this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
736 points (95.5% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (14 children)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (10 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Killing other people's children is even more environmentally friendly!

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

Drop the gofundme!

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

Killing yourself as well!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This whole "have one fewer child" thing is totally bonkers, because even on the face of it, it really only makes sense for people in Western nations with their current lifestyles. It's also an average over all the people in that country, meaning it's heavily spoiled by rich kids. Essentially, 1. you can't know beforehand how your child will live and 2. emissions don't scale linearly with the number of people (again, look at the difference between countries). And then there's the anti-humane undertone of it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (23 children)

The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.

a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West. Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life. This is just CO2. Consider the countless other ways an individual pollutes the environment during the course of their lives.

b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.

It's often around 1t CO~2~e for a poor person in developing country vs. 5-10t CO~2~e for a poor person in an industrialized country.

However, rich people in Western countries tend to be in the 100s or 1000s of tons of CO~2~e/p/y which is extremely far off from being sustainable.

But I want to emphasize that this is just the current state. How your child lives in 20 or 30 years, you don't know. It may use much fewer resources or much more. I am cautiously optimistic that they will use fewer resources than we do. The question is more whether it will be enough.

a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West

1t CO~2~e/person/year is roughly sustainable within the current ecosystem. Thus, many people in poor countries are at or near climate neutrality already. If people live sustainably already, then no, there is no inherent need to reduce population or necessarily have fewer children.

That's not to say there may not be other benefits to having fewer children.

Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life.

Again, this is true only in the current situation and in Western countries.

b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.

Blaming CO~2~e emissions on migrants is a bit disingenuous. But if it helps you make the case to yourself that Western countries should do more to give people in developing nations safer lives so they don't have to flee, I guess I'll take it.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] whyNotSquirrel 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

And we have to choose only one?

edit: Also, I have avoid one fewer child for more than 2 decade !

And avoided transatlantic plane travel too!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Or just you know, all of the above :)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Going car free isn't an option for most Americans, unfortunately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

One can easily be vegan while doing all of those, I am :)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your point is valid, but the fact is none of those are enough on their own. Even if we get rid of all emissions except for the cattle industry, wed still shoot way past the 1.5Β° mark. So not going at least vegetarian was never an option.

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

Catal is the worst as far as animal emissions. Sticking with chicken or fish if you want your animal protein is the way to go.

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

Or nuts and other beans.

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

If it has to be animals, yes.

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

The environmentally beneficial effects of plant based diets or a vegan lifestyle are not reduced to harmful GHG emissions alone but encompass a wide range of advantages. To name some:

  • Reduced agricultural land use (the vast majority of land is used to grow cattle feed). This can also reduce deforestation (especially interesting in the Amazon region), increase ground water and soil quality. Avoids soil erosion. It also perserves eco systems on land and helps to mitigate species extinction.
  • Water usage. It takes about 1000x to produce meat than to produce an equivalent amount of, e.g., wheat.
  • Reduction of overfishing and thereby protecting and stabilizing oceanic eco system.
  • Reduction of the huge amount of water and air pollution caused by the animal industry.
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've only gone vegan after two things happened:

  • FFF strikes made environmentalism "a thing"
  • Easy vegan alternatives have been easily accessible and cater to my carnivorous eating habits

There are likely other factors as well. Point is: it's never just one thing, and therefore every little thing helps.

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

Is it more expensive? (Consideringthe same nutrients intake fat, protein, etc)

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

Not with those replacements, yes if you make original vegan recipes with beans and stuff like that

load more comments (12 replies)