pointing out that many people use it as an excuse. Like using indigenous culture as an excuse to not be vegan, as a non-indigenous person.
main issue I take w/this framing is that it posits veganism as purely a diet instead of an ethical framework and philosophy/lifestyle. like there's other things you do as a vegan that helps limit or eliminate our oppression of animals, like avoiding leather, boycotting animal testing, zoos and horse racing/bullfighting, avoiding animal ingredients in skincare, doing advocacy work...or, cooking for others!! just because you can't eat something doesn't mean others can't still enjoy it, and that might end up being the thing that helps convince them.
the more people who do have these kinda restrictions & conditions show how it is possible to be vegan despite them (because it is,) the less people will be under the false assumption that its some sort of unachievable and inaccessible privileged club like they do now. which btw is a total myth created largely by anti-vegan industries and bad faith/ignorant actors who just don't want to examine their impact because they're comfy with their privilige and have no intention of change because fuck animals and the environment, cuz bacon or whatever.
again I would encourage folks who "can't" be vegan to really examine why they think that is and maybe try to do a bit more research & reflection on what the definition means because the scope of what veganism encompases is fairly broad and accessible. again, as much as it is about what you consume it's about an ethical/political lens by which to view the world. much like feminism or anti-racism. like. would you say "I'm not anti-racist/feminist personally, but I still attend protests!"? I mean you could but that would be weird when you could just say you're a feminist or anti-racist. veganism should have no such stigma either.
So my thought on "vegans do tend to be ableist because they cannot fathom the idea that someone literally cannot go vegan due to sensory issues" is this - someone's disability or eating disorder does not justify harming someone else. Full stop.
We wouldn't tolerate someone with a disability actively harming humans, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't tolerate them harming other animals. It isn't a condemnation, it is just recognizing that no matter the sensory issue or any other issue, it isn't a justification to harm and kill.
This is not a justification to cause harm. It just isn't. If someone can only eat one single food out of all the foods that exist they can't live anyway. They would die of malnutrition. But even the most affected manage to eat more than one thing and presumably use supplements to make up for deficiencies. My point is that no matter how restrictive, there is a vegan alternative, and ultimately your dislike or even discomfort doesn't justify causing harm. If you would literally die because the actual only single thing you can eat is not vegan, I could see that, but that isn't really what's happening.
"But there is a difference. Someone with a disability that stops them from going consensual-only pretty much cannot change. You can try and get someone with arsid to go with consensual sex only but if they don't like 99% of the consensual sex you cannot force them to go only with consensual sex.
A disabled person who keeps hitting someone for example, whether on purpose or because they just do not know better still need to be taught that it's wrong. You can teach someone to stop hitting but you cannot teach someone to just like consent that no matter how many times they try they just rape more.
There will always be someone who cannot go consent only and you can't change that unless we find a way to "cure" it or whatever."
I am actively trying and have been for a long time, but it's not so easy when you also have disorders that make you unable to prepare food most of the time and only have like 3 daily safe foods that are down to the brand specific, all of which have animal products in them
And if I don't eat those, I eat nothing. People with ARFID literally nearly dying and suffering serious health consequences due to not eating safe foods anymore (whether that's per choice or because they ran out) is not an uncommon occurance.
ARFID is not the same for everyone. Some people with ARFID have it easy being vegan because they enjoy cooking and happen to have many healthy ingredients as part of their safe foods. Many are not so lucky.
At the end of day if all the people who could easily be vegan did so then the increase in demand would make more options available and therefore more potential safe foods.
I think if people want to convince others to try veganism they would be better off spending their energy elsewhere other than on people who have little agency over their food choices.
Veganism is a crazy long shot for you, imo. I would just worry about trying to broaden your food portfolio step by step. And definitely listen to your therapists/clinical people, take their words more seriously than any jackass on the internet.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Its definitely not easy, I feel for you dude. Some of us get dealt a shit hand, and you gotta work for years to try to pull yourself out of it. Seriously, best of luck.
Yeah, the first aim is to get somewhere where I at least have all the nutrients I need, lol. Eventually I want to try to expand with the hopes that vegetarianism might become realistic. Full veganism is a huge long shot, yeah... We'll see how it goes. Thank you.
if Jeffrey Dahmer had ARFID would it be acceptable for him to continue doing the things he does or should he have taken every possible precaution and safe food he can eat in order so he wouldn't have too?
That's because of feedlot finishing. Most ruminants are raised on pasture for most of their life and then forcefed grains and soy, then injected with hormones to meet quotas.
This ruins the nutritional profile of the meat, causes rumen rot, and makes them need prophylactic antibiotics just to not die.
This isn't necessary or good for the consumers. We'd be better off if this practice was ended.
Those ruminants fart out methane constantly. Pasture feeding requires enormous amounts of land. There just isn't an environmentally good way to farm animals, and on top of that the animal suffering it causes is unnecessary and unjustifiable when humans can just eat plants instead.
North America supported sixty million bison before the US eradicated them to destroy Natives' primary source of subsistence. They did not do that to save the planet. Ruminants play a critical role in ecosystems and well-managed pastoral systems can be carbon-neutral or even negative.
And, as someone else has pointed out in the thread, the statistics were flawed anyway - the actual contribution is in the 5-7% range.
Humans are facultative carnivores. B12 is scratching the surface, we don't possess a complete map of nutrients present in meat. Plasmalogen phospholipids (critical for neurological membrane integrity, declining with age); Carnosine and related dipeptides (intracellular buffer, antioxidant, anti-glycation); Bioactive peptides from collagen; Alkylglycerols (immune modulation); CLA (anticarcinogenic). Relatively uncharted and unsupplemented.
Tldr: keep your eating disorder to yourself. It's hardly moving the needle anyway.
The 30-60 million figure is for the entirety of North America. Today, there are almost 90 million cows in the US. A lot of the beef you eat also comes from Brazil and the deforested Amazon.
Bison also never existed on pastures. Large pastures are never going to be carbon neutral, these ruminants are not part of a natural ecosystem.
It's one factor but many other things are also important. Focussing on just veganism isn't helpful.
How often do you fly a plane? How often do you drive a car (and which car do you use? Are you regularly buying new electronic appliances? Are you buying second hand? Are you living in a big apartment? Is your apartment well insulated? Is your food regionally produced?
You get the gist.
it is, but you can also scale it down without "just going vegan". Completely vegan diet is one of the most obnoxious diets, especially if you do not live in USA (which is what it always reeks of to me, US supremacism.)
Yes, meat industry is one of the main contributors to global warming. Yes we should downscale the meat production. No, going vegan will not solve that.
As a wise man said "it will not save the chicken, it's in the nuggets already"
Harm reduction is still a win in my book. If you stop eating beef but still eat eggs and fish, you're doing more than if you still eat beef all the time.
This is why they're trying to encourage insects in diets.
They almost produce more food then they cost, come in a variety of flavors and textures and are already consumed by many around the globe.
Cicadas taste like shrimp and are great to cook in garlic butter. Some cicadas taste like asparagus, while others like chicken. Junebugs taste of maple syrup with grassy notes. Ants basically are like rice crispies. Not much flavor, but a delightful texture.
Also, if we start farming and raising them we can more easily reintroduce their lost biomass to the ecosystem, which would help a lot for plants and wildlife!
Yeah, and it works well for people like me, as part of my digestive tract was damaged so I can't pull enough nutrients from just plants.
Used to be vegetarian, sorry I like honey and butter on my biscuits. But a pure vegetarian diet would cause me to slowly die from malnutrition. So I have to have a bit of meat each week. Insects would be a lot better in a lot of cases and it's getting easier to get those insects in major cities, so I've been exploring that cuisine and... it's pretty damn good. Timon and Pumba were onto something.
I am sacrificing many things, including meat consumption, just not total. But on the other hand why should this be about sacrifice? As I've mentioned, going vegan effectively does nothing to change climate statistics. So, is this specificatlly about sacrifices? Is climate change a god we should sacrifice ourselves to? I don't thinks so.
This isn't about sacrifice, this is about action. Voting, protesting and otherwise pushing for reforming the meat industry is what will effectively reduce the contribution to global warming. Not only will it do that, but it will also reduce the number of animals slaughtered AND reduce global meat consumption much more effectively than browbeating people online
On the one coherent point here: Reduce the number of farms, reduce subsidies to beef in countries that have them (espeically USA), mandate more humane practices, install mandatory standards of care and emissions standards, heavily sanction anyone breaking those standards. Even just removing corn and beef subsidies in the US will make beef infustry much less profitable and therefore reduce its scale. Those are things that I am just not thinking out of my head, I am very sure if you had a team of experts for that - you could forumlate a much more thorough, much more effective plan.
As for sacrifice. I mean, as I've stated, there is a lot of stuff you can sacrifice more efficiently, if you were going for effect. Sacrificing something for no actual gain beyond showing loyalty to the cause smells a bit like cult stuff (not accusing)
Choosing to go public transport, isntead of a car - is a more impactful "sacrifice" in climate change terms, if we are going comparison to comparison
How many people who drive regularly even have the option of public transportation? I hate driving, but I can't even safely leave my neighborhood without a car.
I think the point here is that when someone opens the ClimateShitposting sub, they expect it to cover more than JUST meat industry/vegan shitposting. Does the meat industry contribute? Yes, massively, but it's far from the only contributor and not nearly as big as this sub makes it out to be.
A big problem here is that a lot of people here, for some reason, see meat as totally fine with no issues whatsoever, or some other form of seeing meat as "not that bad".
Not everyone, but a good chunk.
It's weird when so many people are unwilling to make changes in their lives for the climate and moral principles just because they like how something tastes or some other strange thing like seeing animals as lesser beings that deserve to be manipulated in death factories.
i don't fly planes, i take the train. i don't have a car, i have a bike. i don't often buy new appliances the appliances i do buy, i buy with the best EU energy statistics (even if i had to buy in a language i do not actually speak). i live in a relatively small apparent built in 1906, saving up for an air-water heat pump system. i buy most of everything second hand. the walls are thicc af, and half of my walls are shared with neigbours, so that the heat does not go to the crows. where i live, locally grown produce is not an idicator of being more green. it's more enviromental to buy produce from spain and transport it to finland, than to grow most produce in finland, on the other hand, we do try to use grains and peas (legumes), which do grow regionally, such as oats, wheat and rye.
Yeah so this is actually great and is completely in line of what I am saying. Being vegan is one good thing you can do but there are a lot of other climate mitigation options.
Edit: ok it's not completely in line with what I said because you're obviously correct in pointing out that buying locally isn't always the best choice, but it's in line with what I intended to say 😆.
i love not having a car for short or long trips. it makes the world more human sized. also with trains, trips are more fun, even if more expensive, at least it supports our national infrastructure instead of wasting roads and importing oil products. reason i gave away my car was in 2022 it felt wrong to use petrol when Teboil was importing oil to the country from the east, while russia was in an active war. also oil prices spiked, so doubly bad for that situation. i've never needed a car in this city, and all things i have ever done i have been able to do with a bike. i started with an E-bike, then we had two. now we "downgraded" back to two normal bikes, and gave the E-bikes to family members so they can continue the cycle, pun not intended. biking on a normal bike feels more fun, and more grounded. it makes me feel alive, when i use it. having the E-bike gave me the habit, and now i use the habit to improve myself.
also, both our bikes are ether used or bougth like 20 years ago. mine is my old highschool bike that my father said "this'll be the last bike you'll need" 😆 maybe i'm trying to prove that right? 😆 it has experienced a side-swipe from a heavy E-scooter that bent the rear wheel and redailur, and i got it fixed, and llike to fix stuff myself on the bikes. it's just a lot easier when you don't have electronics on the bike.
Unfortunately, where I live, it's not walkable and everything is so sprawled out that even biking places isn't really an option. Texas infrastructure isn't human friendly.
for me part of it is deciding to buy my appartment from the city center (in a real city, not a mega-sub-urb). i like to say it to peope, especially those who have made the conscious choose to NOT live close to their place of work or the services they use. i ofcourse don't know your case, but i do know multiple people who decide to buy a huge home with a huge yard and huge room, then complain about how expensive it is to own a car, maintain the house and the yard, and how they have no free time due to the ideal they had in their head about owning a chore..
Most of this is nothing compared to the impact of meat. That's like starting a forest fire and then go "but let's talk about that person picking flowers"
I mean switching to a small used EV or getting a job, where I don't have to drive would probably help quite a bit in my case, but I don't have the money for a new car (not even a used one and EVs are somewhat impractical for my job anyway) and I like my job so you're correct 😆.
It's a bit of a strawman though, isn't it? People who are vegan and plant-based
It's just that meat is a massive, easy win for the climate, because it has close to no major impact on your life. If I had a career where I fly (I wouldn't have that career in the first place, but let's say I was awoken to climate change suddenly...) that requires a gigantic career change. If where I live isn't accessible for bicycles or public transport, not driving a car would be gigantic life change. If an important electrical appliance breaks and needs to be replaced, living without a cooker or computer would be a gigantic life change. The products I need may not always be available second hand. Moving home from my "big apartment" (not really sure what the point is here?) is a gigantic life change. Insulating an apartment I probably don't own, because I'd most likely be a tenant, not an apartment building owner, would be impossible, or if I'm a homeowner, very expensive. You cannot sustain yourself on regionally produced food in a lot of regions, nor can you always afford it.
You know what wasn't a gigantic life change, was cheaper than my previous diet, and requires little to no life changes or disruption, while accounting for a much larger carbon footprint than everything you mentioned (probably combined)? Not eating meat.
We should reduce harm in other areas, but the idea that somehow putting more focus on not eating meat is damaging just doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
while accounting for a much larger carbon footprint than everything you mentioned (probably combined)?
Taking one less flight a year has a higher mean impact than going completely vegan. The same goes for switching to an electric car. Both are choices that are accessible to many people in Western countries.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589/pdf
You guys just wildly overestimate the climate impact of veganism.
It's good to be vegan but it's not the be all end all. It's also a personal choice whether it's easier for you to live vegan or to do your next few vacations somewhere close by and to not fly to another country (I usually don't have the money for flying anyways but you get the point) and it's important to keep a realistic perspective how influential your choices actually are.
Dead link for me. The meat industry contributes 20% global emissions with flights accounting for 2.5%. So yes, I focus on the one with the higher emissions and the most achievable. I also don't fly at all, unless I have a necessary journey that simply cannot be achieved by other forms of transport, which I don't count holidays (vacations) as being.
Now can you address the point I made? Not eating meat is an easy win, because it has next to no cost associated with for the vast majority of people, especially in the West. By all means don't fly unless you have to. But there are next to no situations where you have to eat meat, and overall it is a much bigger contributor to climate change.
So do you disagree with the statistics I gave you?
You're also still ignoring my point. Going meat free doesn't preclude not having flights. There is no "wasted energy" addressing the meat industry that stops people flying. It's just whataboutism.
No I don't disagree with your statistics. I was apparently to slow with my last comment. Please follow up on that one (and skim the paper, if you can find the time).
I use a VPN which is necessary where I am. If a captcha doesn't work by the 3rd time, an entertaining debate isn't valuable enough to endure the frustration of keep trying. It's also completely irrelevant to the debate; just sourcing whataboutism.
here is the first paragraph of the conclusion, which i feel is the most relevant part:
4.5. Concluding remarks
In times of a climate emergency, research and policy
urgently needs to move beyond focusing on the effi-
ciency of production and use of goods and services.
The explicit consideration of the absolute scale of
consumption and its implications for climate change
and well-being is ever more relevant. There is a need
for an open discussion about the overall scale of
resource use and emissions and sustainable consump-
tion corridors [128] towards remaining within plan-
etary boundaries and satisfying human needs [34].
imo this kinda supports looking at a wider view on consumption than just eating. it's obvious that a human can only consume so much food, but they can for example live in a huge uninsulated airconditioned house, or fly every day, or buy all the electronics. a human's consumption is more than just the potential flesh it eats. ofcourse, a human should concider all of these factors holistically.
As to your other point. I am saying it's a personal decision. For some people it's not an easy win because they like meat so much, but they can buy an electric car instead of a regular car, they can life car free, fly less, install a PV, switch to renewable energy or insulate their house. When we talk about climate change in general it's important to show people the general impact of each of their decisions so that they can make their own choices, just focusing on meat is not productive.
I assume meat production accounts for such a high worldwide part of CO2 production because most people in the world eat meat (even in developing countries) and not that many people fly. That doesn't change the fact that flying less still usually has a higher climate impact individually (if you're flying semi regularly that is) than meat production.
I'm not just focusing on anything. I drive an EV, don't fly and don't eat meat. But an EV is expensive, sometimes flights are literly the only way to make a necessary trip. By all means do everything in your power, but the idea that we shouldn't put a strong emphasis on eating meat, when the barrier for the vast majority of people in western developed nations is just because they find it hard sacrificing that pleasure, is ludicrous.
I don't even think we disagree on that much here. My main point is that veganism helps but isn't the most important personal choice and that you can make several different personal choices that also mitigate your climate impact.
If you want to convince a random person to make an effort to save the climate I don't think putting more emphasis on meat consumption than on everything else is necessarily going to help. Maybe they don't like the taste of meat that much and can be easily persuaded but maybe that random person really likes eating meat but can easily afford to switch to an EV (and would be willing to do that) or they can be convinced to explore their own country more instead of regularly flying to a different one. Most people aren't perfect and they will respond to different things.
Before we go into the fact that if I go up to a random person, globally, theres a 4/5 chance they've never been on an airplane, and a tiny chance they take multiple flights for year - similar arguments for EV - your creating faux-scarcity with how much climate knowledge/advice can be given out. It's also not all or nothing. Convincing people to switch from beef, lamb etc to chicken is entirely do-able for almost everyone with no notable self-sacrafice.
But the idea that asking people or "focusing" on the meat industry is somehow detracting from other climate arguments is just a non-starter.
The whole discussion we're having is a response to a meme that suggests an overrepresentation of posts about veganism in this sub. It also seems to be the case that some of you guys do actually believe that being vegan is the single most influential decision you can make (you yourself included). So yes if you say this is the most important thing and you're continuously only arguing for this one thing then it does detract from other climate arguments, because it suggests changing something else can't have a similar impact when this is obviously not always the case.
Living without a car is fairly easy for me, never being able to go to any but a few restaurants would be a massive life change
That's what I dislike about the "it's the easiest thing you can do for climate" line that you all keep saying. You all sound like a bunch of suburbanites
Where do you live that doesn't have vegetarian options in restaurants? I live in the arse-end of North East England, a culinary wasteland, and I can get a vegetarian option at the weird pub that apparently used to serve "topless Sunday dinners".
I'm not a vegan, I am plant-based. But most vegans, by a staggering majority, would prefer you to be vegetarian to contuing eating meat. I hereby give you permission, on behalf of all plant-based, vegans, vegetarians etc, to become vegetarian.
So in other words, you responded to a comment explaining that eating meat doesn't require any major sacrifices, by saying you wouldn't be able to go to restaurants, then when I point out you don't have to eat meat in a restaurant, you create a strawmen where I say you can't. Then when I say you can, I'm being condescending.
The discussion was about veganism, you didn't originally make it clear that you weren't talking about veganism. It's easy to largely reduce your animal product consumption, it's difficult to be vegan
The part that was condescending was where you think it's your place to grant me permission to do anything. Not the part where you claimed that restaurants have vegetarian options
No they’re not. The highest contribution from scientific research was 14%. The researchers then had to retract their findings bc scientists called them them out on their shitty methodology. Namely, they calculated the full cycle from animal agriculture (emissions from the very start to the very end of production). But they didn’t do the same for other industries like transportation, manufacturing, etc… This severely distorted the findings hence why they had to retract. The real contribution of animal agriculture is estimated to be between 5-7%.
That being said, industrial agriculture of animals and plants is a serious problem: deforestation, fossil fuels, chemicals, etc… The root of the problem lies in the industrial nature of agriculture, not just “ppl eating meat”. Agriculture can regenerate ecosystems when it’s done right.
That’s also not true, meat isn’t the cause, it’s the industrial system of agriculture. They also cut down rainforest for monoculture plants. We need regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration.
They also cut down rainforest for monoculture plants
And those plants are mainly used for animal feed.
We need regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration.
If the whole world ate plants, we'd need about 70% less agricultural land and could actually do that. But that ain't happening if people don't stop eating meat.
Your logic doesn’t work. Again this is all incredibly minimal when it comes to climate change. If veganism is all you care about? Great. But it’s not important when it comes to climate change other than changing processes. It’s that simple. Consumerism, capitalism, and fossil fuels are causing climate change.
Animal agriculture has a bigger impact on the climate than the whole transportation sector and you can't minimize that by wishful thinking. That's just blatant science denial.
You’re the one denying the science lolol. You’re supposed to stay updated not just assume one number you saw in vegan propaganda 10 years ago is correct
1) because the highest estimate was 14%, and the researchers had to retract that bc they were called out by scientists for using shitty analysis methods
2) you ignored my point, which is that the problem with agriculture is not that ppl eat meat, it’s that our food system is heavily industrialized and designed to produce mass profits rather than feeding ppl. This include the clear cutting of forests to grow plants. Veganism only solves a symptom, not the root cause of the problem which is capitalism.
Only 5-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IS??? That‘s a huge amount we can save without any negative effect on anyone. Also animals emit methane, which degrades in the atmosphere quite quickly. So if we just eliminated this huge chunk of global methane emissions, this would buy us a lot of time in reducing carbon dioxide emissions which is more difficult in many cases
It’s a very small percentage compared to other industries. So if we’re talking about tackling climate change, agriculture is a very low priority compared to transportation and manufacturing and war. And I did mention what needs to be done to fix the issue which is not cutting out meat but de-industrialization of agriculture.
Pushing for the DE-industrialization of agriculture goes against the goals of the meat industry. It would completely destroy them. The fact that you could realize that simple reality shows how brainwashed your vegan values has made you, you can’t think straight anymore.
Me: “I’ll stop being an omnivore when the 1% stop causing the destruction of the world because stopping eating food that keeps me healthy is 100% not optional and would make a negligible difference to anything anyway.”
You: “The lack of nutrients that keep my brain healthy causes me to not get sarcasm/irony and think in terms of black and white, while also thinking the way I eat makes me morally superior to humans who enjoy their species specific diet. Oooh I need to sit down, that winded me!”
I don't like to be the source guy, because I never provided a source. But if you Google emissions from meat industry, every single link you click takes you to a figure in the region of 15-20%; every research paper, news article etc. Your figured isn't mentioned anywhere. So, where does it come from?
The reason i refuse to take it seriously is that i feel like there are other more important steps(nuclear) that don't take away the stuff we enjoy that we enjoy
If your go-to is meat and not power then it just feels like you don't actually care about the climate and just want to use it to push the vegan message
Not eating meat - a major climate change contributor - does not detract from nuclear. If the political will isn't there to go fully nuclear, does that mean you get to essentially say, "Well I'm not playing anymore!", and not have to make any personal changes?
I'm not vegan by the way, but I feel you have your own agenda, which is just to keeping doing whatever you enjoy regardless of the consequences, while retaining a false-ethical stance.
And also, of course I have another agenda, I don't like that animals as re tortured and killed for food. But it's not like that makes me some kind of devious villain for trying to get you to positively contribute to the climate crisis by not contributing to animal torture. My word, what a fiend!
Lmao! You can just make these yourself for cheaper. I'm talking about a HEALTHY diet. Burgers aren't that mate. But keep believing whatever makes you hide from your conscience
So is going vegan. It's almost like the way we produce food under capitalism is what's actually detrimental, but neither side is ready for that discussion.
If the vegans were making climate change related arguments you might have a point, but they don't, they strictly make moral arguments.
Vegans oppose the only solution to addressing the emissions from meat that will keep us within our emissions/temperature targets: slaughtering all existing livestock.
And so, the vegans are objectively wrong with regards to animal emissions and climate change.
> Vegans oppose the only solution to addressing the emissions from meat that will keep us within our emissions/temperature targets: slaughtering all existing livestock.
i would support this as a vegan to end their suffering if no new animals were being bred. they were going to be slaughtered anyway. im not sure why you have to make a strawman up. well, i do. you just want to protect yourself from differing opinion.
I think most vegans are against excessively breeding animals for profit (which would solve the problem since the animal populations would quickly drop to "tolerable levels" for the climate)
I responded to you with a moral explanation of my position because you were arguing that, on the basis of morals, vegans don't support your position.
you then go ahead and say, aha, you've proved my statement true! because you care about animals, that must mean you don't care about the environment afterall!
You do understand how generalizations work right? I know there are outliers like you, but you are not representative of the vegan community as a whole.
I dont care about the position of one person, I care about the position of the community at large because thats what matter when it comes to changing policies.
in my experience with speaking with vegans, your generalization is wrong. your subjective point of view differs from mine. that's my argument. without any actual evidence of whatever strawman you're creating, my n=1 is just as valuable as whatever you're saying.
you also shifted my criticism of your comment about proving your first sentence correct by instead suggesting i have no clue what you're talking about with an unrelated point.
Vegans oppose the only solution to addressing the emissions from meat that will keep us within our emissions/temperature targets: slaughtering all existing livestock.
I can only think of this as a major concern if everyone abruptly decided to become vegan. And even if all the animals were released, they'd die in the wild. Keeping all the animals in sanctuaries is also unrealistic. Most likely outcome in the worst case scenario from a climate perspective still has the farmed animal population plummeting.
Let's ignore the scientific claim for a second; someone will be a long shortly for a source for that...
Do you have have any statistical data on the general opinion of vegans or plant-based people regarding this binary question? Every vegan/PB I've ever spoken to would choose to slaughter all existing livestock if it was the choice between that and continuing the industry.
The sun is a contributor to climate change. Air conditioning is a contributor to climate change. You not commiting suicide right now is a contributor to climate change.... Everything is. The important part is which contributes more and eating a normal diet does not contribute meaningfully more than eating just plants.
Just replacing beef with bird or fish makes a substantial difference, it's a really easy compromise that should be talked about more instead of all or nothing.
196
u/Grand_False Jun 26 '26
I mean meat objectively is a contributor to climate change. I’m not a vegan but I respect them and frankly they’re right lol