this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
689 points (77.8% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2645 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If the entire world turned vegan would it make a difference?

...yes. Plainly and obviously. Most land use would be gone overnight. Deforestation would stop immediately as would the second largest source of methane, one of the largest sources of NO2, and billions of tonnes of CO2 per year (about a quarter of all emissions). No other single initiative other than maybe ending urban driving would come close.

If you're in the global top 50% there is absolutely nothing stopping you from switching to a primarily plant based diet, and if you're in the bottom 50% you probably don't eat enough meat to be a major impact.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’m not taking a side, I’m just here saying that I have no idea which one of those two options, kill the car or stop eating meat, most people would be more amenable to doing. On its face I think most would rather give up cars but I’m really not sure. Both have a better shot than guns(at least in the US)

We’re so boned

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The worst part is neither are even remotely economically viable without massive subsidy. Just redirecting those subsidies to alternatives would solve 75% of emissions overnight.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

In both of these cases, and in fact regarding a lot of things, climate activists are going at this TOTALLY FUCKING BACKWARDS.

OF COURSE we're boned, we asked people to actively make their own lives worse. We should have known that was never going to happen.

Whats the actual, practical solution? Science, same as it always has been. Lab grown meat. Electric vehicles & better urban transit. Renewable energy.

The solution is not to make people's lives worse but to design ways that will reduce emissions without requiring any actual sacrifice from everyday people (except higher prices). Because everyday people will not sacrifice. It will never happen.

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

I wouldn't go as far as say that deforestation would stop since half of it is for products not for animals, like soybeans and palm oil.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"80% of the world's soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production" - WWF

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Ok I didn't know that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Both are used for animal feed, and the vast tracts of no longer needed crop land would displace other demand.

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

Where are all the crops going to grow if land use and deforestation would disappear overnight?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

On the billions of acres no longer needed to grow animal feed for a small minority of global calories and protein.

You're trying to pretend meat isn't over and order of magnitude less efficient than other agriculture and it's just making you look foolish.

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

So then what happens to all the cattle if this comes to be? Your scenario assumes they all just evaporate into the ether never to be seen again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The industry kills 90 Billions each year. The IPCC calculates with a decline over 20 years. So maybe people pay next year to only raise and kill 60 Billions and so on.

Farmers already kill them if they have a financial incentive like raising feed prices or falling meat/dairy prices.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Same thing that happens to every generation before them. Projecting your own complete lack of critical thinking or imagination onto others doesn't mean they're actually as stupid as you make them out to be.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Have a close look at this graph: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use#half-of-the-world-s-habitable-land-is-used-for-agriculture

"livestock takes up most of the world’s agricultural land it only produces 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of total protein"