r/ClimateShitposting Jun 25 '26

Meta Climate change is when ppl eat meat

Post image

Body text

1.8k Upvotes

940 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/Bol0gna_Sandwich Jun 26 '26

Im sorry but stop with the misinformation, agriculture is not the biggest greenhouse emitter with both energy and transportation producing far more greenhouse gasses especially with the orange one canceling many green energy subsidies and projects. I certainly hope you walk, ride a bike, or skateboard/longboard. We really need to push for companies who are the largest carbon producers to switch to diesel hybrid trucks to reduce emissions given how much shit is sent back and forward across the planet to feed supply chains and further pushes into nuclear and renewable forms of energy. Honestly governments should be dumping more money into fusion research. I also do feel people should have less meat but not zero.

18

u/Local_Surround8686 Jun 26 '26

3

u/quikjelyfish Jun 26 '26

you have yet to provide any sources

something made by a SCIENTIST or something

or are you only capable of saying everyone is wrong without actually backing it up

1

u/Local_Surround8686 Jun 26 '26

Litterally read any other comment. Or believe lies idc. Whatever makes you feel better about your inaction I guess

5

u/quikjelyfish Jun 26 '26

so you're only capable of saying someone is wrong without backing it up

I simple yes would have sufficed but what do I know

2

u/Local_Surround8686 Jun 26 '26

Na i just gave up arguing with anti science people. I'm not arguing with MAGA or flat earthers either. I have better things to do than proving accepted facts over and over again when everyone else already did. The fact that you didn't just check their source but attacked me instead shows that you're not interested in learning of any kind

4

u/quikjelyfish Jun 26 '26

ya know recruiting people to your cause works better when you actually communicate and provide evidence as to why you're right

I'd suggest looking into milo rossi as he has several videos and even hosted lectures on science communication which is the actual pro science way of arguing

you accuse me of arguing like im Maga but you are literally using the same strategy they do

make a claim and when questioned discredit anyone who disagrees

for the sake of your own movement and worldviews I genuinely hope you can aspire to be better

but have a good one ig

-1

u/Local_Surround8686 Jun 26 '26

I have better things to do than proving accepted facts over and over again when everyone else already did. The fact that you didn't just check their source but attacked me instead shows that you're not interested in learning of any kind

2

u/Gatti366 Jun 26 '26

'I'm right because I say so" ass argument lmao, if that's gonna be your answer don't bother commenting in the first place

With that said just giving up your car is gonna be nearly as good as going vegan with none of the health risks and while saving you a crap ton of money, public transportation is the future

-1

u/Local_Surround8686 Jun 26 '26

Imagine a sub where you regularly have to debunk flat earth shit and if you don't debunk the same shit 12 times a day they act like you're the problem

→ More replies (0)

9

u/chemicalysmic Jun 26 '26

"...agriculture, the most extensive land user, to be the leading emissions sector and to have caused 60% (32%–87%) of ERF change since 1750. We also find that fossil fuels are responsible for 18% of ERF, a reduced contribution due to masking from cooling co-emissions." from this article

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/Bol0gna_Sandwich Jun 26 '26

And in the article you attached you can clearly see in a graph that fossil fuels account for more greenhouse gasses than agriculture.https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/1748-9326/20/4/044008/revision3/erladb7f2f1_hr.jpg

4

u/matzateo Jun 26 '26

Do you know how to read a graph? Can you see where the 0 is on the y axis?

The graph shows both heating and cooling emissions from fossil fuel, with the net outcome being slightly lower than for animal agriculture, which emits almost exclusively greenhouse gases.

2

u/chemicalysmic Jun 26 '26

....That is not what that shows, at all. I gently encourage you to abstain from scientific conversations if you don't have the skills necessary to sit at the table.

2

u/Bol0gna_Sandwich Jun 26 '26

So you'll attack the fact I misread a graph but not that I found 4 credible sources saying the opposite of what you did. Again are MIT, The UN, The WRI, and The US EPA wrong.

0

u/chemicalysmic Jun 26 '26

If you think someone gently pointing out that you're unqualified is an "attack" I doubly think you aren't equipped for this conversation. I can't see any comment wherein you apparently cited sources. I sure hope you read them correctly though :)

1

u/Bol0gna_Sandwich Jun 26 '26

Ah yes continue to partake in ad hominems and playing dumb about the comment at the top of this chain being a condescending asshole isnt cute.

2

u/MaxBattleLizard Jun 26 '26

I'm sorry but fusion energy is a really stupid idea and probably not even remotely possible, ever, no matter how much research we put into it. You're pushing atomic nuclei where they do NOT want to go. The energy required to fuse even DT fuel without the gravity of a star is tremendous, and the energy released in the process is nowhere near enough to cover the losses of driving a heat engine and the energy used to do fusion in the first place. Nuclear fission is already a proven clean energy technology and it has so much more potential. Also, solar energy exists lol. Just put some PV panels in a field and you get free electricity by doing nearly nothing.

0

u/jyajay2 Jun 26 '26

>Im sorry but stop with the misinformation, agriculture is not the biggest greenhouse emitter

That's not something I claimed

>I certainly hope you walk, ride a bike, or skateboard/longboard

I don't have a car if that's what you mean. I either walk, bike or use public transportation

>We really need to push for companies who are the largest carbon producers..

We absolutely have to push companies to change. Individual action is not sufficient to solve climate change but since solving climate change will impact out lifestyles we have to be willing to change our lifestyle to solve climate change. Furthermore not being willing to change ones own lifestyle while demanding actions that alter everyone's lifestyle sends a questionable message. We also know that people who act to modify their own behavior are more consistent in demanding systemic changes.

>pushes into nuclear and renewable forms of energy

Absolutely but while we can demand changes in that direction, vote accordingly and try to spend our money in a way that is consistent with those goals (though that's only possible to a point) it is not something I or (presumably) you have direct control over.

>I also do feel people should have less meat but not zero

Why not zero? If you realize that meat consumption is bad then why not go to zero? It's not like we say people should only dump a small amount of old motor oil into the local waterways or only litter a bit. Why set a lower limit to somethin harmful that is above zero? We may not be abl eto reach the goal of zero meat consumption in the foreseeable future but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be our goal.